A Tale of Two Eucharists

[mikeledes]

I was asking the good doctor what she believed, not explaining what i believe, Michael.

If you know Catholics believe in the Trinity and you believe in the Trinity, then you should know the response to that question.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Lazerlike42]

(Edited)
I am saying that things like molecules and atoms are under the power of God.

If God wants to make Jesus - or me or you for that matter - be made up of bread molecules while still being Jesus - or you or me - than He can do that.

Now Socrates, is it essentially what *you’re *saying that you don’t believe God is capable of doing that?

And is it essentially what you’re saying that Eucharistic miracles that have confounded the world’s greatest scientists aren’t worthy of even your comment?

Socrates, I don’t know what you’re really trying to do here. You say you are trying to find the truth, yet your every comment is hostile to Catholic teaching. Now most people that I have ever come across that were honestly seeking to know the truth about the Church weren’t constantly attacking Her doctrines, but were asking questions, asking for evidence, and then spending time on their own thinking about the evidence we provided. Maybe you really are sincerely seeking to know the truth, but you ought to know that if that’s what you are doing, you don’t come across that way. You come across as an Evangelical who wants to try to disprove Catholic teachings, either for fun or to convert some Catholics.

I don’t at all presume to judge you or to guess as to which of those you really are. I honestly, sincerely don’t, and I’m here to help you if I can in any need you really do have. However, I thought it was important to tell you the impression you’re giving, because sometimes the way we come across to others is indicative of how we really feel ourselves. In other words, its possible that you think you really are seeking the truth, yet you are remaining completely and firmly set in your Evangelical beliefs and not actually approaching things with an open mind. I’ve been in the same situation before: I thought I was openly and sincerely seeking to understand something, when in reality I simply wasn’t.

I’m telling you this because this isn’t something to mess around with. This is the truth of God, and we’re all going to be very accountable for it. We’ll be held accountable for every idle word we speak, and so all the more so for an effort to seek truth. You’ve been given those videos and the information about the miracle of Lanciano… that’s very, very significant stuff. You’re passed the point of messing around now, or of half-heartedly seeking truth. Jesus told the Pharisees, “If I had not spoken to you, you would have no sin, but since I have spoken to you…” You’re in that same position. You can see a Eucharistic miracle with your own two eyes, just as the pharisees saw Jesus healing people with their own two eyes. They rejected the miracles, and so Jesus told them that they could not be forgiven for they were sinning against the Holy Spirit. You’re at that point now. You need to approach this stuff seriously and beg God to help you to see things totally impartially.

I’m here if you need anything, just PM me.

Peace and God bless

 

[mikeledes]

Well, i’m not trying to prove anything to anyone but myself. As Socrates said: “The partisan wants only to convince others, i, on the other hand, seek only to convince myself.”

Pax and i, however, were having a good conversation about the reasons why Jesus might not have wanted to explain Himself to the mob. They wanted to force Him to be king and begin an insurrection against the Roman military occupation. Rather than give them reason to stick around, His words had the opposite effect. I believe this was intentional on His part. However, i’d be willing to look at an explanation of what Jesus meant by calling Himself the bread from heaven if you have one in mind.

It had the opposite effect because the Jews refused to believe in Him. If they refused to believe in Him, they logically will reject any of His teachings, such as the fact that He came down from Heaven and the Eucharist. Jesus was very clear to them about the necessity of believing in Him:

John 5:31-45

31"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. 32There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is valid.
33"You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. 34Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. 35John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light.
36"I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. 37And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
41"I do not accept praise from men, 42but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. 43I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. 44How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?
45"But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"

Regarding the disciples that left, Jesus had sufficient enemies to accomplish His mission (the chief priests and the scribes, Judas, etc.) I doubt He needed to turn away some of His own disciples to accomplish that.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

How do you know, sweet MJ, that what Paul wrote does not apply to the Eucharist?

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink… These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

(Colossians 2:16-17)

Because if you read that verse in context - which you removed for some reason - you know what he was talking about:

**in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day–
17things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. **

He is talking about the ceremonial and kosher laws of the Old Covenant. The Eucharist is of the New Covenant. This passage does not apply.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

So, your God is a loaf of bread?

