The Eucharistic Miracle of Buenos Aires

28 Comments on The Eucharistic Miracle of Buenos Aires

1. Powerful.

2. The True Church is one, holy, Catholic and apostolic 🙂

3. So Jesus has returned in the form of beef jerky?

4. If the scientists cloned the DNA they, in theory, would have a human being. One of Three , however, isn’t as good as Three in One.

5. All Christians are “Catholic” in as much as it means universal, as long as you believe Jesus died for your sins and you ask him to forgive you you are at that moment a member of the body of Christ.

6. Another practice by the “One True Church”TM idolizing inanimate objects……sad.

7. Catholicism is not Bible Christianity..just an amalgamation of paganism and pseudo Christianity. The Mass is an abomination.

8. If this happened 17 years ago why are we just hearing about it?

9. Thank you for posting this, BFH (and bitterclinger)

10. Fur and all. The doctrine of the Real Presence has been a consistent Catholic teaching for two millenia. Before the rebellion known as the “Reformation” ALL Christians were Catholic, and assented to this doctrine. There were no “denominations” then. Many early writers, including St. Ignatius of Antioch clearly expressed this doctrine @ 105 A.D.

    After the feeding of the 5,000, Christ went to Capernaum and taught. In John 6 beginning with verse 54, he said five times that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. He wasn’t being metaphorical here. Many people stopped following him then.

    In Mark 14:22-24 at the Last Supper, he says “this is my body, and this is the chalice of my blood.”

    The Mass is an unbloody sacrifice, where time and space are bent, and we are at the foot of the Cross. The priest offers the victim, the Lamb of God, to the Father.

    Look these verses up yourself, and ask yourselves, “what if?”

11. It has most certainly not been a consistent doctrine of the catholic church for two millennia and is another Roman Catholic teaching that has “evolved” over time, just like the Papacy and its doctrine on Mary. To think that a mere human priest can call down the creator to offer himself a “unbloody” sacrifice is heresy. The need to keep re-sacrificing our perfect Savior is nothing more than human tradition, and a bad one at that. Jesus said…..”It is finished”. Do you even I Peter 3:18, Romans 6:10 or Hebrews 9:28? Jesus also said he was “the door”. Does that make him a door?(something else RC’s can get some kind of indulgence for by walking through……who knew?….). The Roman Catholic Church was “rebelled” against for its perversion of the true Gospel….the one where we have a surety in the work of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Not some system of indulgences, merits and works. If you need all that…..ask yourself this: why did Jesus have to die?

12. “Catholicism” is an aberration, a demonic heresy and has led millions astray, religious rot, they lost their way long ago.

13. That same “human priest” can, through the authority granted by Christ in John 20:21-23 absolve sin.

    Christ established a visible, hierarchical church on Simon bar Jonan, aka Cephas aka Peter. He gave him his Authority to legislate (keys to the kingdom), and to teach.

    Without an authoritative, Holy Spirit guaranteed Church, the Bible is whatever we want it to be, hence 30k plus “denominations ” since Luther.

    The Catholic Church has spent two millenia unpacking all that Jesus said, developing a deeper understanding of His words and actions. However, nothing has been created ex nihilo, such as say, Sola Scriptura.

14. Simon bar Jonah.

15. For those of you truly curious (and not in a theological flame war), http://www.fisheaters.com has a wealth of information, with loads of scriptural references.

16. If you read John 20:19-23 in context, Jesus was clearly talking to the disciples. There is nothing about priest being able to forgive sins. Oh, and Christ did away with the Old priestly system. He is our great high priest. RC’s have been trying to sew up the veil that was torn from top to bottom since the beginning.

    Ah…..the old 30,000 denomination lie…….well done, well done. A recent RC apologist suggest that stop being used. It is excellently refuted here: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2007/08/22/the-33000-denominations-myth/

    The RC’s claim to apostolic succession is another myth. It is in no way unbroken and Peter wasn’t the first “pope”. Let’s begin with the pornocracy and all the antipopes…..and let’s finish with the two living popes today…..one of which seems……very Universalistic, if you ask me.

    I am not in a flame war, but interested in the spread of the true Gospel. Not something built on human tradition…..but built on the scriptures. The RC is so very much like the Judaizers that crept into the church in Galatia. It’s amazing how quickly Satan went about trying to distort the Gospel…..and still does to this day.

    Oh, one more thing…..name all the verses the RC has interpreted infallibly…….I can count them on one hand. Some teaching. The Scriptures are my authority, not some man made system which causes utter confusion.

    16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
    17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. – 2 Timothy 3:16-17

17. There are been countless eucharistic miracles throughout our church history, yet too many catholics and non-catholics alike, remain oblivious or indifferent. Sad.

    http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm

18. “Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.”

