Refutting Errors Concerning The Most Holy Sacrament Of The Eucharist

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Refutting Errors Concerning The Most Holy Sacrament Of The Eucharist file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Refutting Errors Concerning The Most Holy Sacrament Of The Eucharist book. Happy reading Refutting Errors Concerning The Most Holy Sacrament Of The Eucharist Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Refutting Errors Concerning The Most Holy Sacrament Of The Eucharist at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Refutting Errors Concerning The Most Holy Sacrament Of The Eucharist Pocket Guide.

It is the true Body and Blood of Christ, under the bread and wine. John Calvin concurred. In his Short Treatise on the Holy Supper Calvin wrote, "It is a spiritual mystery which cannot be seen by the eye nor be comprehended by human understanding. Therefore it is represented for us by means of visible signs, according to the need of our weakness. Nevertheless, it is not a naked figure, but one joined to its truth and substance. With good reason then, the bread is called body, because it not only represents, but also presents it. When people describe mere memorialism as Calvinism they are mistaken.

It was Zwingli, not Calvin, who taught mere memorialism: that the Sacrament of Holy Communion is merely a sign or symbol. Unfortunately, most Reformed theologians and denominations embraced Zwinglian sacramental theology long ago, and that is why Zwinglian sacramental theology is often described as Calvinism today. The Body and Blood of Christ, which are spiritually taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper. The Eucharist is both a sacrament and a sacrifice. While Christians do not re-sacrifice Christ or sacrifice Him anew on the altar, the Eucharist is a commemorative sacrifice in that Christians re-plead the one sacrifice of Himself that Christ offered upon the cross.

It is also a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving Greek: Eucharist , an offering of bread and wine, souls and bodies, tithes and offerings to God through Christ the great High Priest. Long ago in the second century, St. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote, "Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of his own created things - not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful - He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, 'This is my body.

For from the rising of the sun, unto the going down [of the same], My name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the Gentiles, saith the LORD Omnipotent' [Malachi ] - indicating in the plainest manner, by these words, that the former people [the Jews] shall indeed cease to make offerings to God, but that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and that a pure one; and His name is glorified among the Gentiles" Against Heresies.

Malachi is a prophecy of worship under the New Covenant.

The Body of Christ; The Blood of Christ: Theology, History, and Praxis

It reads, "From the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place [no longer just in the Jerusalem Temple] incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts. From the very beginning of Christianity only an apostle, a bishop who is a successor of the apostles, or a presbyter priest ordained by such, may properly offer the Holy Eucharist. In his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans c. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote, "See that ye follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God.

Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he entrusted it [a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. The Holy Eucharist has ever only been offered by a bishop or presbyter priest , often with a deacon and other ministers readers and acolytes assisting.

It has always been celebrated with great reverence, often with incense as foretold by the prophet Malachi. Reverence for the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ extended to the Holy Table, the altar, and to the chalice and paten plate , and other articles used in the Eucharistic Liturgy.

Tertulian c. AD describes chalices decorated with images of Christ On Modesty ; and in AD , during the Roman persecution of Christianity and ten years before Constantine's edict of toleration, a Roman court in North Africa recorded the items seized from a house-church. The confiscated items included two golden chalices, six silver chalices, six silver dishes, a silver bowl, seven silver lamps, two torches, seven short bronze lampstands with their lamps, and eleven bronze lamps on chains.

A century later, St. Jerome, the great Bible Scholar who translated the Holy Scriptures from Hebrew and Greek into Latin, the language of the Western Roman Empire of his day, wrote of the need "to instruct by authority of Scripture ignorant people in all the churches concerning the reverence with which they must handle holy things and minister at Christ's altar; and to impress upon them that the sacred chalices, veils, and other accessories used in the celebration of the Lord's passion are not mere lifeless and senseless objects devoid of holiness, but that rather, from their association with the body and blood of the Lord, they are to be venerated with the same awe as the body and blood themselves" Letter For some 1, years this was the belief of all Christians East and West.

This was also the belief of the Reformers of the 16th century. It was not until Zwingli that some began to dissent from the universally held belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Holy Communion, and Zwingli and his followers were condemned by Luther in the strongest terms. Those Christians of today who consider the Lord's Supper to be a mere memorial, that the bread and wine grape juice? Pusey summed up the doctrine of the Real Presence when he said, "It is truly flesh and blood, and these received into us cause that we are in Christ and Christ in us.

Are repentant; steadfastly purposing to lead a new life, having a living faith in God's mercy through Christ; and being in charity with all men. Are spiritually prepared to receive the Blessed Sacrament. According to the historic practice of the Church, the Sacrament of Holy Communion should be received fasting.

His parish website can be found at www. Novak can be reached by phone at or by e-mail: venovak hughes. Land of a Thousand Hills Coffee. VirtueOnline is the Anglican Communion's largest Biblically Orthodox Online News Service, read by more than 4,, readers in countries each year. Box Shohola, PA info virtueonline. Skip to main content. Welby Weeps over Bre Cranmer distinguishes Christ's spir Why I Joined the Fre I bought the line then that the Chu The book is organised chronological He is a sound Biblical Scholar, Tea Episcopal House of B Having proven above the legitimacy of such rules, the consequences resulting from the contrary thesis obviously collapse.

