G
Gorgias
Guest
It’s no longer bread. It has the appearance of bread.
So, strictly speaking, you’re not looking at bread.
- Status
So, strictly speaking, you’re not looking at bread.
T
toddy
Guest
The church should often hold the monstrance to point to the random selected pilgrim.
They will recognize the invisible super natural power of the presence of Christ entering into their body. This super natural power also enter my body when asking the church group to pray for healing.
If they have the gift of the Holy Spirit, they would see the Cross of Light [Jesus Christ] often decending to the altar after the Lord prayer each mass.
They will recognize the invisible super natural power of the presence of Christ entering into their body. This super natural power also enter my body when asking the church group to pray for healing.
If they have the gift of the Holy Spirit, they would see the Cross of Light [Jesus Christ] often decending to the altar after the Lord prayer each mass.
Last edited:
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
IIRC, +Sheen once quoted G.K. Chesterton to the effect that a man who says he no longer believes in transubstantiation really means that he no longer believes in the Sixth Commandment (i.e. Thou shalt not commit adultery.)
If you really think about it, it’s true. 70% don’t believe in the Real Presence and at least that much are pro-abortion/pro-contraception (which is practically the same thing since all artificial birth control methods are abortifacient).
If you really think about it, it’s true. 70% don’t believe in the Real Presence and at least that much are pro-abortion/pro-contraception (which is practically the same thing since all artificial birth control methods are abortifacient).
A
annad347
Guest
Does anyone find it interesting in…
John 6:53-59 Jesus say, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.” 59 He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.
but then what… 24-72 hours, days, weeks, months later (I don’t know how much time passed)
In Luke 22:17-20 Jesus… then took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.[ said to His disciples…
The interesting part is when Jesus first spoke about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, no one knew later He was going to give them bread and wine in place of His flesh and blood, yet some accepting what He said, while other abandoned Him… isn’t that interesting?
Anyway I always thought it was interesting.
It doesn’t scare me what some Catholic’s believe, what would scare me is if in the church I was attending I became aware that someone was purposely doing something to make the Eucharist unworthy, like knowing someone had evil desires in their heart, mind and no desire for repentance.
John 6:53-59 Jesus say, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.” 59 He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.
but then what… 24-72 hours, days, weeks, months later (I don’t know how much time passed)
In Luke 22:17-20 Jesus… then took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.[ said to His disciples…
The interesting part is when Jesus first spoke about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, no one knew later He was going to give them bread and wine in place of His flesh and blood, yet some accepting what He said, while other abandoned Him… isn’t that interesting?
Anyway I always thought it was interesting.
It doesn’t scare me what some Catholic’s believe, what would scare me is if in the church I was attending I became aware that someone was purposely doing something to make the Eucharist unworthy, like knowing someone had evil desires in their heart, mind and no desire for repentance.
Last edited:
U
umamibella
Guest
Three words
aggressive secular society.
Pope Francis said in todays society money power and success come well ahead of the Gospel and Gospel values
aggressive secular society.
Pope Francis said in todays society money power and success come well ahead of the Gospel and Gospel values
G
Gorgias
Guest
To be fair, it’s not “bread and wine in place of His body and blood”. Catholics (and Lutherans, too, right?) believe that it is his body and blood. (There are differences in belief about how to understand the physical characteristics of bread and wine, of course, but the ‘real presence’ is believed by both!)
A
annad347
Guest
You missed the point of my comment…
Last edited:
C
CTBcin
Guest
Well, considering some 75% of Catholics don’t go to Mass on a regular basis, I’m not terribly surprised.
D
Dovekin
Guest
The major problem is that the researchers do not know what the Church teaches, which is that sacraments “effect what they signify.” If the bread and wine were not symbols of the Body and Blood, they could not become the Body and Blood. Their symbolic nature continues after transubstantiation because it is based on appearance.
People were offered three responses
50% of respondents said they knew the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation. 95% chose either 1 or 2, which are both correct. We cannot really conclude much from that, even though the Pew researchers tried to.
People were offered three responses
Answers one and two are both correct. Perhaps the most correct are the 5% that were unsure what the Church teaches, though I do not know where that came from. (< 1% chose No answer) The question is not phrased in an exclusive way, ie just a symbol or food for body, not soul.
