Posted on 05/17/2012 5:40:57 PM PDT by Gamecock
Wiggle all you want.
It says that it’s changed and nobody has ever seen it so. It looks like the host and tastes like wheat.
It’s either the literal, actual, physical flesh and blood of Christ, or it’s a symbolic representation.
The *real presence* explanation is simply word games played with definitions to try to explain away why what they claim has happened hasn’t really.
I can't be any more clear than what has already been posted. When hundreds of millions have no problem understanding this perhaps the problem isn't with the Church's teaching but is with your ability or willingness to learn. The truth in the Church's teachings is not limited by your inability to comprehend. I suggest you do your homework before participating in these discussions.
Peace be with you
What catholicsm calls anything means nothing and that isn't the issue . Now back to you had to eat His body and blood. Catholics are the ones who demand that that passage be taken literally.
Does Jesus say 'ouch' when you eat HIM? Either it is literal or it isn't. Meaning it one way and not the other is being double minded.
James 1:7,8 "That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord, their loyalty is divided between God and the world, and they are unstable in everything they do".
There is more integrity in a person who says "I fully understand the issue and reject or disagree" than with a person who says "I haven't got a clue, I don't care to know, so don't bother me with the facts".
Where is your INTEGRITY? Aren't you disagreeing when we say Jesus DIDN'T mean literal!!! And it's NOT rocket science to know that. But THE TRUTH has no place when one is submitted to the RCC and it's man made teachings.
GOD'S WORD IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY - submit to GOD ALONE or submit to man. Catholicism is submitting to man.
As written in Latin by St. Thomas Aquinas it is one of the most beautiful poems ever written:
Adoro te devote,
latens Deitas,
Quae sub his figuris vere latitas:
Tibi se cor meum totum subiicit,
Quia te contemplans totum deficit.
Visus, tactus, gustus in te fallitur,
Sed auditu soIo tuto creditur:
Credo quidquid dixit Dei Filius:
Nil hoc verbo veritatis verius.
In cruce latebat sola Deitas,
At hic latet simul et humanitas:
Ambo tamen credens atque confitens,
Peto quod petivit latro paenitens.
Plagas, sicut Thomas; non intueor
Deum tamen meum te confiteor:
Fac me tibi semper magis credere,
In te spem habere, te diligere.
O memoriale mortis Domini,
Panis vivus vitam praestans homini,
Praesta meae menti de te vivere,
Et te illi semper dulce sapere.
Pie pellicane Iesu Domine,
Me immundum munda tuo sanguine,
Cujus una stilla salvum facere
Totum mundum quit ab omni scelere.
Iesu, quem velatum nunc aspicio,
Oro flat illud quod tam sitio:
Ut te revelata cernens facie,
Visu sim beatus tuae gloriae. Amen.
Peace be with you.
Then why don't you answer some for a change?
The CCC states that the host becomes the literal flesh and blood of Christ.
Is that true?
Do you agree?
If so, then why isn't the change detectable? Why is the host still made out of flour?
And why has the Catholic church historically served only the bread to the communicants. in direct disobedience to the Lord's command to take the bread and the cup?
And how about an honest answer instead of Catholic double-speak?
The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance>/b> of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation (CCC, 1376).
Substance
a : physical material from which something is made or which has discrete existence b : matter of particular or definite chemical constitution
Species
a. the external form or appearance of the bread or the wine in the Eucharist. b. either of the Eucharistic elements. Canon says that the “substance” has changed. That which it was made of is no longer present but has changed. It’s only the “appearance” that remains the same. Trying to tell us that Catholics believe it’s still bread but really it’s changed in substance into the body of Christ doesn’t work so well when the RCC says differently.
Using John 6 without including the 57th verse is rather disingenuous. If you believe that it’s Jesus “flesh” than you must also believe that His flesh also came down out of heaven.
John 6:57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.
Did the flesh Catholics claim they are eating come down from heaven? When Jesus said “this is my flesh” was He talking about the physical flesh He acquired from Mary?
ROFL Understand? I think not. How many times has it been posted in these forum that the bread and wine have changed and that they only retain the “appearance” of the original just as the RCC proclaims. Understand indeed.
Could any doctor or forensic scientist determine that Jesus' body was Divine?
Please don't play loose with the wording of the Catechism when trying to make a point. The Catechism teaches that the substance of the bread substantially becomes the body of Christ and the substance of the wine becomes the blood of Christ.
Your "protestations" aside, the words literal and literally are never used in the Catechism in association with the Eucharist. Unless you familiarize yourself with the terms substance and property there is no more point in discussing this or answering your questions.
Peace be with you
That is the most inane attempt to corrupt Church teaching I have seen in weeks. The Catechism is not a physics text, it is a theological and philosoplical work. In this context the term "Substance" must be used in a theological and philosophical context.
Substance, when used in a philosophical context is a term used to denote the changeless substratum presumed in some philosophies to be present in all things. The Greek antecedents to the New Testament defined substance as that which possesses attributes but is itself the attribute of nothing. Less precise usage identifies substance with being and essence.
If you still want to claim the Church teaches something else you have to deal with article 252 of the Catechism.
Peace with you.
ROFL I’d say the substance of what the RCC teaches is mystical paganism.
"Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions." - Proverbs 18:2
May you grow in grace and wisdom
Then tell me, did the flesh that you are eating in the Eucharist come down from heaven or was it the flesh Jesus received in His human form being born of Mary?
The divine substance did indeed, the accidents of wheat and grape did not.
Peace be with you
So the flesh that Jesus told the apostles to eat was what came down from heaven and not the flesh He received from Mary?
Christ is FULLY present in the Consecrated wine and the Consecrated bread -Body ,Blood ,Soul and Divinity in Both.
Catholic teaching is we receive the full Christ even when we receive only one of the two
I hope this clears this up,dear friend
Moreover a cracker, baked in an ordinary bakery, can be worshiped whereas an angel of Revelation cannot.......Can we say this a doctrine constructed of men according to the philosophy of men?
You guys can't even sell the idea of the Eucharist to the majority of Catholics, I don't know why you'd expect to be able to sell it to bible believing Christians...
Worshiping a cracker!!!
Hey, did Jesus tell the apostles to bow down and say a prayer to and worship that piece of bread before they ripped off a piece...
I'll be they were so focused on the bread that they never even saw Jesus cringe every time they ripped a piece of his body apart...
We are not told to worship Jesus in philosophy and truth...We are to worship in spirit and truth...We eat the flesh and blood spiritually, not physically...
But Christ's command was to eat the bread and drink the cup.
Who gave the RCC authority to change that and when?
I hope this clears this up,dear friend
It clears up nothing.
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.