Let us limit ourselves, then, to adding to what has been said a few notions from plain common sense supported in passages from Scripture. Incidentally, resorting to arguments immediately accessible to solid common sense is the only means to counter this and many other errors refuted in this book. Indeed, these errors attack so many points of Catholic doctrine and collide in so many ways with Saint Thomas Aquinas, that an in-depth refutation would require writing a treatise against each one. Meekness and Persuasion before Anything Else.

This is the end to which the best efforts of any person dedicated to the apostolate must concur. To reach the greatest perfection in using all methods capable of attaining such a desirable goal, the zeal of the apostles should know how to multiply indefinitely the devices of their industry; and their patience should extend with immense amplitude the action of charity and gentleness towards all those with whom the apostolate is done.

For this reason, we deem it highly censurable that for some lay apostles, their method of education consists only in punitive or coercive means. One never sees in them a serious and persistent effort to explain, clarify or define certain truths in order to solidify profound convictions and structure vigorous principles. One never sees in them any effort to solve through a personal action all made of sweetness and charity, moral problems that sometimes arise in a dramatic way in souls rebellious to the apostle's action.

No argument is necessary to prove to souls with common sense, how far removed these practices are from the Church's thinking and from the moral regime established with the law of grace in the most sweet atmosphere of the New Covenant. We would never be the ones to close ranks around these somber educating processes more appropriate to Jansenism than Catholicism. This taciturn error has nothing in common with the doctrines we refute here, which sin precisely from the opposite extreme.

We wanted, however, to declare explicitly our formal, categorical and resolute condemnation of a certain pedagogy and of certain methods of apostolate consisting exclusively of truculence, so that it may never be assumed that, because we condemn the opposite extreme, we advocate in any way, directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly, the cause of this somber pedagogy, which has left adepts among us, but whose times, beyond doubt, have already passed. In reality, however, and precisely because the times of this somber pedagogy have passed, the evil that is more in vogue today, more pressing and destructive in every environment where lay apostolate is done, is the extreme opposite.

The new doctrines concerning Catholic Action have come to reinforce even more the highly accentuated exaggerations one could perceive in this line. Is It a Lack of Charity to Punish?

Read e-book Refutting Errors Concerning The Most Holy Sacrament Of The Eucharist

Even before the founding of Catholic Action among us, one could perceive in general, in regard to this subject the idea that the rules and statutes of religious associations should mention punishments, such as, for instance, suspensions, dismissals, etc. The great and essential reason given was that punishments cause suffering, and it is not proper to the Catholic religion, so completely imbued with suavity and sweetness, to cause suffering to anyone; and besides, punishment does not present any concrete usefulness, because it irritates the rule-breaker against the Church; and when the punishment consists in dismissal, it casts him into the ocean of perdition, with no advantage for him.

To these reasons the new errors in regard to Catholic Action added yet some more. Catholic Action should not list punishments in its rules so as not to turn away persons interested in enrolling, and because it is humiliating and contrary to human dignity that man be led by fear rather than love. If Catholic Action is endowed with irresistible methods of apostolate—and this in the most strict and literal sense of the word—why use punishments that will always be useless?

The consequences of these errors are being noticed in our circles more and more, and so it is imperative to eliminate them as soon as possible. There was a time when the simple wearing of the lapel pin of certain religious associations was a guarantee of an ardent and vigorous piety, of a most solid formation and of absolute security. Who would dare say the same today? The number of members has multiplied, but their formation did not grow proportionally.

The elites were drowned and diluted in the pell-mell of trivial souls without any upsurge in the quest for perfection and heroism. The bad example, the constitution of an environment opposed to any encouragement towards total virtue, all this became increasingly frequent. And all this, why? Simply because a false religious sentimentality often disarmed the lay leaders who, under the orders of ecclesiastical authority, should move to prevent "Jerusalem transforming itself into a hut to store fruit.

The Real Panorama. In order for us to understand well the necessity for having punishments listed in the bylaws of each branch of Catholic Action, as well as the need for these punishments to be applied in practice, above all we must convince ourselves profoundly that there are no irresistible methods of apostolate. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Divine Model of the apostle, encountered the most cruel resistance; and it was from right next to Him, and after hearing for a long time His adorable instructions and contemplating His infinitely perfect examples, that a malefactor came forth, with a frozen heart and black soul, one who was no common criminal, but precisely the worst evil-doer in all History until the AntiChrist appears.

We will develop this thesis more deeply in another chapter. For now, suffice it to remember that all of us will find souls hardened in error and in sin, who will show themselves opposed to all apostolate. If we were never to find souls like this, if we could have the certainty that our efforts would always and invariably meet with success, it is obvious that anyone dismissing an unworthy member from any religious sodality, and above all from Catholic Action, would act very badly. But reality, unfortunately, is very different.

Unless we are filled with a refined pride, we cannot expect for ourselves a success that Our Lord did not obtain. Therefore, the scene we have before us is this: in any association or in Catholic Action, it is not surprising that once in a while a defector appear; but the rule-infringing associate, instead of leaving the association, remains in it with the bad doctrine and bad life he embraced. Having exhausted all persuasive means to return the wayward soul to the good path, one asks: what to do?

Systematic Impunity Is a Lack of Charity. The same situation exists, on a permanent basis, in temporal society, and indeed, no one would think of suggesting that, in the name of Christian charity, the penitentiaries be opened and the penal code shredded. Thanks be to God, the time of romanticism is gone wherein the public's antipathies were usually directed against the sheriff, the public prosecutor, and the judge, while their empathies were turned completely toward the criminal. This state of spirit produced dismal effects; and to it is due, in good measure, the generalized anarchy that causes so much alarm in our age.

