Posted on 09/21/2006 8:24:09 PM PDT by Pyro7480
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
Now I need the book!
I think I'll order it too. But I need to see if they have it at the library first (hah).
What's the source of the online review? Maybe they have a footnote.
Here's the link to the review - it was a regular reader, not a pro, so no notes. Search the page for "only catholics"
http://www.wndbookservice.com/products/popreview.asp?prod_cd=c6614
Ping me if you find anything...
Yes. Is this the normal way in which Jesus' body is present in the sacrament? No. Normally his body is present spiritually and substantially under the appearance of bread and wine.
Your link dosen't mention ... did the priest at the time chow down ... or did he reject the "body of Christ" ?
Why the quotation marks? Whose body do you think it is?
Interestingly, the blood type in the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano is AB, the same as on the Shroud of Turin. It occurs in 3% of the population. It also matches the blood type on the Sudarium of Oviedo.
The priest who confected the sacrament at the time of the miracle was doubting the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It was at that time that the miracle occurred. The apparent purpose of the miracle was to convince the priest and other scoffers of Christ's real presence. The priest was convinced. There was no reason for him to consume the flesh.
John 6:53AWTTW.Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."
No reason ?
Didn't he just request ( or whatever it is they do ) that the bread become the flesh so he could eat it ?
Are you talking about John 6? Some of Jesus' disciples took Jesus' teaching at face value and permanently left Him. Their error was not in their human reasoning, but their failure to put their trust in Jesus. The Apostles were confused, but nevertheless remained with Jesus. Peter said, "to whom can we go?" Peter didn't understand Jesus' (somewhat paradoxical) "hard saying," but put his faith in Jesus.
Transubstantiation is an interesting concept ... kind of like homeopathic medicine. You change the substance of something without changing any perceivable properties, in effect, simply redefining what the word substance means.
The term "transubstantiation" derives from the Aristotelian terms "substance" and "accident." The change in substance is not of the natural order; it's miraculous.
Given an understanding of these terms, the following becomes understandable:
The dogma of transubstantiation teaches that the whole substance of bread is changed into that of Christ’s body, and the whole substance of wine into that of his blood, leaving the accidents of bread and wine unaffected. Reason, of course, can’t prove that this happens. But it is not evidently against reason either; it is above reason. Our senses, being confined to phenomena, cannot detect the change; we know it only by faith in God’s word.Thus, transubstantiation is miraculous. The miraculous is possible for God.After the priest consecrates the bread and wine, their accidents alone remain, without inhering in any substance. They can’t inhere in the bread and wine, for these no longer exist; nor do they inhere in Christ’s body and blood, for they are not his accidents. The Catechism of the Council of Trent says: “. . . the accidents which present themselves to the eyes or other senses exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without a subject.”5 St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that God directly sustains the quantity of bread (or wine) in being, and that the other accidents inhere in the quantity.6 For quantity is the fundamental accident: the others, such as color, exist as quantified—as having extension. There is no such thing as a non-extended color.
Well, they would know.
The further I read, the more I could see Clinton reading this, and trying to figure out the meaning of "is".
"The substance is the essence, the nature, of a thing which exists in its own right."
"exists in it's own right" ?
Dosen't the "essense" or "nature" of the wheat used to create the bread cease to exist when baked ?
I suppose we can dispence with the old adage ... "If it walks like a Duck ... "
I wonder if O.J. could use that excuse ... It may look like my DNA, and test like my DNA , but it's essence or nature is of a fruit pie.
Speaking of miraculous signs :-)
John 6
v. 30 "So they asked him, "What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe in you?" And they picked the example of manna in the desert. And Jesus came up with an analogy for them. The 'miraculous sign' is ME! I'm the living bread of life that came down from heaven! "For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day".
I don't think he's saying, since you asked, here's the miraculous sign I'm going to give you: when you take communion, I'm going to turn the bread and wine into my flesh and blood, and when you eat and drink that, it will turn into my real flesh and blood, and that help give you eternal life.
John 6 is pointing to Jesus. He's talking about the importance of faith in Him in order to live forever.
It reads like a metaphorical lesson.
And then some disciples turned away. But not because they were grossed out by eating flesh and blood, but because they didn't believe in Him, because the Father had not enabled them. And He pointed it out and they left.
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.