Posted on 04/11/2016 6:03:16 PM PDT by Matt_DZ_PL
This is at least the 3rd Miracle of the Host I know of. Google that term Miracle of the Host and see for yourself.
One is in Spanish with English sub titles - that’s the easiest to understand.
If only I could write. I had an idea of a rogue Cardinal stealing the Shroud of Turin. Biologists were able to lift DNA from the shroud and clone a baby. The Cardinal is assassinated by forces of evil (yet to be determined who this is personified by and where they are located ie. within the church hierarchy or external to the church). The location of the surrogate is now a mystery and the Vatican must employ a Marine Chaplain that has special forces training to locate and protect the surrogate. The idea being that the DNA structure of Jesus makes him unique in the ability to house God's spirit. But since this is now man made the question of whether Satan can usurp this spiritual process is called into question.
The chaplain is a less than perfect man with waxing and waning faith through out his service to the church. This is important because as signs indicating this may be the second coming start appearing his faith strengthens. Much of this comes in the form of an old priest who is assigned to assist him in determining whether the Cloned Christ is genuine is revealed late in the story to the Chaplain to be the Apostle John, who was given immortality until Christ comes again. He has been hidden by the Church for his protection and because John felt it was important for people to come to faith in Christ by the testimony of the Church and not a miracle that would take the focus away from Christ.
As the chaplain now protects the old priest and they find the surrogate. The culmination of the movie ends in a final battle where John dies protecting the baby and reveals that this Clone must therefore be the Christ because only upon His coming would he lose his immortality.
So it's part religious movie, part action movie. If I could write I would have put together a movie treatment. If anyone wants to run with it just give stig and honorable mention.
Look through these which are arranged by countries:
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm
Dude!! Maybe you’re a writer and just don’t know it...
Another provocative Cath promotion begging for reproof. Bread and wine actually becoming real flesh and blood, being literally transformed into human flesh and blood, is not even what Eucharistic theology teaches (regardless of what some Caths describe), while the devil duplicated the first 3 miracles of Moses, and God says more are to come. Which are a test of True faith, with all Truth claims being subject to Scripture. Which as abundantly shown by God's grace, does not teach Cath Eucharistic theology.
Neither John 6 or the gospel accounts teach the Cath Eucharist, and which the rest of the NT is interpretive of. Wherein the transubstantiated priestly sacrificial expiatory Cath Eucharist is not substantiated, as it must be, and is contrary to what is taught, as shown here before today, by God's grace, with not even any NT pastors being called priests or shown engaging in the distinctive sacerdotal function that Catholicism assigns to them.
Rather than the Cath Eucharist being that which the Holy Spirit reveals in the Scriptural testimony of of the NT church, instead it is part of the progressive deformation of the NT church, thus requiring the specious art of "development of doctrine."
Robert J. Daly, S.J., argues that Jesus did indeed institute the Eucharist, though it took generations and centuries of guidance from the Holy Spirit for the Eucharist to reach its current form. "What Jesus did at the Last Supper is obviously at least the generative moment of the institution of the Eucharist." But it was not the Eucharist as we know it. "The Eucharist that Christians now celebrate is what the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit of the risen Jesus, and over the course of generations and centuries, learned to do as it celebrated table fellowship with its risen Lord." (Daly, Robert J., S. J. [Emeritus Professor of Theology at Boston College], 'Eucharistic origins: from the new testament to the liturgies of the golden age." Theological Studies March, 2005) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Eucharist#Contemporary_scholars_and_evolution_of_the_Eucharist
Translated it means, "The Holy Spirit guided the church to develop what the Spirit never described [as anything more than a simple joyful communal meal in Acts, and feast of charity, (Jude 1:12) and in its only other occurrence with it being described as being done in remembrance of the Lord's death, showing/declaring it by sharing food (as one bread and cup) with each other in recognition of the unity (with Christ and each other) of the one body which the Lord bought with His blood, so that failure to treat each other as such was to be not actually eating the Lord's Supper. And with no pastor/priests even being mentioned.] into a liturgical ritual "source and summit" centerpiece of the Christian life, with "priests" changing bread and wine into the "real" but unbloody, non-evidential body and blood of Christ, offered as a sacrifice for sins, being declared as the "same sacrifice with that of the cross," placing the Lord upon the "altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man," that "no less than on Calvary, Jesus really offers his life to his heavenly Father," "a most acceptable Victim to the eternal Father, as he did upon the Cross," for "the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice" "the manner alone of offering being different," "by which God is appeased and rendered propitious." Sources.
a tiny red fragment of the Host was seperated and put on a corporal.
***
I would have put it on a sergeant or lieutenant.