We do not know why it is that the vestiges of this erroneous mentality, frivolously sentimental and clearly anti-Catholic, banned as it is today from the spirit of all civil law, came to nest precisely in certain Catholic environments, at times producing as a consequence the maintenance within our organizations of an indolent ambience and methods, typically liberal, proscribed today in all nations including the democratic ones and from all properly structured private organizations with profane ends.

Why did error seek refuge precisely in some circles where truth is fought for? The same reasons that lead us to see as reprehensible, absurd, and anarchical the absence in secular societies of effective punishments capable of inducing fear should lead us to recognize that they are also indispensable in religious sodalities. Nevertheless, this is not what is believed or practiced in certain sectors of our laity. On the other hand, we should feel encouraged by the decisive example of Holy Church, which in her Code of Canon Law decrees, defines, and establishes most severe punishments, as she does when approving statutes, rules or constitutions of the various religious congregations or orders.

If this is seen as necessary for the clergy and religious, what can one say about lay associations! Saint Thomas Aquinas magnificently demonstrates the need for punishment. In the text we quote regarding the necessity of laws, the great Doctor implicitly manifests his opinion regarding the necessity of punishment by saying that one of the supports of the law is the prospect of due punishment for not fulfilling it. Frankly, we feel embarrassed having to demonstrate something so obvious.

Of course, if we take into consideration only the interest of the person to whom the punishment is destined, it would sometimes be better to delay the punishment indefinitely. There are souls that turn from good even more under the severe action of punishment.

It is certain, therefore, that punishment should be applied with much discernment, avoiding the excesses both of never forgiving or never punishing. In this matter it is necessary, above all, to take into due account that every disciplinary transgression is foremost an attempt against the purposes of the association and, secondly, a violation of the collectivity's rights.

When two values of such elevated nature are at stake, even certain legitimate individual interests should be sacrificed. If administration of punishment hardens some souls, they nevertheless suffer a just punishment that should in no way disarm the defense of the collectivity's rights. The Holy Ghost admirably described the perverse conduct of souls who despise the just punishments they deserve, and He did so in a way that clearly indicates that such hardening is a consequence in face of which the judge must not systematically retreat.

Thus, He says: "Poverty and shame to him that refuseth instruction. The ear that heareth the reproofs of life, shall abide in the midst of the wise. He that rejecteth instruction, despiseth his own soul: but he that yieldeth to reproof possesseth understanding. The fear of the Lord is the lesson of wisdom: and humility goeth before glory. It is natural that "a corrupt man loveth not one that reproveth him. Besides, what advantage can a religious association gain from keeping such members in its midst? In what way can they be useful? The Holy Ghost says: "A man that is an apostate, an unprofitable man, walketh with a perverse mouth.

On the other hand, it is worthwhile to mention, as we have already done, that there are souls opposed to the apostolate because of the profound malice in which they find themselves, as Wisdom says:. For wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins. For the Holy Spirit of discipline flees from the deceitful, and will withdraw himself from thoughts that are without understanding, and he shall not abide when iniquity cometh in. Regarding these malicious souls, Wisdom further says:. But the wicked with works and words have called it [death] to them: and esteeming it a friend have fallen away, and have made a covenant with it: because they are worthy to be of the part thereof.

Scripture says of these souls: "The heart of a fool is like a broken vessel, and no wisdom at all shall it hold. He that teacheth a fool is like one that glueth a potsherd together…. He speaketh with one that is asleep, who uttereth wisdom to a fool: and in the end of the discourse he saith: Who is this? Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you.

This invulnerability to apostolate is at times a punishment from God, and by keeping such a member in its midst, Catholic Action has within it a root of sin that only a great and rare miracle of grace can lead back to good will. Sometimes this blindness is the action of the devil. Scripture refers more than once to this blindness:. And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost; in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them. The eventual evil that punishment may cause to certain souls is at times nothing more than a just and deserved chastisement whose imminence should not prejudice the defense of higher rights like those of the Church and of other members of the association.

On the other hand, punishment is at times a salutary medicine to the guilty one himself. Thus, to spare from punishment would be robbing from the miscreant his access to the only way that could still lead him to amendment. Hence it is a true lack of charity to reduce the penal articles of the statutes to complete or almost complete inefficacy. The prodigal son only returned to his father's home after being severely punished by the consequences of his action.

In general, Divine Providence has brought back to the good path, by means of penance and punishment, the greatest sinners. This is true to such an extent, that we can rightly regard the greatest misfortunes as the most precious graces God grants a sinner. The just souls themselves only progress at the cost of spiritual purgation—at times frightful—of their defects.

The pious soul who called suffering the eighth sacrament was most correct indeed. So, when we establish as a rule the perpetual non-application of punishment, we should ask ourselves if we are not stealing from guilty souls a precious means of amendment. The answer cannot but be affirmative.

A president who systematically and without discernment, refuses to apply punishments deserved by his subjects, hates them. We recall a certain president who lamented the general decadence of his sodality. The rules were no longer observed, attendance was falling and the general attitude, day by day gave new signs of torpor. Is he who, out of laziness, witnesses the collapse of an initiative on the success of which the salvation of so many souls depends, too good? Without any hesitation I say that this person was harming the Church more than all the spiritist sects, Protestant churches and so on, functioning in that same place.