    That is not Him not His flesh. Never was.

19. The sample appears moldy. Mold is a sign of corruption, decay, rot. If it is what Rome purports it to be — the actual flesh and blood of Christ — it would deny Acts 2:27:

    “…because You will not abandon Me to the realm of the dead, you will not let Your holy One see decay.”

    It’s blasphemous to say this is Him, either in cookie form or rotting in a petrie dish.

20. @Lead Salad: “I am not in a flame war, but interested in the spread of the true Gospel. Not something built on human tradition…..but built on the scriptures.”

    Who do you think kept the scriptures alive up until Martin Luther and the (corrupt) King James Bible.? It was the Roman Catholic Church.

    Amazing how one little post has brought out the haters and trolls. Lead Salad? Never heard of you until now. Go away.

21. The history of the Church is fascinating.
    To become viable it had to incorporate pagan traditions.
    The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, was compiled my men, over a long period. What remains is dogma. and what was excluded is heretical. (See Council of Nicaea.)
    As the Church grew in power and influence it became inextricably involved in politics. The various alliances, splits, schisms, crusades and heresies are convincing evidence of this.
    By the time of Luther it was clear that the Church had become less of a religious than a political entity.

22. TonyR; Referring to those one disagrees with as haters and trolls is an admission that one has no logical rebuttal.

23. John: Read my post again. I gave a logical rebuttal to one point Lead Head made, before I called him out. I have better things to do then spend all day answering every point every dumbass makes here.

24. Tony; Calling the King James Bible “corrupt” was the reason you made the “haters and trolls” comment afterward.
    As deflection.

25. “Who do you think kept the scriptures alive up until Martin Luther and the (corrupt) King James Bible.? It was the Roman Catholic Church.”

    You mean during the centuries during which Rome refused to read it in the vernacular so common people could actually understand God’s Word, then tortured and murdered anyone who tried to translate it out of Latin, or even possessed their own copies? Is that what you mean by “kept the Scriptures alive,” you lying hypocrite?

26. Tony…..make me go away. Also, to suggest the Roman Catholic Church kept the scriptures alive is another falsity. The scriptures were preserved by God himself(and given by God). Also, see grool’s post…..lol. Your “rebuttal” is not a rebuttal at all based in history, but more claims made by a “church” that has evolved most of its doctrine over time….most of which is used to support its positions and traditions….many of which are nowhere to be found in Holy Writ.

27. Neither Christ nor His apostles ever said His followers have the authority to put to death those who disagree. Rome is not presently exercising this demonic self-conferred authority but you can be sure she retains it.

    The Council of Trent officially cursed all who believe as do, and Trent is still inviolable canon law binding on all Catholics. Most Catholics, I’ve found, know nothing of Trent. Instead they believe Rome’s shiny happy “separated brethren” PR which Trent exposed as a lie.

    Before any Catholic accuses me of “bashing,” this is about what your church, the institution itself, has done and still officially teaches.

28. The Old Testament contains scriptures and fragments from various texts in several different languages. It includes echoes from other cultures, that were written in terms that largely illiterate people of the time might understand. This accounts for the various discrepancies that remain.
    The New Testament, and the Church doctrine that arises from it is a remarkable synthesis of Gospel, commentary and Neo-Platonism. As compiled, edited and distributed (in Latin) by the Roman Church it provided the backbone of the Catholic faith. Other accretions such as Communion, the Mass, Saints, Confession etc. appealed to the mystical affinities of recently converted Pagans. The rise of awe-inspiring cathedrals provided powerful centers of Faith.
    These I believe are factors in the success of the Church, which in spite of many upheavals has survived for two millennia. I can think of no other organization, religious or secular which has survived for so long.

    In the interregnum between the fall of Rome and the rise of nationalism, the Church was a powerful unifying factor in maintaining order in the West. Its supranational organization had a larger world view than the local feudal tyrants, and was able to direct them to some extent.
    By juggling alliances and broadcasting doctrine the Church was generally very successful in its efforts, at least until the Reformation. This success was not achieved without some exertion of influence. By then corruptions large and small had infected the Church.
    The rise of literacy, and the advent of printing, broadcast criticism that eventually prompted the Counterreformation.
    Meanwhile, local rulers formed alliances with either the Church or the Reformers, as best suited their various political realities. (Note the rise of the “Holy Roman Empire.”)

    Above deals with Church history in its political aspect. Like Durant and Wells, I have purposefully avoided matters of Faith here. Consequently no discussion of the schism between Greek and Roman Churches, nor the relative merits of Judaism, Islam or the various Eastern belief systems.

    P.S. The Nicene Creed made lots of Instant Heretics. Did Arius get a raw deal? Maybe better if the Church had glossed over the issue of the Trinity?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius