Communion "Host" in Dallas Church Grew Fungi, Bacteria Naturally

Texas Catholic ^ | 3-24-06 | Marty Perry

[Mrs. Don-o]

God bless you, my friend.

[Conservative til I die]

I've had the most hateful unprovoked statements directed at my religion from you for nothing more than posting a quote.

I've made one, maybe two posts to you in my life. If you want to play the "stalk CTID from thread to thread" game, be my guest.

[Conservative til I die]

It continues in existence to this day, just as Jesus said that it would. It is comprised of Christians the world over who look to "sola scriptura" as their guide and foundation.

That doesn't answer my question. Please provide some direct evidence of these sola scriptura Christians in the first 200 years of Christendom, and provide their lineage to today's Reformation PRotestants.

[Conservative til I die]

Scripture is God-breathed...

How does this prove "sola scriptura". The phrases "Scripture alone" and "Scripture is God-breathed" are not the same, at least to this English-speaker.

[Conservative til I die]

II Tim 3:16-17. Sufficient means sufficient.

Every Bible translation I have seen (and just referenced on the web) does *not* use the word "sufficient". The word "profitable" or "useful" is used. Are you intentionally spreading falsehood?

[Conservative til I die]

DALLAS. A “host” kept in a jar of water for four weeks grew fungus and bacterial colonies in a natural process, a laboratory report concluded about an incident in a local parish church that created public speculation. A March 23 letter from Dallas Bishop Charles Grahmann to the pastor of St. James Parish relayed that what some were calling a ‘miracle’ of a host “contains nothing of a supernatural nature.”

How is this a miracle?

Uh, it's not. You may want to read the original story. Seems the host was left to dissolve in water, due to being defiled. After some days, the Eucharist was found to have a reddish substance on it. It was sent for testing and it turned out very quickly that the reddish substance was naturally produced fungus and bacteria. The matter was closed and everyone was happy, except the Protestants of course who seem to think this is a big "gotcha!" moment for some reason.

[Conservative til I die]

You sidestepped the central question, which is if the wafer is not the "transubstantiated" body of JESUS isn't it idolatry to pray to it?

Yes, of course it would be. Like the great Fr. Corapi said, we don't worship bread. Idolatry would depend on two things: First, was the bread itself consecrated. If not then it's idolatry since it's still bread. But once it is consecrated, it becomes the Body of Christ. The second question then is, what if we're wrong about Transubstantiation period? Well, we'll only truly know once we die and meet our maker. However for now, we believe it on faith. So of course, our intention is always that we are never committing idolatry by adoring the consecrated Eucharist. That is, we don't knowingly adore something we know is not the Body of Christ.

[Conservative til I die]

He was alive at the Last Supper and they did not gobble Him up.

Why? Cause they could figure out a figure of speech.

Well then they did a sorry job of teaching the faith, because within 2 or 3 generations the early fathers of the Church were already promulgating the idea of the Real Presence. Of course, those are just the oldest writings available. It stands to reason that the idea was already being taught earlier than that, presumably in the 1st Century AD.

[Conservative til I die]

Come on now. We have no shortage of threads posted by Catholics that say things like (I paraphrase), "Sola scriptura is for idiots", or "Why you need Mary saved" or other such things that are clearly provocative to Protestants.

1) The ratio of "anti-Protestant" to "anti-Catholic" threads and posts is still very much in favor of "anti-Catholic". 2) Yes, that is paraphrasing alright, and broad enough to skirt the line of being considered falsehood.

[Conservative til I die]

Yes, I believe that everything essential to salvation was eventually reduced to writing.

Where in Scripture is this indicated? Chapter & verse please---->

[tenn2005]

"Every Bible translation I have seen (and just referenced on the web) does *not* use the word "sufficient". The word "profitable" or "useful" is used. Are you intentionally spreading falsehood?"

I stand corrected. I freely confess that I was in a hurry and quoted from memory rather than looking up the exact wording. You are correct and I do sincerely apologize. It was by no means my intent to "spread falsehood."

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

So nothing Jesus said or did came from his Jewishness? Jesus himself said he came to fulfill, not to abrogate, the Law. He drew hundreds of times upon things that were thousands of years old to him and thus more than 2000 years old to you.