Actually, the effect of the punishment upon the delinquent is so precious that "he that spareth the rod hateth his son" 21 as Proverbs say. If Catholic Action spares its members punishments that are really indispensable, it hates them. On the contrary, "he that loveth him correcteth him betimes. There are souls who need punishment so that they not damn themselves eternally: "Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die.

Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell. Better are the wounds of a friend, than the deceitful kisses of an enemy. Indeed, we have as a model God Himself, Who "hath mercy, and teacheth, and correcteth, as a shepherd doth his flock. It would be ridiculous to argue in the opposite sense, using the most beautiful words of Ecclesiasticus: "It is good that thou shouldst hold up the just, yea and from him withdraw not thy hand: for he that feareth God, neglecteth nothing. Others will argue that the severities of the Old Testament were repealed by the Law of Grace?

Let us listen to Saint Paul:. For whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth; and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. God dealeth with you as with his sons; for what son is there, whom the father doth not correct? But if you be without chastisement, whereof all are made partakers, then are you bastards, and not sons. Moreover we have had fathers of our flesh, for instructors, and we reverenced them: shall we not much more obey the Father of spirits, and live?

And they indeed for a few days, according to their own pleasure, instructed us: but he, for our profit, that we might receive his sanctification. Now all chastisement for the present indeed seemeth not to bring with it joy, but sorrow: but afterwards it will yield, to them that are exercised by it, the most peaceable fruit of justice. Much has been said about the selfishness of teachers who, because they do not want to restrain their bad temper, punish their students excessively.

On the day of the Last Judgment we will see that the number of souls who were lost because selfish teachers did not want to force on themselves the annoyance of punishing a student, is much greater than what is generally thought. It is important to add that punishment is often the only way to make reparation to the principles one offended and to the authority one contested.

To renounce it implies the introduction into the sodality of an atmosphere of doctrinal indifferentism or laxity with most harmful consequences. It is also necessary to note that punishment offers the great advantage, out of fear, of turning hesitant members away from the seduction of evil which solicits them.

The Holy Ghost says "them that sin reprove before all: that the rest also may have fear. Indeed, "the fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, to decline from the ruin of death. Lastly, we fail with charity in yet another way when keeping inside Catholic Action or the auxiliary associations an atmosphere of perpetual impunity.

To keep evil members inside an association is to transform it from a means of sanctification into one of perdition, by exposing to spiritual dangers those who took refuge in the shade of the association precisely to flee from them. And because of this Scripture warns us "Who will pity an enchanter struck by a serpent, or any that come near wild beasts? So is it with him that keepeth company with a wicked man, and is involved in his sins.

  1. Antibody-Drug Conjugates and Immunotoxins: From Pre-Clinical Development to Therapeutic Applications (Cancer Drug Discovery and Development);
  2. - IN DEFENSE OF CATHOLIC ACTION - Part III, Chapter 1 / Is It a Lack of Charity to Punish?.
  3. (PDF) “Cannibalism, the Eucharist, and Criollo Subjects” | Carlos A. Jauregui -!
  4. Enchiridion symbolorum - The sources of Catholic dogma (EN)?
  5. His Ultimate Prize (Mills & Boon Modern)?
  6. Emperor Waltz Kaiser Waltzer Opus 437 Strauss Easy Violin Sheet Music.

In this way Saint Paul's observation that "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump" is forgotten. Besides, the most rudimentary prudence should lead us to an identical consequence. How many internal crises, how much disorder, how much division of souls it would be possible sometimes to prevent, if an astute blow would free certain atmospheres from individuals who should have already left spontaneously, as they are people of whom Scripture says: "a man that is an apostate, an unprofitable man, walketh with a perverse mouth.

Moreover, these discords are often brought about by the contact between different mentalities, one, orthodox, upright, the friend of Truth and Good, and another, heterodox, disguisedly in league with all errors, and disposed a priori to accept every complacency, retreat and compromise with evil.

How can one avoid a clash in this case? Furthermore, what advantage can Catholic Action expect from the cooperation of such members in its work? This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 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. 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.

As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever. So several times in a row, Jesus explicitly ties reception of the Eucharist with a promise of eternal life, of being raised with Him on the Last Day.

But why? Thomas adds a third aspect, as well. Christ is the image of the invisible God. Colossians says,. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. When we look at Christ, we see God. When we look at the Eucharist, we see Christ although the accidents are of bread and wine.

Precisely because Christ is a window into Heaven, He is also a mirror, in which we can see our own failings, and our own dignity and our calling to glory. Clare of Assisi talks about this in a letter to Blessed Agnes of Prague :. Happy indeed is she who is granted a place at the divine banquet, for she may cling with her inmost heart to him whose beauty eternally awes the blessed hosts of heaven; to him whose love inspires love, whose contemplation refreshes, whose generosity satisfies, whose gentleness delights, whose memory shines sweetly as the dawn; to him whose fragrance revives the dead, and whose glorious vision will bless all the citizens of that heavenly Jerusalem.

For he is the splendor of eternal glory, the brightness of eternal light, and the mirror without cloud. Queen and bride of Jesus Christ, look into the mirror daily and study well your reflection , that you may adorn yourself, mind and body, with an enveloping garment of every virtue, and thus find yourself attired in flowers and gowns befitting the daughter and most chaste bride of the king on high. In this mirror blessed poverty, holy humility and ineffable love are also reflected.

