The "eucharist" is unbiblical

[Delta4Embassy]

you are seriously going to argue that partaking the flesh and blood of Christ in the manner He showed the disciples during the last supper is unbiblical?

I'm sure you could make an argument for transubstantiation, but communion itself? Not likely . Especially since the catholic piece you cited cited the scriptures.

Catholics might be incorrect on some matters but partaking the blood and body of Christ isn't one of them

Someone'll have to show me where in the Jewish Messianic prophecies it says we're supposed to eat/symbollicly eat the Messiah.

 

[turzovka]

you are seriously going to argue that partaking the flesh and blood of Christ in the manner He showed the disciples during the last supper is unbiblical?

I'm sure you could make an argument for transubstantiation, but communion itself? Not likely . Especially since the catholic piece you cited cited the scriptures.

Catholics might be incorrect on some matters but partaking the blood and body of Christ isn't one of them

Someone'll have to show me where in the Jewish Messianic prophecies it says we're supposed to eat/symbollicly eat the Messiah.

Shameless Popery Five Ways the Old Testament Foreshadowed the Eucharist

Irrespective if you agree with those interpretations or not, there are many, many references to Jesus Christ in the Old Testament as well. That, alone, is enough to struggle with.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

you are seriously going to argue that partaking the flesh and blood of Christ in the manner He showed the disciples during the last supper is unbiblical?

I'm sure you could make an argument for transubstantiation, but communion itself? Not likely . Especially since the catholic piece you cited cited the scriptures.

Catholics might be incorrect on some matters but partaking the blood and body of Christ isn't one of them

Someone'll have to show me where in the Jewish Messianic prophecies it says we're supposed to eat/symbollicly eat the Messiah.

Shameless Popery Five Ways the Old Testament Foreshadowed the Eucharist

Irrespective if you agree with those interpretations or not, there are many, many references to Jesus Christ in the Old Testament as well. That, alone, is enough to struggle with.

There are in fact zero references to Jesus in the OT. There are many references to a prophecized Messiah, but Jesus wasn't that Messiah. Any Bible version that has "Jesus" in the OT is a pathetic bastardized version translated by morons desparate to rewrite history.

I think deep down Christians understand they're religion's a sham, but continue on since by and large there's always enough fellow fools that no one brings up what a load it all is. Surround yourself with people who always agree with you and never question the endless contradictions and you never have reason to ask "If Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, why are we Christians?"

 

[turzovka]

you are seriously going to argue that partaking the flesh and blood of Christ in the manner He showed the disciples during the last supper is unbiblical?

I'm sure you could make an argument for transubstantiation, but communion itself? Not likely . Especially since the catholic piece you cited cited the scriptures.

Catholics might be incorrect on some matters but partaking the blood and body of Christ isn't one of them

Someone'll have to show me where in the Jewish Messianic prophecies it says we're supposed to eat/symbollicly eat the Messiah.

Shameless Popery Five Ways the Old Testament Foreshadowed the Eucharist

Irrespective if you agree with those interpretations or not, there are many, many references to Jesus Christ in the Old Testament as well. That, alone, is enough to struggle with.

There are in fact zero references to Jesus in the OT. There are many references to a prophecized Messiah, but Jesus wasn't that Messiah. Any Bible version that has "Jesus" in the OT is a pathetic bastardized version translated by morons desparate to rewrite history.

I think deep down Christians understand they're religion's a sham, but continue on since by and large there's always enough fellow fools that no one brings up what a load it all is. Surround yourself with people who always agree with you and never question the endless contradictions and you never have reason to ask "If Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, why are we Christians?"

You are simply a mountain too high to conquer. Believe whatever you may.

But know this. There have been thousands of miracles and manifestations since the Resurrection that testify to the truth. There is nothing remotely comparable in any other religion to those of Catholic nature. The Virgin Mary alone stands in your way.

 

[hobelim]

Someone'll have to show me where in the Jewish Messianic prophecies it says we're supposed to eat/symbollicly eat the Messiah.

“All you who are thirsty, come to the water!
You without money, come, buy, and eat!
Yes, come! Buy wine and milk
without money — it’s free!
Why spend money for what isn’t food,
your wages for what doesn’t satisfy?
Listen carefully to me, and you will eat well,
you will enjoy the fat of the land.
Open your ears, and come to me;
listen well, and you will live — isaiah 55 1-3

for some reason many Christians, and Jews, haven't made the connection to this prophecy when Jesus said to eat his flesh and instead have become diverted by archaic and superstitious lore..


"I will force your oppressors to eat their own flesh and make them drunk with their own blood as if with new wine."

"I have not come to bring peace but a sword."

"Take from my hand this cup of fiery wine and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. When they have drunk it they will vomit and go mad; such is the sword that I am sending among them."

"From his mouth there went a sharp sword with which to smite the nations."

"Take this cup of wine and drink of it. This is a cup of my blood, the blood of the covenant."