50% of respondents said they knew the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation. 95% chose either 1 or 2, which are both correct. We cannot really conclude much from that, even though the Pew researchers tried to.
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
Catholics believe in transubstantiation, i.e. the entire substance of the bread is changed into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ and the
entire substance of the wine is changed into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. The substances of bread and wine no longer exist but the appearances of the bread and wine remain.
“Sight, taste, touch in Thee are each deceived,
The ear alone most safely is believed…”
- From the *Pange lingua
Contrariwise, Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, i.e. the substances of bread and wine coexist with the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ. That is not Catholic teaching.
W
WillC
Guest
Yes. I know. But no they don’t believe in “consubstantiation”. At least, they would all never use that word because of its implications. But, the Orthodox don’t affirm or deny Transubstantiation either, but that it is a Mystery. But we don’t believe that is incorrect, or at least strictly incorrect, enough to believe they don’t have a proper Eucharist.
While Lutherans have no apostolic authority and are not part of the Church, and therefore don’t have a real Eucharist, I can’t say their belief is “heresy” since they still believe in the true Presence. Just as many Orthodox have a different belief in it. Though lutherans may be wrong in their description.
I’ve known Orthodox priests that are vehemently against Transubstantiation since it tries to explain how the miracle occurs. Ive known others that agree with the teaching. But since it was not affirmed until the 12th century, it isn’t a strict teaching in Orthodoxy.
But regardless, we believe that the Orthodox Eucharist is one and the same with ours. Whether the priest believes in Transubstantiation or not. It is the One Holy Eucharistic meal. I’d dare say IF lutherans had apostolic authority, (along with changing numerous beliefs) their Eucharist would likely be valid.
While Lutherans have no apostolic authority and are not part of the Church, and therefore don’t have a real Eucharist, I can’t say their belief is “heresy” since they still believe in the true Presence. Just as many Orthodox have a different belief in it. Though lutherans may be wrong in their description.
I’ve known Orthodox priests that are vehemently against Transubstantiation since it tries to explain how the miracle occurs. Ive known others that agree with the teaching. But since it was not affirmed until the 12th century, it isn’t a strict teaching in Orthodoxy.
But regardless, we believe that the Orthodox Eucharist is one and the same with ours. Whether the priest believes in Transubstantiation or not. It is the One Holy Eucharistic meal. I’d dare say IF lutherans had apostolic authority, (along with changing numerous beliefs) their Eucharist would likely be valid.
Last edited:
T
Thomas54
Guest
Last edited:
T
Thomas54
Guest
Yep!!! I have a hard time believing that The Holy Spirit was working with Luther, Calvin, joseph Smith or Muhammed to reform The Church that was started in the first century while working with the Apostolic Fathers and Early Church Fathers.
God Bless,
Thomas
Last edited:
How?
Preach it, and teach it. Keep going over it constantly until people finally “get it”.
It’s not going to occur to people with a contemporary mindset, that something can “be” anything other than what it “looks like”. That’s not the way the modern mind works. That’s why single-celled and multi-celled newly conceived entities aren’t really regarded as human persons. They don’t look human. They’re nothing more than fodder for stem-cell harvesters.
It wouldn’t be that difficult. Unlike certain moral teachings that actually require something from people — marriage and sexuality matters being prime among these in today’s world, because people want to be able to marry whomever they please, get out of their marriages if so desired, and do anything with their bodies that they feel like doing, without judgment or undesired consequences — to believe that the Holy Eucharist actually is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ requires nothing other than divine faith. It’s simple.
It also might require being a bit more careful that not even the smallest visible fragment remains on one’s hand, if they choose to receive communion that way, or they could possibly just receive on the tongue, but I digress. CITH/COTT debates pop up on these forums with great regularity, and they always end up generating much heat and little light. The worst of them, to borrow a recent phrase, turn into hot messes inside of dumpster fires inside of train wrecks.
W
WillC
Guest
I don’t really blame Luther in some ways. He was a very intelligent man that served the Church well before he began to refute the Church. While Luther was indeed wrong, I think its important to really look at what happened during those days.
The Church was a mess. Money and power were definitely issues that plagued a lot of the Church hierarchy. I cant see the Church trying to execute Luther today. I think a much more calm and loving approach would have been used when one of our own started to openly ask question about our Doctrines.