Indeed. But if not a fraud, it must be considered that the devil also does miracles: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: (2 Thessalonians 2:9-11)
, and the means by which we ascertain the source of such is by the Scripture, which certainly do NOT teach the Cath Eucharist (see post and links above)
Thanks Matt.
does He contradict His own Word? No.
. Christ is not resacrificed over and over. It would be against Hebrews which I presume you have not read or choose to ignore.
I’ve wondered if the idea of Satan performing miracles to confuse the elect had entered anyone else’s mind.
Only a heretic Separated Brethen would have such goofy thoughts as this.
“Wherein the transubstantiated priestly sacrificial expiatory Cath Eucharist is not substantiated, as it must be....”
This is gibberish. If you’re going to be an effective witness against the Catholic Church, you have to study and understand what the Church actually teaches. All you have is a Protestant version of what Protestants *think* the Church teaches. Go to Thomas Aquinas and study what he wrote about transubstantiation. Substance and accidents and all that. Anything less is the easy way out and bad scholarship.
Robert J. Daly, S.J. = bad Jesuit. Hardon = good Jesuit.
I read that whole 20 page paper you cited, and that’s a man I’d never trust as a source for The Truth. I don’t know where you got that “translation” from, but Daly’s focus in this paper isn’t exactly what you said. Next time, pick a better source to back up your point.
“Bread and wine actually becoming real flesh and blood, being literally transformed into human flesh and blood, is not even what Eucharistic theology teaches (regardless of what some Caths describe)....”
*Catholic* Eucharistic theology *does* teach this (actually Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity), and so do the Orthodox Churches. How far back do you want to go to find a common Christian “ancestor?” What did Augustine, Ambrose, or one of the other church fathers think?
“...with “priests” changing bread and wine into the “real” but unbloody, non-evidential body and blood of Christ, offered as a sacrifice for sins....”
The irony here is that the above article is about one of many Eucharistic miracles in which Jesus Christ, Himself, gives evidence of His actual and True Presence in the Holy Eucharist. Don’t even try claiming that this is a work of the devil, because while spending time in front of the tabernacle in a Catholic church is when one begins to understand the peace that surpasses all understanding.
“53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.” - KJV John 6:53-57
Above all, I take Jesus’ word for it.
Thanks for the link. There are some recent ones I didn’t know about.
A quick Bible study if you're willing to do so. Context is the key to understanding this passage.
Would Jesus knowingly instruct people to disobey the Law?
Who was Jesus talking to in this passage in John 6?
What do the verses in John 6 prior to this exchange say?
When Jesus asked the disciples in John 6 if they wanted to leave what was their reply?
In Acts, what did the Jerusalem Council note in their letter that the Gentiles were not to do?
Who was in support of this letter?
I’ll answer the first question now, and come back later for the rest if I have a chance. I’ve got work, taxes, etc.
When Jesus made this statement, He had not as yet made reception of Himself in Holy Communion available, the institution of which occuring later at the Last Supper. By the time it *was* available, Jesus had suffered, died, and was ressurected. His fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets of the Old Covenant was perfectly complete, and there was a New Covenant under which there was no law that would prevent the reception of Himself - in fact, quite the opposite held. Therefore, Jesus never asked, instructed or commanded anyone to “disobey the law,” as you put it.
Come to think of it, it’s really quite remarkable how intimate the Catholic faith is.
It wasn’t enough for the second Person of the Blessed Trinity to empty Himself and take the form of a slave for the salvation of mankind, He *continues* to empty Himself to take the form of Bread and Wine so He can physically stay with us on earth, feed us, and become one with each of us.
The Blessed Sacrament is an invention of Love. Just as God invented the union of man and woman within the marital bond so that the two literally become one flesh, similarly, God invented the Holy Eucharist so that Jesus, united with the Father and the Holy Spirit, can remain actually and physically one with His Church, the Bride of Christ, and each individual in it.
There’s an old song still sung in church about the Blessed Sacrament in which a phrase goes, “so far surpassing hope or thought.” We know that with God, all things are possible. What does that mean in this context? Was it possible for God to invent this means of unity with man if He willed to do so, no matter how inconceivable this would be to the mind of man, spiritually unaided?
I gotta go.
Do He not give us the Holy Spirit for the reason you cite?
Your response is not the typical Cath one, which relies upon the neoplatonic explanation to rationalize the objection, while what you are arguing is that the Jew's objection to physically consuming Christ was justified since at that time what the Lord required was against the Law. And that somehow the "real" presence" was not available at the Last Supper, contrary to Cath theology, or else the apostles understood at the Last Supper that drinking blood was now OK since it would be allowed under the New Covenant.
Actually the Jew's objection to physically consuming Christ was justified since at that time since what the Lord required under the literalistic explanation was against the Law. But which explanation is simply contrary to what Scripture teaches in its totality. As shown here and here by the grace of God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.