"Just art thou in these thy judgments thou Holy One who art and wast; for they shed the blood of thy people and of thy prophets and thou hast given them blood to drink"

 

[ninja007]

Transubstantiation is unorthodox and violates Apostolic tradition:

Roman Catholics and Orthodox misrepresent the historical development of Transubstantiation, since its invention was no sooner than the third century. After all, Transubstantiation only became official Catholic doctrine in 1215 AD, with Pope Innocent III, in the Fourth Lateran Council. So before 200 AD, when writers said that the unleavened grape juice and bread were the body and blood of Christ, they were merely borrowing the words of Christ: "This is my body" etc. It is clear, however, that the church understood this in the symbolic sense, not in the later false doctrine of Transubstantiation.
Here are the historical records that are usually never quoted by Roman Catholic and Orthodox writers because they know it destroys their case.

1. Justin Martyr (150 AD):
Justin Martyr would reject transubstantiation because he referred to the unleavened bread as a "remembrance of His being made flesh", not that the bread was the literal body. He also referred to the unleavened juice as "in remembrance of His own blood" not that the juice was the literal blood of Christ:
"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [Isa 33:13-19] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70)2. Irenaeus (180 AD):

Irenaeus refutes the Gnostics on the basis that the Lord would not use "evil material things" like bread and juice in the Lord's Supper. Had Irenaeus argued that the bread and juice Transubstantiated (changed) into something different from what they appear, the Gnostics would have agreed, saying this change was essential because Jesus did not have physical flesh either!
"Irenaeus has the realist terminology but not the realist thought. There is no conversion of the elements. Indeed, if there were any change in the substance of the elements, his argument that our bodies-in reality, not in appearance-are raised would be subverted." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)3. Tertullian (200 AD):

Tertullian comes right out and states that the bread is a mere symbol of the body of Christ and specifically refutes the Gnostics on this basis:
"Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)4. Cyprian (200 AD):

Augustine as late at 400 AD, quotes Cyprian as saying that the juice is offered in remembrance as a type and foreshadow of the blood of Christ:
""Observe" he (Cyprian) says, in presenting the cup, to maintain the custom handed down to us from the Lord, and to do nothing that our Lord has not first done for us: so that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be mixed with wine. For, as Christ says, 'I am the true vine,' it follows that the blood of Christ is wine, not water; and the cup cannot appear to contain His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened, if the wine be absent; for by the wine is the blood of Christ typified, that blood which is foreshadowed and proclaimed in all the types and declarations of Scripture." (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book 4, ch 21, quoting Cyprian)
The same situation prevails in the writings of Tertullian and Cyprian: ... both men when they speak with precision distinguish the symbol from what it represents. The bread was a "figure" of the body. But Tertullian turns the word figura against the Docetism of Marcion (IX.6). The language of symbolism does not help those who deny a real body to Jesus. The bread would not be a figure unless there was first a true body of which it was a figure. There is no shadow without a substance to cast the shadow. Similarly, for Cyprian, literal language about drinking Christ's blood is balanced by language of "remembrance" (X.5) and "representation" (IX.7). Both symbolism and realism are present in the thought of Cyprian and Tertullian. The symbolism concerns bread and wine as signs. (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 115)4. Hippolytus (200 AD):

Hippolytus speaking of the Lord's Supper as an antitype based upon Prov 9:1:
"And she hath furnished her table: "that denotes the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity; it also refers to His honoured and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper. (Hippolytus, Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs 9:1)
For Hippolytus, too, the bread and wine are the antitypes or likenesses of the reality portrayed. His consecration prayer (VIII.5) contains both the words of institution and petition for the Holy Spirit. But there is no suggestion of a change in the elements. (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 115)

http://www.bible.ca/ntx-communion-tr...tantiation.htm

 

[turzovka]

Transubstantiation is unorthodox and violates Apostolic tradition:

Roman Catholics and Orthodox misrepresent the historical development of Transubstantiation, since its invention was no sooner than the third century. After all, Transubstantiation only became official Catholic doctrine in 1215 AD, with Pope Innocent III, in the Fourth Lateran Council. So before 200 AD, when writers said that the unleavened grape juice and bread were the body and blood of Christ, they were merely borrowing the words of Christ: "This is my body" etc. It is clear, however, that the church understood this in the symbolic sense, not in the later false doctrine of Transubstantiation.
Here are the historical records that are usually never quoted by Roman Catholic and Orthodox writers because they know it destroys their case.

1. Justin Martyr (150 AD):
Justin Martyr would reject transubstantiation because he referred to the unleavened bread as a "remembrance of His being made flesh", not that the bread was the literal body. He also referred to the unleavened juice as "in remembrance of His own blood" not that the juice was the literal blood of Christ:
"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [Isa 33:13-19] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70)2. Irenaeus (180 AD):

Irenaeus refutes the Gnostics on the basis that the Lord would not use "evil material things" like bread and juice in the Lord's Supper. Had Irenaeus argued that the bread and juice Transubstantiated (changed) into something different from what they appear, the Gnostics would have agreed, saying this change was essential because Jesus did not have physical flesh either!
"Irenaeus has the realist terminology but not the realist thought. There is no conversion of the elements. Indeed, if there were any change in the substance of the elements, his argument that our bodies-in reality, not in appearance-are raised would be subverted." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)3. Tertullian (200 AD):

Tertullian comes right out and states that the bread is a mere symbol of the body of Christ and specifically refutes the Gnostics on this basis:
"Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)4. Cyprian (200 AD):

