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) t
hat 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 and and and 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
No comments:
Post a Comment