A Tale of Two Eucharists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socrates4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No God isn,t Bread nor is the Holy Spirit bread.
He has given the gift of Himself in this way of the Eucharist.
The bread is no longer bread.
God can do for us as He chooses and we are not to doubt Him. Although in our human nature we do and He understands to a point.
We must try as you are trying.
There comes a time when we just need to let God be God and trust and allow Him to do for us as He chooses whether we understand this mystery or not.
Not that I have concurred this perfectly myself.😊
Blossom:

If the Eucharist is not bread, then what is it? If the Eucharist was subjected to DNA testing after it was blessed and before it was eaten, would it have the nucleotides of a human being or of flour?

🤷
 
**Question 9. **

If the Eucharist was subjected to DNA testing, would it be found to have the nucleotides of a human being or of flour?

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

(1 Corinthians 11:23-26)
(Sorry, i got the questions out of numerical order.)

http://www.agalinks.com/ImagesFeatures/honey_on_bread.jpg
 
JM:

Are you saying that the Eucharist bread is not really bread at all, but only appears as such, and is actually slices of human flesh? Would you say that if the Eucharist was subjected to DNA testing after it was blessed and before it was eaten, would it have the nucleotides of a human being or of wheat?

🤷
Socrates, I originally thought you were a sincere seeker but after being part of this forum for about a week I am doubting the truth of that… you should know what the response to your above question is, the host remains perfectly appearing to be bread in all aspects. The transubstantiation is not detecable…

But there have been miracles, including within recent years where it has turned to flesh in people’s mouths and the most famous example is the miracle of Lanciano from 8th century. You can read about it here:

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

There have been other numerous miracles, and I daresay many posting here could give personal winesses of miracles they experienced. Many people do not rush to give those witnesses which can be very personal and to share something like that and then have the other person not believe it can seem like a work of God has been disrespected.

I hope you stop playing with people and really take this seriously.

God Bless, maryJohnZ
 
Socrates, I originally thought you were a sincere seeker but after being part of this forum for about a week I am doubting the truth of that… you should know what the response to your above question is, the host remains perfectly appearing to be bread in all aspects. The transubstantiation is not detecable…

But there have been miracles, including within recent years where it has turned to flesh in people’s mouths and the most famous example is the miracle of Lanciano from 8th century. You can read about it here:

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

There have been other numerous miracles, and I daresay many posting here could give personal winesses of miracles they experienced. Many people do not rush to give those witnesses which can be very personal and to share something like that and then have the other person not believe it can seem like a work of God has been disrespected.

I hope you stop playing with people and really take this seriously.

God Bless, maryJohnZ
MaryJ:

Ask Michael, Dr. Patio, and others if i am sincere about seeking the truth. I’ve had some heated, but thoughtful, discussions with them about forgiveness last summer. In the end, i learned a lot.

🙂
 
Yes, the sacrifices of lambs in ancient times was a picture of the one true sacrifice God the Father would provide for you and i, LP. Our Savior is not a lamb; He is LIKE a lamb. My question about the Eucharist is this: Is Jesus a loaf of bread, or is He LIKE a loaf of bread?

🤷
Why do do you believe Our Savior is only “like” a lamb? Scripture records that He is the “lamb”.
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the** Lamb** of God, who takes away the sin of the world! The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the** Lamb** of God, who takes away the sin of the world! John 1:29 RSV
 
Question 9.

If the Eucharist was subjected to DNA testing, would it be found to have the nucleotides of a human being or of flour?

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

(1 Corinthians 11:23-26)

(Sorry, i got the questions out of numerical order.)

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:_wj7oEnOKtdmsM:http://www.indexstock.com/store/GetThumb.asp/ImageNum%3D1026384%26VOLID%3D3716%26gc%3Dgc1%26ss%3D1/Question%20Mark-1026384.jpg
It would show up as flour.

