About Brainwashed Catholics are the blood and body of Jesus?
A Catholic mass is by definition the sacrifice of Christ (Catechism 1322, 1338). The Baltimore Catechism (Cofradía edition 1949) says,
"Christ gives us his own body and blood in the holy Eucharist, first, to be offered as a sacrifice in commemoration of all time to renew the sacrifice of the cross" (Catechism 356).
While the Catholic catechisms cite the passages that speak of Christ to die once, but they also teach that the priest miraculously transforms the bread and wine into the body of Christ and that Jesus is sacrificed again. "The blood is real blood (that seems to know wine and wine of the Mass, but is actually the blood of Christ." [1]
Although there are some differences between the Protestants, on the meaning of the Lord's Supper, without exception, the Protestant Bible does not teach that the sacrament is a renewal or a revisitation of the sacrifice of Christ's body. Rather it is a remembrance and a memorial using symbols blessed by God for the benefit of the humble believer.
This contrast is more than a dispute of words. Strike at the heart of the difference between Catholicism and Protestant Christianity. The Protestant faith that the church has denied the power to make the mass of the "miracle of transubstantiation," and further denies that the Lord's Supper is to see fulfilled in the death of Christ again.
"Neither he [Jesus] to enter heaven to offer himself again and again …"
-Hebrews 9:25 (NIV) (see Hebrews 9:25-10:18)
- Do Catholics believe the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ?
- Why do Catholics believe that bread, the body of Jesus becomes the Blood Soul and Divinity?
- Most Catholics do believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the Real Body and Blood of Christ?
- Why Catholics Understand The Eucharist Jesus to be literally the body and blood, but Pedro is not a rock?
- Catholics? The Eucharist is cannibalism?
Yes, it is the doctrine of symbolic act that Transubstantiation.A taken literally, but most do not.
Speaking of fights over nits of theology.
Somehow I doubt that what God has in mind is for eggheads to pore over the Scriptures and argue over minutiae. Catholic apologists that there could quote Scripture that indicates that the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is the correct one and I doubt that would be less convincing than you. But I am surprised only that they are all missing the point.
Honey, you follow the drones in the belief that it is not even your own …. YOU are carrying out what was ordained by fear …. YOU YOUR CONSCIENCE simplification in the same way that his faith …. . …. achieve what the hell … Do you care to even know what they're fighting for! You are sheep … not in a biblical sense, well … Leaving these religions who want to dumb *** fans who can not decide for themselves or live …. easier to manipulate with fear!
Well, the rock to work …. is your life!
Technically, it is the Holy Spirit, not the priest, which makes the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ. It is not a transformation. The forms of bread and wine do not change. The consecrated bread and wine appearance, aroma and flavor, such as bread and wine. The substance has changed. that's why is called transubstantiation.
The sacrifice of the Mass is not Jesus die again. The sacrifice of Jesus is giving us his Body and Blood. Every time a person gives something of himself to another, there is a sacrifice. My answer to this in writing because it is a sacrifice I'm taking time out of my life l to give an answer.
Yes, this is one of the main differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, but they are wrong in characterizing the performance of the Mass as Christ's death again.
I am Catholic.
If you're suggesting that I (or any Catholic I've talked about this) I change the consecration of the Eucharist meat or wine in human blood, I assure you that you are wrong.
That would be as silly as believing that the stories of the creation of the Earth or the Garden of Eden is literal accounts of actual events.
A brainwashing insulting someone else.
Acme is like cartoons.
I'm not Catholic - but it seems funny that the fundamentalists who say they take the Bible literally gets upset when Catholics take the Bible literally.
Jesus said, "This is my body which is given for you."
"This cup is my blood …"
This is the step that fundamentalism does not take literally.
I find it interesting that - Bible literalists who do not know why it was not that way, literally, is that hundreds of years of struggle against prejudice Catholic.
I agree with you that there is no sacrifice that is produced, and that the Catholic interpretation of that through the Mass is an error in theology.
But still …!
We are not brainwashed - we let Jesus speak to believe that. We believe that Jesus said what he meant, and say what he said. I suppose that what we do better in the recognition of metaphor to make melted - we know that God is not running dinosaurs chasing Adam, and we also know that Jesus meant what he said absolutely about being literally food and drink.