Augustine as late at 400 AD, quotes Cyprian as saying that the juice is offered in remembrance as a type and foreshadow of the blood of Christ:
""Observe" he (Cyprian) says, in presenting the cup, to maintain the custom handed down to us from the Lord, and to do nothing that our Lord has not first done for us: so that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be mixed with wine. For, as Christ says, 'I am the true vine,' it follows that the blood of Christ is wine, not water; and the cup cannot appear to contain His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened, if the wine be absent; for by the wine is the blood of Christ typified, that blood which is foreshadowed and proclaimed in all the types and declarations of Scripture." (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book 4, ch 21, quoting Cyprian)
The same situation prevails in the writings of Tertullian and Cyprian: ... both men when they speak with precision distinguish the symbol from what it represents. The bread was a "figure" of the body. But Tertullian turns the word figura against the Docetism of Marcion (IX.6). The language of symbolism does not help those who deny a real body to Jesus. The bread would not be a figure unless there was first a true body of which it was a figure. There is no shadow without a substance to cast the shadow. Similarly, for Cyprian, literal language about drinking Christ's blood is balanced by language of "remembrance" (X.5) and "representation" (IX.7). Both symbolism and realism are present in the thought of Cyprian and Tertullian. The symbolism concerns bread and wine as signs. (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 115)4. Hippolytus (200 AD):

Hippolytus speaking of the Lord's Supper as an antitype based upon Prov 9:1:
"And she hath furnished her table: "that denotes the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity; it also refers to His honoured and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper. (Hippolytus, Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs 9:1)
For Hippolytus, too, the bread and wine are the antitypes or likenesses of the reality portrayed. His consecration prayer (VIII.5) contains both the words of institution and petition for the Holy Spirit. But there is no suggestion of a change in the elements. (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 115)

http://www.bible.ca/ntx-communion-tr...tantiation.htm

remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19)
Holy Communion

'One of the most admirable effects of Holy Communion is to preserve the soul from sin, and to help those who fall through weakness to rise again. It is much more profitable, then, to approach this divine Sacrament with love, respect, and confidence, than to remain away through an excess of fear and scrupulosity.'
--St. Ignatius of Loyola

If it is "daily bread," why do you take it once a year? . . . Take daily what is to profit you daily. Live in such a way that you may deserve to receive it daily. He who does not deserve to receive it daily, does not deserve to receive it once a year.
--St. Ambrose of Milan

"When the bee has gathered the dew of heaven and the earth's sweetest nectar from the flowers, it turns it into honey, then hastens to its hive. In the same way, the priest, having taken from the altar the Son of God (who is as the dew from heaven, and true son of Mary, flower of our humanity), gives him to you as delicious food."
--St. Francis de Sales

If someone knows from experience that daily Communion increases fervor without lessening reverence, then let him go every day. But if someone finds that reverence is lessened and devotion not much increased, then let him sometimes abstain, so as to draw near afterwards with better dispositions.
--St. Thomas Aquinas

"When you approach the tabernacle remember that he has been waiting for you for twenty centuries."
--St. Josemaria Escriva

"With all the strength of my soul I urge you young people to approach the Communion table as often as you can. Feed on this bread of angels whence you will draw all the energy you need to fight inner battles. Because true happiness, dear friends, does not consist in the pleasures of the world or in earthly things, but in peace of conscience, which we have only if we are pure in heart and mind."
--Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati

"Always remain close to the Catholic Church, because it alone can give you true peace, since it alone possesses Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, the true Prince of Peace."
--St. Padre Pio

Every morning during meditation, I prepare myself for the whole day's struggle. Holy Communion assures me that I will win the victory; and so it is. I fear the day when I do not receive Holy Communion. This bread of the Strong gives me all the strength I need to carry on my mission and the courage to do whatever the Lord asks of me. The courage and strength that are in me are not of me, but of Him who lives in me - it is the Eucharist.
--St. Faustina

"All the good works in the world are not equal to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass because they are the works of men; but the Mass is the work of God. Martyrdom is nothing in comparison for it is but the sacrifice of man to God; but the Mass is the sacrifice of God for man."
--St. John Vianney, Cure d'Ars


"Many Christians take their time and have leisure enough in their social life (no hurry here). They are leisurely, too, in their professionally activities, at table and recreation (no hurry here either). But isn't it strange how those same Christians find themselves in such a rush and want to hurry the priest, in their anxiety to shorten the time devoted to the most holy sacrifice of the altar?"
--St. Josemaria Escriva

"We must understand that in order 'to do', we must first learn 'to be', that is to say, in the sweet company of Jesus in adoration."
--Pope John Paul II

"Of all devotions, that of adoring Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is the greatest after the sacraments, the one dearest to God and the one most helpful to us."
--St. Alphonsus Liguori

"If angels could be jealous of men, they would be so for one reason: Holy Communion."
--St. Maximilian Kolbe

"You come to me and unite Yourself intimately to me under the form of nourishment. Your Blood now runs in mine, Your Soul, Incarnate God, compenetrates mine, giving courage and support. What miracles! Who would have ever imagined such!"
--St. Maximilian Kolbe


"O Lord, we cannot go to the pool of Siloe to which you sent the blind man. But we have the chalice of Your Precious Blood, filled with life and light. The purer we are, the more we receive."
--St. Ephraem


