Catholic FAQ


Help support Catholic Answers!

Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #31  
Old Feb 10, '12, 6:55 am
NotWorthy's Avatar
NotWorthy NotWorthy is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: May 10, 2005
Posts: 13,932
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

RJcash, I know that you refuse to see the Eucharist in John 6, but my friend, the Church has clearly seen the Eucharist in John 6, from the very 1st century. Bishops, who were disciples of the Apostle John (Ignatius), who spent extended periods of time with the Apostle John, saw the Eucharist very clearly in John 6. This teaching of the Church is the most consistent of any our teachings. To me, its a non-negotiable.

So, I'm really not concerned with what you see or don't see mentioned. But I tell you what.... break your comments on John 6 out and start a new thread. I don't have much time right now to rebut you, but I will over the weekend.
__________________
Follow your Dreams! Except for the ones where you're naked in Church!
  #32  
Old Feb 10, '12, 7:25 am
Luvtosew Luvtosew is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 1, 2009
Posts: 2,023
Religion: Christian
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Lets face it, a great majority of Catholics don't believe it either.
  #33  
Old Feb 10, '12, 7:34 am
Lochias Lochias is offline
 
Join Date: June 10, 2011
Posts: 4,121
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvtosew View Post
Lets face it, a great majority of Catholics don't believe it either.
Refusing to believe in something doesn't mean it's not true. Corrections have been pointed out in this thread, and are apparently being ignored. There's a lot of that that happens in the Bible, too. Again, doesn't mean the doubters are in the right just because many doubt.
  #34  
Old Feb 10, '12, 8:05 am
Luvtosew Luvtosew is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 1, 2009
Posts: 2,023
Religion: Christian
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lochias View Post
Refusing to believe in something doesn't mean it's not true. Corrections have been pointed out in this thread, and are apparently being ignored. There's a lot of that that happens in the Bible, too. Again, doesn't mean the doubters are in the right just because many doubt.
Believing it doesn't make it true either. We are free to believe what we want.

theres a lot of that that happends in the Bible has no meaning here, as Christians we are not doubters of Christ so that doesn't apply to us Chrisitans.
  #35  
Old Feb 10, '12, 8:40 am
adrift's Avatar
adrift adrift is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: October 28, 2005
Posts: 16,654
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvtosew View Post
Lets face it, a great majority of Catholics don't believe it either.
This statement canot be refuted nor can it be proved. I doubt that the "majority" don't believe. If they don't believe, than they are liars everytime they say AMEN when they receive since that is an affirmation that they do believe.
__________________


Hmmmmm. I know you think you understand what you thought I wrote, but I'm
not sure that what you saw is what I actually meant!
  #36  
Old Feb 10, '12, 8:40 am
in_servitude in_servitude is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2011
Posts: 722
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvtosew View Post
Believing it doesn't make it true either. We are free to believe what we want.
Regardless of what anyone says, we are subject to the Truth. Our statements do not change the Truth any more than two fleas arguing about the true nature of the animal they are on. I think there's a statement in the bible about how "teachers" are judged harshly. Those that lead people astray may have a difficult time with their judgement.

What does Luvtosew say about Lanciano? It was (and continues to be) a miracle that showed up right when the questions about the true nature of the Eucharist started to gain traction. I figure that a person that is trying to lead people away from the Eucharist would want to investigate the signs provided to us.
__________________
in servitude to our Master
  #37  
Old Feb 10, '12, 8:47 am
NeedImprovement's Avatar
NeedImprovement NeedImprovement is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2008
Posts: 5,555
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Okay , , I've just given you the benefit of the doubt, but for some reason, you still seem to be bent on arguing, rjcash .It doesn’t even appear you are always able to tell when people are agreeing with you – as demonstrated by your continuing to insist someone point out

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjcash View Post
"discourse on the Holy Eucharist in John, Chapter 6"

... 2. Also where it mentions wine?
You were given clarification by me , yet you're even trying to get Tim to bite on it - even though I'm the one who didn't write it ... ""Didn't", because you decided to make an inference - which appears to contradict the um ( kind counsel ??) you've given here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjcash View Post
... Deal with the text, not what you think it says!


I should think you might at least show everyone who you want to argue with , the respect of learning how to use the CAF forums "quote function as the rest of us do. Not only is it easy to use , it makes it less complicated for others you are quoting to determine when you are quoting them ; identifying the quote with their user name - as opposed to simply using quotation marks .

Perhaps if you don't get it this time , you might want to consider not taking up so much of our time , by keeping your replies relevant to the actual comments you're quoting rather than applying an inordinate amount of effort into "shifting" the "argument" to an area where you're convinced you're able to (um, what's the word I'm looking for here ? ......) "win" ??

