Ecumenical Guidelines of the Roman Catholic Church

mica

Well-known member
Most of the people who post on this Roman Catholicism sub-forum really should not be here because they have absolutely no understanding of what the Catholic Church actually teaches or of its history or of the context in which a document was written, or even of the basic reading comprehension skills to understand anything written beyond the level of a 1st grade Dick and Jane reader.

However, in these things you are correct: 1.) There is NO parity or "equal footing" between the Catholic Church and any other schismatic or heretic Protestant sects.

2.) Only the Catholic Church has the sole claim to truth as it was founded by the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, to teach rule and sanctify man.

3.) All Christians must submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth as head of His divinely founded Church.

There never was any offer for non-Catholics sects to join the Catholic Church "on equal terms". The Catholic Church cannot compromise on the least point of dogma or morals to accommodate schismatic or heretic sects.

The only true ecumenism, therefore, is for those who have separated from the Catholic Church or have been brought up in schismatic and heretic sects, to leave these sects completely, renounce their heresies and errors, and join the Catholic Church, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation.
2- says who? scripture doesn't say that.

3 - says who? scripture doesn't say that.
 

Bonnie

Well-known member
If you had bothered to read my previous posts in this thread, I already explained the purpose for which it was written and what the pope was saying in it.

I'm actually embarrassed for you.

Protestantism is a lie.
The lies are in the false doctrines your church has pushed for centuries. Doctrines that cannot be substantiated by Scripture...you know, the Bible. Instead, it does as God said, speaking through Isaiah "In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men."

Rome does get some things correct in Christian doctrines, but it get so many things so very, very wrong, that I could never, ever accept its teachings as the truth. I must reject them as false.
 

Bonnie

Well-known member
edit per mod

However, in these things you are correct: 1.) There is NO parity or "equal footing" between the Catholic Church and any other schismatic or heretic Protestant sects.

2.) Only the Catholic Church has the sole claim to truth as it was founded by the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, to teach rule and sanctify man.

3.) All Christians must submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth as head of His divinely founded Church.

There never was any offer for non-Catholics sects to join the Catholic Church "on equal terms". The Catholic Church cannot compromise on the least point of dogma or morals to accommodate schismatic or heretic sects.

The only true ecumenism, therefore, is for those who have separated from the Catholic Church or have been brought up in schismatic and heretic sects, to leave these sects completely, renounce their heresies and errors, and join the Catholic Church, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation.
1. You are right--the RCC teaches false doctrines, making it very UNequal to church bodies that do not.

2. This is totally false. It teaches so much that is unbiblical, that neither Jesus nor any of the Apostles taught, that it is hard to know where to start to list them. Also, Jesus Christ did NOT found the Roman Catholic Church, headquartered in Rome. It took hundreds of years for the early church to become 'Roman' and to have central authority from the bishop of Rome. What Jesus founded was THE church, which is made up of everyone all over the world who believe in Him for salvation, great and free, and trust in only for that salvation.

3. Well, why should we Protestants submit and obey the "vicar of Rome" since you seem to think we are outside of the true church and are therefore not really Christians.....? But DO show us FROM THE BIBLE where it is necessary to submit to and obey the "vicar of ROME". Do you mean for salvation? If so, WHERE is that in the Bible? The apostles said it is better to obey God than man. So...why should we obey a mere man like your very unbiblical pope? When it is HE and your church that teach heresy?
 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
You really have no business making any commentary at all on this document since it is completely evident that you have absolutely no understanding of the purpose for which it was written and what Pope Pius XI is saying in it. This is actually embarrassing.

When he is speaking of "one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians." He is referring to the Catholic Church. The only way there can be any "unity" among Protestants and Catholics, is for Protestants to give up their heretical sects and beliefs and unite with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I don't know if you got these ideas from some Protestant anti-Catholic website or if you made them up on your own, but maybe you should start over and actually read Mortalium Animos slowly, and with attention, from beginning to end, to try to understand it.
From what you've said you're quite an admirer of the pope's encyclicals - Pius XI must have been one of your homies, hum?

