A
aristotle
Guest
It is just as silly to put unwavering trust in a book as it is to put trust in the people who wrote it.
- Status
N
Nella
Guest
By your statement here, you cannot possibly believe that Scripture is the word of God written by man but inspired by God.
A
Atemi
Guest
Yes. Christ called the bread His “body,” and the wine His “blood.”
And the Catholic Church disagrees and says both are Jesus Himself, whole and entire, including soul and divinity.
…
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
From the Council of Trent:
CHAPTER I.
On the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist.
In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant,-that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God: for thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have treated of this most holy Sacrament, have most openly professed, that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable a sacrament at the last supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified, in express and clear words, that He gave them His own very Body, and His own Blood; words which,-recorded by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by Saint Paul, whereas they carry with them that proper and most manifest meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers,-it is indeed a crime the most unworthy that they should be wrested, by certain contentions and wicked men, to fictitious and imaginary tropes, whereby the verity of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which, as the pillar and ground of truth, has detested, as satanical, these inventions devised by impious men; she recognising, with a mind ever grateful and unforgetting, this most excellent benefit of Christ.
CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.
From the Trent Catechism:
Christ Whole And Entire Present Under Each Species
Hence it also follows that Christ is so contained, whole and entire, under either species, that, as under the species of bread are contained not only the body, but also the blood and Christ entire; so in like manner, under the species of wine are truly contained not only the blood, but also the body and Christ entire.
But although these are matters on which the faithful cannot entertain a doubt, it was nevertheless wisely ordained that two distinct consecrations should take place. First, because they represent in a more lively manner the Passion of our Lord, in which His blood was separated from His body; and hence in the form of consecration we commemorate the shedding of His blood. Secondly, since the Sacrament is to be used by us as the food and nourishment of our souls, it was most appropriate that it should be instituted as food and drink, two things which obviously constitute the complete sustenance of the (human) body.
Christ Whole And Entire Present In Every Part Of Each Species
Nor should it be forgotten that Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of either species. Each, says St. Augustine, receives Christ the Lord, and He is entire in each portion. He is not diminished by being given to many, but gives Himself whole and entire to each.
This is also an obvious inference from the narrative of the Evangelists. It is not to be supposed that our Lord consecrated the bread used at the Last Supper in separate parts, applying the form particularly to each, but that all the bread then used for the sacred mysteries was consecrated at the same time and with the same form, and in a quantity sufficient for all the Apostles. That the consecration of the chalice was performed in this manner, is clear from these words of the Saviour: Take and divide it among you.
What has hitherto been said is intended to enable pastors to show that the true body and blood of Christ are contained in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
If you are actually interested in understanding this, I might recommend reading some theology, such as Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.
This is not a complete interpretation of these verses (but for a Protestant, it is a good start - at least there is acceptance of the Real Presence).
From the Council of Trent:
CHAPTER I.
On the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist.
In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant,-that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God: for thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have treated of this most holy Sacrament, have most openly professed, that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable a sacrament at the last supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified, in express and clear words, that He gave them His own very Body, and His own Blood; words which,-recorded by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by Saint Paul, whereas they carry with them that proper and most manifest meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers,-it is indeed a crime the most unworthy that they should be wrested, by certain contentions and wicked men, to fictitious and imaginary tropes, whereby the verity of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which, as the pillar and ground of truth, has detested, as satanical, these inventions devised by impious men; she recognising, with a mind ever grateful and unforgetting, this most excellent benefit of Christ.
CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.
From the Trent Catechism:
Christ Whole And Entire Present Under Each Species
Hence it also follows that Christ is so contained, whole and entire, under either species, that, as under the species of bread are contained not only the body, but also the blood and Christ entire; so in like manner, under the species of wine are truly contained not only the blood, but also the body and Christ entire.