With the grace of God the whole mirror will be your source of contemplation. But there are two other points I want to cover first. The Eucharist as a Foretaste of the the Wedding feast of the Lamb. After the bride and groom consented to marry, they were legally wed, but the groom had up to a year to go and prepare a home for his new bride.

Jesus refers to this when He says John ,. Let not your hearts be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me. And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. And how do we see that spousal promise fulfilled? For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns. It reminds us that Christ is both the host and the Host, the Bridegroom and the banquet meal. At each and every Mass, we witness this marriage of Heaven and marriage, and we get a tiny glimpse into the glory to come.

The eschatological tension kindled by the Eucharist expresses and reinforces our communion with the Church in heaven. It is not by chance that the Eastern Anaphoras and the Latin Eucharistic Prayers honour Mary, the ever-Virgin Mother of Jesus Christ our Lord and God, the angels, the holy apostles, the glorious martyrs and all the saints. The Eucharist is truly a glimpse of heaven appearing on earth. It is a glorious ray of the heavenly Jerusalem which pierces the clouds of our history and lights up our journey. So even now, in our Eucharistic Liturgies, we join Mary, the Saints, and the angels in Heaven in the wedding feast of the Lamb.

And this is just a hint of what is to come. The Eucharist as Pledge of the Bodily Resurrection. The acclamation of the assembly following the consecration appropriately ends by expressing the eschatological thrust which marks the celebration of the Eucharist cf.

Devotion to the Holy Face

The Eucharist is a straining towards the goal, a foretaste of the fullness of joy promised by Christ cf. Those who feed on Christ in the Eucharist need not wait until the hereafter to receive eternal life: they already possess it on earth , as the first-fruits of a future fullness which will embrace man in his totality.

This pledge of the future resurrection comes from the fact that the flesh of the Son of Man, given as food, is his body in its glorious state after the resurrection. That book, which dates all the way back to A. Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion.

For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.

Through Holy Baptism and Confirmation, indeed, the members of Christ are anointed by the Holy Spirit, grafted on to Christ; and through the Holy Eucharist the Church becomes what she is destined to be through Baptism and Confirmation. By communion with the body and blood of Christ the faithful grow in that mysterious divinization which by the Holy Spirit makes them dwell in the Son as children of the Father.

The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. Augustine explained in a Christmas homily :. Beloved, our Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal creator of all things, today became our Savior by being born of a mother. God became man so that man might become God. The Lord of angels became man today so that man could eat the bread of angels.

So how is the Eucharist connected to divinization? Gregory of Nyssa A. The Pledge of Glory in St. In his answer, Gregory lays out a four-step logical case for both the Real Presence of the Eucharistic Christ, and explains why this includes a pledge of future glory:. In that way, He naturally, through metabolism changed bready and wine into His Body and Blood. He gives these gifts by virtue of the benediction through which He transelements the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing. Think about it this way: left on its own, bread will go bad within a short time, and get moldy and disgusting.

Cardinal Ratzinger comes to the same conclusion, using the works of St. Augustine, in a conference he gave on the Eucharist in :. From a certain point of view, the words over the bread are even more stunning. I Cor 6,17ff; Eph 5, Paul also expresses this from another perspective when he says: it is one and the same bread, which all of us now receive. It is truly the one, identical Lord, whom we receive in the Eucharist, or better, the Lord who receives us and assumes us into himself.

But this bread is of another type. It is greater and higher than we are. The Roman Catholic Church teaches this because she is biblically illiterate. In other words, the Spirit is given to us as a downpayment in pledge that the entire inheritance will follow because we are joint-heirs with Christ. While it is true He repeated four times the command to eat His flesh vs. Making the same point in both plain and figurative language is simply an effective method to reinforce a bottom-line truth without being redundant. Again, the Last Supper was not to be implemented until a full year later, so he was definitely not tying ingestion of the Eucharist to eternal life…FOR THEM, at least; nor could his audience have understood that to be his meaning since human beings cannot see the future.

Neither then could they have obeyed his command to eat his flesh at that time even if Transubstantiation were true. Answer the question Mr. Is it not true that Christ was asking them to do something right there on the spot? Eating his flesh would have been impossible and you know it. I am not impressed by T. AT ALL. You are at liberty to believe Christ has shrunk himself sown to the size of a Ritz cracker, but it will never be true. One look at all the miracles in the Bible confirms that the Creator of the universe brought them to pass so it would be amazing for all to see.

Not on your life. The same was seen in the Old Testament. Israel was witness to the fact that God alone had the power to save, not only by delivering them so often, but by giving them predictions of future events. All of this is said to reinforce the theological importance of how strongly the witness testimony of our senses is and how Transubstantiation, being forensically bankrupt, simply cannot meet the high standards of jurisprudence set forth in Holy Writ. Hence, any supposedly biblical argument the Catholic may wish to bring to the table.. CANNOT be what God is saying because every single one of their defenses and we do mean every single one ultimately wrestles His word into a boxing match with the very senses He provided us!

While we are confident that the smooth fabric of Scripture leaves Transubstantiation in tattered shreds, did you know it carries no weight over the authority of our God-given senses? One is not any more important than the other. The testimony of our senses should be considered the testimony of God Himself. This premise cannot possibly be true because, again…. Scripture and our senses are married. While the husband Scripture is out to work, the wife our senses is home taking care of the family doctrine.