"Jesus has made Himself the Bread of Life to give us life. Night and day, He is there. If you really want to grow in love, come back to the Eucharist, come back to that Adoration."
--Mother Teresa

I desire to unite Myself to human souls, Know, My daughter, that when I come to a human heart in Holy Communion, My hands are full of all kinds of graces which I want to give to the soul. But souls do not even pay any attention to Me; they leave Me to Myself and busy themselves with other things...They treat Me as a dead object. (1385)
Now you shall consider My love in the Blessed Sacrament. Here, I am entirely yours, soul, body and divinity, as your Bridegroom. You know what love demands: one thing only, reciprocity...(1770)
--St Faustina, Divine Mercy in my Soul

"If we but paused for a moment to consider attentively what takes place in this Sacrament, I am sure that the thought of Christ's love for us would transform the coldness of our hearts into a fire of love and gratitude."
--St. Angela of Foligno

"Christ held Himself in His hands when He gave His Body to His disciples saying: 'This is My Body.' No one partakes of this Flesh before he has adored it."
--St. Augustine

"Recognize in this bread what hung on the cross, and in this chalice what flowed from His side... whatever was in many and varied ways announced beforehand in the sacrifices of the Old Testament pertains to this one sacrifice which is revealed in the New Testament."
--St. Augustine, Sermon 3, 2; circa A.D. 410 {original translation}

God's priest should approach the celebration and reception of this Sacrament with the deepest humility of heart and suppliant reverence, with complete faith and the pious intention of giving honor to God.
--Imitation of Christ


"What wonderful majesty! What stupendous condescension! O sublime humility! That the Lord of the whole universe, God and the Son of God, should humble Himself like this under the form of a little bread, for our salvation"

"...In this world I cannot see the Most High Son of God with my own eyes, except for His Most Holy Body and Blood."
--St. Francis of Assisi


Any devout person may at any hour on any day receive Christ in spiritual communion profitably and without hindrance. Yet on certain days and times appointed he ought to receive with affectionate reverence the Body of his Redeemer in this Sacrament, seeking the praise and honor of God rather than his own consolation.
--Imitation of Christ

"When you have received Him, stir up your heart to do Him homage; speak to Him about your spiritual life, gazing upon Him in your soul where He is present for your happiness; welcome Him as warmly as possible, and behave outwardly in such a way that your actions may give proof to all of His Presence."
--St. Francis de Sales

"Do grant, oh my God, that when my lips approach Yours to kiss You, I may taste the gall that was given to You; when my shoulders lean against Yours, make me feel Your scourging; when my flesh is united with Yours, in the Holy Eucharist, make me feel Your passion; when my head comes near Yours, make me feel Your thorns; when my heart is close to Yours, make me feel Your spear."
--St. Gemma Galgani

I hunger for the bread of God, the flesh of Jesus Christ ...; I long to drink of his blood, the gift of unending love.
--St. Ignatius of Antioch


"If Christ did not want to dismiss the Jews without food in the desert for fear that they would collapse on the way, it was to teach us that it is dangerous to try to get to heaven without the Bread of Heaven."
--St. Jerome

"How many of you say: I should like to see His face, His garments, His shoes. You do see Him, you touch Him, you eat Him. He gives Himself to you, not only that you may see Him, but also to be your food and nourishment."
--St. John Chrysostom

"Do you realize that Jesus is there in the tabernacle expressly for you - for you alone? He burns with the desire to come into your heart...don't listen to the demon, laugh at him, and go without fear to receive the Jesus of peace and love...

"Receive Communion often, very often...there you have the sole remedy, if you want to be cured. Jesus has not put this attraction in your heart for nothing..."

"The guest of our soul knows our misery; He comes to find an empty tent within us - that is all He asks."
--St. Therese of Lisieux


"I throw myself at the foot of the Tabernacle like a dog at the foot of his Master."
--St. John Vianney

"This supernatural bread and this consecrated chalice are for the health and salvation of mankind."
--St. Cyprian

"In the Mass the blood of Christ flows anew for sinners."
--St. Augustine

"There is no prayer or good work so great, so pleasing to God, so useful to us as the Mass."
--St. Lawrence Justinian

"When the Mass is being celebrated, the sanctuary is filled with countless angels, who adore the Divine Victim immolated on the altar."—St. John Chrysostom
"God dwells in our midst, in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar." "He remains among us until the end of the world. He dwells on so many altars, though so often offended and profaned."
"The culmination of the Mass is not the consecration, but Communion."
--St. Maximilian Kolbe

"The Blessed Sacrament is indeed the stimulus for us all, for me as it should be for you, to forsake all worldly ambitions. Without the constant presence of our Divine Master upon the altar in my poor chapels, I never could have persevered casting my lot with the lepers of Molokai; the foreseen consequence of which begins now to appear on my skin, and is felt throughout the body. Holy Communion being the daily bread of a priest, I feel myself happy, well pleased, and resigned in the rather exceptional circumstances in which it has pleased Divine Providence to put me."
--Blessed Fr. Damien, Apostle of the Lepers

'The devotion to the Eucharist is the most noble, because it has God as its object; it is the most profitable for salvation, because it gives us the Author of Grace; it is the sweetest, because the Lord is Sweetness Itself.'
--Pope St. Pius X

