Jesus is O.k. But I hate transubstantiation. Does this mean that Catholics are my mortal enemies?
In Roman Catholic theology, transubstantiation is the change in the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ will occur in the Eucharist
The first known use of the term "transubstantiation" to describe the changing of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ was Hildebert of Savardin, the Archbishop of Tours (died 1133)
Usually I just believe in that kind of crazy trying to destroy me and those who promote it, okay?
- Catholics, do you really cannibals?
- Why do Catholics believe that bread, the body of Jesus becomes the Blood Soul and Divinity?
- How many people believe in transubstantiation?
- Do Catholics believe the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ?
- If a vegetarian is involved in the Catholic Eucharist, are saying that they do not believe in transubstantiation?
OK, but the only one that is destroying you is to deny Jesus' commandment. I understand that you decide to stay in their box carnal rejecting everything that is out of his reason and intellect, but the Holy Spirit will continue to bring you to faith, because what we have in the mass at the altar is our true and substantial Body , Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. He provides the party for all eternity, because He said that unless you eat his body and drink his blood does not have life (eternal) in you. We do not accept in this case but for the grace He has given us to think. God bless!
In Christ
Fr Joseph
Catholic / Christian to all of the same thing. a lot of born again churches do the same thing, except that in place NO value, when the Catholic church in its symbolism, Catholics know that, to represent Christ and in which, basically, hes on.
anyway, why do you care? its just a ritual for some people. So what? Why do people with mortal enemies have exactly the same except that beliefs as expressed in different ways?
how to align not only religious people and break the so-called Christians who also are fighting for the good of all …
Why hate transubstantiation? Why the hatred of a doctrine established by Christ? Do not know the early Christians believed in and taught the precious Body and Blood of our Lord, holy? Do not you know that the denial of this central doctrine is a Protestant invention, resulting in a denial of Christ?
God bless.
First, you must be in a state of grace. "Whoever therefore eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way to be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and eat bread and drink the cup "(1 Cor. 11:27-28). This is an absolute requirement that can never be used. To receive the Eucharist without sanctifying grace in the soul desecrates the Eucharist in the most severe form.
"I try to destroy those who promote it, okay?" Who do you think you are, Saul of Tarsus?
The word "transubstantiation" may have been used in 1133, but the concept has existed since the time of the Apostles. Is in one of Paul's letters.
Ah, well, there are people like you in the Bible. Find John 6:60-66. In fact, you may want to read the verse 6:25 onwards.
People who hate the concept of transubstantiation the left of Jesus and his disciples were no more. But hey, you have a free will.
many aquatic animals that are vegetarians and lions eat meat, but certainly are not natural enemies. Where's the madness?
Ooooh, good luck with thaaaat ….
Uh … does not mean that you have your own section.
Why do u care
Anyone who hates the Eucharist Jesus is Hater
Jesus promises his presence in the Eucharist
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
Catholics are deceived, many of its symbols are staves, is a Christian, in my opinion