In our existence, there are two sides of a thing. There is what a thing really is, and there is a thing’s physical characteristics. The physical characteristics are dictated by the molecules that make the thing up. Now think about this very carefully: why do sodium-chloride molecules make up salt? Why don’t they make up something else?

The reason is that the particular properties of the sodium-chloride molecule, as dictated by the strength of the bonds involved, the electrical charge, and so forth, give it the properties that we know of as salt. But God made everything, so there’s a deeper question: why did He make those particular properties create a substance like salt, as opposed to something else? Ultimately, it’s becuase He chose to. He could have designed the physical laws of the universe so that different basic properties made a subatance that tastes salty.

In other words, God is in control over everything. He can take the molecules that make up bread and say that, for this one little part of the universe that the bread occupies, the rules don’t apply. In this little patch of existence, this is human flesh. This is what He does with the Eucharist. To all of our senses and all of the tests we can do, the Eucharist looks like bread. Yet it is, in reality, Jesus’ body, because God has made it so.

That doesn’t mean God always chooses to hide the flesh of Christ. Sometimes, He shows it. These are called Eucharistic miracles. In a Eucharistic miracle, God does not change the rules of the universe, so to speak, and we see the true flesh of Christ as it really is.

The most famous example is the miracle of Lanciano. While offering the Mass one day, a priest began to doubt that the Eucharist was truly Christ. God performed a miracle so that, in his very hands, the Eucharist took ok the appearences of flesh. It was witnessed by the entire congregation in the Mass. The piece of flesh has passed down now 800 years completely unpreserved. In 8 centuries, it has not decayed.

In the 1970s, the flesh was permitted to be studied by a team of over 70 unbiased scientists from the World Health Organization. They discovered that the flesh was a piece of human heart. The most astonishing part was that when they cut off several pieces for study, they weighed the same no matter what combination they were weighed in. In other words, piece A weighed the same as piece B, and piece B weighed the same as piece C, but piece A and B weighed that same amount as well, and adding piece C to the scale didn’t change it either! This is consistent with the Catholic teaching that the Eucharist contains the entire body of Christ, no matter how large or small a piece you receive.

There are plenty of other miracles around. If I am nost mistaken, the most amazing thing about them is that the DNA from them is always the same, and matches the DNA from the shroud of Turin.

Several of the Eucharistic miracles are available on video. Here are a few:

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8021437065680936367&q=Eucharistic+Miracle&total=138&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 - the “bread” turns red and beats like a heart at certain intervals.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8070995291235752072&q=Eucharistic+Miracle&total=138&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3 - the "bread’ turns into flesh and blood on the tongue of a communicant.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4009479065184218241&q=Eucharistic+Miracle&total=138&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1 - a documentary of several different miracles

Think about these, Socrates. You can’t easily dismiss them. Don’t just read this, or view the videos, and move on. Take some time off from the forums when you’ve read this. Go and be alone, in the silence. Pray. Just go spend time with God, even if it has nothing to do with the Eucharist or anything else. It is the only way for you to know the truth, whatever that happens to be.

Peace and God bless,
 
MaryJ:

Ask Michael, Dr. Patio, and others if i am sincere about seeking the truth. I’ve had some heated, but thoughtful, discussions with them about forgiveness last summer. In the end, i learned a lot.

🙂
OK then how do you explain miracles like Lanciano?
 
JM:

Are you saying that the Eucharist bread is not really bread at all, but only appears as such, and is actually slices of human flesh? Would you say that if the Eucharist was subjected to DNA testing after it was blessed and before it was eaten, would it have the nucleotides of a human being or of wheat?

🤷
The appearance of the bread remains, right down to the molecular level. Apart from rare events such as the Miracle at Lanciano, we don’t find DNA in it.

Interestingly, when these miracles do occur, we find the same DNA every time. 🙂

Substance isn’t a physical quality, as such, and I am not sufficiently educated to be able to explain exactly what it is - however, I have read Plato’s explanation of it, and he talks about the “chairness” of a chair that is its substance, and that there is a non-physical “chairness” that is the “substance” of the chair. All chairs, regardless of their design, share the same “substance” of “chairness,” even if they look nothing at all like each other.