"When we work hard, we must eat well. What a joy, that you can receive Holy Communion often! It's our life and support in this life -- Receive Communion often, and Jesus will change you into himself."
--Saint Peter Julian Eymard

"Have a great love for Jesus in his divine Sacrament of Love; that is the divine oasis of the desert. It is the heavenly manna of the traveller. It is the Holy Ark. It is the life and Paradise of love on earth."
--Saint Peter Julian Eymard

"Live on the divine Eucharist, like the Hebrews did on the Manna. Your soul can be entirely dedicated to the divine Eucharist and very holy in the midst of your work and contacts with the world."
--Saint Peter Julian Eymard

'He said: This is my Body; therefore the Eucharist is not the figure of his Body and Blood, as some have said, talking nonsense in their stupid minds, but it is in very truth the Blood and Body of Christ.'
--St. Macarius the Great


How kind is our Sacramental Jesus! He welcomes you at any hour of the day or night. His Love never knows rest. He is always most gentle towards you. When you visit Him, He forgets your sins and speaks only of His joy, His tenderness, and His Love. By the reception He gives to you, one would think He has need of you to make Him happy.
--Saint Peter Julian Eymard


"Be the apostle of the divine Eucharist, like a flame which enlightens and warms, like the Angel of his heart who will go to proclaim him to those who don’t know him and will encourage those who love him and are suffering."
--Saint Peter Julian Eymard

 

[saveliberty]

the "eucharist" was a man made invention in the RCC. Jesus was speaking symbolically at the Last Supper- He was still alive.

The priest is reading from the Bible every time he consecrates the host. He is saying Jesus' words, word for word. Are you saying Jesus is a liar?

DO THIS IN memory OF ME.

...and any issues with remembering Christ on a regular basis?

 

[Avatar4321]

we are supposed to do it in memory of Him. Yet it's unbiblical.

 

[Avatar4321]

we are supposed to do it in memory of Him. Yet it's unbiblical.

 

[turzovka]

we are supposed to do it in memory of Him. Yet it's unbiblical.

Sorry. To say it is unbiblical is a serious rush to judgment. John 6 alone does not align itself with such a conclusion. To say it is unbiblical is tantamount to saying the Catholic Church practices sacrilege and idolatry. It is tantamount to saying that God allow the Catholic Church to error egregiously in its dogmas for 1500 years and mislead the faithful before starting some “new church” and giving them the proper teachings. It gets even worse than that. Plus all the great saints have been lied to or are lying to us. None of this makes any sense, nor does it resemble the nature of a good and caring God.

Not to mention, scores of Eucharistic miracles have been well documented. Here is merely one.

Eucharistic Miracle Lanciano, Italy 8th Century A.D.

Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk's doubt about Jesus' Real Presence in the Eucharist.

During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.

The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back.

The Blood is coagulated and has an earthy color resembling the yellow of ochre.

Various ecclesiastical investigation ("Recognitions") were conducted since 1574.

In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs. These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

• The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
• The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
• The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
• In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
• The Flesh is a "HEART" complete in its essential structure.
• The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).
• In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
• In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
• The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

 

[hobelim]

• The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
• The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
• The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
• In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
• The Flesh is a "HEART" complete in its essential structure.
• The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).
• In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
• In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
• The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

"I have not come to bring peace but a sword."

"Take from my hand this cup of fiery wine and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. When they have drunk it they will vomit and go mad; such is the sword that I am sending among them."

"From his mouth there went a sharp sword with which to smite the nations."

"Take this cup of wine and drink of it. This is a cup of my blood, the blood of the covenant."

"Just art thou in these thy judgments thou Holy One who art and wast; for they shed the blood of thy people and of thy prophets and thou hast given them blood to drink"

 

[turzovka]

• The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.
• The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
• The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.
• In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.
• The Flesh is a "HEART" complete in its essential structure.
• The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).
• In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
• In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
• The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

"I have not come to bring peace but a sword."

"Take from my hand this cup of fiery wine and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. When they have drunk it they will vomit and go mad; such is the sword that I am sending among them."

"From his mouth there went a sharp sword with which to smite the nations."

"Take this cup of wine and drink of it. This is a cup of my blood, the blood of the covenant."

"Just art thou in these thy judgments thou Holy One who art and wast; for they shed the blood of thy people and of thy prophets and thou hast given them blood to drink"

Strong words from Jeremiah 25 you have cited, but can it be applied universally to all sinners and all times? I hope not. As far as the Holy Eucharist is concerned, here however, St. Paul speaks of partaking in the sacrament unworthily.

http://www.cuf.org/2009/05/faith-facts-worthy-reception-of-holy-communion/

St. Paul does not consider liturgical abuses to be a trivial matter, for they violate the sacredness of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which shows forth Christ’s death again and again until the end of time (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23-26). In particular, unworthy reception of Holy Communion profanes the Body and Blood of the Lord. “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (1 Cor. 11:27-30).

 

[Blackrook]

ninja, please stop your endless attacks on the Catholic Church. We are brothers and sisters in Christ, and we should act like it.

 

[ninja007]

we are supposed to do it in memory of Him. Yet it's unbiblical.

it is unbiblical the way RCC do it and others. In memory of HIM, YES. Memory is entirely diff. then the "real" presence where a sinful man (Priest) supposedly calls Jesus down from Heaven millions of times a week to be "resacrificed" over and over in the "flesh".