Fundi are like the disciples who abandoned Jesus, saying: "This teaching is difficult, it can accept this?" (John 6:60)
"Jesus said to them:" I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me shall never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. "(John 6:36)
"Very truly, I say that whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert and died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one can eat and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever, and the bread that I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. "John 6:47 - 51)
"Then Jesus said to them, 'Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, has no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise up to the last day for my flesh is real food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in them. As the living Father sent me, and I live by the Father, so that whoever eats me will live through me. " John 6:53-57)
As for the Mass - which is not re-sacrificed Christ. It is the "once and for all" is made present the sacrifice of our own age. "The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is only done once and for all, but is present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church." (CCC 1545)
Christ in his own words said: "My blood is drink indeed, my flesh is real food." also "Unless you eat my flesh and drinks my blood has no life in you."
Catholics believe that God has the power to transform ordinary bread and wine into his body and blood every time the mass is performed.
Protestants believe that God has no power.
Protestant God is a fool.
no .. coz i try not to crack them believe that Christians are brothers and sisters ..
No, to be honest its the opposite way round.
is the true body and true blood of Christ, and there have been many miracles to prove it.
wow, talk about knowing one's own kind!
Members of all religions are brainwashed. That is the only way to make people believe that the ridiculously unbelievable.
I will pray for you.
So I guess you were one of those who fled.
John 6.66
In John, chapter 6, Jesus has not only called the 12 Apostles, there was also much larger group of disciples. Things seemed to be going pretty well. That is until Jesus said, "For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I in him. "This was too much for many of his disciples and" From that time many of His disciples went back and walked no more with him. "Jesus becomes the 12th and asked:" Will ye go away? Peter gives the same answer that I am telling me I should leave the Catholic Church for this reason or that one, "Lord, to whom shall we go?" No matter what a priest does, no matter what scandals success church, regardless of corruption or abuse of power may exist, whatever, despite the errors of the Church has done throughout history, to whom shall we go? "is for the body and blood of Christ to a sinner as miserable as i.
Matt. 26:26-28; Marcos. 14:22,24, Luke 22, 19-20, 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this is my body and blood. Jesus does not say this is a symbol of my body and blood.
Matt. 26:26, Mark. 14:22, Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "tout Estina to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is really" or "this is really" my body and blood.
You do the math. If that is not enough … see:
John 6:4,11-14 - on the eve of Passover, Jesus performs the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves. This was prophesied in the Old Testament (eg 2 Kings4: 43), and foreshadows the infinite heavenly bread which he is.
Matt. 14:19, 15:36, Mark 6:41, 8:6, Luke 9:16 - these passages are more accounts of the multiplication of miracles. This points to the Eucharist.
Matt. 16:12 - In this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term "bread". In John 6, which eliminates any possibility metaphorical.
John 6:4 - Jesus at Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. See what he says.
John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I am the bread of heaven." He is, himself, the bread of heaven eternal.
John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert that is consumed physically, and this "new" bread which must be consumed.
John 6:51-52-then Jesus says that He is the bread refers to the meat. The Jews take it literally and immediately question their teaching. How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating meat. In fact, Jesus says four times you should eat his flesh and drink his blood. Therefore, Catholics believe that Jesus makes present his body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not Catholic, can only say that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.
John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Along these lines, the text uses the Greek word "Phage" nine times. "Phage" literally means "eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the problem with making disciples of Jesus, the literal use of "food." So does Jesus?
John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "Trog", which means to gnaw or chew and crunch. Which increases the literalness and drives his message. Jesus gives us, literally, his flesh and blood to eat. The word "Trog" is only used twice in the New Testament (in Matt. John 24:38 and 13:18) and that always means literally gnaw or chew meat. While "Phage" could also have a spiritual application, "Trog" is never used metaphorically in Greek. Therefore, Protestants can not find a verse in Scripture that "Trog" is used symbolically, but this should be your argument that if they are to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally, even before Jesus used the word "Trog" when he says "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (John 6:52).
John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says: "For my flesh is real food and my blood is drink indeed." This sentence can only be understood as a response to those who do not believe that Jesus flesh is real food, and his blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word that translates as "sarx. "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" meaning body). See, eg, John 1:13,14, 3:6, 8:15, 17:2, Matt. 16:17, 19:5, 24:22, 26:41, Mark 10:8, 13:20, 14:38 and Luke 3:6, 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture that "sarx" means meat. It is always literal.