Granted, that throughout the ages, the RCC did condemn interreligious events as apostasy. Then in 1928, Pius issued the following declarations in his encyclical Mortalium Animos declaring the following:

" For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by persons [leaders of various religions] at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on the false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion."
 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
You obviously don't know what you are talking about and you obviously don't understand what Pope Pius XI is saying in Mortalium Animos. Maybe you have never actually read the encyclical, or if you did, you don't understand it.

Mortalium Animos is a condemnation of these ecumenical meetings among "pan Christians" or pseudo Christian groups of non-Catholic "Christians" and Catholics with the object of setting aside their differences and forming some sort of an amalgamation of common beliefs.

Moritalium Animos is an encyclical issued against the false attempts at religious unity, today collectively known as “ecumenism”, that were beginning to blossom at the time.

"..it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, [ecumenical meetings with non-Catholics] nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.

Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful? For example, those who affirm, and those who deny that sacred Tradition is a true fount of divine Revelation; those who hold that an ecclesiastical hierarchy, made up of bishops, priests and ministers, has been divinely constituted, and those who assert that it has been brought in little by little in accordance with the conditions of the time; those who adore Christ really present in the Most Holy Eucharist through that marvelous conversion of the bread and wine, which is called transubstantiation, and those who affirm that Christ is present only by faith or by the signification and virtue of the Sacrament; those who in the Eucharist recognize the nature both of a sacrament and of a sacrifice, and those who say that it is nothing more than the memorial or commemoration of the Lord’s Supper; those who believe it to be good and useful to invoke by prayer the Saints reigning with Christ, especially Mary the Mother of God, and to venerate their images, and those who urge that such a veneration is not to be made use of, for it is contrary to the honor due to Jesus Christ, “the one mediator of God and men.

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it...To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated,

Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors...The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. .

Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is “the root and womb whence the Church of God springs/

We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be “careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

You, Venerable Brethren, understand how much this question is in Our mind, and We desire that Our children should also know, not only those who belong to the Catholic community, but also those who are separated from Us: if these latter humbly beg light from heaven, there is no doubt but that they will recognize the one true Church of Jesus Christ and will, at last, enter it, being united with us in perfect charity. "
What is this "power" that the RCC claims it has, and is the "power" needed and used to transform an ordinary loaf of bread from a bakery, and a bottle of wine from the liquor store, into the body and blood of a living, breathing, human being - and their claim is not that they just use this "power" to turn ordinary bread and wine into a human being but rather by their "power" they have changed lifeless bread and wine into Almighty God Himself - in the guise of Jesus Christ, in His entirety as a human being, as well as in His Person as the Son of God ! What is this "power" that the Roman Catholic Church has proclaimed that their priests have?
 
There are many figures and similitudes of the institution of the Holy Eucharist in the Old Testament.

The old sacrifice itself in which the blood of an innocent lamb slain upon the altar by the priest.
The Passover account in the Exodus account.
The manna, the life giving bread that came from heaven to give life to God's chosen people.
Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the Priest of the Most High God,

There are many more examples of prefiguration of the Eucharist in the Old Testament, which I will not go into here.

The Holy Eucharist was instituted by Christ Himself when at the Last Supper, he said; "This is My Body which is given for you." Also: "This is My Blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many."

He also said: "Do this for a commemoration of Me", who, by these words He gave a power and precept to them, and their successors, to all bishops and priests, to consecrate and offer up the same; yet so, that they are only the ministers and instruments of Jesus Christ, who instituted this sacrifice, this and all other sacraments, who is the chief and principal Priest, or offerer.

Then there is the whole problem of John, chapter 6, which the heretics try to explain away as being an allegory or parable, which clearly, it is not.

Then there is also St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians in which he confirms the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ; "And giving thanks, broke, and said: *Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: do this for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: "This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink it for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord until he come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord."
 

mica

Well-known member
There are many figures and similitudes of the institution of the Holy Eucharist in the Old Testament.

The old sacrifice itself in which the blood of an innocent lamb slain upon the altar by the priest.
The Passover account in the Exodus account.
The manna, the life giving bread that came from heaven to give life to God's chosen people.
Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the Priest of the Most High God,

There are many more examples of prefiguration of the Eucharist in the Old Testament, which I will not go into here.

The Holy Eucharist was instituted by Christ Himself when at the Last Supper, he said; "This is My Body which is given for you." Also: "This is My Blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many."
physical things in the OT prefigure the spiritual that comes in the NT.