She does not even need her husband to debunk Transubstantiation since her senses alone are perfectly capable to see that the theatrical sensation of the Mass deserves every bad review it has received. But excuse me, that was a body which was not yet glorified John so how can it be his body in its glorious state after the resurrection? The Pope is speaking out of both sides of his mouth, thus exposing the corrupt nature of his doctrine. John Anyone with a thinking brain should realize that the RCC simply cannot have it both ways. His visit lasts only a few minutes at most; less if we suppose the salivary acids are to blame.

Catholics evidently do not. You fail to alert your readers that commentators agree that Augustine was inconsistent. I have given you a sacrament. Say what you will, Jesus literally meant he wants us to eat Him. It would take a twisted mind to come up with something else that Jesus meant. He really mean to literally have us put Him into our mouth, bite down, swallow and digest him. Why do you say this? God can do anything He wants. He is God. If there is even one thing that God cannot do, then that cannot be God.

But if you believe that Jesus is God, then who are you to tell God what He cannot do? If God wants to shrink himself down to the size of a Ritz cracker, He can do it. Either He is God, and He can make Himself into a form that we can eat, and we should eat Him because He tells us to because He loves us so much that he literally wants to be inside of us. History is not on your side on this one because the only groups who agree with you were all declared heretics centuries ago.

Casual Protestant Observer: That is surely not the issue and you are simply confused. The topic of vs. You have not disproved that in the least, nor have you provided anyone to back you up. Your complaint must then be dismissed. Is it the mark of a twisted mind if one decides to compare Scripture with Scripture to find our theology? If not, I will now refer to the book of Ezekiel…. Psalm , ; Jer ; Job The books or scrolls that were eaten were not made of any sort of literal paper because our bodies were not designed to digest those materials.

Neither is the Catholic Eucharist made up of the literal Christ, which our bodies were not designed to digest either. Thus, the concept of eating which is defined as incorporating into our being what we have heard and believed, has a rock-solid foundation that Rome totally avoids in her catechism because it would obviously rain on her parade.

R: He really meant to literally have us put Him into our mouth, bite down, swallow and digest him. Under no circumstances whatsoever does even the RCC believe Jesus makes his way through your digestive track! CCC Someone at the top realized the lunacy of what you yourself are proposing; namely, that it would mean the Savior would end up in the city sewer which is so disgusting I will not mention it further. Not on your life! The catechism simply assumes, without proof, that the breaking of bread with those on the road to Emmaus, was transubstantiated Eucharist bread CCC They say because the two men recognized the Lord after eating the bread, that this signifies all future believers will recognize the Lord in the Eucharist as well.

But this is pure eisegesis! The breaking, blessing and distribution of bread was simply characteristic of Jesus, and since no Catholic on earth believes in transubstantiated bread at the miracle of the loaves wherein bread and FISH were used, it is out of order to presume it does in Luke 24 where bread and WINE were used.

We adamantly deny these potent sedatives, obviously designed to make the laity drowsy. But the point is that since their eyes were kept from recognizing him initially and probably accounts for Mary Mag not recognizing him either at first , when Jesus removed the vail from their eyes, it could very well be that they caught a glimpse of his appearance like we see on the Mount of Transfiguration, which of course had nothing to do with Transubstantiation. After they saw that, he disappeared. There is no indication that they knew him as a result of T having occurred.

Again, the pervasive use of this Text is so ingrained in the Catholic mind, it must be cut down further and bears repeating. At the table with these men on the road to Emmaus, he took the bread, blessed it, broke it, gave thanks and dispatched it. During the miracle of the loaves, he took the bread, blessed it, broke it, gave thanks and dispatched it. Consequently, the breaking and blessing of bread was simply characteristic of the Lord; and since no Catholic on earth believes in transubstantiated bread at the miracle of the loaves, then it is out of order to presume it does in Luke 24 with the men on the road to Emmaus.

R: God can do anything He wants. Well, the Bible says God cannot lie, so that fulfills the one requirement you say he cannot do, and hence, you reveal that you do not believe in the God of the Bible. Look into the field. There is a rooster and a caterpillar. Yes, Almighty power could turn the rooster into a caterpillar and vice versa, just as John the Baptist said God could turn these rocks into the sons of Abraham Matt But to make the first thing become a second thing, which hides under the appearance of the first thing, is something Almighty power could NOT do, since neither could achieve the purpose for which they were made in their original form!

Hence, neither is the bread turned into the body of Christ… under the form of bread. Summa Theologica, pt. God created the universe from nothing. Then there was dust. Out of that He made man and breathed His spirit into him. God put His spirit and an eternal soul into man. Of course He can and does do whatever He wants. He said the bread is His body. Not was or will be, but IS. Those who deny Him deny eternity. Some fine night the rooster will wait for day and find nothing to crow about. Wake up, will you?

No such army exists because no such definition exists i. You fail to understand scripture in black and white. So of course you may have a problem with English too. Then there is philosophy and logic. You make me laugh and cry at the same time. Go figure. So after they could have seen that, he disappeared. Why not? He was even smaller when he was newly conceived in the womb of the Blessed Virgin. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what one sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait with endurance. Then there was the insult-laden sarcastically-twisted, theologically fantastical dribble-drabble hatred of truth.

