1st of all it is R N mom as in nurse.. Secondly I was a cradle Catholic, educated by Franciscans, Srs of Namur and Srs of Mercy ..Catholic educated through College. I was a lector,liturgist,CCD teacher ,and speaker at woman's retreats, my guess is I have forgotten more Catholic doctrine than you have ever known.
Instead of being insulting try addressing the issues..if you are incapable of that try a catholic forum where they will believe everything you say.
Christ did not come for the righteous..OR SELF RIGHTEOUS ..He came for sinners like me.. Poor.lost in good works and an effort to make myself acceptable to God ... little did I know then that all of my works in church and for charity were filthy rags before God, and I could do NOTHING to recommend myself to him.
So my friend, you are right about my spiritual condition, it is one that daily must repent and thank God for my Savior Christ.....I know that my salvation rests not on me or my works but on the work of Christ.. I am a filthy rotten sinner that has a loving Father that adopted her in spite of who and what she was and is..
What a glorious God we have..
Every single early Church father without a single exception believed Eucharist to be the actual Body of Christ present and I have been blessed enough to witness miracles associated with Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament,so it is impossible that the Catholic Church is wrong.Sadly, it is you who is wrong.
Did the church fathers agree on ALL DOCTRINE WITHOUT EXCEPTION? or were they fallible human beings? Could they have error in their teachings? Are they infallible like scripture?
The theory of transsubstantion was not developed until the 9th century by a monk Paschasius Radbertus . At that time a monk named Ratranmus wrote: “The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a figurative sense”
This controversy continued until the 13th century... it was not "resolved "until the the Lateran Council in 1215
The Doctor of the Church, Duns Scotus, admits that transubstantiation was not an article of faith before that the thirteenth century....so you assertion that it was always held to be the real body and blood is just not accurate. It was not a doctrine of faith until that time, before that if you were Catholic you were allowed to believe it was or was not the actual body of Christ.
There can be discussion of what church fathers actually thought or taught, keeping in mind Augustine’s advice “to guard us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal.
There are many well documented Eucharistic miracle’s through the ages ,even a Video of the Sacred Host that bled beating like a human heart on December 8, 1991 during the celebration of midnight Mass for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception in Betania, Venezula video link
You know the biggest miracle is when the Holy Spirit moves in an unregenerate man and He is born again. It is a gift of Gods grace that not one man deserves, yet that in Gods mercy He extends to an unworthy creation.. all other miracles pale in comparison.. And in case you wonder..no I do not believe a piece of bread is worthy to be prayed before or honored or that IT can preform any miracle.. I would look elsewhere for the cause of that
A BIG Amen to that...
Good reading on the Eucharist and early fathers here:
http://www.the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html
RN””Secondly I was a cradle Catholic, educated by Franciscans, Srs of Namur and Srs of Mercy ..Catholic educated through College. I was a lector,liturgist,CCD teacher ,and speaker at woman’s retreats””
... and now you make up your own belief system based on your individual SELF interpretations of a Book (the Bible) that has very little consistency with historical Christianity through the ages
I was a cradle Catholic as well and once lost my faith because of bad CCD teacher’s etc...Now by the Grace of God I’m back in full union with Holy Mother Church
RN””Instead of being insulting””
.....And Your statements about the Catholics are not insulting?
RN-””little did I know then that all of my works in church and for charity were filthy rags before God””
So I guess now you could say... who needs good works grounded in love when you have FR and long ping lists to become a internet theologian and make up beliefs as I go
Rn-””Christ did not come for the righteous..OR SELF RIGHTEOUS ..He came for sinners like me.””
Me too. You’re Sounding Catholic ....very good,dear sister. We agree!
Rn-””transubstantiation was not an article of faith before that the thirteenth century....so you assertion that it was always held to be the real body and blood is just not accurate.””
Transubstantiation was just a different way of explaining what was always believed-The Church sometimes needed to define thing better to keep the heretics from spreading error.
I suggest you read this http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3
The Church ALWAYS believed the Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Christ.
Just a few examples....
“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.” -ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH-”Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.
“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” JUSTIN MARTYR -”First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.
“So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, ‘For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones’ (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of ‘spiritual’ and ‘invisible’ man, ‘for a spirit does not have flesh an bones’ (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and ‘the grain of wheat falls into the earth’ (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ.”-St. Irenaeus of Lyons-”Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely
“Therefore with fullest assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mightest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are diffused through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, (we become partaker of the divine nature.) [2 Peter 1:4]-ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM -”Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 3]
“You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ....When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.” Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26, 1325 (ante A.D. 373).
“Then He added: ‘For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed].’ Thou hearest Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood, thou perceivest the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord’s death, and thou dishonourest His Godhead. Hear His own words: ‘A spirit hath not flesh and bones.’ Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, “do show the Lord’s Death.’” Ambrose, On the Christian Faith, 4, 10:125 (A.D. 380).