Eph 5.25-26


25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it;

26 That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

the NT wasn't yet in effect. not until His death.

shall be - future. no blood was shed at the last supper.


He also said: "Do this for a commemoration of Me", who, by these words He gave a power and precept to them, and their successors, to all bishops and priests, to consecrate and offer up the same; yet so, that they are only the ministers and instruments of Jesus Christ, who instituted this sacrifice, this and all other sacraments, who is the chief and principal Priest, or offerer.

Then there is the whole problem of John, chapter 6, which the heretics try to explain away as being an allegory or parable, which clearly, it is not. ...
what's a commemoration?
from online dictionary -

  1. remembrance, typically expressed in a ceremony.
    "solemn ceremonies of commemoration"
    • a ceremony or celebration in which a person or event is remembered.
post where scripture says what you posted - book/chapter and verses. and post any actual verses and the version you find it in.
 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
There are many figures and similitudes of the institution of the Holy Eucharist in the Old Testament.

The old sacrifice itself in which the blood of an innocent lamb slain upon the altar by the priest.
The Passover account in the Exodus account.
The manna, the life giving bread that came from heaven to give life to God's chosen people.
Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the Priest of the Most High God,

There are many more examples of prefiguration of the Eucharist in the Old Testament, which I will not go into here.

The Holy Eucharist was instituted by Christ Himself when at the Last Supper, he said; "This is My Body which is given for you." Also: "This is My Blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many."

He also said: "Do this for a commemoration of Me", who, by these words He gave a power and precept to them, and their successors, to all bishops and priests, to consecrate and offer up the same; yet so, that they are only the ministers and instruments of Jesus Christ, who instituted this sacrifice, this and all other sacraments, who is the chief and principal Priest, or offerer.

Then there is the whole problem of John, chapter 6, which the heretics try to explain away as being an allegory or parable, which clearly, it is not.

Then there is also St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians in which he confirms the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ; "And giving thanks, broke, and said: *Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: do this for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: "This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink it for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord until he come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord."
According to the official teachings and beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church, this supernatural "power" that Roman Catholic priests tout, that 'they,' as mere creatures created by God, have been given the exact same supernatural 'creative' power as God Himself, and can use their "power" to re-create the Son of God as a living human organism, which means that all of your priests and popes actually have been given the power to be the "Creator" of Jesus Christ in His humanity and in His Divinity too! And you actually believe in all this Roman Catholic totally made-up lunacy?
 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
There are many figures and similitudes of the institution of the Holy Eucharist in the Old Testament.

The old sacrifice itself in which the blood of an innocent lamb slain upon the altar by the priest.
The Passover account in the Exodus account.
The manna, the life giving bread that came from heaven to give life to God's chosen people.
Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the Priest of the Most High God,

There are many more examples of prefiguration of the Eucharist in the Old Testament, which I will not go into here.

The Holy Eucharist was instituted by Christ Himself when at the Last Supper, he said; "This is My Body which is given for you." Also: "This is My Blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many."

He also said: "Do this for a commemoration of Me", who, by these words He gave a power and precept to them, and their successors, to all bishops and priests, to consecrate and offer up the same; yet so, that they are only the ministers and instruments of Jesus Christ, who instituted this sacrifice, this and all other sacraments, who is the chief and principal Priest, or offerer.

Then there is the whole problem of John, chapter 6, which the heretics try to explain away as being an allegory or parable, which clearly, it is not.

Then there is also St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians in which he confirms the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ; "And giving thanks, broke, and said: *Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: do this for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: "This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink it for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord until he come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord."
And so the RCC teaching of all this man-made-up idiocy is primarily to instruct all those millions of gullible Roman Catholics that because of what the RC priest says he is enabled to do because of his church's man-made teachings and rituals, is to let the pew puppets view at least once weekly, what their Roman Catholic priest does on the Roman Catholic stage after he has supernaturally created the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ out of a tiny stale wafferette from the local bakery and a guzzle of wine in the priest's cup. Now that the priest has made Jesus in His created form as a human being the RC priest proceeds to offer the flesh and blood person of Jesus Christ himself in His humanity, to the people, for the people to consume - to literally eat Him. Within this ritual as well the Roman Catholic priest offers Jesus nailed to the cross on the Roman Catholic altar, in sacrifice to the Father, dying before the priest who has sacrificed Him and in front of all the people gathered to watch the gruesome ritual, just like the crowd that gathered at Calvary. And the Roman Catholic priests repeat this same blasphemous ritual day in and day out on the Roman Catholic altars.
 

mica

Well-known member
mica said:
what is your definition of that?