Dear rjcash :

The reason I cited the sixth Chapter of John in my reply to the OP's post (read in this "not to your post rjcash - [because the OP is listed as a Catholic ] ") in post # 5 and clarified in post # 24 , was precisely because it did not mention "wine" at all, but only the "Blood" of Christ . So you can stop asking people to show you wording that doesn't exist - in any literal sense, at least.
__________________
" ... you should know that there is present with you the angel whom God has appointed for each man…This angel, who is sleepless and cannot be deceived, is always present with you; he sees all things and is not hindered by darkness. You should know, too, that with him is God"…-St. Anthony the Great
  #38  
Old Feb 10, '12, 9:32 am
Luvtosew Luvtosew is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 1, 2009
Posts: 2,023
Religion: Christian
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrift View Post
This statement canot be refuted nor can it be proved. I doubt that the "majority" don't believe. If they don't believe, than they are liars everytime they say AMEN when they receive since that is an affirmation that they do believe.
No I understood what you said.

Speak to some Catholics , not here, I have and many did not know they were suppose to believe that, and many like me believed we partook in the spiritual sense, as I have read some members on this board also believed as I, so while I feel communion is very imp. in a spiritual way and should be taken humbly of course with great repect for what we are doing, we are reaffirming the glorious thing that Jesus did for mankind at Calvery, and we owe him everything, so anyone partaking in communion should do so, with great humility.
since I have learned the real meaning of communion in the Catholic church I won't partake, as that would be very hypocritical of me to do so. I have done much reading about this for the last two years, and my mind has not changed. So anyone who knows this about the Catholic communion and still partakes should not be if they don't believe what the teachings of the Church has about this.
  #39  
Old Feb 10, '12, 10:49 am
adrift's Avatar
adrift adrift is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: October 28, 2005
Posts: 16,654
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvtosew View Post
No I understood what you said.

Speak to some Catholics , not here, I have and many did not know they were suppose to believe that, and many like me believed we partook in the spiritual sense, as I have read some members on this board also believed as I, so while I feel communion is very imp. in a spiritual way and should be taken humbly of course with great repect for what we are doing, we are reaffirming the glorious thing that Jesus did for mankind at Calvery, and we owe him everything, so anyone partaking in communion should do so, with great humility.
since I have learned the real meaning of communion in the Catholic church I won't partake, as that would be very hypocritical of me to do so. I have done much reading about this for the last two years, and my mind has not changed. So anyone who knows this about the Catholic communion and still partakes should not be if they don't believe what the teachings of the Church has about this.
I agree with you that they should not be receiving if they don' believe. Your speaking to some Catholics should not then mushroom into a "great majority". If you had said some, I would not have responded. I have never met a practising Catholic who did not believe in the real Presense.
__________________


Hmmmmm. I know you think you understand what you thought I wrote, but I'm
not sure that what you saw is what I actually meant!
  #40  
Old Feb 10, '12, 11:16 am
Luvtosew Luvtosew is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 1, 2009
Posts: 2,023
Religion: Christian
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Quote:
Originally Posted by in_servitude View Post
Regardless of what anyone says, we are subject to the Truth. Our statements do not change the Truth any more than two fleas arguing about the true nature of the animal they are on. I think there's a statement in the bible about how "teachers" are judged harshly. Those that lead people astray may have a difficult time with their judgement.

What does Luvtosew say about Lanciano? It was (and continues to be) a miracle that showed up right when the questions about the true nature of the Eucharist started to gain traction. I figure that a person that is trying to lead people away from the Eucharist would want to investigate the signs provided to us.
I'm not trying to change anyones thinking in how they think, I have read all about the Lanciano miracle and answered about that in a previous post in this thread. I'm not here to change anyone mind, maybe my own but no matter what anyone says I have not been able to change my mind after over a year,and I have read much about it, maybe more than a lot of Catholics have. So like I said we all believe what we believe. We are all together as one in the Christian family and well you may not agree totally with other Christians either. Its just the way it is, I had no plans to leave the Catholic Church after over 50 years of being Catholic, but thats what happened recently.
I also want you to know I have had many sleepless nights concerning this, and it has caused a lot of distress for me , but I have made a decision now so, its the one I had to make.
  #41  
Old Feb 11, '12, 8:58 am
NeedImprovement's Avatar
NeedImprovement NeedImprovement is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2008
Posts: 5,555
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

* For those who believe they require clarification , this post is addressed solely to Catholics who may be reading here at CAF :

If our desire is to gain at least partial understanding of some of the essence of the psychology/mentality behind those mechanisms which might impel a non–Catholic Christian to come to CAF to attack the sacramental theology and the Doctrine of the Eucharist, Catholic scholars and historians provide us with the tools we need . Although the OP posted the question in the CAF Sacred Scripture forums , it’s theme is central to sacramental theology , which is Catholic Doctrine; and this extending to (but not exclusively reliant on) some solid descriptive support from metaphysics .