“Rightly, then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was transformed in that Body was changed to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in a manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle, ‘is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer’; not that it advances by the process of eating to the stage of passing into the body of the Word, but it is at once changed into the body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, ‘This is My Body.’” Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 37 (post A.D. 383).
I could go on and on with these writings
Take the advice of these Holy people who were far more Christlike than you or I and come back to Our Eucharistic Lord
“1st of all it is R N mom as in nurse..Secondly I was a cradle Catholic, educated by Franciscans, Srs of Namur and Srs of Mercy..Catholic educated through college. I was lector, liturgist, CCD teacher, and speaker at woman’s retreats, my guess is I have forgotten more Catholic doctrine than you have ever known”.
A long tassle of accomplishments.
Reading this, I realized that I have none of these to put after my name.
But, strange as it may seem, in spite of my lack of credits, I found the Catholic Church. I loved it. I found Jesus the Lord there. I have spent 60 years of my almost 82 years as a Catholic. I read and pray Sacred Scripture and I know that I’m in His hands.
So maybe I came to a good place in spite of myself.
I am convinced that all of us who live in Christ Jesus know that we have nothing to recommend ourselves. The only gift we have is to give ourselves completely into His hands.
As for “being insulting in addressing the issues”-—there are enough posters of all professions of faith on this forum who have made an art form of posting insulting comments. There are posters here who are acrimonious and bitter and condescending. When it all comes down, each of us is responsible for the verbal portrait we give of ourselves for others to read.
Little do these newcomers to FR understand that your credentials Thank you for bringing "Roman church facts" to the forum. I believe Yah'shua asks us to remember Him during Which the Roman church outlawed at Nicea by order of their Pontiff. Amen ! Sister.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
go back to the days of of "neverending thread" long before
the Religion forum was created.
the annual celebration of His commanded Feast of Passover.
Well, there certainly isn't very much of it showing up in your posts.
So my friend, you are right about my spiritual condition, it is one that daily must repent and thank God for my Savior Christ.....I know that my salvation rests not on me or my works but on the work of Christ.. I am a filthy rotten sinner that has a loving Father that adopted her in spite of who and what she was and is.. What a glorious God we have..
Amen!!!
The theory of transsubstantion was not developed until the 9th century by a monk Paschasius Radbertus. At that time a monk named Ratranmus wrote: "The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a figurative sense"
This controversy continued until the 13th century... it was not "resolved "until the the Lateran Council in 1215
As the Dark Ages got even darker.
The Doctor of the Church, Duns Scotus, admits that transubstantiation was not an article of faith before that the thirteenth century....so you assertion that it was always held to be the real body and blood is just not accurate. It was not a doctrine of faith until that time, before that if you were Catholic you were allowed to believe it was or was not the actual body of Christ.
Superstition always goes hand-in-hand with tyranny.
Distinction time again. YES, there was a controversy. It's controversies that get councils and popes to "declare and define." They don't go out looking for trouble.
And YES the controversies were complicated. That is, when somebody says "Some kind of change happens in the bread and wine so that it is no longer proper to speak of them as bread and wine," somebody else is rightly going to say, "What in heck do you mean by THAT?"
Then you get different attempts to explore and explain what it might mean and what are the best ways to talk about it and what can NEVER be rightly said. And even with conciliar definitions, there are frequent reviews and refinements.
TO us this is far from being a problem. We do not think of the early Church as a paradigm from which we have all departed and decayed. We think of it more as like an acorn which has, um, ramified, as acorns do.
So the process of questioning, attempting a "Right way to say it," examining, thinking, praying, studying, etc. these are to us what it means that, as we see it, Christ promise to guide the Church in the Spirit.
Did the church fathers agree on ALL DOCTRINE WITHOUT EXCEPTION? or were they fallible human beings? Could they have error in their teachings? Are they infallible like scripture?Heck no.
I think it would be right to say that WE think that, by and large, they agreed "in the gross." But the more they got down to details, the more need there was for an umpire.
You know the biggest miracle is when the Holy Spirit moves in an unregenerate man and He is born again. It is a gift of Gods grace that not one man deserves, yet that in Gods mercy He extends to an unworthy creation.. all other miracles pale in comparison..Yep Easter all over again -- or not all over again but rather Easter still.
And in case you wonder..no I do not believe a piece of bread is worthy to be prayed before or honored or that IT can preform any miracle..Well, we agree that a piece of bread is not worthy ....
We think it's no longer a piece of bread when we adore. If we thought it was a piece of bread, we might think about it and what it meant, but we wouldn't adore. And in any event we don't think "IT" can perform miracles. That's a Eucharistic error I'd guess(though it's about here that my head begins to hurt.) GOD performs the miracle. God is "there" (yet not in a way to say He isn't also elsewhere) as we think of it, and it is He through the Son in the Spirit who is, so to speak, responsible for any Eucharistic Miracle.
I"m just trying to clarify and to present how we think of it, not to persuade you that we're right, though of course I think we are, just as, of course, you don't.