My God is omnipotent. The same way He can chose to appear under the visible form of a dove, He can also transform the substance of a loaf of bread into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity while maintaining the visible forms of bread and wine.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

John 6:51-58 is to be interpreted literally and is one of the strongest passages that testify to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In the Gospel of John, there is a certain pattern that helps to shed light on John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement, it is usually followed by a misunderstanding/question, and this, in turn, is followed by a clarification either by Jesus or the Evangelist. So, this is the basic outline of this pattern:

1. **Ambiguous Statement by Jesus **
2. Misunderstanding/ Question
3. Clarification

Now here are some examples from the Gospel of John:

John 2:19-21

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days? But He was speaking of the temple of His body."

John 3:3-5

Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?Jesus answered, "Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

John 4:32-34

"But He said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” So the disciples were saying to one another, 'no one brought Him anything to eat, did he? Jesus said to them, " My Food is to do the will of Him who sent me and to accomplish His work."

John 8:31-34

So Jesus was saying to those Jews who believed in Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, "We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, “You will become free.” Jesus answered them, "Truly, Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

Now let’s look at John 6:51-53 and see if it fits the Ambiguous Statement/Question/Clarification pattern:

"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat? So Jesus said to them, Truly, Truly, I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in yourselves.

So, following the established pattern, verse 53 is a clarification of verses 51-52. If he were merely speaking figuratively, then we would have expected the literal meaning of the “figurative” langauge he used, as it happens in the verses I gave above and in many other places in the Bible. Instead, what we see in verse 53 is a reaffirmation of what the Jews understood Jesus to mean. So the clarification is that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. If he were speaking figuratively, He would have indicated that in verse 53.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Here are a couple of more examples:

John 8:21-24

**21Then He said again to them, “I go away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.”
22So the Jews were saying, “Surely He will not kill Himself, will He, since He says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?”
23And He was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.
24"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” **

John 8:26-29

**26"I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to the world."
27They did not realize that He had been speaking to them about the Father.
28 So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.
29"And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him.” **

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

The point of the above post is that when Jesus is speaking figuratively, either Jesus Himself or the Gospel writer explains what He means. He often uses progressive revelation as a teaching method, going from ambiguity to greater clarity. There are numerous examples of this in the 4 Gospels. Here are some more:

John 4:10-14

**10Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”
11She said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water?
12"You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?”
13Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again;
14but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” **

John 8:56-58

**56"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
57So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” **

John 10:1-10

**1"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber.
2"But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep.
3"To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
4"When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.
5"A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers."
6This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them.
7So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
8"All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.
9"I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.
10"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. **

John 7:38-39

38"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’"
39But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive

John 12:32-33

**32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” 33 This He said, signifying by what death He would die. **

John 21:18-19

**18 Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. **

Matthew 16:6-12

6 Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have taken no bread.”
8 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread?[a] 9 Do you not yet understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up? 11 How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

This does not happen in John 6.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Sorry if I’m repeating myself. Since I’m being asked where does Jesus “explain” Himself in John 6, I have to repost what I said earlier. Hopefully, reading this again will make my argument clearer and I won’t have to repeat myself.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[blossom02]

Socrates maybe your are just thinking to much and not praying enough. I think you came here with a preconceived idea, it shows in your pictures of bread and so forth.

Why try so hard to complicate something that isn’t that complicated?
I can see that Transubstantiation is difficult but if you can accept God then why not accept this teaching of Christ.

I personally have nothing against thinking but I do suggest that it can go over board. I also am not suggesting that you don’t pray.

 

[mikeledes]

I
Socrates, I don’t know what you’re really trying to do here. You say you are trying to find the truth, yet your every comment is hostile to Catholic teaching. Now most people that I have ever come across that were honestly seeking to know the truth about the Church weren’t constantly attacking Her doctrines, but were asking questions, asking for evidence, and then spending time on their own thinking about the evidence we provided. Maybe you really are sincerely seeking to know the truth, but you ought to know that if that’s what you are doing, you don’t come across that way. You come across as an Evangelical who wants to try to disprove Catholic teachings, either for fun or to convert some Catholics.