But although these are matters on which the faithful cannot entertain a doubt, it was nevertheless wisely ordained that two distinct consecrations should take place. First, because they represent in a more lively manner the Passion of our Lord, in which His blood was separated from His body; and hence in the form of consecration we commemorate the shedding of His blood. Secondly, since the Sacrament is to be used by us as the food and nourishment of our souls, it was most appropriate that it should be instituted as food and drink, two things which obviously constitute the complete sustenance of the (human) body.
Christ Whole And Entire Present In Every Part Of Each Species
Nor should it be forgotten that Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of either species. Each, says St. Augustine, receives Christ the Lord, and He is entire in each portion. He is not diminished by being given to many, but gives Himself whole and entire to each.
This is also an obvious inference from the narrative of the Evangelists. It is not to be supposed that our Lord consecrated the bread used at the Last Supper in separate parts, applying the form particularly to each, but that all the bread then used for the sacred mysteries was consecrated at the same time and with the same form, and in a quantity sufficient for all the Apostles. That the consecration of the chalice was performed in this manner, is clear from these words of the Saviour: Take and divide it among you.
What has hitherto been said is intended to enable pastors to show that the true body and blood of Christ are contained in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
If you are actually interested in understanding this, I might recommend reading some theology, such as Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.
A
Atemi
Guest
That is why I referred to inspired Scripture, not the Council of Trent or the Trent Catechism which disagree with our Lord.
…
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
You say that the Councils “disagree with Scripture”. . .yet why are we to consider your definition of the Scripture passages in question authoritative as opposed to theirs? If they say their passages are accurate interpretations of Scripture, and you do not agree, how can you prove that ‘you’ are right, and ‘they’ are wrong?
A
aristotle
Guest
Bingo.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
Where does Scripture say that only it is authoritative in revealing the Truth?
Who gave you authority to authoritatively interpret the Scriptures?
I ask you then:
Where does Scripture say that only it is authoritative in revealing the Truth?
Who gave you authority to authoritatively interpret the Scriptures?
L
lukewarm
Guest
Again if the Catholic Church really wants to rub Eucharistic miracles in protestants faces why don’t we take all the Eucharistic miracles and test the DNA. If they are true miracles the DNA will match across thousands of years, leaving protestants no choice but to believe.
But that will not happen for some reason I don’t know why, actually I have an idea why and I’m certain that the Church and we all know the DNA will not match. If they were confident it would match the test would’ve been done ten years ago.
Eucharistic miracles are private revelation, none of us are obligated to believe any of them, they aren’t of the deposit of faith. Frankly as a Catholic I think all of the Eucharistic miracles, shrouds, bleeding statues are nothing but very cruel and deceptive hoaxes perpetrated by mentally unstable people. These people preyed on people desperate for a sign of God’s power and it’s wrong. We shouldn’t put our faith in things that can be faked in order to fool the good hearted but ignorant masses.
But that will not happen for some reason I don’t know why, actually I have an idea why and I’m certain that the Church and we all know the DNA will not match. If they were confident it would match the test would’ve been done ten years ago.
Eucharistic miracles are private revelation, none of us are obligated to believe any of them, they aren’t of the deposit of faith. Frankly as a Catholic I think all of the Eucharistic miracles, shrouds, bleeding statues are nothing but very cruel and deceptive hoaxes perpetrated by mentally unstable people. These people preyed on people desperate for a sign of God’s power and it’s wrong. We shouldn’t put our faith in things that can be faked in order to fool the good hearted but ignorant masses.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
I also think your assumption of the Church’s motives is erroneous, insinuative and insulting.
How many do we have present now? Most did not make a sensorial change like Lanciano. Many times the miracle was something other than the Eucharist changing its accidents.
I also think your assumption of the Church’s motives is erroneous, insinuative and insulting.
L
lukewarm
Guest
Do you have a better reason as to why the Church don’t test the DNA of Eucharistic miracles other than they don’t want to prove prior approved miracles false? I’m not saying the Church has been deceptive per se’ but if it’s an approved miracle if it were found out to be a fraud it would be very damaging so why even open that can of worms? That’s where I think the modern is at, and their hand was forced through no fault of thier own.