(And now, I have gone beyond the reaches of my intelligence, and a philosopher is going to have to come and explain it to you correctly. 😃 :rolleyes: )
 
Question 9.

If the Eucharist was subjected to DNA testing, would it be found to have the nucleotides of a human being or of flour?


For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

(1 Corinthians 11:23-26)
(Sorry, i got the questions out of numerical order.)

http://www.agalinks.com/ImagesFeatures/honey_on_bread.jpg
To paraphrase our Lord: "Which is easier to believe? “The bread and wine are just that” - or - “The bread and wine, by the power of God and the promise of Christ, have become My Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity”?

Again, belief in the Eucharist is a Grace from God. Many have not received this grace, but it is available for the asking. Have you “gnawed” on the early church fathers’ writings? They all practiced the Eucharist. Action speaks louder than words. Could that be why Christ acted and did not write? He, above all others on earth, knew how scripture was distorted and abused by the Pharisees to make void the Word of God.

Christ is the Word of God. I will burn my bible when He approaches, as He alone is the word made flesh. The bible, by itself, can lead away from God, if it is separated from the faith Traditions that were instituted by Him in Christ.

May the peace of the Eucharistic Christ, which you have never experienced, be yours for ever and ever. Amen.
 
Man is also a spirit, but it does not preclude him having a body, nor a material form for his spirit even when his body is absent.

Which causes me to wonder what a “spirit” is, and I am forced to admit that I have absolutely no idea, really. 🤷
Now that is an excellent question, JM! 👍

What is spirit? A good place to begin to find the answer is in the words of God’s Word, i think. Would you like to look for the truth in the Bible with me?

🙂
 
Now that is an excellent question, JM! 👍

What is spirit? A good place to begin to find the answer is in the words of God’s Word, i think. Would you like to look for the truth in the Bible with me?

🙂
One of these days, perhaps. Right now, I already spend way too much time on the computer. :o
 
… First the question addressed to me:
… No, I do not believe the Eucharist is the Father. I believe in the Trinity. While the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all ONE God, they are 3 persons. It is the Son, who was incarnated (it was not the Father who was incarnated) and who is both FULLY God and FULLY Human. The First Council of Ephesus (431) and the Council of Chalcedon (451) affirmed this, culminating in the Confession of Chalcedon:

Quote:
Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; “like us in all things but sin.” He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.

It was the Son, not the Father, that became incarnate, and it is the Son, not the Father, that comes to us under the appearance of bread and wine.

As far as the question is my God a loaf of bread? No. My God comes to me under the appearance of the host (bread) and wine in the Eucharist. The host cannot in any way contain the whole of God (as God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc.) but God replaces it’s substance with the substance of Christ while attaining the appearance (or “accidents”) of the bread and the wine, including (usually) their chemical structure (I say usually because there have been miracles reported, I believe, in which the accidents were also transformed, but I’m not all that clear on the details).

I hope that makes sense.
Ahhh, yeah, doc, that’s clear as mud!

😃

What is crystal clear is this:

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation.

What muddies up the picture is when you say this:
As far as the question is my God a loaf of bread? No. My God comes to me under the appearance of the host (bread) and wine in the Eucharist.

I’m glad to see you do believe that God the Son has two natures, not three. He is human in flesh and God in Spirit, but not bread in your mouth. What gets mud in my eye are the words under the appearance of the host. Please explain what these words mean.

 
Of course…go for it.

While we cannot ask John about his writing we can study it and notice how the gospel is put together. You can verify what I said by examining the gospel and miracles versus the placement of the parables. The structure is what it is.
Yes, but before i begin, i think i should heed the advice of Old Socrates, which he gave to his friend:

I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing has one grave fault in common with painting; for the creations of the painter stand there true as life, and yet if you ask them a question they maintain a solemn silence. The same may be said of written words. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but if, out of a desire to learn, you ask for an explanation of something that has been said, they produce the same unvarying meaning, over and over again. And once they have been written down, they promiscuously knock about the world anywhere at all, among those who understand them, and equally among those for whom they are completely unsuitable. They do not know to whom they should or should not speak. And if they are mistreated or unjustly slandered, they always require the author of their being to rescue them; for the book cannot protect or defend itself.

