Why Catholics Understand The Eucharist Jesus to be literally the body and blood, but Pedro is not a rock?
If we take everything in the Bible literlly, Pedro has not been a rock that was actually the foundation of the church? If so, how can ingest the blood of God and the body?
Which direction?
- Do Catholics believe the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ?
- About Brainwashed Catholics are the blood and body of Jesus?
- Why do Catholics believe that bread, the body of Jesus becomes the Blood Soul and Divinity?
- See how Catholics celebrate the Eucharist (the wine and the Host) Is Jesus the Body and Blood?
- Most Catholics do believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the Real Body and Blood of Christ?
Why start trying to make sense of Christianity now? Logic does not apply there.
Pastor Billy says: just because Christ was not speaking in metaphor when talking about the Eucharist. When he spoke of his real presence in the Eucharist, as described in John 6, it was very literal, and even repeated several times "this is my body and REAL REAL blood.
The original Greek language of the text is also very clear Trogon translated the word Protestant Bibles in eating as is best understood as a gnawing or chewing.
Peter, the Rock is a metaphor is like Jesus is the cornerstone, cornerstone etc. ..
Why fundamentalists insist on the interpretation of each part of the Bible literallly —- THEN say that Chapter 6 of the Gospel of John is all figurative?
Jesus how many times it goes without saying that I am the bread …. using, you could add the holy name of God to identify himself in the process?
Sorry, how do you see that doubt and RealPresence of Christ in the Eucharist?
In 2000 years Catholics have been practicing the commandment to eat His Body and drink his blood. We understand that this is literally, because Jesus in John 6 soliloquy in the synagogue at Capernaum and the teaching of St. Paul in his pastoral epistles. The Catholic hermeneutic approach is to take the Bible literally interpretation unless there is an indication to the contrary. In this particular case there is no indication in the text had been thought, but anyway, literally, and is also more than enough proof of literalism in supporting the teaching of Jesus and St. Paul. We can see in the book of Acts that the first century the Church also believes in the literal word of Christ through the practice of the real presence Additionally there is evidence that no cree different withingn Church in 2000 years, which is patristic evidence in support of the veracity of the teaching.
In all the scriptures, Jesus was never a greater effort in emphasizing the literalness of his teaching in any of his commandments. He told his church to "do this" and do believe it's so It was by faith in him. St. Paul said we should discern His Body, and what we do. We believe what Jesus said that unless we eat his body and drink his blood we have no life in us. We are grateful for his grace.
Do not believe in the literalness of the words of Jesus is to follow the doctrines of men that Jesus warned against, in particular the doctrine of the heretic Ulrich Zwingli all in protest of the Reformation of the Church of Christ.
In Christ
Fr Joseph
Do not take everything in the Bible literally, unless we believe Methuselah lived over 900 years.
Peter said to Jesus "Thou art Peter (rock) and upon this rock I will build my church."
At the last supper of Christ said, "This is my body and blood (bread and wine) to do this in remembrance of me. It offers his body and blood IE bread and wine.
When Jesus called Peter a rock, he uses the same word Kepha.
We can understand that Jesus was speaking metaphorically Pedro, and that did not respond with "what? I'm not a rock, I am a silly person "
but when Jesus spoke of the Eucharist before the Last Supper, He said: "My flesh is meat indeed," and left the village, which can only mean that they thought he was, literally speaking.
If He has not said that "you do not understand," but let them leave.
There is also the fact that the Vatican is built over the tomb of Peter.
lost.eu/21618
Catholics are not all in the Bible literally. You are confused by the fundamentalists (who does not really have everything in the Bible literally either, but that does not know).
We believe in the Eucharist, because the tradition of our Church. Catholics have to equal the sources of revelation: Scripture and tradition. Our tradition, the wisdom of the centuries, tells us that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus and not just a symbol.
Have to say that the Catholic Church is wrong or why they are Protestant? However, they must also admit that not one of their names have the right to declare that it is a true Church. And that, for the simple reason that Christ did not establish any institution which could be known by men to be His Church.
They are raised with that impression and continue to wander in religious matters in which, like people in a forest, which follow the line of any track without bothering to ask where it leads. Love and risky adventure to experience for themselves seeking Scripture text for all those who think will support them.
All Christians admit that Christ intended a unit of some kind of precedence among his followers. But we can not deny ourselves what kind of unity must prevail. The "everything happens for a" type of unit, while each one goes his way, it is pretty useless if foreign to the mind of Christ. Who can accept the invention of the protesters, taking note of the countless ways in which they divide, define the unit needed to adapt themselves in their current circumstances and so they can stay where they are.
