Posted on 02/01/2011 12:52:59 PM PST by RnMomof7
A vial containing blood drawn from Pope John Paul II shortly before he died will be installed as a relic in a Polish church soon after his beatification later this year, an official said Monday. Piotr Sionko, the spokesman for the John Paul II Center, said the vial will be encased in crystal and built into the altar of a church in the southern city of Krakow that is opening in May. The exact date of the opening is not yet known, but it should be shortly after John Paul's beatification at the Vatican on May 1........... "It was the cardinal's proposal," Sionko said. "He is of the opinion that this is the most precious relic of John Paul II and should be the focal point of the church." .........
"The idea of displaying the pope's relics has met with some reservations, even inside the Catholic Church. "The tradition of relics comes from medieval practices of teaching the Bible through images and symbols," said the Rev. Krzysztof Madel, a Jesuit priest in Nowy Sacz who has publicly questioned the usefulness of displaying John Paul's blood. "But in today's rationalized world the message should rather come through teaching about someone's life." After John Paul's death, some Polish officials said they hoped John Paul's heart would be removed from his body and returned to his homeland for burial. However, church officials dismissed any possibility of dismembering the body, saying the age had passed for that practice. Dziwisz said Friday that he has always been against dividing of the body, but that "relics have always existed and will always exist."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I gave you a pretty thorough answer here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2666924/posts?page=190#190
Are you holeinone from this website? (If not, are you cribbing from holeinone without attribution?)
http://www.christianforums.com/t2928676-3/#post23619274
THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
“But in the original text corpus (body) and sanguis (blood) are followed by significant appositional additions, the Body being designated as "given for you" and the Blood as "shed for you [many]"; hence the Body given to the Apostles was the self same Body that was crucified on Good Friday, and the Chalice drunk by them, the self same Blood that was shed on the Cross for our sins, Therefore the above-mentioned appositional phrases directly exclude every possibility of a figurative interpretation.”
“When, therefore, He Who is All Truth and All Power said of the bread: "This is my body", the bread became, through the utterance of these words, the Body of Christ; consequently, on the completion of the sentence the substance of bread was no longer present, but the Body of Christ under the outward appearance of bread. Hence the bread must have become the Body of Christ, i.e. the former must have been converted into the latter. The words of Institution were at the same time the words of Transubstantiation. Indeed the actual manner in which the absence of the bread and the presence of the Body of Christ is effected, is not read into the words of Institution but strictly and exegetically deduced from them.”
Also from others it would seem that the earthly flesh of Jesus is what is being referenced in the Eucharist.
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
The focus, it would appear, is the fleshly body of Jesus.
Well, it seems you are teachable.
Why do you keep pretending it is some mystery?
We don’t hide what we believe. I gave you citations from the most reliable official source. I gave you a link so you could search that source in case you wanted to explore any nuances or finer points.
I am happy to say that I consume the very
body,
blood,
soul, and
divinity
of Christ when I receive the Eucharist.
We recieve all of this whether we receive only what appears to be bread or only what appears to be wine.
As to the Catholic Encyclopedia found at http://NewAdvent.org, where it cites actual documents of the Church I will stand foursqaure behind it. From your citation, I can’t confirm that it does in this instance, but I would be surprised if it did not. So I would typically be inclined to affirm most material from the NewAdvent.org Catholic Encyclopedia.
Did you excomunicate yourself from the Church as others in the forum suggest?
Special emphasis on His very flesh and blood is only necessary when heretics deny it.
Otherwise we only emphasize it to the extent Jesus did when He said we must literally gnaw on His literal flesh and literally drink His literal blood in order to have eternal life.
I suppose to the unenlightened that is creepy. Lord knows the early Chuch suffered for upholding these very teachings of Christ because it creeped out the powers that be.
CCC 1367:
The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”
CCC 1369:
The whole Church is united with the offering and intercession of Christ. Since he has the ministry of Peter in the Church, the Pope is associated with every celebration of the Eucharist, wherein he is named as the sign and servant of the unity of the universal Church. The bishop of the place is always responsible for the Eucharist, even when a priest presides; the bishop’s name is mentioned to signify his presidency over the particular Church, in the midst of his presbyterium and with the assistance of deacons. The community intercedes also for all ministers who, for it and with it, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice:
Let only that Eucharist be regarded as legitimate, which is celebrated under [the presidency of] the bishop or him to whom he has entrusted it.
Through the ministry of priests the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful is completed in union with the sacrifice of Christ the only Mediator, which in the Eucharist is offered through the priests’ hands in the name of the whole Church in an unbloody and sacramental manner until the Lord himself comes.
And I will note that by crude analogy (that I make only because I can predict the crude nature of remarks that will come next),
even in our own homes
one can prepare and consume
flesh that contains blood
in a manner that is unbloody.
Good post!
And I will note that by crude analogy (that I make only because I can predict the crude nature of remarks that will come next),
even in our own homes
one can prepare and consume
blood
in a manner that is unbloody.
**if he is doing it out of habit or ritual with a wandering mind ...no intent there.. no sacrament..**
Wrong! Where do you get this info? From the pamplets are your non-denominational church?
Are you a golfer?
Are you “holeinone” from this website?
http://www.christianforums.com/t2928676-3/#post23619274
If not, are you cribbing from “holeinone” without attribution?
**Consider that Jews had a probation against the eating of blood**
That’s exactly why many followers left Christ in the Bible accounts. Have you done that too? Left Christ’s Church — the first church that met in homes.
The apostles would go to synagogue on Saturday and then have the paschal meal on Sunday. They knew what they were doing to establish Christ’s Church.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
Salvation,
My understanding is that there is a valid Eucharist only when:
1. a validly ordained priest
2. who has the intent to celebrate the Eucharist
3. holds real wheat bread and says aloud “this is my body”
4. holds real grape wine and says aloud “this is my blood”
Would you change this at all? Source?
Do you agree with holeinone or RnMomof7?
Considering the number of homosexuals believed to have infiltrated the church in an attempt to bring it down, I find it incredulous that you would think that all priests are offering the mass in pure intent.
Any man who is going to enter the priesthood with that intent is NOT going to be offering the mass correctly. How many Catholics then, have been deceived into thinking that they are receiving legitimate sacraments, when they haven't?
For actual believers, a miracle occurs during every mass. Its a pity you never believed enough to participate in it.
So, the miracle is dependent on the believer's faith? What happened to it being dependent on the priest's actions and words? It's allegedly supposed to happen even if he's practicing heinous sin. If it's going to actually, literally happen, it's going to actually, literally happen whether the recipient believes it or not.
Scripture is quite clear on the qualifications of those in leadership position and what to do with the immoral brother in your midst. Why is the Catholic church not obedient to the clear, straightforward commands of Scripture?
And for the record, as a former altar boy, it was the naughty future ex-Catholic girls who spent the most amount of time during mass oogling the altar boys instead of worshiping.
If you were doing the altar boy thing, how did you notice that?
I'm assuming you're saying that as a paraphrase of what the RCC has disingenuously peddled as fact.
In reality, the RCC priesthood has always drawn homosexuals into its ranks. For centuries Rome has been a good ol' boys club. That's how they like it.
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.