My best friend is a Baptist – originally from Nashville Tennessee , and I have never had even a slightest argument with him on the ways our individual beliefs in Christ may differ or vary . In turn, that can make me seriously wonder sometimes why Christians come to CAF to attack belief in the Eucharist .

In the foreword to his Conference on “This is My Body, This is My Blood , Father John Hardon, S.J. , says :

Quote:
Saint Robert Bellarmine, writing in the sixteen hundreds, counted over two hundred interpretations of our Lord’s words at the Last Supper, “This is my Body…this is my Blood.” Over the centuries, this has been the principal source of division among the Protestant Churches of the world.

My purpose in this conference will be twofold: first to identify and explain what the Catholic Church understands by the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and then to see how basic to Protestantism is the denial of the Real Presence.
... going on to point out that the “beginning of our faith” in the True Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist...

Quote:
comes from the discourse recorded by St. John, writing toward the end of the first century
...then proceeding to bring us through the 6th Chapter of the Gospel according to John .

An ensuing section entitled Protestant Roots of Heretical Catholicism catches us a little by surprise – focusing first on the critical problem of a lack of faith, or a weak faith in the True Presence within the Holy Catholic Church herself :

Quote:
I never tire repeating the direct order I received from Pope John Paul II in 1986 and 1988 to do everything in my power to restore faith in the Real Presence in the United States, where it has been lost, and strengthen this faith where it still exists.
According to the Holy Father, unless this faith in the Real Presence is strengthened and restored, he feared for the survival of the Catholic Church in more than one diocese in our country.

It all began with the Protestant so-called reformation. In countries like ours, where Protestantism has become the prevailing culture of a nation, two truths of the Catholic faith have suffered profoundly. They are faith in the priesthood and faith in the Real Presence.
So we should be able to at least comprehend that, a Protestant who comes to attack the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist at CAF , is going to come armed to attack the priesthood at the same time – not necessarily because they hate priests or the priesthood, or even Catholics , but because they profess a faith bereft of any belief in the True presence in the Holy Eucharist – hence bereft of the ministerial priesthood ; because outside of Jesus Christ himself, there is no priesthood – priests are only priests in Christ – the High Priest. So the ministerial priesthood is something which they are unable to understand even remotely ; and it thus follows that they would need some rather (ahem) “elaborate” reasoning (which must initially be used to convince themselves) to try and interpret the Last Supper, and even Chapter 6 of the Gospel according to John in a way that would neither require nor refer to the priesthood – a priesthood which, incidentally Christ did institute on Holy Thursday.


Speaking on the Rule of Faith, Catholic Encyclopedia describes some of the consequences of non-Catholic theologians’ mode of thinking , once they broke with the authority of the Magisterium :

Quote:
... But in formulating their various theories, non-Catholic theologians have never seemed to realize the absolutely vital character of the question at issue, and have contented themselves with illogical views, which have done more to alienate thinking men than the direct and unveiled assaults of infidels and agnostics. At the Reformation the only authority deserving of the title was overthrown, and since then men have been seeking, at all costs, to replace it by some form other than that of the Apostolic Church, from which they cut themselves adrift...
So we have this struggle : While it is essential for us to defend all attacks on the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist , whatever that may entail, we are supposed to do our best to remain patient- even compassionate ( see my username) with those who are attacking it.

I guess I still have a lot to learn : When I was younger, I never paused to be patient or compassionate when I had to stop someone beating up either of my brothers (Then again, at least my brothers thought I was being compassionate towards them ... ).
__________________
" ... you should know that there is present with you the angel whom God has appointed for each man…This angel, who is sleepless and cannot be deceived, is always present with you; he sees all things and is not hindered by darkness. You should know, too, that with him is God"…-St. Anthony the Great
  #42  
Old Feb 11, '12, 11:30 am
rjcash's Avatar
rjcash rjcash is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2012
Posts: 138
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

The discussion on John was in response to someone else bringing it up. I simply said if you want to use it then answer those questions. So it was their choice to answer or not. It was not meant to divert the discussion, but to answer those questions if they were going to use John 6. If you are instructing me to stick with the passage quoted then, please instruct ALL to do the same.