Those who believe everything that He had taught at least be one in faith. Once again, demanded that the unity in worship. "One Lord, one faith, one baptism," was to be the rule and the baptism belongs to the worship. The early Christians were told clearly that St. Paul's participation in the Eucharistic worship is probably essential to the unit. "We, being many, are one bread, one body, and all participants in a pan."
In other words, "Christ is in Holy Communion, and yet they are many, are one in Him if we partake of the Holy Communion."
Protestantism can not keep intact the rules of Christianity. Articles of faith are gone overboard. Mortified-and fasting are not necessary. The evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience, with its consequent inspiration of monastic life are ignored. Protestant written excuse, or even approve, moral laxity in practice. Protestantism has not produced anything equal to the canonization of Saint Catholic. Many of the sacraments of Christ, are not even recognized by Protestantism, while the heart is torn by his cult of the loss of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Of spiritual authority is hardly a trace. The clergy are not well trained in the moral law and can not advise the laity as they should, even the laity were willing to accept advice. The prevalent notion, "Believe in Christ and be saved" by their nature tend to diminish the sense of need for personal virtue.
Protestantism was a movement of dissent heated. Error and was the first rebellion of the Protestant Church, the various forms of error, or the country in which the rebellion, leading to the various sects. But any good that was the first Protestant doctrinal baggage with them was obtained from the Church to the left. Any apparent kindness and the teachings of Protestantism is still in the Catholic Church. Where in the Catholic Church, cockle sown by the enemy is here and there amidst the wheat, Satan was wise enough to enable some wheat here and there to stay in the middle of the cockles of Protestantism. And this is the presence of wheat represents the continued existence of Protestantism. However, wheat does not actually belong to Protestantism. It is a relic of the Catholic religion that grows on foreign soil. A good Catholic is when at the height of Catholic principles, refuses to depart from them. A Protestant is good when it works in Catholic principles unconsciously, from those which are purely Protestant.
You are blaming the Roman Catholics from taking the Bible too literally? What happens to all those who seem to think that there millennialists to be a literal 1000 years that Israel and the New Testament is literally the state of Israel (a lie: that of Israel in the NT is the Church), but It does not accept * Christ's own words, * '* This is my body … * * * This is my blood … "(Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:23-24, Luke 22:19-20)? See also John 6:25-71, 15:1-8. To deny the real presence of Christ in Holy Communion is to deny Christ, period.
Assume that transubstantiation is false theology. Christ is not dead and the blood that we receive in Holy Communion (see Hebrews 9-10), but resurrected body of Christ and the blood they received supernaturally * * (not just physically, not just spiritually, because Christ two natures, human and God will never be separated) in, with and under the bread and wine that is connected to the Word of God and listened to by the receiver. The way this happens is a mystery (which is what the word "sacrament" means), so we accept it by faith and not judge God's immutable and infallible word of fallible men and finite rules.
To deny the real presence of the whole is far more heretical to believe that it is really Christ's body and blood. Paul confirms this: 1 Cor. 10:16, 1 Cor. 11:23-29.
Read Numbers 11. Are you sure that you are not "other food cravings?
Read the Gospel truth about the Sacrament of the altar. It is the Gospel should be pure and not polluted by man's fallible reason.
Catholics are not all in the Bible literally, but there are some things that are said literally. Such as "eat my body and drinks my blood." We know that Christ means literally that for many reasons. He said that on several occasions, he left some of his followers to go to hear those words and not say that he was speaking figuratively … because he was not. We know that early Christians were accused by some of cannibalisim … because they were eating meat and drinking their blood for the Christian meetings (services).
The Eucharist was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper. He has explained many times during his time with us was that his body and blood that must be consumed … then at the last supper took bread and said: "This is my body" that took wine and said "this is my blood" and the apostles understood what he meant. In order to fulfill their orders in John 6 that used the bread and wine as he had told them.
We not only Holy Scripture, but tradition and authority of Christ. As a 3-legged stool of all these things combine to make the Church. The stool can not stand on one leg … is due to the three. Therefore, in everything we know and understand the teaching should be according to scripture, tradition and magesterium together.
The Eucharist is partly what we know about writing and what we know about the tradition. Moreover, we know that was practiced by the Fathers of the Church … the first Christians, so we magesterium … or authority. All three agree that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.
Do not have a statue of him in Rome, or something? It's probably rock.