Posted on 02/01/2011 12:52:59 PM PST by RnMomof7
It is certainly a fetish to hate a cartoon of the Church that those who hate her have drawn for you.
Do relics do miracles?
Read Salvation list one more time
The blood of St. Januarius: Naples: The Miracle of St. Januarius Happens on Time this Year. 2010 San Gennaro Miracle Recurs (Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)
Naples hails annual miracle of liquefying blood (San Gennaro) [St. Januarius] [2007]
San Gennaro (St. Januarius): New Miracle [2006]
Miracle of San Gennaro Repeated (St. Januarius) [2005]
Sept. 19: St. Januarius, Bishop & Martyr, and His Companions, Martyrs (Gueranger)
The Life Of St. Januarius
Saint's Dried Blood Liquefies in 'Miracle' [2002]
Saint's Blood Liquefies - Good Omen for the World [2001]
One more time..do relics do miracles?
So would you say that miracles happen by faith alone in Christ?
I was referring to relics.
Thinking that it was referring to a cartoon makes no sense whatsoever, thus making it an invalid assumption.
So would you say that miracles happen by faith alone in Christ?
Relics are inanimate objects.
They don’t do anything but exist.
If they exist in a miraculous way, then it is God who performs that miracle,
whether it be a true miracle (some amazing occurence that defies rational explanation) that inspires faith,
or a miracle of nature (the developement of a baby, the fall foliage, the return of the swallows each year on the feast of Saint Joseph, the change in states of blood) that inspires faith.
I have seen precious little evidence of the anti-Catholics knowing anything more than what is taught in the comic book handouts found under the wiper blades in front of any store front church. The problem is not with your ignorance, only that it is not invincible.
"Apples and oranges my friend"
No, more like sheeps and goats.
No.
Miracles happen by God’s will alone.
We can do nothing to cause a miracle.
It is by faith that we can be open to see events as miracles.
It helps if one can rightly divide the word of God
A visit to the Holy Land has not one thing to do with relics .. thus my comment Apples and oranges..
Sheep and goats is about God pleasing works ..
But you said this
The relics inspire greater faith in Christ. And that greater faith in Christ opens one up to the miracle.
Thus my question if miracles happen by the faith generated by the relic.. or by faith alone?
It seems like 2 different answers on the same topic to me .
Of what benefit are relics if they do not preform miracles and the "faith" they produce does not bring the miracle?
I see.
So in Matthew 26, you think Jesus refers to the cup, not to the wine in the cup, when He says “This is my blood”?
But that trick does not work in Matthew 26 when Jesus says “Take and eat; this is my body” because there is no plate or utensil - just bread.
Amazing.
Does he say wine or does cup... Catholics are the ones that want to take this literally
You ask “Of what benefit are relics if they do not preform miracles and the faith they produce does not bring the miracle?”.
Pilgrimmages, relics and our relationships with the saints are provided by the Lord. They are aids to help us overcome our weakness as we try to walk in faith.
As a cradle Catholic who makes many pilgrimmages and is surrounded by people of great faith with great devotion to the saints, I have never once even thought in the way you are writing (”relic performs a miracle”), so I am bit stunned that you would even think that is what a Catholic believes.**
The increase in faith that God INSPIRES through the saint or his relic makes the beleiver more aware and in tune with God. And God may choose to perform a real miracle or permit a believer to believe one has been performed - either in response to the prayers of the believer and/or the saint, or of His own accord with no prompting.
One can live a very Catholic life and be welcomed into heaven without ever giving a second thought to any relic.
**You might invest an hour watching EWTN (included on most basic cable or dish plans) and tune in to any program about a saint and you would see right away the actual perspective Catholics have both “officially” and in practice as laymen. Your current perspective is way off base.
I don’t think you understand grammar.
The Ot and the letters from Paul and Peter..
I personally have seen a friend healed with a St Benedict relic card of a finger sprain. He felt the sensation after the prayer then totally healed hours later. It’s in Him with Him in the Unity of The Holy Spirit. Praise Jesus!
Oh yes it does. The Church recognizes three types of relics. A 1st Class Relic consists of a part of the Saint, such as a bone, hair, etc..., and the instruments of Christ's Passion. The 2nd Class Relic consists of something that was owned by the Saint or instruments of torture that was used against a martyr. The 3rd Class Relic consists of something that has been touched to a 1st or 2nd Class Relic.
Your trips to the Holy Land are nothing if not veneration of the relics it embodies.
All three accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper in the Gospels (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-23) explicitly state that Jesus took BREAD, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to his disciples saying, "Take, eat; this [i.e., this BREAD, which I have just blessed and broken and am now giving to you] is my body." Jesus uses similar language in referring to "the cup" (of wine) as "his blood."...
