INVICTUS

Catholic Convert | Defending the Apostolic Faith. Reclaiming Christendom. | Scripture • History • Tradition

[INVICTUS @invictusromae]

@thyflameoflove Simple. We’re Reclaiming Christendom.

[INVICTUS @invictusromae]

@sola_chad This wasn’t a question that could even be asked until about 400 years after Jesus walked the Earth, when the Catholic Church officially canonized the Bible.

[INVICTUS @invictusromae]

Ignatius said considerably more than merely repeating Jesus.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.”

He identifies the Eucharist with the same flesh that suffered and was raised.

And Tertullian’s word figura does not necessarily mean “merely symbolic.” In the same passage, he says Christ “made it his own body” and argues that the Eucharistic figure depends upon Christ having a real body.

“The flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ.”

Quoting “figure” by itself does not prove that he believed the Eucharist was only a symbol.

In addition to St Ignatius of Antioch, I’d encourage you to read the words of St Justin Martyr, St Iranaeus of Lyons, and St Cyril of Jerusalem to understand how the belief of the Eucharist being the true body and blood of Christ persisted throughout the early Church.

[INVICTUS @invictusromae]

They ultimately left because they lacked faith in Jesus and rejected his authority to teach such a difficult doctrine. The Bible doesn’t tell us what they were thinking when Jesus told them to eat his flesh and drink his blood. But it can be inferred they did not understand the sacramental manner in which his flesh and blood would be given.

[INVICTUS @invictusromae]

I think there’s a misunderstanding on what is meant by literal body, and I don’t think we disagree as much as you think we do. It’s the literal body and blood of Christ in substance, not in physical form. (See my other response for a more in depth explanation).

And yes, all of the early Church fathers absolutely believed in the literal transformation of the host into the body and blood of Christ.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his letter to the Smyrnaeans (AD 107), condemns certain heretics because they refused to confess the Eucharist as Christ’s flesh.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ”

[INVICTUS @invictusromae]

Honestly great question and this is something that confuses a lot of Protestants.

When Catholics say that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, we mean that its underlying substance is changed, not that it becomes visible human flesh and blood.

At consecration, the entire substance of the bread becomes Christ’s Body, and the entire substance of the wine becomes Christ’s Blood, while the appearances and physical properties of bread and wine remain.

Therefore, receiving the Eucharist is not cannibalism. Cannibalism involves consuming the bodily tissue of a dead or living human being in its ordinary physical form. In the Eucharist, we receive the whole, living, risen, and glorified Christ. Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, under the sacramental appearances of bread and wine.

[INVICTUS @invictusromae]

Now if you want to go on to discuss the beliefs of the early Church on the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, all the way up through the 16th century when your religion was invented, we can do that as well.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Cyril of Jerusalem…

[INVICTUS @invictusromae]

Re-read John 6.

Jesus explains that he is the bread sent from heaven, and those who eat his flesh will live forever. “The Jews quarreled among themselves” as they took what Jesus was saying in a very literal manner. He doesn’t correct them, saying it’s merely symbolic, but instead doubles down, saying, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”

He’s not done though.

With the Jews objecting he continues doubling down. “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”

Then it goes on to say that even his disciples were having a hard time accepting what Jesus was saying, and as a result many ended up LEAVING and returning to their former way of life. They could not come to terms with consuming the body and blood of Christ in the literal sense.

Protestants want to reduce the Eucharist to a mere symbol, when the Bible explicitly says otherwise.

[INVICTUS @invictusromae]

Do you think Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, James, Simon and Judas were free from sin? Why did Jesus grant them the ability to forgive or retain certain sins of others? Why couldn’t people just go straight to God directly? And what scripture leads you to believe this mandate of the Lord was rendered null and void upon the successors of these apostles?

[INVICTUS @invictusromae]

@texaslady6252 @johnrich @matthewdmarsden Your stance is that Christ’s Church failed after the first generation and that the successors of the apostles are invalid, and you’re entitled to that opinion. I simply reject it, as it contradicts the Word of God.

[INVICTUS @invictusromae]

Christ delegated that authority to his apostles. That ministry continued through apostolic succession. It didn’t cease after one generation. Christ’s established Church did not fail.

A priest’s personal wickedness does not overpower Christ or deprive an innocent penitent of grace. Otherwise, no Christian could ever know whether a baptism, Eucharist, or absolution was valid, because no one can see the minister’s soul.

[INVICTUS @invictusromae]

@texaslady6252 @johnrich @matthewdmarsden If you reject scripture, then sure. Jesus established otherwise.

Nobody claims that an ordinary man independently possesses God’s power. A priest absolves sins only because Christ entrusted that authority to his Church.

[INVICTUS @invictusromae]

“Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” -John 20:23

“Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful.” -James 5:16

And yes, this does continue through apostolic succession. Christ established an enduring Church, not a ministry that would expire after one generation.

[INVICTUS @invictusromae]

He is awesome – if you think all of the early Church fathers were wrong, and that Christianity was invented in 1517. He’s also awesome if you can’t distinguish between physical Israel (founded in 1948) and the spiritual Israel of the Bible. And you’ll really love him if you think the Bible is the infallible inspired Word of God but can’t explain how or why the Biblical canon is justified or agreed upon (given the Church that canonized it has no God-given authority).

[INVICTUS @invictusromae]

“This Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant.”

Catholics do not believe “the Bible and the Church are two equal, competing authorities.” They believe Christ entrusted his revelation to the Church, which preserves it in Scripture and Tradition and authoritatively interprets both through the Magisterium.

[INVICTUS @invictusromae]

As a Catholic convert, I’m one of probably ~1% of my parish that attends daily mass.

I agree with your sentiment of expanding and improving Catholic culture in America, but refute the implication that converts are to blame for the lack of passion. Converts sought out the Catholic Church of their own free will. They weren’t simply born into it like many.

Many, like myself, had to battle the objections of family and friends in seeking out the Catholic Church.

I see this gatekeeping rhetoric frequently and it’s doing nothing to further the implied goal of your statement. It’s just engagement bait for other cradle Catholics.

[INVICTUS @invictusromae]

@Sports_Refugee @StarSpangledNut @Jaguars You can love someone and not celebrate mortal sin btw

Celebrating pride is celebrating eternal separation from God

[INVICTUS @invictusromae]

Do you believe the Eucharist should be accepted in the hand, on the tongue, or either?

[INVICTUS @invictusromae]

“Make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ.”

Communion on the tongue was not adopted until around the 9th century. The early Church never practiced that. Either is fine as long as it’s done with reverence.

[INVICTUS @invictusromae]

Perversion has no place in the Catholic Church.

We’re all born with a proclivity to sin. Some with the proclivity to homosexuality, some with a proclivity to other ungodly desires. It’s up to us whether we give in to the temptations of the flesh, or whether we choose to live righteously for God. St. Paul discusses this in the Book of Romans.

To endorse homosexuality and “gay” priests is to wholeheartedly reject the scriptures as the true inspired Word of God.

[INVICTUS @invictusromae]

“Make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ.”

Communion on the tongue was not adopted until around the 9th century. The early Church never practiced that. Either is fine as long as it’s done with reverence.

[INVICTUS @invictusromae]

@trad_west_ https://t.co/1GJutfdYCb

[INVICTUS @invictusromae]

“Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for yourselves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.”

Matthew 11:28-30