I don’t blame the modern Church but certain clerics from days gone by who made the original mistake that forces the Church of todays hand.
Either way it is a private revelation and doesn’t affect my faith at all. BUT I do think Catholics should not use them as an evangelical tool, there’s simply not nearly enough proof to be remotely convincing to a protestant or Muslim or Buddhist. In fact they do the exact oposite, they make Catholicism look superstitious and foolish. Leave the revelation private like it should be is all I’m saying.
If the Church took a stronger stance against certain false private revelations we wouldn’t have to be embarassed about Virgin Mary drywall or grilled cheeses.
N
Nella
Guest
I believe these so called miracles Fatima etc. do more to harm the reputation of Catholics than to help it.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
I do think that they can be used as effective evangelization tools. We can discuss why if you want.
How about that most of the Eucharistic Miracles weren’t an actual transformation of the accidents into human tissue that have come down to us to this day (Lanciano is the only one I can think of). When the scientists did their tests, they are the ones who didn’t do a DNA test.
What mistake?
Private revelation isn’t private in the sense that it is to remain private between only one person and God. It is so called because it is not part of public revelation, which is that revelation that ended with the death of the last Apostle. See here.
I do think that they can be used as effective evangelization tools. We can discuss why if you want.
I think when someone cries “Mary is on my grilled cheese!” - if the Church is even made aware of it, they generally don’t even dignify it with a response. Only if it were to start to deceive many of the faithful would the Vatican restate that it is not approved.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
How so?
S
sedix
Guest
S
sedix
Guest
M
Mag_Uidhir
Guest
Off-course a God that can create us out of nothing, raise His Son from the dead, definately couldn’t restore a limb, thats a biggy even for God ?
Don’t limit the power of God, because it has no limits.
R
richwmiller
Guest
Rev. North, are you Christian?
Has there ever been a miracle that would satisfy you?
Do you believe in miracles?
Has there ever been a miracle where an arm or leg has been regrown?
Did Jesus do it? No!!
I guess we can’t believe in Jesus then since he didn’t perform Rev. North’s favorite miracle.
No reason to be Christian, now 1 2 3 abandon faith!!
See how silly your argument is?1
C
cheddarsox
Guest
Since no one responded to my question earlier in this thread concerning whether or not ALL the consecrated wine…Christ’s blood, was to be consumed during the mass…I did some searching for the answer.
Christ’s blood is not to be kept, but is to be fully consumed within the Mass itself, not stored, or used for Adoration.
So, I am wondering, within the teachings of the Church where this miracle falls, and if it is an “approved” 'miracle, that perhaps received some dispensation from the normal rubric.
I understand that on the anniversary of the original miracle, there is a parade, the blood becomes liquid again and is held up for adoration etc.
Also, if it is not derailing the thread…I believe there are also miracles where the drops of holy blood, caught on cloths, either from bleeding statues, stigmatists wounds, or spilled from the chalice arrange themselves into holy symbols on the cloths.
I have seen pictures of these in books at the Catholic book store.
Christ’s blood is not to be kept, but is to be fully consumed within the Mass itself, not stored, or used for Adoration.
So, I am wondering, within the teachings of the Church where this miracle falls, and if it is an “approved” 'miracle, that perhaps received some dispensation from the normal rubric.
I understand that on the anniversary of the original miracle, there is a parade, the blood becomes liquid again and is held up for adoration etc.
Also, if it is not derailing the thread…I believe there are also miracles where the drops of holy blood, caught on cloths, either from bleeding statues, stigmatists wounds, or spilled from the chalice arrange themselves into holy symbols on the cloths.
I have seen pictures of these in books at the Catholic book store.
M
Mag_Uidhir
Guest
Have you heard about Saint Januarius ?
- Status