(Phaedrus 275)
With this wise advise as my guide, what steps would you, Pax, suggest i take to best understand the true intentions of John’s words, so as not to be found guilty of unintentionally slandering him?
 
Ahhh, yeah, doc, that’s clear as mud!

😃

What is crystal clear is this:

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation.

What muddies up the picture is when you say this:
As far as the question is my God a loaf of bread? No. My God comes to me under the appearance of the host (bread) and wine in the Eucharist.

I’m glad to see you do believe that God the Son has two natures, not three. He is human in flesh and God in Spirit, but not bread in your mouth. What gets mud in my eye are the words under the appearance of the host. Please explain what these words mean.
I mean exactly what I said. Jesus miraculously takes on the appearance of bread (including its molecular structure, most of the time - exceptions have already been brought up) while maintaining his own substance that consists of both his human and divine natures. Jesus does NOT become “one with the bread” (which would result in THREE) natures. He simply “takes on a disguise”.

Others have tried to explain the Platonic forms. I admit I’m not entirely versed in philosophy, so I can’t begin to admit to have all the answers but I think it goes something like this: Everything in this world has two parts: its appearance and its “substance.” Its substance is “that which makes it “it”.” For example, regardless of its outward appearance, what makes a chair a chair is its substance of “chair-ness”, not what it appears to be. Jesus’ “substance” is the combination of his human and divine natures. Its not that God simply took on human form (ie God has a substance of God but the form of a human). Jesus Christ is BOTH fully God and fully Man. His substance contains both. Jesus has a human soul and a human body. He is also fully divine. That miracle in itself is far too much for my little brain to comprehend, but its what the church confirms. To say of Jesus
He is human in flesh and God in Spirit
sounds a bit too much like Apollinarism, a heresy condemned at the First Council of Constantinople. I quote again the Confession of Chalcedon:
Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; “like us in all things but sin.” He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.
We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.
Christ is FULLY Divine - retaining all of the properties therof. Christ is also FULLY human - retaining all the properties therof. These two natures are indivisible. Christ comes to us “looking like” bread and wine (including their physical properties most of the time). My human mind is FAR too small to comprehend this miracle, but its also FAR to small to even begin to comprehend God. What I can do is believe.
 
Chew is right! The original verb in John 6 from the Greek is to gnaw or chew. This has absolutely nothing to do with cognition. It is not spiritual, or figurative. It is physical. Like Thomas probing the wounds. It was only through the senses that he recognized the risen Lord. Are you Evangelical? Some of your material sounds like it. We are brothers in Christ with nothing to hide, so let us in on the secret so we know which philosophical direction your beliefs are coming from.

Christ’s peace.
If you read my profile, you will see that i call myself an Evangelical, however, i was raised Roman Catholic by my aunt, who was once a nun and is still a devout Catholic.

Please understand, however, that i’m not trying to evangelize anyone, here, in the radical sense of the word. The radical Evangelist seeks to convince others he possesses the truth and they do not, as if he knows the way and they are lost. I, on the other hand, seek only to convince myself of whatever the truth might be, as if i might be lost and should always keep my eyes on the Truth; whether i convince anyone else is not my primary concern.
 
I mean exactly what I said. Jesus miraculously takes on the appearance of bread (including its molecular structure, most of the time - exceptions have already been brought up) while maintaining his own substance that consists of both his human and divine natures. Jesus does NOT become “one with the bread” (which would result in THREE) natures. He simply “takes on a disguise”.
…Christ is FULLY Divine - retaining all of the properties therof. Christ is also FULLY human - retaining all the properties therof. These two natures are indivisible. Christ comes to us “looking like” bread and wine (including their physical properties most of the time). My human mind is FAR too small to comprehend this miracle, but its also FAR to small to even begin to comprehend God. What I can do is believe.
Still mud, Doc! I can apprehend how Jesus is 100% God and 100% man, but how He is 100% bread i have no clue. Maybe i’m misunderstanding something.