Got it? Your posts, full of anger and ash, contain no evidence worthy of argument. Anyone reading this post in its entirety knows your comment is simply an escape hatch to run away from the fact that you cannot answer my objections. I trust you realize that you have arrogated to yourself the position of judging whether we have done so, but that imposes no duty on us to accept your judgment.

Maria Marvelous, I am certainly aware that the Messiah was at one time, the size of a pinhead, but that truth does not militate against my denial that he NOW chooses to shrink himself down into the size of a Ritz cracker for public consumption. I have given MORE than enough evidence on this thread to support my conclusions, with those in your camp giving me pitifully little. However, we err if we set out to pit the divine authority of His word against the divine authority of our God-given senses!

As previously mentioned, they are dance partners and cannot be separated. To believe in contradiction to the senses, is another. Jesus made the above statement in reaction to the unreasonable demand of Thomas. Few of His disciples were favored with the evidence of sense with regard to His resurrection, because the witness of others was well established and sufficient grounds for conviction.

Thomas is then reproved, even though his unbelief was satisfied with the kind of proof he wanted. Millions since have believed in the risen Christ without seeing, and He promises blessing on those who do. But there is no blessing promised for that absurd kind of faith that makes men succumb to superstition by renouncing the testimony of God in the very senses He provided us!

They do not. That being so, every man, via the use of Scripture and his senses, has an immediate revelation from God that Transubstantiation is a LIE. Deny it? Yes, it does. You openly ridiculed the notion based on the size. Greece is nearly bankrupt, and the Greek scholars have all died. You claim that everything Vatican II says is biblically bankrupt. Yes or no: Is the scripture within Vatican II bankrupt? Learn how to read! I read you correctly. Following your quote I repeat my question.

If you can not read what you have written yourself, it imposes no duty on us to not read it ourselves. You said exactly what she said you said. It does not matter what you said it in response to, that is what you said. To feign that, and to help arrogant insults on the person who actually read what you wrote, is to compound your sins. Oh stop it. Moreover, I do not need YOU to interpret my own statements since I am the one who has the right to interpret what I say thank you very much. Nah, you asserted, not explained, that was what you actually said, without even having the grace to admit that your wording was so much as unfortunate.

It is the sort of thing that casts down on everything you say. Bare — Why do you appear compelled to come to a site like this? There is something precious here which you appear bent on taking down. Those who live by the life of the Holy Spirit show so by His fruits. Your posts demonstrate a sore deficiency. Natural reason too is bent and twisted. The ineluctable conclusion is that the moral teaching offered here bothers you to unclear thinking, raw destructive emoting, and rage-filled darting of scripture.

If the Catholic Church offers much that you find repulsive, you waste your energy, your time, and your freedom here. Why do you try? Check this out: Try some CPO sites. How many Catholics there spew there at CPO teachings? CPO: Do not tell me for a moment Margo that if I put on the old charity church mouse routine that your reaction to any of the biblical evidence I provided would be any different.

There is a war for souls going on just as God called men to war in the OT time and time again, and we are called to fight as well in this day and age. Anyway, you say my posts demonstrate a sore deficiency of fruit. What do I mean? Consequently, I rejoice in your bitter resentment of me because you confirm I am walking the narrow road.

You would pop instantly.

2018 Refutting Errors Concerning The Most Holy Sacrament Of The Eucharist

You may be likened to the 5 foolish virgins who were expecting the Bridegroom, but their high expectations were brought to naught. It takes my breath away that you do not even consider that you too are on deck to be one of those VERY people who are also given the boot. Salvation does not have anything to do with an oral fixation because the gospel was simply never meant to satisfy our carnal appetite whatsoever.

He utilizes eating and drinking as an act of the intellect, saying that those who hunger and thirst after righteousness will be filled Matt Everyone knows you cannot actually get filled up by eating and drinking righteousness. Where might I find that in scripture? And his appointing you as my judge? BTW, what made you change your mind about answering my posts? Now you are angry for referring to by your own chosen name. CPO: I have answered that question at least 5 times on this thread. M: BTW, what made you change your mind about answering my posts? We know that followers left Him for preaching that He was the Bread of Life.

We are explicitly told so. Furthermore, it was literally the only time that any follower left him for anything He preached, in any of the Gospels. That is precisely the bottom line I am hitting you over the head with on this thread. There is no way out of it for you. Ergo, if you have any integrity left after considering my words, one should hope you will make a mad dash OUT of the RCC.

Choosing to stay, without having a response to my allegation, simply puts you into the category of a fool who happily places a dunce cap on their hat for all to see. Immediately prior to their turning away in you will notice that Jesus said that it is impossible for anyone to come to Him unless the Father who had sent Him, draws him…. While the B. Yes, I know Mary, no one ever told you that before. Your welcome. That is a lie. Hahaha, do you smell God? Do you see Him? No where does Scripture say that our senses are out only medium of truth.

This is stupidly Enlightenment era stuff. We are gifted with grace to believe that which we cannot believe by our own senses, so that we may not boast. If I pray to God for an increase of faith, and He grants this miracle, can I touch it with my hands? Nay, I cannot. Further, you seem to misunderstand our position. It is not that we deny any symbolic significance in the Eucharist: it is overflowing with it. But we also believe that as a Divine Mystery, it is so much more than that.

It is the sacrifice of the mass, that is why the priest is called a priest. Jesus Christ is our Paschal lamb. Similarly, we eat our Paschal Lamb as well. And bread is already typologically connected to the Real Presence as it is in the Tabernacle. It is beyond explanation.

