St Augustine: “What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” St John Chrysostom: “It is not the man who is responsible for the offerings as they become Christ’s Body and Blood; it is Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The standing figure belongs to the priest who speaks these words. The power and the grace belong to God. ‘This is My Body,’ he says. And these words transform the offerings.” St Cyril of Jerusalem: “Since Christ Himself has said, ‘This is My Body,’ who shall dare to doubt that it is His Body?”
This is hilarious. Adults taking ritual cannibalism and vampirism incredibly seriously and writing pages and pages of inane ramblings trying to make it coherent. I’m looking forward to your video on the true nature of horcruxes.
My review of your book is supposed to be coming out before the end of the year. It didn't make it into the last issue because there was already a review of one of your other books.
EUCHARIST isi ANTILAW Deuteronomy 12:23-25 ASV Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh. [24] Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water. [25] Thou shalt not eat it; that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the eyes of Jehovah. Perverting the pass over to EUCHARIST is antilaw
Jesus reply to his murmuring disciples in v62 is clear evidence to me that they did not have eating Jesus flesh on their mind. It is clear from Jesus who read their minds that it was him coming down from heaven that concerned them. This being the case it is impossible for Jesus to have meant we literally eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood.
@@johnbiggs7181 I believe they were responding to what Jesus had said previously because the following verse says they were gumbling about (this), which presumes it was something Jesus had previously said. It continues with Jesus knowing within himself what they were grumbling about. It implies Jesus knew their very thoughts. His reply was in direct relationship to what they were thinking or grumbling about and Jesus adds it was offensive. His reply in v62 to their grumbling and the offence has no relationship to eating his flesh and drinking his blood. It does have a clear relationship to what Jesus said previously that he was the bread that came down from heaven. They left him after his reply in v66 because it was this reply which was the straw that broke the camels back.
"will you also go away?" The Lord's question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has "the words of eternal life" and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself.
@@joekey8464 Yes but the Eucharist does not change from being bread and wine. Christ is not locally present and that is true even if you accept what is called the real presence. Christ is really present but not locally present so in some way we are receiving Christ but how are we receiving him that is the question. Is he present in the bread and wine? Or by or through eating the bread and wine?
@@jotink1 Every single consecrated host is sacred to the church. The church believes that the host is the body of Christ. Christ is present in every tabernacle in a church. Adoration is meditation and prayer in front of a scared host. Eucharistic miracles show, bleeding hosts to be a tissue of a human heart with similar signs as those seen in tissue after the agony of death.
Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man you don’t have life in you. Who is the Son of Man, Steve? Daniel 7:13-14. Is that mentioned in your book at all?
St Augustine: “What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction”
St John Chrysostom: “It is not the man who is responsible for the offerings as they become Christ’s Body and Blood; it is Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The standing figure belongs to the priest who speaks these words. The power and the grace belong to God. ‘This is My Body,’ he says. And these words transform the offerings.”
St Cyril of Jerusalem: “Since Christ Himself has said, ‘This is My Body,’ who shall dare to doubt that it is His Body?”
The people that knew the guys that new the guy thought differently to you. You believe guys that arrived on the scene 1500 years late......
This is hilarious. Adults taking ritual cannibalism and vampirism incredibly seriously and writing pages and pages of inane ramblings trying to make it coherent.
I’m looking forward to your video on the true nature of horcruxes.
My review of your book is supposed to be coming out before the end of the year. It didn't make it into the last issue because there was already a review of one of your other books.
@@MichaelVFlowers wow! I hope you liked it!
Which journal?
EUCHARIST isi ANTILAW
Deuteronomy 12:23-25 ASV
Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh. [24] Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water. [25] Thou shalt not eat it; that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the eyes of Jehovah.
Perverting the pass over to EUCHARIST is antilaw
Jesus reply to his murmuring disciples in v62 is clear evidence to me that they did not have eating Jesus flesh on their mind. It is clear from Jesus who read their minds that it was him coming down from heaven that concerned them. This being the case it is impossible for Jesus to have meant we literally eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood.
When they said to themselves “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” They were talking about something he hadn’t yet said?
@@johnbiggs7181 I believe they were responding to what Jesus had said previously because the following verse says they were gumbling about (this), which presumes it was something Jesus had previously said. It continues with Jesus knowing within himself what they were grumbling about. It implies Jesus knew their very thoughts. His reply was in direct relationship to what they were thinking or grumbling about and Jesus adds it was offensive. His reply in v62 to their grumbling and the offence has no relationship to eating his flesh and drinking his blood. It does have a clear relationship to what Jesus said previously that he was the bread that came down from heaven.
They left him after his reply in v66 because it was this reply which was the straw that broke the camels back.
"will you also go away?"
The Lord's question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has "the words of eternal life" and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself.
@@joekey8464 Yes but the Eucharist does not change from being bread and wine. Christ is not locally present and that is true even if you accept what is called the real presence. Christ is really present but not locally present so in some way we are receiving Christ but how are we receiving him that is the question. Is he present in the bread and wine? Or by or through eating the bread and wine?
@@jotink1 Every single consecrated host is sacred to the church. The church believes that the host is the body of Christ. Christ is present in every tabernacle in a church. Adoration is meditation and prayer in front of a scared host.
Eucharistic miracles show, bleeding hosts to be a tissue of a human heart with similar signs as those seen in tissue after the agony of death.
Just think about all them that write pages and pages of inane ramblings trying to make it not so because they havw no spiritual insight. Imagine that
Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man you don’t have life in you. Who is the Son of Man, Steve? Daniel 7:13-14. Is that mentioned in your book at all?
Catholicism vs Relativism 🤓