Do you believe that individual believers have the right to interpret sacred scriptures and to form their own beliefs based upon their individual interpretations of sacred scripture?
It doesn't sound like you know how to read and study scripture. we have the 'right' (and responsibility (Bereans)) to read scripture as it is written and learn to understand it, and base our beliefs on that. It is not many 'individual interpretations' as catholics have been taught to say - if you're talking about believers. Who knows what unbelievers learn or do - there are many 'groups' of those (like LDS, JWs and a whole lot of those that catholics label protestant). Catholics believe the 'individual interpretations' of a whole lot of old catholic men - who believe what they were taught by a whole bunch of old catholic men and on and on like that back to the beginning of those who made up catholicism.

Scripture will interpret scripture in time... the more you learn and understand the more you will learn and understand. Not knowing the difference between the OT time and NT time is a major hinderance for so many. Not knowing and understanding Paul's writings will also be a great hinderance. I remember struggling thru some of those. I read one section over and over and over again. many, many times. searched what my teachers taught on it and then re-read them many more times - before it began to make sense to me. Learning the difference between the gospels (and the gospel), Acts, the Jewish epistles and Paul's writings was another milestone in understanding what I read. Each time it was another huge step forward in the NT making sense in rightly dividing the word, researching online, looking up the meaning of words as they are used in a verse. It does take time but we don't just blindly believe what any man tells us, minister or not.

catholics just believe what the RCC tells them a verse means. How DO you know it is the truth of His word? because the RCC says it is? and says it is His Church? what is that based on? again it is just based on what your were taught to believe - by the RCC!
even reading scripture for catholics needs to be 'in accordance with the teachings of the RCC' ! and if it is wrong (it is) then you just continue to believe those wrong teachings based on more false teaching from the RCC. That all boils down to catholics believe the words of a man made up religion, not the truth of scripture, not the words of God.
 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
There are many figures and similitudes of the institution of the Holy Eucharist in the Old Testament.

The old sacrifice itself in which the blood of an innocent lamb slain upon the altar by the priest.
The Passover account in the Exodus account.
The manna, the life giving bread that came from heaven to give life to God's chosen people.
Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the Priest of the Most High God,

There are many more examples of prefiguration of the Eucharist in the Old Testament, which I will not go into here.

The Holy Eucharist was instituted by Christ Himself when at the Last Supper, he said; "This is My Body which is given for you." Also: "This is My Blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many."

He also said: "Do this for a commemoration of Me", who, by these words He gave a power and precept to them, and their successors, to all bishops and priests, to consecrate and offer up the same; yet so, that they are only the ministers and instruments of Jesus Christ, who instituted this sacrifice, this and all other sacraments, who is the chief and principal Priest, or offerer.

Then there is the whole problem of John, chapter 6, which the heretics try to explain away as being an allegory or parable, which clearly, it is not.

Then there is also St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians in which he confirms the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ; "And giving thanks, broke, and said: *Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: do this for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: "This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink it for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord until he come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord."
Sometimes when the RCC uses the term "Eucharist" it quite often attaches to it the word "sacrifice" to form the phrase "Eucharistic Sacrifice." Therefore essential to the Eucharist is the idea of sacrifice. I know you often totally disagree with many of the Vatican II Councils' writings and rulings, but this is a major purpose of the Roman Catholic Church in instituting the Eucharist: "At the Last Supper, on the night when He was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until He should come again . . ." Agree or disagree?
 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
You obviously don't know what you are talking about and you obviously don't understand what Pope Pius XI is saying in Mortalium Animos. Maybe you have never actually read the encyclical, or if you did, you don't understand it.

Mortalium Animos is a condemnation of these ecumenical meetings among "pan Christians" or pseudo Christian groups of non-Catholic "Christians" and Catholics with the object of setting aside their differences and forming some sort of an amalgamation of common beliefs.