While he is definitely to blame for leaving the Church and bringing others away, its certainly a larger failure on the bishops and leaders of Luther’s day.
Luther had questions. And, many of them, were not uncommon questions. This is why so many other priests backed him. And why the theological school that he instructed at went with him. When he asked the questions, he was immediately reprimanded and threatened. How would you respond?
Every time he asked a question, or brought up a theological discussion regarding issues that had not yet been made Cannonical (and some that were) he was threatened instead of guided by the Church. He is quoted as saying he needed to follow his conscious. That is exactly what the Church teaches.
Many of his more heretical ideas came after he was excommunicated. I dont believe ANY of that had to happen. He just needed the Church to help him through his dilemmas.
The Church was a mess. Money and power were definitely issues that plagued a lot of the Church hierarchy. I cant see the Church trying to execute Luther today. I think a much more calm and loving approach would have been used when one of our own started to openly ask question about our Doctrines.
While he is definitely to blame for leaving the Church and bringing others away, its certainly a larger failure on the bishops and leaders of Luther’s day.
Luther had questions. And, many of them, were not uncommon questions. This is why so many other priests backed him. And why the theological school that he instructed at went with him. When he asked the questions, he was immediately reprimanded and threatened. How would you respond?
Every time he asked a question, or brought up a theological discussion regarding issues that had not yet been made Cannonical (and some that were) he was threatened instead of guided by the Church. He is quoted as saying he needed to follow his conscious. That is exactly what the Church teaches.
Many of his more heretical ideas came after he was excommunicated. I dont believe ANY of that had to happen. He just needed the Church to help him through his dilemmas.
G
Gorgias
Guest
That “no one knew what He was later going to do”? No… it was an insightful comment!
Here’s the thing, though: even if they knew, they’d still have been repulsed at the teaching of the eating of ‘body and blood’.
IIRC, people were asked to be part of a series of surveys on religious matters. This survey was the third or fourth in that series. A number of folks had already bailed from the panel, by that point.
So, you might be able to make a case for selection bias, or for a skewing of the test group. In any case, it’s not worth much other than a sensationalistic headline.
Nah. I disagree. There are folks who are perfectly willing to look at a man and say “not a man”, or a woman and say “not a woman.”
W
WillC
Guest
I mean, by that understanding, neither do the Orthodox. Officially, they don’t accept Transubstantiation.
M
MarkRome
Guest
They may not like to use the philosophical term transubstantiation, or accidents and substance, but they do indeed believe in a definitive change where there is no longer bread and wine, so we believe the same. Lutherans though believe the bread and wine remain.
Last edited:
W
WillC
Guest
Yes, you’re right. However, they do believe 100% in the Real Presence. Their understanding is different. And, I think, wrong, but I don’t think it is heresy.
Their reasoning is that Christ is 100 percent Divine and 100 percent man.
That 100+100=100. Its impossible, but we know it to be true. He is the perfected Union between God and man.
Thats how they see the Sacrament. Which i think does have a beauty to it.
I feel that truly recognizing the Real Presence is all that is required considering how St. Paul put it. So while I would never encourage that belief in the Sacrament, nor tell a Lutheran their opinion is just as valid as the Church’s teachings, they do believe in the legitimate physical body of Christ in the Eucharist. (Although they don’t have it since they have no authority)
Their reasoning is that Christ is 100 percent Divine and 100 percent man.
That 100+100=100. Its impossible, but we know it to be true. He is the perfected Union between God and man.
Thats how they see the Sacrament. Which i think does have a beauty to it.
I feel that truly recognizing the Real Presence is all that is required considering how St. Paul put it. So while I would never encourage that belief in the Sacrament, nor tell a Lutheran their opinion is just as valid as the Church’s teachings, they do believe in the legitimate physical body of Christ in the Eucharist. (Although they don’t have it since they have no authority)
Last edited:
M
MarkRome
Guest
I am glad that they do believe in a real presence. Don’t know how many of Lutheran’s, though. actually believe that it is Christ’s body and blood they are eating as opposed to just a symbol. The 70% of Catholics who don’t believe in transubstantiation do believe that it is symbolic, so they are partly right because the Church also teaches that it is symbolic (but also more than symbolic). I think I read about half of that 70% don’t even know it is a Church teaching that it is literally the body and blood of Christ.
Last edited:
- Status