Perhaps the most explicit expression of this truth, however, is found in 1 Cor. 10:16-17, where Paul writes: "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." Paul clearly says here that we all "partake" of "BREAD" when we receive the Lord's Supper--even as we also partake of and "participate in" the true body of Christ. And he says that we all "partake" of the wine (the cup), even as we also partake of the true blood of Christ. Similarly, in 1 Cor. 11:26, Paul says: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." Paul expressly states here that when we receive the Lord's Supper we are "eating bread" and "drinking the cup" (wine), but he goes on to say that those who eat this bread and drink this cup are also partaking of the true body and blood of Christ.
So "real" is this participation in Christ's body and blood, in fact, that (according to Paul) those who partake of the bread and wine "in an unworthy manner" are actually guilty of "profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27). (Partaking of the Lord's Supper "in a worthy manner," of course, is not something that we "do" or "accomplish" on the basis of our "personal holiness" or "good works." It means receiving God's free and gracious gifts of life and forgiveness offered in the Lord's Supper in true repentance produced by the work of the Spirit through God's Law and in true faith in Christ and his promises produced by God's Spirit through the Gospel).
Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.while from Newadvent.com
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
Nothing hinders our interpreting the first part [John 6:26-48 (51)] metaphorically and understanding by "bread of heaven" Christ Himself as the object of faith, to be received in a figurative sense as a spiritual food by the mouth of faith. Such a figurative explanation of the second part of the discourse (John 6:52-72), however, is not only unusual but absolutely impossible, as even Protestant exegetes (Delitzsch, Kostlin, Keil, Kahnis, and others) readily concede.
First of all the whole structure of the discourse of promise demands a literal interpretation of the words: "eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood". the third kind of food, which Christ Himself promises to give only at a future time, is a new refection, differing from the last-named food of faith, it can be none other than His true Flesh and Blood, to be really eaten and drunk in Holy Communion. This is why Christ was so ready to use the realistic expression "to chew" (John 6:54, 56, 58: trogein) when speaking of this, His Bread of Life, in addition to the phrase, "to eat" (John 6:51, 53: phagein).
The impossibility of a figurative interpretation is brought home more forcibly by an analysis of the following text: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:54-56). It is true that even among the Semites, and in Scripture itself, the phrase, "to eat some one's flesh", has a figurative meaning, namely, "to persecute, to bitterly hate some one". If, then, the words of Jesus are to be taken figuratively, it would appear that Christ had promised to His enemies eternal life and a glorious resurrection in recompense for the injuries and persecutions directed against Him. The other phrase, "to drink some one's blood", in Scripture, especially, has no other figurative meaning than that of dire chastisement (cf. Isaiah 49:26; Apocalypse 16:6); but, in the present text, this interpretation is just as impossible here as in the phrase, "to eat some one's flesh". Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.
This interpretation agrees perfectly with the conduct of the hearers and the attitude of Christ regarding their doubts and objections. Again, the murmuring of the Jews is the clearest evidence that they had understood the preceding words of Jesus literally (John 6:53). Yet far from repudiating this construction as a gross misunderstanding, Christ repeated them in a most solemn manner, in John (6:54 sqq.). In consequence, many of His Disciples were scandalized and said: "This saying is hard, and who can hear it?" (John 6:61); but instead of retracting what He had said, Christ rather reproached them for their want of faith, by alluding to His sublimer origin and His future Ascension into heaven. And without further ado He allowed these Disciples to go their way (John 6:62 sqq.). Finally He turned to His twelve Apostles with the question: "Will you also go away?
Then Peter stepped forth and with humble faith replied: "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God" (John 6:68 sqq.).
The entire scene of the discourse and murmurings against it proves that the Zwinglian and Anglican interpretation of the passage, "It is the spirit that quickeneth", etc., in the sense of a glossing over or retractation, is wholly inadmissible. For in spite of these words the Disciples severed their connection with Jesus, while the Twelve accepted with simple faith a mystery which as yet they did not understand. Nor did Christ say: "My flesh is spirit", i.e. to be understood in a figurative sense, but: "My words are spirit and life".
If a person picks up a cup (”Then he took a cup”)
Gives it to his friends during a meal (”he gave it to them”)
Tells them to drink from the cup (“Drink from it, all of you”)
And then tells the friends that what he gave them is his blood (”This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many”)
And then tells them that he won’t be drinking like that until a later similar event with all of the same friends in attendance (”I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you”)
It is illogical and not in line with the context of the event to claim that the “This” in “This is my blood” refers to the cup rather than the liquid in the cup.
It is illogical and not in line with the context of the event to claim that the “this” in “I will not drink from this fruit of the vine” refers to the cup rather than the liquid in the cup.
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.