Moritalium Animos is an encyclical issued against the false attempts at religious unity, today collectively known as “ecumenism”, that were beginning to blossom at the time.

"..it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, [ecumenical meetings with non-Catholics] nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.

Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful? For example, those who affirm, and those who deny that sacred Tradition is a true fount of divine Revelation; those who hold that an ecclesiastical hierarchy, made up of bishops, priests and ministers, has been divinely constituted, and those who assert that it has been brought in little by little in accordance with the conditions of the time; those who adore Christ really present in the Most Holy Eucharist through that marvelous conversion of the bread and wine,
which is called transubstantiation, and those who affirm that Christ is present only by faith or by the signification and virtue of the Sacrament; those who in the Eucharist recognize the nature both of a sacrament and of a sacrifice, and those who say that it is nothing more than the memorial or commemoration of the Lord’s Supper; those who believe it to be good and useful to invoke by prayer the Saints reigning with Christ, especially Mary the Mother of God, and to venerate their images, and those who urge that such a veneration is not to be made use of, for it is contrary to the honor due to Jesus Christ, “the one mediator of God and men.

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it...To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated,

Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors...The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. .

Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is “the root and womb whence the Church of God springs/

We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be “careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

You, Venerable Brethren, understand how much this question is in Our mind, and We desire that Our children should also know, not only those who belong to the Catholic community, but also those who are separated from Us: if these latter humbly beg light from heaven, there is no doubt but that they will recognize the one true Church of Jesus Christ and will, at last, enter it, being united with us in perfect charity. "

TRANSUBSTANTIATION
means a change of substance. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the whole substance of bread and wine is changed into the physical body and blood of Jesus Christ. This RCC teaching is based on the words of Jesus in Matthew 26: 26-28: "This is my body, this is My blood." The RCC teaches that these words are to be taken completely literalistically. The RCC believes that in His command "Do this in remembrance of Me", Jesus was authorizing and empowering the apostles as priests to carry on this practice of transubstantiation, that they might offer Christ to the people to be literally eaten and also to be continually sacrificed for their sins.
 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
There are many figures and similitudes of the institution of the Holy Eucharist in the Old Testament.

The old sacrifice itself in which the blood of an innocent lamb slain upon the altar by the priest.
The Passover account in the Exodus account.
The manna, the life giving bread that came from heaven to give life to God's chosen people.
Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the Priest of the Most High God,

There are many more examples of prefiguration of the Eucharist in the Old Testament, which I will not go into here.

The Holy Eucharist was instituted by Christ Himself when at the Last Supper, he said; "This is My Body which is given for you." Also: "This is My Blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many."

He also said: "Do this for a commemoration of Me", who, by these words He gave a power and precept to them, and their successors, to all bishops and priests, to consecrate and offer up the same; yet so, that they are only the ministers and instruments of Jesus Christ, who instituted this sacrifice, this and all other sacraments, who is the chief and principal Priest, or offerer.

Then there is the whole problem of John, chapter 6, which the heretics try to explain away as being an allegory or parable, which clearly, it is not.

Then there is also St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians in which he confirms the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ; "And giving thanks, broke, and said: *Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: do this for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: "This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink it for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord until he come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord."
The accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper, both in the Gospels and in Paul's letter to the Corinthian Church, makes it perfectly clear that Jesus spoke in figurative terms. Jesus said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood (Luke 22:20). And Paul quotes Jesus as saying: "This is the new covenant in my blood . . . For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till He come." (1Cor. 11: 25-26), In these words He used a double figure of speech. The cup is put for the wine, and the wine is called the new covenant. The cup was not literally the new covenant, although it is declared to be so as definitely as the bread is declared to be His body. They did not literally drink the cup, nor did they literally drink the new covenant . . . Nor was the bread literally His body, or the wine His blood. After giving the wine to the disciples Jesus said, "I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come (Luke 22: 18). So then, the wine even as He gave it to them, and after He had given it to them, remained 'the fruit of the vine'! Paul also says that the bread remains bread: "Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner . . . But let each man prove himself and let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup (1 Cor. 11: 27-28). No change had taken place in the elements. This was after the prayer of consecration, when the Church of Rome supposes the change took place, and Jesus and Paul both declare that the elements still are bread and wine.
 
Top