Which are you saying?


  1. *]The bread is more than bread; it is a vessel through which we receive the Spirit of the Son of God.
    *]The bread is not really bread; it is actually the human flesh of the Son of God.
    *]Something completely different.
    🤷
 
Still mud, Doc! I can apprehend how Jesus is 100% God and 100% man, but how He is 100% bread i have no clue. Maybe i’m misunderstanding something.

Which are you saying?


  1. *]The bread is more than bread; it is a vessel through which we receive the Spirit of the Son of God.
    *]The bread is not really bread; it is actually the human flesh of the Son of God.
    *]Something completely different.
    🤷

  1. I think I’m saying something that is either #2 or #3 - I’m not exactly sure which. Unfortunately I don’t know how much better or clearer I can explain it.

    Jesus is not 100% bread. The “bread” or the “host” after the consecration is 100% Jesus. Its substance of “bread” has been replaced by the substance of Christ. In general, Jesus does this “in disguise” (for lack of a better metaphor).

    Its kind of like when I put on a costume (although NOT exactly). I can change my appearance to look old or to look like a woman from the Renaissance. I can even look “kind of” like a cat. Fortunately or unfortunately I don’t have God’s omnipotent power to change myself into something that looks non-humanoid. Jesus has that power and can. He can make himself “look like” bread, even though he usually doesn’t. Just like the Holy Spirit made himself “look like” a bird (during Jesus’ baptism) or a pillar of fire (during the Exodus). The Holy Spirit isn’t a bird and he isn’t a pillar of fire - but he can look like it. And I bet touching that pillar of fire would cause a burn.

    Jesus takes on a disguise - as a piece of bread - and comes to us to teach us a lesson: We must feast on him, the way we feast on food. He is our sustainer. He gets incorporated into our body - in a way similar to the way my body incorporates what I eat into every cell. Christ should permeate our being.

    Bread isn’t Jesus. Jesus takes on the appearance of bread (including its molecular structure) in a beautiful sacrament of Grace. It’s an amazing miracle - but one that is not beyond the limits of God.
 
Which are you saying?


  1. *]The bread is more than bread; it is a vessel through which we receive the Spirit of the Son of God.
    *]The bread is not really bread; it is actually the human flesh of the Son of God.
    *]Something completely different.
    🤷

  1. #2 is the closest. The distinction we make is between the substance of something (what it actually is) and its accidents (how it appears to our senses): The substance can change without the accidents changing. In the Eucharist, the substance of our offering is replaced entirely by the substance of Christ, but the accidents remain – so while the hosts still look, smell, taste, and feel like bread, their underlying substance is Christ.

    I’m taking a midterm in my early modern philosophy class tomorrow on Locke and Descartes, and Locke talks about this point a little bit. (You may well know more about this than I do, so forgive me if I get something wrong or if this seems pedantic!) The only understanding we have of a particular substance, Locke says, is the sensory perceptions that it gives us. But, he continues, all that tells us is that there’s a substance, and that it has the power to make us perceive certain things. That doesn’t tell us anything about what the substance is, other than that it incites certain perceptions in us. Under this model, when we talk about “bread,” what we’re really talking about is the collection of qualities we associate with the substance of bread. We use the qualities to talk about the substance where we see them, but we still don’t know about the underlying substance. (Locke describes “substance” as the place in which qualities like these inhere, but he describes that substratum as something that “he knows not what.”)

    In this view, after transubstantiation, the substance of bread and wine have been replaced by the substance of Christ, which happens to have the power to make us perceive the Body and Blood as though they were still bread and wine.

    I hope that was more helpful than confusing 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top