Posted on 01/05/2014 1:56:06 PM PST by Steelfish
“This IS my Body, This IS my Blood.”
This IS symbolism.
A Sunday Mass isn't good enough? LOL! I've been to plenty, thanks.
A Sunday Mass isn't good enough? LOL! I've been to plenty, thanks.Daily Masses are shorter, and are populated with the "front line" of Catholics, men and women who truly WANT to be there, knowing well the power of the Eucharist. So, yes, a daily Mass is more effective, especially for someone who is a cynic, a skeptic, etc.
No, it is transubstantiation.
Tran = transfer
substantiation = substance
The substance of bread and wine is transferred into the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood.
Why don’t you believe this miracle? Why don’t you believe the words of the Savior, Jesus Christ?
You may have to explain that to him at the moment of your death — and tell him that you never believed in this miracle of transubstantiation.
That's what it called when as a substitute for responding to the argument, you resort to things like, "you must have been an miserable Catholic," "you don't sound very happy," etc.
ago, that he hadn't read much commentary on Free Republic (RF) whereby any non-Catholic was really interested in learning anything about Catholicism,
Ma'am, I have told you more about Rome than you have told me, or likely could tell me, and if you find some "scholarly" RC here that can honestly respond to the issues i raised then do so, as they have not yet.
But once again you are avoiding actually dealing with the problem of Rome's doctrine. Telling us to go to mass, read some monk etc. is not doing that, but and you preach a church, as you are not to objectively examine the evidence in order to determine the truthfulness of Rome's doctrines, as you trust your church like a Mormon does his.
So I'm following my husband's advice, being submissive, if you will, supporting him, by not wasting too much time on dead trails.
That's not my fault.
In my opinion, however, most who leave the Church never knew what it was about in the first place (or they'd never leave Christ at the altar).
That is another example of the compelled conclusions of RCs, as it they cannot tolerate the fact that souls left it because they realized all too well what Rome was about. Which is much that her own preeminence.
"you must have been an miserable Catholic,"Hey don't put quotes around material you MAKE UP and then attribute it to me. This is what I said:
How miserable were you as a Catholic...You see if you're going to do this, you discredit yourself instantly.... how can you expect anyone to answer your questions when you do so?
If you refer to me as "you old hippies", then I can refer to you as you old psychos, because these street preachers I described were little more than psychos, some of them, I was told at the time, certified.
we and Jesus
Good one. Does Jesus hisself know he's one of you?
Which equates to a perpetual infallible magisterium. Affirm or deny. That is the issue and the problem with your argument.
The Church deciding what Books constituted the Holy Bible.
So those who recognize writings as being Scripture, leading to a canon, are the infallible or assuredly trustworthy interpreters of it? Affirm or deny. No one has yet. Do you want to know why?
The sheer stupidity of low-information Christians who are unable to grasp the profound works of St. Augustine,
Actually, as often shown, it is low-information Catholics who are unable to see grasp the words of men like Matthew Henry , Charles Haddon Spurgeon , Albert Barnes , Keil & Delitzsch , Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, , John Gill, and many others, the like of which Rome collectively has not.
Meanwhile, RCs are also unable to see how Rome thinks of men above that which is written, and trusts in them as if it were Scripture, while Rome judges CFs more than they judge here, and both are guilty of perpetuating traditions of men. Either you are invincibly ignorant of the spurious nature of your arguments or willfully so, thus refuse to answer questions that would expose that.
They deny the Holy Eucharist. This is huge and makes the heresy all the more revolting.
Even the one's you deny have enough sense i presume to deny worshiping a wafer of bread as God, and consuming human flesh to gain spiritual life or qualities, which is like paganism, not Scripture. This is huge and makes the heresy all the more revolting.
The rest of your unholy rant is a result of the cultic deception RCs are craftily induced into believing. May God grant them mercy and repentance.
John 17 has: Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
"you must have been an miserable Catholic," Hey don't put quotes around material you MAKE UP and then attribute it to me. This is what I said: How miserable were you as a Catholic...
I carefully said "things like ", which is in essence what i see you inferring, that i was some miserable Catholic who has not come far, as "you don't sound very happy." Sorry that it made it look like you actually said that (hasty reply), but you were resorting to an ad hominem response, once again as a substitute for an argument that actually dealt with my critique of your "flawless" Catholic faith, etc.
They keep coming:
Swiss Guard Claims Vatican Official Made Sexual Advances to Him Monday, January 6, 2014 10:20:14 PM
Pope: 'Authentic' Islam opposes violence Monday, January 6, 2014 8:22:44 PM ·
This only goes show how low is the low among “low” information Christians. The red shoes signifies martyrdom.
Yeah I’ve spent the past 12 years experiencing “authentic” Islam.
It is an interesting position Francis is taking on Islam. What he means is the Qur’an is not as violent (as false violent religions go) as the Hadith. Interesting because the Qur’an is akin to their literal scriptures where the Hadith is lower in authority (by mostly Sunnis) and considered more like tradition. So in effect the pope is saying if Muslims followed their literal scriptures and not their traditions, they would be less belligerent.