I am all for sticking with the original discussion, but then I have to ask why someone always runs off to I Cor. or John 6 in the discussion. My subsequent posts tried to deal with specific language by comparing it to the idea stated in Hebrews that a new testatment is based on the death of Christ. Someone addressed that, but DID not answer it. I do think people have a problem sticking with a direct question, since no one has answered any of mine directly! They usually go off on some tangent, one even about Jesus disappearing!

My general response to the OP, is: Of course it is meant as "fruit of the vine", Jesus said it, so that should settle it. But I had a question about clarification, which no one dealt with directly.

So I will restate my original response to the original post about the “fruit of the vine” being taken as literal.

My posted response was to those who take it literally, which results in the real issue of “real presence”. So please stick with my question, which was:

So I guess what you are saying is that while Jesus sat with them in his own body, he drank his own blood with them and then will do the same in the Kingdom? In other words when we are with Jesus in the kingdom and he is physically present in his body, then we will be drinking his blood from his body and so will he? This is also based on comparing it to the passage in Luke,

“18 For I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come.

… 20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. It says, “after he had supped”.

So this is a question.

My expected responses would be something like, “yes, that is what we think” or “no that is not what we think” or “well that presents a problem”, is he really drinking his own blood and will he drink his own blood in the kingdom and will we? Those are examples of answering a question directly, not “well Jesus disappeared then suddenly reappeared.”

The main idea here is if you take it to mean real presence (which is not a literal interpretation, it is a derived interpretation), then you would also have to say that he meant it literally in the kingdom as well. And that Jesus did this with them, i.e. drank his own blood!

The other idea expressed is that Jesus said he would do this again. So he drank his own blood with them while seated with them in his own body, holding his own blood in this passage. Then he will do that again in the kingdom, i.e. drink his own blood with them while holding his own blood while seated in his own body. So I asked for clarification on is that what you are saying?

Now for the one who mentioned that I am wasting time by posting these questions either read and answer my original question that dealt directly with the OP or stop responding to my post. If you don't think this is a forum to ask questions and have discussions, then maybe just hit the unsubscribe button. These ARE QUESTIONS. I did state what I believe about it, so maybe that makes you think it is an argument. But after I stated my thoughts on it, out of respect and too make sure I understand, I asked for clarification on what would be meant if it is taken as real presence. If these simple questions cause you distress, sorry. But in this forum questions and discussions are what it's about. At the top of the web page it says, "Catholic Answers". I am still waiting for mine. Please have the courtesy to look at my questions and actually answer them directly. Here is an example of one indirect answer. I get it ... but I could go to John then you would have an answer for that. Well that did not directly answer the question I posed. I try to ask questions first, so I can make sure I understand what everyone is saying. Then I will discuss it later. Please have the same courtesy. So answer my questions directly, please!!

If you have a problem with my question, then it is always best to ask for clarification, like I did, instead of going off on tangents, accusing me of arguing, and not sticking with the post, etc., answer directly then!

You can try to interpret my intent and then dodge the question, but then this web site would not be “Catholic Answers” would it?
  #43  
Old Feb 11, '12, 12:20 pm
rjcash's Avatar
rjcash rjcash is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2012
Posts: 138
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotWorthy View Post
RJcash, I know that you refuse to see the Eucharist in John 6, but my friend, the Church has clearly seen the Eucharist in John 6, from the very 1st century. Bishops, who were disciples of the Apostle John (Ignatius), who spent extended periods of time with the Apostle John, saw the Eucharist very clearly in John 6. This teaching of the Church is the most consistent of any our teachings. To me, its a non-negotiable.

So, I'm really not concerned with what you see or don't see mentioned. But I tell you what.... break your comments on John 6 out and start a new thread. I don't have much time right now to rebut you, but I will over the weekend.
"the Church" has NOT indeed seen the Eucharist in John 6. I might be wrong, but I think it would be better to say, "some" of the church. Augustine did not, not in John 6. But out of respect for your position I will ask the question, becuase I might have missed it. Where in John 6 does it state anything about the elements being present? Where is physical"bread and physical wine mentioned? Who is it addressed to, believers or unbelievers? etc. If you want to use John 6, then answer all of the questions I asked about it. You have NOT answered those questions. This is my opinion, but I think it is because you do not want to engage with the text directly! He is telling them they can have eternal life NOW, if they eat his flesh and drink his blood NOW. Was his offer to them insincere? That is the literal interpretation! If you want to respond to me, then deal with the TEXT and not what you think someone else thinks about it. I am only asking you questions about it, which you have NOT answered. So if you want to use John 6 then deal with the text and stop reading into it things that are not there. Either take it litrally or not, but don't make up stuff about it. Again, this thread is not about John 6, but if you want to quote it, then those questions would have to be addressed.