I don’t at all presume to judge you or to guess as to which of those you really are. I honestly, sincerely don’t, and I’m here to help you if I can in any need you really do have. However, I thought it was important to tell you the impression you’re giving, because sometimes the way we come across to others is indicative of how we really feel ourselves. In other words, its possible that you think you really are seeking the truth, yet you are remaining completely and firmly set in your Evangelical beliefs and not actually approaching things with an open mind. I’ve been in the same situation before: I thought I was openly and sincerely seeking to understand something, when in reality I simply wasn’t.

Peace and God bless

I’m glad I’m not the only one that noticed this. There is a difference between a question rooted in a search for truth and a question designed to prove your point or rooted in unbelief. If you’re asking a question to advance a point, then I believe in the “get-to-the-point” method.

(Edited)

This is not the kind of question a person who is “agonizing” over the Eucharist asks. This is the type of question asked by a person who has a clear Protestant view of the Eucharist, has rejected the Catholic view, and is trying to demonstrate that the Catholic view does not make sense. I personally found this question - and several other questions - very offensive. It is a mockery of Catholic teaching. In fact, the tone of this question is practically in the same vein as the questions the Jews asked when Jesus made the following statements:

**41Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.”
42They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?” **

**52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” **

These questions the Jews asked were not rooted in a search for truth, but in rejection. They rejected that Christ came from heaven and they rejected His teaching regarding the Eucharist. Their rejection of Jesus’s divine origin automatically means that they will reject anything that He teaches.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[DrPiano]

Do you have any suggestions on how to proceed? Do the Catechism or the Scriptures define the Eucharist for us? Once we have a definition, we will save much time knocking down straw men, i think, and get right to the truth of the matter.

Yes, Soc. The Catechism does define the Eucharist for us. Be prepared, its rather long and detailed. You can find the Catechism of the Catholic Church here. And this is the first page of its discussion of the Eucharist (Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 3). Please go through the WHOLE section on the Eucharist. It ends with “In Brief” (1419).

I’ll quote a bit that I think is pertinent to the discussion. You can find it on this page. However, this is in the context of a much longer discourse on the article, so don’t respond to this until you have read ALL of the rest of what the catechism has to say on the Eucharist:

1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."199 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."200 "This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."201

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. the Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. the priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.202

and St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. the power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed… Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.203

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."204

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.205

I highly recommend reading it on the page I linked to because the page has footnotes that give the references for scriptures, church fathers, and doctors of the church that the Catechism is either quoting or referencing.

 

[maryj]

I’m glad I’m not the only one that noticed this. There is a difference between a question rooted in a search for truth and a question designed to prove your point or rooted in unbelief. If you’re asking a question to advance a point, then I believe in the “get-to-the-point” method.

This is not the kind of question a person who is “agonizing” over the Eucharist asks. This is the type of question asked by a person who has a clear Protestant view of the Eucharist, has rejected the Catholic view, and is trying to demonstrate that the Catholic view does not make sense. I personally found this question - and several other questions - very offensive. It is a mockery of Catholic teaching. In fact, the tone of this question is practically in the same vein as the questions the Jews asked when Jesus made the following statements:

**41Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.” **
**42They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?” **

52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"

These questions the Jews asked were not rooted in a search for truth, but in rejection. They rejected that Christ came from heaven and they rejected His teaching regarding the Eucharist. Their rejection of Jesus’s divine origin automatically means that they will reject anything that He teaches.

God Bless,
Michael

I gotta say I’m thinking/feeling the same way. I have also personally thought a lot of what has been posted is “very” offensive. Just one more thing…
How could this bread be Jesus, it is just bread. How could this be the Messiah, he’s just the carpenters son. See a correlation there?
I’ll go back to my original post #18…
If the Manna in the desert(a prefigure of the Eucharist), that feed the Israelites, on their journey to the promised land was indeed real food, which the Scriptures tell us is true, doesn’t it seem that we would be fed with “real food” that sustains us on our journey to the promised land(read heaven here!)

