Do Catholics really think that eating bread and wine Eucharist Really Turns On For Jesus flesh and blood?
if truth is not like being a cannibal and that Jesus was God made flesh?
- Most Catholics do believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the Real Body and Blood of Christ?
- Why do Catholics believe that bread, the body of Jesus becomes the Blood Soul and Divinity?
- The Eucharist is a communion The Governing Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus. Or, the bread is symbolic of the wine?
- See how Catholics celebrate the Eucharist (the wine and the Host) Is Jesus the Body and Blood?
- What kind of bread and wine Use Catholics in the sacrament of the Eucharist?
It does not become the body and blood of Christ is the body and blood of Christ.
The good news for you is that ignorance can be cured, if you choose to do so.
Not only Catholics take communion, so you can get directly. The bread and wine are symbols of his flesh and blood so that it does not come from the idea that we believe will become the "real" thing? Please feel free to criticize, you can take, but please be precise in their statements as half baked ideas only make people think you might be a bit short of bread. I am sure this is not the case might be trying to controversual, sorry it did not work.
I'm always surprised how it seems to be "having a crack at the Catholics in this site. For the record, the Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans believe in the "presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is true that they have different theology on this issue and the Roman Catholic theology is undoubtedly the best, but none of those churches believe that the Eucharist is "symbolic."
Jesus said in St John's Gosepel, who went to eat my flesh and drinks my blood. If you do not eat meat and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you. " Followers of this teaching found to be "intolerable" and many left the ministry. 2000 years later, many still remain scipture.
The Eucharist is a sacrament oath that Jesus made for his body and blood even though it appears to be the bread and wine. When Jesus made the promise in the discourse in John chapter 6, it is clear that the disciples believed him to be speaking of cannabalism and many of them left.
If, at that moment in time, the disciples had killed Jesus and eat his flesh and drank his blood, which would have been guilty of cannabalism. This would not have been a good thing, and it would have been worthy of condemnation. Instead, Jesus gives us his flesh to eat and drink blood in the sacramental bread and wine transubstantiated. No cannabalism under the classical chart and definitions that people have attributed to him. The sacramental food of the Eucharist is food for the spiritual path and not from the same matter cannabalism.
Transubstantiation is accomplished through the ministry of the priest in mass only by the power of the Holy Spirit. Only God, himself, actually transforms the bread and wine. God gave us the word and the word was made flesh by the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus willingly lays down his life for the world. Jesus instituted the New Covenant at the Last Supper and fulfills his promise in John 6. Jesus gives himself to the world on the cross, Jesus willingly and comes to us in the Eucharist.
In Genesis 1:2-3 we read that "The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said: Let there be light "and there was light." When God minister celebrates the mass of the faithful, the Spirit of God transubstantiates the bread and wine in the same way that God created light in Genesis 1:2-3 and in the same way that the word became flesh in Luke chapter 1.
Why non-Catholic Christians ignore commandment of Christ and deny His miracle of the Eucharist?
Catholics see the scriptures written on the Eucharist as the literal teachings of Jesus and have interpreted the words of Jesus as literal before the NT Scriptures were written according to Scripture. Catholics do not find reason to interpret Jesus' teaching to be anything but a literal hermeneutic, historical or theological.
Some Protestants, on the other hand, are very similar to the proto-Protestants who were former disciples of Jesus and left after his teaching in John 6, the commandment to eat His Body and drink his blood. Remain in the carnal sense and deny the miracle of the Eucharist. They believe that instead of being present at the sacrifice of Christ, which is what Jesus instituted an ordinance rather symbolic.
Therefore, what we are talking about two entirely different practices. The first identical to what the apostles taught and put into practice that is the real presence and the second is a modern interpretation of a man Ulrich Zwingli is a symbolic ordinance. The first is actually Christ on the Cross, where the faithful are at the foot of the cross, and the second is just a reminder of what Christ did as recorded in the Bible. When a Catholic Christian remembers the sacrifice of Christ is by being there when a Protestant recalls the sacrifice of Christ is to remember what is written in Scripture about the event. Without doubt, one must be able to understand the level of passion one would have after being at the foot of the cross as compared with the level of one to remember what is written in a book. Therefore, although some do not take it lightly, even though they do not believe, can not be the same passion for one year or in the ordinance means obedience, as the Protestant act can be described, the Catholic practice of being present with the bodily life of Christ on the cross and eating his body and blood real boss.
It should be noted that for the understanding of many of the reformers Zwingli that this approach was necessary to give some credibility to the new Protestant movement that denied the successive leadership of the apostolic Church established by Christ. These reformers knew full well that they had no real legitimacy and authority of Christ. They also knew that without a legitimate episcopacy could not continue to Holy Orders, Sacraments, nor have the authority to confect the Eucharist, the authority can only be given by Christ through the Church. Therefore, they could not continue with the Eucharist, even when you want without valid priesthood.
Therefore, I am not saying that I do not believe that Protestants are not in communion services, or a sign of unity, but it gives me a message of unity to a false, heretical beliefs regardless of historical, traditional, orthodox Christianity and it is a doctrine of men warned about in the Gospels.
(Matthew 15:7 DRB) hypocrites, Isaiah has prophesied well of you, saying, (Matthew 15:8 DRB) These people honoureth me with their lips but their heart is far from me. (Matthew 15:9 DRB) And in vain do my worship, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.
(Mar 7:5 DRB) And the Pharisees and scribes asked him: Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the ancients, but eat bread with common hands?
(Mar 7:6 DRB) But he answering, said unto them, Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honoureth me with their lips but their heart is far from me.
(Mar 7:7 DRB) And in vain do worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men.
(Mar 7:8 DRB) To leave the commandment of God, to keep the tradition of men, the washing of pots and cups, and many other things to do with them. (Mar 7:9 DRB) And he said to them: Well you do void the commandment of God, you can keep your own tradition.
(Luk 6:46 DRB) And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and not the things I say?
In Christ
Fr Joseph
Yes, the view is called transubstantiation. "The bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Jesus, according to this view, and it does seem a bit cannibalistic, with a little magic in the dough to make the change.
I grew up in the Catholic faith. I never felt or believe is the body and blood of Christ. For me it was reminiscent of the last superpower. I know that most Catholics do not agree with me, but this is what I felt.
Yes, that's what I say.
For this Protestant Holy Communion is symbolic and is made by the memory of Jesus Christ and what He did for us.
More than likely not. It is a symbolic representation. Anyone who was so fanatical as to think that consuming the flesh and blood real has much deeper issues to deal with the …
The doctrine of transubstantiation was inaugurated at the Council of Trent in 1551. Roman Catholics have been told since then to believe in it. It seems that instead of fulfilling god eat god!
That common knowledge is not an idiot .. when your child is canibalistic friends swallow milk during oral sex ….
If you are correct. However scriptually must be symbolic, not literal, and therefore made in his memory.
Yes to the first question and no to your last question, is called transubstantiation
Yes, we believe.
Cannibalism is only for the dead, you know? Jesus is not dead.
transubstantiation
… honestly …. is only one way to remember that Jesus died for us … not literally …
symbolistic her .. can still make their "powers" that does not matter is Wat .. take a walk on water or bread and fish to feed all people in the bible … which can be anything.