I guess he was addressing the Sunni variants and not the Shia.
The Shia use Imam (emphasis on the 12th Imam or hidden Imam) oral tradition as more authoritative than the Qur’an and Hadith. How these Shia “fathers” interpret the Qur’an and Hadith and their added instructions and interpretations are supreme. It takes years to become an ayatollah because there are so many traditions to memorize.
The Sunni for the most part are the Qur’anic fundamentalists who claim the Shia are heretics for straying from the Qur’an and the rightful bloodline of Muhammad. The Shia claim the rightful bloodline too and believe the teachings continued thus through the Imams which means revelation of “truth” continues. They do both agree on the basics of the 5 pillars of Islam.
So Francis making this statement was saying more than meets the eye.
Yessiree, he does...Jesus was one of those guys you intellectual, philosophical giants make so much fun of and criticize...
Jesus was the first, original street preacher...
Probably had trouble keepin’ ‘em clean whilst he was guttin’ all them fish...
Here is a bit more on the 12 Imams and their spiritual authority which of course the Sunni believe are false and pervert the teachings of the Qur’an and the voice of “the Prophet” Muhammad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelve_Imams
Sorry for wiki but not at my computer. More if some are interested.
“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written”
There's not much there to be worth rememberin' compared to the rest of the scripture...
What's important is what Jesus did and told us about, not what he did and didn't tell us about...
Jesus never said anything like that...
Why don’t you believe this miracle?
Miracle??? What miracle??? There's no miracle taking place...
I've seen miracles...One can see the results of miracles...
Like Benny Hinn puttin' his hands on a crippled lady in a wheelchair...He then says some mumbo jumbo and then says, in the name of God, you are healed...
The woman still can't get out of the wheel chair but undeterred like your priests Benny then says, thank you God for healing that woman and moves on to the person with the goiter (while they wheel the woman off the stage)...
Check the bible for references...When a miracle happens, people see it happen...
FIRST: This is beyond sophomoric. It would be useful to first get a proper understanding of the Magisterium.
The criteria for Papal Infallibility were defined infallibly by the First Vatican Council in Pastor Aeternus, chapter four, as quoted below (with my numbering added). There are five criteria.
It must involve:
1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “in virtue of his office, when as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (cf. Lk 22:32),”
3. “by a definitive act, he proclaims”
4. “a doctrine of faith or morals” (“And this infallibility…in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of revelation extends”)
5. “in accordance with revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with”
It is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that each and every one these criteria must be met for a teaching to be infallible, if it is taught by the Pope alone. (The Pope can also teach infallibly in union with the other Bishops, as discussed below.)
Therefore, whenever the Pope teaches by his own authority, yet without meeting all the criteria for an infallible Papal teaching, his teaching is non-infallible and it falls under the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium, not the infallible Sacred Magisterium.
Historically, the Popes have only occasionally taught under Papal Infallibility; they have most often taught under the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium.
SECOND: The very foundational infallibility that informs as to what books constitute the Holy Bible does not disappear into its interpretation. Interpretation confirms why these books were chosen and the books reinforce the interpretation provided by one Church. Otherwise we’ll have the rotting by-products of Protestantism as reflected in the Rev, Jeremiah Wrights, Al Sharptons, Jimmy Swaggarts, David Koresh’s, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and the snake dancing Christian pastors in Kentucky
THIRD: The list of authors you cite don’t even make for a footnote in major scholarship publications. On the other hand, Aquinas and Augustine have colleges and universities named for them all over the world by their profound theological insights of sacred scripture and tradition.
FOURTH: That bread you talk about, upon consecration, it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. Don’t take my word for it.
The Church has consistently understood Christ’s words to be literally referring to His True Flesh and Blood, as is evident in the writings of the early Church saints like:
St. Ignatius of Antioch (50-107 A.D.)
St. Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.)
St. Irenæus of Lyons (125-203 A.D.)
St. Ambrose (340-397 A.D.), and
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 A.D.)
Although all the faithful in the Church have always believed in the concept of transubstantiation, there was no need to formally define it until 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council dogmatically which said: that while the outward appearances of bread and wine remain {the taste, touch, smell and looks}, their inward realities or substance has become the living Christ. Because Jesus is truly present — Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity — we adore the Eucharist with profound reverence.
Here’s a definitive compendium of writings that has withstood centuries of scholarship and research and caused hundreds of Protestant theologians to convert to Catholicism.
Oh, but don’t tell this to the low-information Al-Sharpton Christian Protestants!
Ignatius of Antioch
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).
Clement of Alexandria
“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Tertullian
“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Hippolytus
“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,
the Last Supper]” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
Origen
“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).
Council of Nicaea I
“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).
Aphraahat the Persian Sage
“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).
Ambrose of Milan
“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
Theodore of Mopsuestia
“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
Augustine
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
...
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).
Council of Ephesus
“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
What's the little tiny red cowboy hat signify, Hi-O Silver???
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.