 

[ninja007]

ninja, please stop your endless attacks on the Catholic Church. We are brothers and sisters in Christ, and we should act like it.

Because you a RC and go to Church every Sunday you are a brother or sister in Jesus? No- only those who are BORN AGAIN are my brothers and sisters.

 

[ninja007]

Jesus made a ONE TIME PERFECT SACRIFICE. ONE TIME. IT IS FINISHED.

 

[ninja007]

you are seriously going to argue that partaking the flesh and blood of Christ in the manner He showed the disciples during the last supper is unbiblical?

I'm sure you could make an argument for transubstantiation, but communion itself? Not likely . Especially since the catholic piece you cited cited the scriptures.

Catholics might be incorrect on some matters but partaking the blood and body of Christ isn't one of them

Someone'll have to show me where in the Jewish Messianic prophecies it says we're supposed to eat/symbollicly eat the Messiah.

Shameless Popery Five Ways the Old Testament Foreshadowed the Eucharist

Irrespective if you agree with those interpretations or not, there are many, many references to Jesus Christ in the Old Testament as well. That, alone, is enough to struggle with.

There are in fact zero references to Jesus in the OT. There are many references to a prophecized Messiah, but Jesus wasn't that Messiah. Any Bible version that has "Jesus" in the OT is a pathetic bastardized version translated by morons desparate to rewrite history.

I think deep down Christians understand they're religion's a sham, but continue on since by and large there's always enough fellow fools that no one brings up what a load it all is. Surround yourself with people who always agree with you and never question the endless contradictions and you never have reason to ask "If Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, why are we Christians?"

You are simply a mountain too high to conquer. Believe whatever you may.

But know this. There have been thousands of miracles and manifestations since the Resurrection that testify to the truth. There is nothing remotely comparable in any other religion to those of Catholic nature. The Virgin Mary alone stands in your way.

LOL! Satan performs miracles every day. You want a sign! Just like the PHARISEES DID!



John 4:48 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
"Unless you people see signs and wonders," Jesus told him, "you will never believe.

 

[ninja007]

the "eucharist" was a man made invention in the RCC. Jesus was speaking symbolically at the Last Supper- He was still alive.

Jesus (God) not capable of sharing Himself? Not able to be in two or more places at once?

Most protestants clutch he Bible as the be all and end all of God's messages to mankind. Of course this is absolutely untrue, but for the sake of Protestantism let's say that it is. Then my question is how can you dance around the sixth chapter of John? You know that Jesus was being literal, NOT SYMBOLIC, when he spoke of the absolute importance of partaking in eating his flesh and drinking his blood. If it were meant to be symbolic it would have been understood that way. But as Scripture said, many Jews and others were totally turned off by that teaching and abandoned him on the spot. Because they knew he meant it literally.

You might also want to research how many Eucharistic miracles there are that have manifested a supernatural presence. St. Catherine of Siena lived on Holy Communion only for the last four years of her life. Either she was a saint or the work of the devil (and woe to them who call the works of the Holy Spirit to be that of the evil one.)

Jesus gave certain disciples of his only, to have the authority to forgive sins or hold them bound. Does that trouble you as well? He also made clear of the authority of thee Church he established. I give THEE the keys of the kingdom. Whatsoever you hold bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven!

All kinds of authority there to interpret and to rule. You really need not spend too much of your valued time on earth trying to discredit Catholicism. The harvest is great but the laborers are few.

AND THERE IS YOUR MISTAKE. Jesus is the rock, not Peter. Jesus built the Church on the foundation- HIMSELF, not a sinful apostle. Peter had no more authority than the others.

 

[ninja007]

PETER THE ROCK THAT AGES OR JESUS THE ROCK OF AGES


There is no indication of Peter being the prime Bishop in Rome or Rome as the governmental center for the whole Church. In 50 A.D. Claudius commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. “…Since the Jews were continually making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome…” (Suetonius 75-160 A.D. Suet. Vita Claudii . xxv. 4 ) This would include Peter who was an apostle to the Jews. If Peter was obedient he would have left with the Jews that were expelled as his commission was to reach them. If not he would have been killed with the other Jews.

When Paul writes to the Romans in 58 A.D. He does not address the letter to Peter nor does he even make mention of him, although he takes the time to list 27 other names to greet. Paul does not refer to Peter in any of his 4 letters written from a Roman prison 60-61 A.D. (Eph. Col. Phil. Philemon) Why is this?

Most Agree that Babylon was code word for Rome (see Rev.17:1-9, 18:10,21)Peter writes
1 Pet 5:13 “She who is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you “ If Peter is writing from Rome then he is calling it Babylon. It would be hard to accept him ruling over Babylon. What does this mean if it is applied today?