John 6:55 - In addition, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink the floor "Aleth. "Aletha" means "very" or "really", and is only used if there are doubts about the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as food and beverages. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of his body and his blood real food and drink.
John 6:60 - as do many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. Even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (let alone understand it)?" Unillumined to mind, it seems ludicrous.
John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus use of the phrase "the spirit gives life", the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand his words.
John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of the spirit against the flesh "to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the "spirit / flesh" comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5 and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the "spirit / flesh" comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still "in the flesh."
John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is no place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." As we have seen, the use of "spirit" refers to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that Jesus should eat meat and drink his blood, or have no life in us.
John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost his mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why not Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why not say to Jesus: "Hey, come here, I was only speaking symbolically!"? Because they understood correctly.
Mark 4:34 - Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meaning of His teachings. I would never have let that be a false impression, especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation.
John 6:37 - Jesus says that He does not drive off. It is understood correctly, but do not believe.
John 3:5,11; Matt. 16:11-12 - here are some examples of Jesus correcting mistaken impressions of their teaching. In the Eucharistic discourse, Jesus does not correct the scandalized disciples.
John 6:64,70 - Jesus links the disbelief in the real presence of his Body and Blood in the Eucharist to Judas' betrayal. Those who do not believe in this miracle betray him.
Psalm 27:2; Isa. 9:20, 49:26; microphone. 3:3, 2 Sam. 23:17, Rev. 16:6, 17:6, 16 - to dispense with the Protestant claim that Jesus was only speaking symbolically, these verses show that symbolically eat the body and blood is always used in a negative context of a physical assault . Always mean "the destruction of an enemy," not become intimately close with him. Thus, if Jesus were speaking symbolically in John 6:51-58, He says, "He who reviles or assaults me has eternal life." This, of course, is absurd.
John 10:7 - Protestants say that Jesus was speaking metaphorically about himself elsewhere in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, "I am the door." But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood as metaphorical.
John 15:1,5 - here's another example, when Jesus says, "I am the vine." Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6, Jesus' disciples did not ask about his literal (that this bread is his flesh to be eaten). He confirmed that his blood and flesh were food and drink event. Many disciples took him and left him.
Matt. 26:29, Mark 14:25, Luke 22:18 - Jesus said that He did not drink the "fruit of the vine" until the baby again in the kingdom. Some Protestants try to use this verse (because Jesus said "fruit of the vine") to test the wine can not be your blood. But the Greek word for fruit is "genneema" which literally means "what is generated from the vine." In John 15:1,5 Jesus said, "I am the vine." ; So "fruit of the vine" can also mean Jesus' blood. In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used "bread" and "the body of the Lord" interchangeably in the same sentence. Also see Matt. 3:7, 12:34, 23:33 examples "genneema" means "birth" or "generation".
Rom. 14:14-18, 1 Cor. 8:1-13, 1 Tim. 4:3 - Protestants often argue that drinking blood and eating meat sacrificed some were banned in the New Testament, which Jesus never to consume his body and blood. But these verses prove them wrong, showing that Paul taught all foods, even meat offered to idols, strangled, or with blood, can be consumed by a Christian if you do not bother the brother of consciousness and is consumed with thanksgiving to God.
Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says we must become like children, or we will not enter the kingdom of God. We must believe the words of Jesus with the children-like faith. Jesus says, because this bread is his flesh, we believe by faith, even though it surpasses our understanding.
Luke 1:37 - God, nothing is impossible. If we can believe in the incredible reality of the Incarnation, we believe the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. God comes to us in the elements that created an extension for the impressive mystery of the
Yes, just another fib told by the politician known as the European Pope.
PBS - The English Bible.
NO. Jesus said: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any one eats of this bread will live forever, and the bread that 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). In Matthew 26:26 Jesus tells how: "As we were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying," Take and eat this is my body. "
After the resurection when he was at the table with the travelers to Emmaus, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give them. Then his eyes were opened and acknowledged. (Luke 24)
When a Catholic priest Christs words spoken over the bread and wine, bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, but the accidents (appearance) of bread and wine remain. The theological term for this is transubstantiation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.h …).
.. more info: http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_i …