 

[mikeledes]

I gotta say I’m thinking/feeling the same way. I have also personally thought a lot of what has been posted is “very” offensive. Just one more thing…
How could this bread be Jesus, it is just bread. How could this be the Messiah, he’s just the carpenters son. See a correlation there?
I’ll go back to my original post #18…
If the Manna in the desert(a prefigure of the Eucharist), that feed the Israelites, on their journey to the promised land was indeed real food, which the Scriptures tell us is true, doesn’t it seem that we would be fed with “real food” that sustains us on our journey to the promised land(read heaven here!)

You make an excellent point regarding the manna and the Eucharist.

I definitely find using certain kind of pictures (i.e. Pilsbury Dough Boy) and asking certain kinds of questions very offensive and a mockery of Catholic beliefs. There are questions that has been asked that unless you believe Catholics are animists, incredibly dumb, and unitarian, you should not waste time even asking. Besides, there are plenty of early Church Fathers that believed in the Real presence and Martin Luther himself believed in the Real Presence (that Jesus is substantially present in the Eucharist), though not in transubstatiation.

God bless,
Michael

 

[jmcrae]

What definition of substance should i understand you to be using, JM?

The one that philosophers use.

What happens with Transubstantiation is that the “breadness” of the bread is taken up into Heaven by the angels, and the “wineness” of the wine, likewise, and is replaced by the “Jesusness” of Jesus, while retaining the physical properties of bread and wine.

That’s the best I can do.

 

[mikeledes]

How could this bread be Jesus, it is just bread. How could this be the Messiah, he’s just the carpenters son. See a correlation there?

I definitely see the correlation! The same way the Jews rejected Jesus’s divine origin (He literally came from Heaven) , they rejected His teaching regarding the Eucharist (He literally gives His flesh and blood to eat). Jesus did not have to speak in parables in this case so that they won’t believe. In fact, he spoke very clearly to the Jews in chapter 5 (as I pointed out in an earlier post) and in the first half of Chapter 6. He was very blunt and they rejected him. And he was also very blunt concerning the Eucharist and they rejected that too.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

The one that philosophers use.

What happens with Transubstantiation is that the “breadness” of the bread is taken up into Heaven by the angels, and the “wineness” of the wine, likewise, and is replaced by the “Jesusness” of Jesus, while retaining the physical properties of bread and wine.

That’s the best I can do.

What I want to know is whether those who reject this believe that it is impossible for God to do this? Is God unable to do what you just described if He wanted to?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[po18guy]

Hey, MJ:

Would you also say that God the Son is not a man, He only takes the form of a man?

Fully man, fully God. His human body did not evaporate at the Resurrection. He, in body and Spirit, is in Heaven. That is part of the Lord’s immense mystery. If you cannot compehend this mystery, how can you comprehend One God in three Persons, or that God made Heaven and earth from nothing? The Ancient One is a mystery to us. We cannot understand Him - He is that superior to us. We cannot fathom His magnificence - He is that much greater than our mind’s capacity. You are taking a cerebral approach to faith. The crippled minds were are burdened with cannot expand that far. Allow your spirit, which is unlimited, to absorb the truth, for it is the spirit that benefits us: John 6:63-64 “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.

And I must raise a brotherly objection to the very title of this thread! There is ONE Eucharist the same as there is One Sacrifice, One Savior, One Body of Christ, One Eternal Lord for ever and ever.

I invoke the intercession of Saint Thomas the Apostle to help you with your unbelief, so that, once you are in the presence of the Eucharist, you also may exclaim: “My Lord and my God!”

Amen! Alleluia!

Christ’s peace be always with you.

 

[jmcrae]

What I want to know is whether those who reject this believe that it is impossible for God to do this? Is God unable to do what you just described if He wanted to?

God Bless,
Michael

A useful prayer, and very easy to remember is, “Lord, I believe. Help thou mine unbelief.”

 

[jmcrae]

Hey, MJ:

Would you also say that God the Son is not a man, He only takes the form of a man?

Obviously not, since the Creed says plainly,

I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one in Being with the Father.
Through Him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation,
He came down from heaven: by the
power of the Holy Spirit He was
born of the Virgin Mary,
and became Man.