As you your statement, "So, I'm really not concerned with what you see or don't see mentioned." That's a strange response, since this site is "Catholic Answers". I aksed questions! But to be clear. It does matter what is in the TEXT!! They are the words of Jesus and it is not a good idea to add things that are not there, that is the point. These are all basic questions of observation and are the first principles of dealing with any text, i.e. what does the text actually say and what does it not say! Or what am I reading into it?
  #44  
Old Feb 11, '12, 12:43 pm
adrift's Avatar
adrift adrift is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: October 28, 2005
Posts: 16,654
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjcash View Post


So I guess what you are saying is that while Jesus sat with them in his own body, he drank his own blood with them and then will do the same in the Kingdom? In other words when we are with Jesus in the kingdom and he is physically present in his body, then we will be drinking his blood from his body and so will he? This is also based on comparing it to the passage in Luke,
I only have a few moments so I am only going to address this.

Where does it say that Jesus drank. All I see is that He gave it and told His Apostles to drink.

Hope to discuss this further latter when I am not so rushed.

God Bless You
__________________


Hmmmmm. I know you think you understand what you thought I wrote, but I'm
not sure that what you saw is what I actually meant!
  #45  
Old Feb 12, '12, 5:20 am
NeedImprovement's Avatar
NeedImprovement NeedImprovement is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2008
Posts: 5,555
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Belief in the True Presence of our Blessed Lord in the Holy Eucharist – entirely –Body ,Blood, Soul, Divinity ; our loving Lord Jesus – right there in person !

How inspiring this faith can be to us when we see it fostered and nourished in the soul of a little child . St. Therese of Lisieux had this faith from a very young age ... and in her childlike simplicity, she actually became a Doctor of the Church.

In her autobiography The Story of a Soul , she speaks of how, even when she was still too young to attend the longer Sunday celebrations of the Mass , she would anticipate with joy her sister bringing her back some of the bread (not Holy Communion) which was customarily blessed at the Parochial Mass ...

Quote:
On Sundays, as I was still too small to go to the long services, Mamma stayed at home to take care of me. I was always very good, walking about on tip-toe; but as soon as I heard the door open there was a tremendous outburst of joy--I threw myself on my dear little sister, exclaiming: "Oh, Céline! give me the blessed bread, quick!"[8] One day she had not brought any--what was to be done? I could not do without it, for I called this little feast my Mass. A bright idea struck me: "You have no blessed bread! --make some." Céline immediately opened the cupboard, took out the bread, cut a tiny bit off, and after saying a Hail Mary quite solemnly over it, triumphantly presented it to me; and I, making the sign of the Cross, ate it with devotion, fancying it tasted exactly like the real blessed bread.
(...)
[8] The custom still prevails in some parts of France of blessing bread at the Offertory of the Mass and then distributing it to the faithful. It is known as _pain bénit._ This blessing only takes place at the Parochial Mass. [Ed.]

Her daily afternoon walks with her father always included a visit with the Blessed Sacrament ...

Quote:
Every afternoon I went out for a walk with him, and we paid a visit to the Blessed Sacrament in one or other of the Churches. It was in this way that I first saw the Chapel of the Carmel.
... and, from even such a young age, her love for our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament...

Quote:
The feasts! What precious memories these simple words bring to me. I loved them; and my sisters knew so well how to explain the mysteries hidden in each one. Those days of earth became days of Heaven. Above all I loved the procession of the Blessed Sacrament: what a joy it was to strew flowers in God's path! But before scattering them on the ground I threw them high in the air, and was never so happy as when I saw my rose-leaves touch the sacred Monstrance.
The True Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist - something which even a child can believe - so passionately and intensely.

How is it that we adults can sometimes have such difficulty in believing that Jesus is Truly Present - Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity ?

And what about arguments of disbelief or against the fact that on Holy Thursday, "Christ instituted the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the sacrament of the priesthood." ... particularly the Sacrifice of the Mass ... ? Just how congruent is our thinking in these matters if :

We can't believe Christ instituted the Sacrifice of the Mass on Holy Thursday , but we can believe that the next day , He died for our sins - which hadn't even been committed yet ? ...
__________________
" ... you should know that there is present with you the angel whom God has appointed for each man…This angel, who is sleepless and cannot be deceived, is always present with you; he sees all things and is not hindered by darkness. You should know, too, that with him is God"…-St. Anthony the Great
Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8033Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: KrazyKat
4819CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: James_OPL
4286Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: lsbar
4027OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: fencersmother
3810SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3364Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3184Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: libralion
3145Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
2960For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: KrazyKat
2685Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 4:01 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2013, Catholic Answers.