Jerusalem, Judea was the center of the Jewish church of which Peter was the apostle to. The first 15 chapters of Acts and the book of Galatians we see Peters ministry to Jerusalem and surrounding areas until 45 A.D. We find that it was Paul who was sent to the gentiles, the other apostles said they would stay with the Jews (this includes Peter). Rome was a long ways from Jerusalem and was never considered a Jewish province. It was Paul who went out (with Barnabas and Mark) to the gentiles, the other apostles stayed in the area of their brethren. In Acts 15 we see multiple leaders of the Jerusalem church meet. When a dispute arose, Paul initiated a meeting. They gathered in Jerusalem church which James the Lords half brother was in charge and Peter was just one of the many elders. (James is called the brother of Jesus. In Gal.1:19 Jude calls himself the brother of James. These are the same brothers mentioned as Mary's family that came to find Jesus several times Mt.13:55 and Mk.6:2-3 <RC5.htm>). James had the leadership role stating “Wherefore my sentence is on his declaration the letter was sent back to Antioch. Acts 16:4 “ they delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.” Notice it was decided by all not one, not by James and not Peter, and it was not in Rome. There was no doctrine incorporated by the Roman church found in the Bible.

Lets not forget who actually wrote the majority of the New Testament. In Scripture Peter wrote 2 letters, Paul wrote 12. We find that Peters 2nd letter was not fully accepted as inspired for a long time which certainly conflicts with him being the Pope, the head of the Church. Writing an inspired letter that is in scripture would not be questioned by the mother church for they would validate it. (The Gospel of Peter was rejected as also the Apocalypse of Peter -probably forgeries). Who decided this letter was to be included? Certainly not the church Peter was ruling over otherwise there would have been no delay.(canonizing the bible <RC15.htm>)


In Acts 18:2 it writes that Emperor Claudius commanded all the Jews to leave Rome, this would have included Peter. Unless of course he stayed, he would then be executed for disobeying (some say he did die in Rome which means he couldn't have been a Pope over the whole Church). In 2 Timothy written from Rome just before Paul was martyred he writes, “Only Luke is with me” (2 Tim. 4:11). So there is no biblical justification for a Papacy and a single church ruling from Rome over all the church.

Church historian Michael Walsh in the illustrated history of the Popes, ...Papal authority as it is now exercised, with its accompanying doctrine of Papal infallibility, cannot be found in theories about the Papal role expressed by early Popes and other Christians the first 500 years, Philip Schaff one of the greatest church historians writes the oldest links in the chain of Roman bishops are veiled in impenetrable darkness.

The Pope is considered the head of the Church (Catechism 883) the Bible teaches something quite different. Eph. 5:23 “Christ is head of the church”;Col.1:17-18 “And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He (Christ) is the head of the body, the church.” We can be deceived if we are “not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.”( Col. 2:19) Our spiritual growth is not dependent on the Church but Christ as the head.

The Pope is called the only authority over the church (Catechism 816). We find Peter considered himself a fellow elder (one among many) and is treated this way throughout scripture( 1 Pt.5:1-2). He is not the apostle overall the other apostles. In Peters 2nd epistle he states he is an apostle, not THE apostle. While Roman Catholics point to his name being first all the time this is simply not so in (although it often is). In Gal.2:9 he is named as one of the pillars, not THE pillar, and James is mentioned first and John last. Leadership in the New Testament is always plural, never singular. Peter makes no unique claims for himself but calls himself an eyewitness with the other apostles 2 Pt.1:16. So one cannot find this coming from his own mouth.

The subject of the papacy is one of great importance, claiming to be the “Vicar of Christ,” is the very foundation of Romanism. Without it, Roman Catholic Church cannot be what she is today. ( there can be no apostolic succession because it is from Peter). It is on this doctrine to keep in mind that the Romanism today stands or falls.

The word Petra for rock is used 16 times in the New Testament. 11 times of a massive cliff rock, a bedrock, 5 times symbolically of Christ himself. (EX.1 Cor.10:4 The rock in the wilderness is Christ)

The name Peter (Petros) a masculine noun means small rock or stone. In Mt. 16:18 is the first time it is used saying “I will build my church”, a future event when the Spirit is sent and the body of Christ is formed. Jesus said “ I say unto you ,you are Peter (Petros) and upon this Rock (Petra feminine noun meaning a massive rock) I will build my church.” First we see who the rock is, second we see it is Jesus building the church not Peter. it is Jesus who states I will build my church, he protects it and gives increase to it. When we think about a foundation for a building it needs to be reliable, this comes through testing. There is only one who the Bible speaks as the rock that cannot be moved, that is Christ. All one has to do is look at Peter and we find he was moved numerous times showing he cannot be the foundation of the Church. The church is built upon the rock, Christ.

If Jesus were actually referring to Peter as the rock, Jesus would not have used the MASCULINE word petros for the rock. Jesus instead used a different Greek word for “this rock” a FEMININE word petra indicating something other than Peter. Since the Holy Spirit guided the apostles writings into all truth we should expect the precise words used to convey the meaning (John 14:26; 16:13). Arguments such as they spoke in Aramaic don't hold up either. Maybe they did speak this language but it was written in the Greek and therefore the distinction. The ones that were there and heard what Jesus said wrote it in Greek.

The Scripture also states the Church is also built upon the foundation of the apostles who were connected directly to Christ (Eph 2:20). The first stones of that building (the church) were laid next to the chief cornerstone (the rock) by their ministry. We find their names written in the foundations of the new Jerusalem, (Rev. 21:14). Notice they are collectively together, nowhere do we find Peter separately. Petros means a (piece of) rock; but the Scripture is saying very clearly Peter is related to the Rock because of his confession, not the rock himself. And he is not the only one to have this confession. The true rock (Petra) is massive. For the Church to spread throughout the world this rock it is built upon must be large enough to extend throughout the world and through time to support the Church. The word “church” literally means “those called out,” from the world. it can be applied to the church visible- or invisible, i.e., all those who are real Christians, a visible assembly or an “unassembled assembly” a spiritual house that is sometimes visible.