It is truly amazing, the centerpiece of the Faith, and known in mass since the beginning. The scholars agree it is within months of the Crucifixion. The Eucharist is actually about a literal translation of a Jewish sacrifice called the Todah, for instance, which is the same pure Sacrifice told to be instituted by the Christ. To limit it in so many ways is an insult. I hope the priest who runs this site can speak with you as well. Only thing certifiable is you. Lord, what a depressingly long-winded string of daftly wired convolutions.

Where would you Fundacostalists be without the Play-Doh of imagined metaphor? Of course Jesus said that…. Jesus had no intention of creating a Church of literal cannibals. Do you believe in Grace? Can you mark it with your senses? Maybe you can feel it ruffling your pompadour. Bring truth, not meagre cherry-pickings, strung together with a weak taffy-pull of sadly inadequate sarcasm. Might want to rethink that. Last October he jumped a plane to Switzerland to have tea and crackers with the Lutherans!

See photo online. Upper management at the Vatican seems to be such a disappointment to so many, that perhaps you may want to consider setting up your ecclesiastical lodging elsewhere. Ask your CPO since he appears to know a lot. I get you. Lutherans do not believe in the Tranz, and therefore they, along with me, are on their way to hell, according to official RC dogma.

We talked about missing and misplaced puzzle pieces in the last article. My puzzle picture is complete, clear, precise, concise, and wonderful, with the Eucharist of the Mystical Body occupying center space. Until then, good luck and good day. Of course, these 5 words make no sense whatsoever. To boot, you have utterly failed to deal with the facts I presented from the Bible relating to factual evidence, whether it be pertaining to miracles or the legal defense of the credentials for Christ as Messiah.

Congratulations for being so diverse. I did not expect you to fall on your face so quickly, but I suppose with the Bible never coming to your rescue, the only way to go is down. Now, may I say briefly, that if the RCC is going to insist at the get-go that they are consuming the actual body, blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ… and they most certainly DO …. You did not answer. That being so, Jesus was speaking metaphorically in John 6 and the Last Supper, period, end of story.

The Eucharist is our Emmanuel; "God is with us." Who else can say it?

I am forthrightly confronting your doctrine with sober facts, utilizing common sense, history and the Holy Text. This is what I mean when Catholics are bereft of a reply…they must resort to unreasonable insults. Excuse me, but the Last Supper account is not even recorded in the gospel of John, which is where the Tranz was supposedly instituted. This is detrimental to the Catholic position because Rome claims that the episode in John 6 was a promise for eternal life via the Eucharist which would later be instituted the following year at the Last Supper. But this cannot be!

If the Catholic opinion were true, the Holy Spirit would have included the Last Supper account to ensure the promise was fulfilled and its connection with chapter 6 firmly established. Yet this did not happen. For, only by aligning chapter 6 with their interpretation of the passages with the Last Supper, can the RCC arrive at its teaching on Transubstantiation.

Therefore, because the Holy Spirit decided NOT to sprinkle the salt and pepper of the Last Supper account into the gospel of John, the doctrine of Transubstantiation simply cannot be true. Again, we are told it is a book that is sufficient in and of itself when it comes to seeking salvation. But with the Last Supper removed, the tie which Catholics think binds chapter 6 to the upper room event, is broken, and thus, finding salvation by means of the Eucharist using this gospel alone, becomes impossible.

That being so, the only way to understand Jesus in chapter 6 is metaphorically. This entire sentence is so full of holes you remind me of a slice of swiss cheese. Heschmeyer, do likewise. It follows then that just as God rejected the offering of Cain Genesis , so too does He reject the offering in the Mass. What you assert is out of bounds and above that which is written about Jesus the Messiah, so while we thank you for trying to read the mind of Christ, your conclusion must be rejected.

Careful now…your biblical illiteracy is showing again. Do some legwork and go look the word up. AK: Do you believe in Grace? Because while grace may be something that is unseen and which I believe in according to Scripture, the claims for the unseen presence of Christ in the Eucharist are FRAUGHT with difficulties at the get-go and flatly contradict the word of God in far too many places for it to be taken seriously.

On the contrary, Scripture is crystal clear that we do not abide in Christ by virtue of ingesting a solid or a liquid. And since there is no way for you to escape that fact, we must conclude that Jesus is no more in the RC wafer than there is a man in the moon. Nothing could be less like the examples of the Apostles, St. Paul, or the early Church fathers. Been here before, and am wise enough not to get sucked into this latest iteration of the Fundacostalist Special Olympics. Case in point — Barry the Weimaraner quotes Phillip Schaff as if that nearly-Catholic Protestant apologist agreed that Augustine was some kind of proto-Westboro pompadour in his trashing of Transubstantiation.

Shall we look at a bit more of Schaff on Augustine:? Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, v. The doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist was not a subject of theological controversy. In general, this period,. He was also inclined, with the Oriental fathers, to ascribe a saving virtue to the consecrated elements. Note: Schaff had just for two pages pp. This is too good to pass up…. This is all so Macbeth: Act 5, Scene 5, page 2. So it is with our pet troll-pup Barry the Shih-Tsu. Cut off his kibble and the spewing of theological tribbles ends. I have never commented before.

You are a guest here, and so am I. Whether you intend it or not, your contributions are coming across as being brash, abrasive and rude. admin