A Catholic reply
to Protestant “[mis]- Understandings” Part 2
“Do the Bread and Wine Become Christ Body
and Blood”?
My dear friends in Christ,
Allow me to please set a platform for this
part of the discussion. I do not exaggerate one iota when I claim
that this topic, while wrongly understood,
is nevertheless a well thought out and formulated thesis.
It is draconian in nature because it attempts to place a STAKE into the very heart, body, mind and soul of the entirety of our Catholic beliefs.
It is draconian in nature because it attempts to place a STAKE into the very heart, body, mind and soul of the entirety of our Catholic beliefs.
If one is unable to defend this issue,
of Christ “Real Presence, one is unable to defend Catholism in total.
[ Note 3]
It also defined Catholic doctrines, detail by detail, and declared that anybody who denies even one of these details is anathema. These include the authority of the Pope, the practice of indulgences, veneration of Mary and the saints, and the use of statues.
So the Council of Trent anathematizes all Protestants.
[ Note 3]
It also defined Catholic doctrines, detail by detail, and declared that anybody who denies even one of these details is anathema. These include the authority of the Pope, the practice of indulgences, veneration of Mary and the saints, and the use of statues.
So the Council of Trent anathematizes all Protestants.
They
win; we lose! …WHY?
The Council of Rome (a
local council), 1079 AD, taught against Berengar that the Eucharist is truly
the body and blood of Christ.
By the 16th
century, some Reformers (excluding
Luther) also taught that Christ's presence in the Eucharist was only
figurative or metaphorical. Since there were other opinions being taught as
truth (figurative presence and metaphorical presence) a teaching authority had
to be appealed to discern error from the truth. The way of the Church was to
follow the model of Acts 15.
The Council of Trent (1545
- 1563) defined the real presence of
Christ in the Eucharist, and the Eucharist as both the continuing sacrifice of
Christ and a real sacrament. The institution of the Eucharist as sacrament
was contained in the words "Do this in remembrance of me."
The date of declared “Dogma” is
significant ONLY in that it raises this believe that has always been held as
true, believed, understood and practiced, to a position of indisputable truth.
This was made necessary by the Protestant revolution, begun by Martin Luther
which soon spread to other “I Know more or I know better” than God and the
Catholic Church. Despite regional attacks throughout history , none had ever
been serious enough, wide spread enough to require such an action, which has
always been held as infallible truth, because God said so.
[4] It was around 1226 that catholics begin
to bow down before the bread
Actually is on or far more like, much
before 1171.
“On the occasion of the
750th anniversary of the first celebration of the feast of Corpus Christi, the
Holy Father wrote a letter to Bishop Albert Houssiau of Liege, Belgium,
successor of Bishop Robert of Thourotte, who in 1246 had established the feast
which was later extended to the universal Church by Pope Urban IV. Here is a
translation of the Pope's Letter, which was dated 28 May and written in
French.”
But even this is GREATLY misleading.
Catholics right from the beginnings of the RCC, because it REALLY IS Jesus,
consistently held the Blessed sacrament in Great honor and with the Highest
esteem. That is the message and the cause for the rebuke of 1st. Cor. 11:26-29 and we see CCC 1345; St. Justin
Martyr in 155 AD wrote about the Mass: …“He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the
universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a
considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have
been judged worthy of these gifts.”
[5] the church having [now] accepted this
tradition, tries to give the practice a strange interpretation based on 1st.Cor. 11:24-25 “and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said,
"This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In
the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new
covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of
me."
Sufficient evidence of the Catholic Belief
has been provided above
[6] This strange translation is that the
catholic church made is that this bread and wine that Christ held in His hand
somehow became his body and blood
To clarify our Teaching as catholics. We
UNDERSTAND that the Eucharist is From God [the Father], Of God [Jesus the Son], and caused By God [The
Holy Spirit] using His priest. It is a series of miracles that ONLY humanity
can benefit from as God is already Perfect.
[7] Because Christ was standing up in
front of his disciples it is clear that in holding up the bread and wine and
pronouncing the words that “this is My Body; this is My Blood” were intended to
be understood [only] symbolically.