It was not Peter who was the rock, for the Old Testament of which both he and Paul both agree on explains who the rock is. Ps.18:31: “For who is our God except the Lord and who is our rock except our God. who is the church built on? Throughout the Old Testament the rock was synonymous with God 2 Sam 22:32: “For who is God, except the LORD? And who is a rock, except our God? Deut 32:15: “Israel forsook God who made him, and scornfully esteemed the Rock of his salvation.” Deut 32:18: “Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful, and have forgotten the God who fathered you.” Ps. 62:2: “He only is my rock and my salvation” Ps. 95:1: “calls God, “ the Rock of our salvation.” In 1 Cor.3:10 Paul claims to as a master builder saying there is no other foundation that can be laid, which is Jesus Christ. Christ is the one we build on and if built on any other, it will not endure the fire of testing for our work. “If anyone’s work which he has built on endures, he will receive a reward”(1 Cor.3:14). Paul's statement is No human being was ever referred to as a rock in the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures, neither are they found in the New Testament. The “Rock” (stone, cornerstone) is reserved only for Jesus Christ (Matt 21:42; Isa. 28:16; Cor. 3:11; 10:4; Eph 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6-8).

Isa. 44:8: “Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one.” This should settle any idea of anyone else being called the foundation stone for the Church.

Moses was told by the Lord in Exod. 17:6: “Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock in Horeb; and you shall strike the rock, and water will come out of it, that the people may drink.” Paul using the Old Testament example explains in 1 Cor. 10:4: “and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” In the New Testament it is the same rock.

The altars built in the Old Testament were a type of the rock who was God. They were altars of offering and sacrifice, the rock that was laid in Zion was the foundation stone and the Church was built on this rock, a offering and sacrifice. The Church is made of those who confess just as Peter (through revelation) that he was the Son of the living God, God the savior. This is why they were told not to tell others what Peter had said, but to allow others to come to this conclusion on their own.

For one to confess this it means that they also believe in the gospel to save them. Not a Church , sacraments, baptism or any other thing. But the gospel itself instantly and gloriously transfers God's mercy to the sinner by admitting his guilt and believing on the saviors work. (1 Cor.15:1-4)

Matt 7:2:4 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock.” The saying were pointing to the Messiah, to act on what he said was to build on the foundation of the rock. Is this Peter? No of course not, it is Christ (Lk.20:17-19 tells us it is Jesus who is the rock).

Who would know better than anyone else what Jesus meant? Peter right! Lets see how Peter interprets what the church now claims is applied to him.1 Pt.2:6 Peter quotes this verse of Rom.9:33 which is from Isa.28:16. The Old Testament was written in the Hebrew language and the rock refers to Christ, Paul agrees with Peter on the rock that stumbled Israel and uses the very same Old Testament scripture. Rom 9:31-33: “but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. As it is written: “Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, and whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

Is Peter the first Pope? When you read Peter's statement in context, one understands immediately what he is talking about, it is that simple. Roman Catholicism says the rock is Peter, Peter says otherwise. Peter, the very one to whom Jesus is speaking to states in 1 Pt.2:4 “Coming to Him (Christ) as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men. It was Christ we come to. Peter here tells every Christian that he is a small stone along with the rest of us vs.5,” built up into a spiritual “temple,” and Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone (the rock). Peter quotes Isaiah, the prophet, who was speaking of prophetically of the coming of The Messiah. This question must be explained by the Catholic. God Himself and has built the Church. If Peter really was the “cornerstone “Why didn't Isaiah say “Behold I lay in Rome a chief cornerstone?” Because it was laid in Zion not Rome.This crucial to understand where the authority lies. And what kind of a stone is he that wavers in his faith. So the rock couldn't possibly be Peter who is just man. Imagine no ekkleesia (Church) without Peter? Since when is God so dependent on one man to do his work? God has not entrusted any human being to build the ekkleesia or have it built on them. He built it upon HIMSELF, by Jesus Christ.

It is the stone that the builders rejected that became the chief cornerstone, the rock that the church is built on. As Peter says God laid in Zion a stone a chief cornerstone which is the foundation stone to the building, which is the Church. A cornerstone is a huge rock, this is the rock that Christ was speaking of. And it must be something that is eternal, a living stone to last through all the ages.

In 1 Pt.2:7, “Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious stone (Peter is not saying I am precious) and he who believes on him will by no means be put to shame.” Is this Peter we are to believe on? Peter goes on saying in v.7 “Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, “The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone, “and “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.” They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.” Who was rejected? Christ. What is the church built on? Christ. Who is one to believe on? Christ. Who do you trust and believe in? Christ. If one trusts in Peter they will be ashamed. Certainly not Peter nor any other apostle called themselves the foundation or had one to believe on them. we are told to believe on the stone, speaking of Christ. 1 Pt.5:4 Peter goes on to identify the chief shepherd as Jesus. Not himself!