Huwag nyo nang problemahin yang pagkain ng dinuguan.Kung yung mga pari nga gumagahasa ng bata, pinapalaglag pa pag nabuntis yung babae, walang takot sa Diyos..... pagkain pa kaya ng dinuguan ??Ano ang mas masahol, kumain ng dugo ng baboy, or gumahasa ng bata?
Huwag nyo nang problemahin yang pagkain ng dinuguan.Ano ang mas masahol, kumain ng dugo ng baboy, or gumahasa ng bata?
Daming pari ang natamaan
Daming pari ang natamaan
Correction, mga VAKLA you mean!
hi s mga INC. at HINDI INC.bakit po big deal ang pagkain ng dugo kesa pagpatay??? diba pareho lang naman na ipinagbawal yun sa biblia?
That's just a Figure of Speech. The priests actually drink Chivas Regal during Holy Mass.
You can find a bottle of Chivas under the pulpit. Ask any sakristan about it.
especially true with regard to the quotes cited above from Ignatius and
Irenaeus. During their ministries, both men found
themselves contending against the theological error of docetism (a
component of Gnostic teaching), which taught that all matter was evil.
Consequently, docetism denied that Jesus possessed a real physical body.
It was against this false teaching that the apostle John
declared, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not
acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the
antichrist” (2 John 7).
In order to
combat the false notions of docetism, Ignatius and Irenaeus
echoed the language Christ used at the Last Supper (paraphrasing His
words, “This is My body” and “This is My blood”). Such provided a highly
effective argument against docetic heresies, since our
Lord’s words underscore the fact that He possessed a real,
after Irenaeus, Tertullian (160–225) used the same arguments against the
Gnostic heretic Marcion. However, Tertullian provided more information into how
the eucharistic elements ought to be understood. Tertullian wrote:
the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by
saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have
been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or
phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and
making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His
body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40).
explanation could not be clearer. On the one hand, he based
his argument against Gnostic docetism on the words of Christ, “This is My
body.” On the other hand, Tertullian recognized that the elements
themselves ought to be understood as symbols
which represent the reality of Christ’s physical body. Because
of the reality they represented, they provided a compelling refutation of
Tertullian’s explanation, we have good reason to view the words of Ignatius and
Irenaeus in that same light.
* * * * *
ought to allow the church fathers to clarify their understanding of the Lord’s
already seen how Tertullian clarified his understanding of the Lord’s Table by
noting that the bread and the cup were symbols of Christ’s body and blood. In
that same vein, we find that many of the church fathers
similarly clarified their understanding of the eucharist by describing it
in symbolic and spiritual terms.
At times, they
echoed the language of Christ (e.g. “This is My body” and “This is My
blood”) when describing the Lord’s Table. Yet, in other places, it becomes
clear that they intended this language to be ultimately understood in
spiritual and symbolic terms. Here are a number of examples that demonstrate
The Didache, written in
the late-first or early-second century, referred to the elements of the Lord’s
table as “spiritual food and
Didache, 9). The long passage detailing the Lord’s Table in this
early Christian document gives no hint of transubstantiation whatsoever.
Martyr (110–165) spoke of “the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He
assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered,
and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood“(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).
Alexandria explained that, “The Scripture, accordingly, has named
wine the symbol of the
sacred blood” (The
noted, “We have a
symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the
Eucharist” (Against Celsus,
who sometimes described the eucharist using very literal language, spoke
against any who might use mere water for their celebration of the Lord’s Table.
In condemning such practices, he explained that the cup of the Lord
is a representation of
the blood of Christ: “I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in
some places, contrary to Evangelical and Apostolic discipline, water is offered
in the Cup of the Lord, which alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ” (Epistle 63.7).
Caesarea (263–340) espoused a symbolic view in his Proof of the Gospel:
For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are
baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing
them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed
by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from
this vine, “put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is
renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him.” . . . He gave to
His disciples, when He said, “Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for
you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.” And, “His teeth
are white as milk,” show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For
again, He gave Himself
the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make
the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take
pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of
animals of various kinds, and was to
give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity
and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk” (Demonstratia Evangelica,
similarly contended that the elements of the Eucharist are to be understood
spiritually, not physically: “[W]hat
He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body
suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for
this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into
heaven, in order that
He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from
henceforth they might learn that the
aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.”
also, clarified that the Lord’s Table was to be understood in spiritual terms:
“Understand spiritually what
I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink
that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . .
Although it is needful
that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood”
(Exposition of the Psalms,
explained the eucharistic elements as symbols. Speaking of Christ, Augustine
noted: “He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure [or
symbol] of His Body and Blood.” (Exposition
of the Psalms, 3.1).
And in another
place, quoting the Lord Jesus, Augustine further explained: “‘Except ye eat the
flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in
you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure [or symbol],
enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that
we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was
wounded and crucified for us (On
A number of
similar quotations from the church fathers could be given to make the point
that—at least for many of the fathers—the elements of the eucharist were
ultimately understood in symbolic or spiritual terms. In
other words, they did not hold
to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
sure, they often reiterated the language of Christ when He said, “This is
My body” and “This is My blood.” They especially used such language in
defending the reality of His incarnation against Gnostic, docetic heretics who
denied the reality of Christ’s physical body.
At the same
time, however, they clarified their understanding of the Lord’s Table by
further explaining that they ultimately recognized the elements of the Lord’s
Table to be symbols—figures which represented and commemorated the
physical reality of our Lord’s body and blood.
Did the Early Church Teach Transubstantiation?NATHAN BUSENITZ | APRIL 22, 2016https://www.tms.edu/blog/early-church-teach-transubstantiation/