Is it me? Or just a lot of Catholics here don't get it

  • Thread starter Thread starter Righteousone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is it me or do protestants here just do not get it?

The Eucharist

Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: “‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51–52).

Many left and Jesus did not say wait it’s only a symbol but let them leave and asked the Apostles are you going to leave also?

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).

even Paul writes,

“Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.
 
c659smith said:
Is it me or do protestants here just do not get it?

The Eucharist

Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: “‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51–52).

Many left and Jesus did not say wait it’s only a symbol but let them leave and asked the Apostles are you going to leave also?

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).

even Paul writes,

“Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.
Click to expand...
What you are saying is true, but that is off-topic here. You should probably start a new thread. This thread is about Catholics believing in private revelation, not about Protestants not believing in public revelation.
 
lak611 said:
What you are saying is true, but that is off-topic here. You should probably start a new thread. This thread is about Catholics believing in private revelation, not about Protestants not believing in public revelation.
Click to expand...
This leads me to my question though is the below public or private as can be still witnessed today?

Eucharistic Miracle
Lanciano, Italy 8th Century A.D.

Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk’s doubt about Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist.

During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.

The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back.

The Blood is coagulated and has an earthy color resembling the yellow of ochre.

Various ecclesiastical investigation (“Recognitions”) were conducted since 1574.

In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.

The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.

The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.

In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.

The Flesh is a “HEART” complete in its essential structure.

The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).

In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.

In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.

The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.
Fig. 1 - Eosine x 200. Overall histological aspect of a Flesh sample with fibers collected in bundles with longitudinal orientation as it occurs in the outer surface layers of the heart.

Fig. 2 - Miracle Heart in Lanciano. Mallory x 250. An artery and, very close, a branch of the vagal nerve.

Fig. 3 - Miracle Heart in Lanciano. Mallory x 400. Evidence of the “Rough” aspect of the endocardium; the syncytoid structure of the myocardial tissue

Fig. 4 - Elution-absorption test x 80. Above: Hemagglutination test on blood sample in Lanciano: on the left, anti A serum used; on the right, anti-B serum. Below: hemoagglutination test on a Flesh sample in Lanciano: left, with anti-A serum, right,with anti-B serum. It appears thus that the Flesh and the Blood in Lanciano belong to AB blood group.

Fig. 5 - Electro-phoretic pattern of Blood proteins (Cromoscan photometer). The profile of serum fractions is normal and superimposable to that of a fresh serum sample.

In conclusion, it may be said that Science, when called upon to testify, has given a certain and thorough response as regards the authenticity of the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano.
 
If I am not mistaken, the Eucharistic Miricle that you mentioned is recognized as a miracle by the Church. That is a different issue than an apparition. First, there was something tangeble that occured. This may not always happen with an apparition. Second, it can be quantified. Again, that is not always the case. Third, and this is the key part, there was no revelation passed along to anyone. This is where the church has to be careful. In the end, it does not matter who appears to whom. It is when they say things that problems may occur.

Personally, I do not have a strong devotion to the Divine Mercies. I have prayed the chaplet before, as a penance and for spiritual reasons, but it is not part of my normal rutine. I could explain why, but it is not germain. What is important is the fact that my status as a Catholic is not affected at all by this.
 
rpp said:
Interesting site. However, they have not correctly identified Medjugorje as disapproved by the Church, which it is.
Click to expand...
No, the Church hasn’t disapproved of Medjugorje; it has not approved Medjugorje. AFAIK Med is still in the “under investigation” category - and will probably stay there indefinitely, barring any unforeseen changes in the situation.
 
theistgal said:
No, the Church hasn’t disapproved of Medjugorje; it has not approved Medjugorje. AFAIK Med is still in the “under investigation” category - and will probably stay there indefinitely, barring any unforeseen changes in the situation.
Click to expand...
It is a banned topic here on CAF, though.
 
ralphinal said:
If I am not mistaken, the Eucharistic Miricle that you mentioned is recognized as a miracle by the Church. That is a different issue than an apparition. First, there was something tangeble that occured. This may not always happen with an apparition. Second, it can be quantified. Again, that is not always the case. Third, and this is the key part, there was no revelation passed along to anyone. This is where the church has to be careful. In the end, it does not matter who appears to whom. It is when they say things that problems may occur.

Personally, I do not have a strong devotion to the Divine Mercies. I have prayed the chaplet before, as a penance and for spiritual reasons, but it is not part of my normal rutine. I could explain why, but it is not germain. What is important is the fact that my status as a Catholic is not affected at all by this.
Click to expand...
You sir, know your faith!!!
 
lak611 said:
He has mentioned unapproved private revelations on other threads. The poster I replied to asked why another poster did not believe in Medjugorje. I provided the information stating that we cannot discuss that topic, as it is banned since it is unapproved by the Church.
Click to expand...
Can you explain the thinking on this? I’m new here, so I’m not familiar with all the banned topics. I understand the political topic ban. But I really don’t understand this ban?

We really can’t talk about something because the Church disapproves it? How, then, are we able to discuss doctrines that contradict Catholic doctrine.

I was thinking about asking a question about female clergy in Protestant churches, and if Catholic women felt that they would be interested in being a clergyperson if things were different. I’m thinking, though, that that would get me into trouble. 🙂

Is there a list of banned topics that I can look at so I don’t get detention? 😉
 
One of the reasons that they are banned is because people who believe in them can get quite defensive. Likewise, those who do not tend not to respond with charity. Also, if it is not approved, can you be sure it is presented as such so that no one is confused?

Personally, I have no issue with the bans.
 
kalt said:
Can you explain the thinking on this? I’m new here, so I’m not familiar with all the banned topics. I understand the political topic ban. But I really don’t understand this ban?

We really can’t talk about something because the Church disapproves it? How, then, are we able to discuss doctrines that contradict Catholic doctrine.

I was thinking about asking a question about female clergy in Protestant churches, and if Catholic women felt that they would be interested in being a clergyperson if things were different. I’m thinking, though, that that would get me into trouble. 🙂

Is there a list of banned topics that I can look at so I don’t get detention? 😉
Click to expand...
I would suggest that you send a PM or e-mail to Moderator Catherine Grant if you want clarification on the issue of unapproved private revelation. She would be able to help you better than I can in explaining the rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top