No, not at all. Christ made clear just
what he did mean; it was understood by the Apostles, and it was put into
practice as Jesus commanded after He died. Do not hold god to “time” which is a
necessity of humanity; not of God for whom everything is in the “present.”
[8] There can be no doubt of this because
he calls “it bread three times”, which he certainly would NOT have done if it
really was not ONLY BREAD, but literally his body. {every time you eat this
bread” … 1st. Cor. 11:26-28} “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup,
you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. [PAUL’S Admonition] Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup
of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and
blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink
of the cup.” … A bit of “slight of hand” is attempted
here. Only the first use is from the mouth of
Jesus [who clearly] is implying that it is NOW His Body and no-longer just
bread… which also is the rebuke Paul gives to those who are not giving IT
proper respect and worship!
[9] he MUST have been speaking
symbolically either when he was speaking of the bread or when speaking of his
body
And this friends is the thinking of
secular-humanistic logic; void of Faith, Hope, love and TRUTH.
[10] the question is NOT “should we
interpret the passage literally… BUT which part are we to interpret literally
and which part symbolically?” DITTO
above comments
[11] the only other choice is that it
changed from bread to his body then back to bread again
Same lack of understanding repeated here
[12] we find a similar remark in Mark 14:25 “Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the
fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of
God."
This takes place in a Passover meal, and
Jesus here refers to the third Traditional cut of wine.
[13] Did he NOT MEAN that it is through him,
we can enter into heaven, rather than his body which had been changed into
blood.”
Actually it is NOT ONLY “through Him” IT
IS Through Him, and With Him and In Him” which exactly why
Jesus does it. Because Salvation IS through Jesus; the Eucharist is the
GREATEST AID God can provide [conditionally] to lead us to all that is
necessary to merit salvation.
[14] Even MORE important at the moment the miracle
should occur; nothing happenings
Thomas here’s the deal I’ll make you: YOU show me “grace” and then I’ll show you Jesus REALLY in the
Eucharist [actually I intend to do this anyway].
[15] By way of comparison Christ changed
water into wine and it became WINE! [Jn.28: 8-10]…Funny you should mention that.
This miracle is different from every other Jesus reported miracle in that ALL
of the others had a “Spiritual element”, a spiritual benefit. So what and where
are the “spiritual element; the spiritual benefit here?” … To Be continued at
the Last Supper!
Thomas I don’t want to make
light of your point. Every other miracle had physical evidence, and you’re
asking why not here? And the Answer is that it is at the Last Supper: REALLY
CHRIST, thee miracle of miracles because it is not only done by God; IT IS GOD!
[16] now let us not loose
sight of the true purpose of the “communion service”. Christ never ONCE told
the disciples to offer up his body again; He told the TWICE to do this “in
memory of me.”
Excuse me Brother Thomas;. “Communion
service???” NOT !!!!!! “ Mass” YES! With
the Transubstaniatiated; REAL Body, Blood, Soul and
Divinity: the COMPLETE JESUS CHRIST.
[17]
We honor Christ :by doing what he commands. And the FACT that you cannot understand the truth is because
you are denying God himself. Relying on self, on your OWN very human logic.
Sir.39: 16 "All things are the works of the Lord, for they are
very good, and whatever he commands will be done in his time."
Thomas I promised you in # 14 above
that I would show you the evidence you seek. If you’re not too filled with
self-importance and pride [the devils KEY to our souls], you’ll grasp it. If
not, know that I am praying for you.
Eucharistic Miracles
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.therealpresence.org%2Feucharst%2Fmir%2Fa3.html
Thomas they are so frequent that I invite
YOU, to discover this truth; the physical truth you seek can be had.
God Bless,
Pat
The THIRD issue raised is “Can
the sacrifice of Christ be Renewed”?
Thomas say’s “NO!”
And this agrees with what we
Catholics Actually believe. Christ Sacrifice in the Most holy Eucharist is One
and the SAME-IDENTIAL one that claimed Christ Life. We understand that Jesus
can ONLY die once in His human nature; thus the Sacrifice is “RE-PRESENTED”;
PRESENTED AGAIN AND AGAIN WHICH TOO IS A MIRACLE FROM GOD.
END OF
SECOND SECTION # 2
No comments:
Post a Comment