Christianity is a transformation of the Covenant God made with Abraham. It necessarily has a heritage far older than 2000 years. And I proudly embrace it while you apparently have no use for the Old Testament. This was once known as the Marcionite heresy.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

The words Jesus gave us, spoken by the priest in persona Christi effect the change. These words were a fixed formula already for Paul, which he received from the other apostles.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

You wrote: "mystery = our explanations are lame."

Just a tad snooty, is it not?

Mysterion is used in the NT. Mock it if you wish, but you are mocking St. Paul's own words.

The Christian mysteries are infinitely comprensible. They are neither incomprehensible nor totally comprehensible. Our explanation neither explain nothing nor explain everything. They explain but fully to explain the mysteries of the Christian faith to human minds will take all eternity.

This is the doctrine of the New Testament, of Paul and John and Peter and the others. I do not claim to be able to explain the Incarnation fully. The formulas of Chalcedon and Nicea explain it partly. Is that "lame"? Do you claim to be able to explain the Incarnation fully?

In your zeal to poke fun you have just revealed one of the chief failings of some of the Protestant systems. Because it is difficult to hold in tension human free will and divine election and divine providence, Calvin and Luther resolved the tension to one side (divine providence, sovereignty, deterministic predestination) and at the cost of free will. Sure it makes for a nicer, neater, tighter system. And in your confidence that you have it all figured out, you can mock those who speak of the mysteries of the Incarnation and Resurrection and the great mystery of the Church and of baptism and of marriage.

Mock away in your pride. The bishops who met at Nicea recognized they were dealing with mysteries, with infinitely comprehensible truths. St. Paul realized it.

But you, you know it all. Jews call that chutzpah; Greeks call it hubris.

I'll stick with the mysteries of the faith.

That you mock it shows how truly callow you are.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

I wrote: "These words were a fixed formula already for Paul, which he received from the other apostles."

You replied: "These words... "

"Hocus Pocus, Dominocus!"

You mock even Paul's own statement that he received the words of institution and passed them on faithfully? Do you know where the phrase you quote comes from?

You have no interest whatsoever in exchanging viewpoints, you who call others snooty. And you mock with the words of one who was a Mocker from before God even created Man.

May God have mercy on you.

[tenn2005]

"Yes, I believe that everything essential to salvation was eventually reduced to writing.

Where in Scripture is this indicated? Chapter & verse please---->"

One place would be John 20:30-31
Also see Paul's comments in II Cor 13:9-10

[murphE]

I understand the logic behind murphE's statement, but wonder if it is accepted Catholic (or Orthodox) thinking on the matter.

My thinking did not originate with me, Fr. Malachi Martin is the one I first heard speak of it, who did quite extensive investigation of Satanic infiltrators in the Church as well as witnessing, performing and writing about many, many exorcisms.

In Catholic or Orthodox theology, what exactly does a priest do to change the host into the flesh? By what power do they do this? How do they access that power?

The power of the priest to do this is a charism unique to the priesthood that they receive in the Sacrament of Holy Orders when they are ordained. This sacrament puts an indelible character or mark on their soul. For he testifieth: Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech.

For the consecration to take place, the valid form of must be used, valid matter must be used and the priest must have the right intentions.

Now in the traditional Latin Rite, the matter is unleavened bread made from wheat flour and water and nothing else, and wine from grapes -not any other fruit- (as well as a validly ordained priest).

The intention is to do what the Church intends, that is to consecrate the Eucharist.

The valid form in the Traditional Latin Rite are these words for consecrating the host,

HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM
(FOR THIS IS MY BODY)

And the words for consecrating the wine:

HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM
(FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH: WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS)

It is my understanding that in a Satanic mass the whole mass is said in reverse (it is the inversion of what is holy) EXCEPT the words of consecration which are said correctly in order for there to be a valid consecration.

[Rhadaghast]

Thank you for your clear and concise recap of the counsel of Trent.
Can you please help me reconcile the difference between the proclamation of 'anathema' towards all not adhering to the RCC doctrines, and the 'separated brethren' that is in vogue now. These two things seem to be at odds with each other. First stating that you cannot ever be saved, and then saying you are but your not in the fullness...

Would that seem confusing to you?