A Tale of Two Eucharists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socrates4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Even those who have been Catholic all their lives sometimes doubt about the Eucharist. but spending time with Jesus @ the Blessed Sacrament should dispel all doubts.

So - have you done that??
 
mikeledes said:
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
Click to expand...
Thank you Michael. I appreciate your answering this for me.

Maybe sometimes the only thing you can say is what Michael the Archangel said
“And WHO is like unto God!”…

I think the test of =belief in the Eucharist- is a bit like the test the angels were given (I saw this on a holy card but don’t know where it comes from.).
The angels had a test (before they had the Beatific Vision of God) and they were shown Christ, the Son of God in a human form. The rebel angels would not accept that a God would take such a form and they saw themselves as superior so they rebelled. Michael the Archangel represented the angels who said they did not care what form God took for Himself, they were creatures and He was God…so “WHO IS LIKE UNTO GOD!” was the battle cry…

It reminds me of the difference between people who can/cannot accept the form God chooses to take in the Eucharist.

But of course I know people are different from angels and seeking
truth is important so I do hope our friend Socrates comes to fullness of faith.

Thanks again for answering the question.

MaryJohnZ
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
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)

🤷
Click to expand...
Socrates, I am letting Michael speak for me on this one…
MaryJohn
 
“Gather together, come, approach me all of you who have been rescued from the Gentiles.
They were ignorant, who raised up wooden idols and begged favours of a god without power.
Announce it – come, ponder it together – who was saying this from the beginning, who foretold this from the start?
Am I not the Lord? Is there any other God but me?
Do you seek a just God who will save you? There is no other.

“Turn to me and you will be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, there is no other.
“I have sworn by my own being, I have decreed a judgement that will not be revoked; for every knee will bend to me, every tongue swear by my name.”
From Isaiah 45

I saw this in the Liturgy of the Hours this morning and it reminded me of St. Michael’s cry “and Who is like unto God?”

The Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is Christ sign of the New Covenant for He is swearing by His own being…

I hope everyone has a very blessed Holy Week and very Holy Easter. God Bless to all, and especially Socrates,
MaryJohnZ
 
mikeledes said:
John 6:51-57

**51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." **
**52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” **
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven

If you follow the hermeneutic I gave you, you have the answer to your question.

God Bless,
Michael
Click to expand...
My sons bought me a shirt for my birthday with the words on it: “Easily Distracted.” I’d have to say they ring true in this case, as i’m not sure of what the hermeneutic is that you mentioned. I do know that it took several posts and many verses of Scripture, and do not want to ask you to repeat it. If you had to sum up the many trees of your hermeneutic into one forest comprising a sentence or two, what would you say?
 
Lazerlike42 said:
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?
…
Click to expand...
Lazer:

Do you believe that water is made up of two hydrogen molecules and one oxyen molecule?

🤷
 
mikeledes said:
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
Click to expand...
Sorry, Michael, i’m easily distracted, again. If you do not think it important to the discussion, however, please do not feel obligated to explain.

:o
 
Lazerlike42 said:
… 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
Click to expand...
What specifically have i said that has offended you, Lazer?

🤷
 
mikeledes said:
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
Click to expand...
He did, however, need to keep the mob from beginning an insurrection, which might have started the holocaust of the Jewish-Roman war 40 years earlier than it actually occurred. According to the ancient historian Josephus, many hundreds of thousands of Jewish people died during that war, and nearly every major Jewish city was demolished. The Jewish Temple was destroyed by the Roman general Titus and the Jewish nation ceased to exist.

Losing some followers to prevent the early onset to this war was paramount to Jesus achieving His objective of being crucified for the sins of the world’s people and rising from the dead. If an insurrection started, He might have died in a military skirmish, instead.

Do you agree with this assessment of history, Michael, or would you like more historical evidence?
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
My sons bought me a shirt for my birthday with the words on it: “Easily Distracted.” I’d have to say they ring true in this case, as i’m not sure of what the hermeneutic is that you mentioned. I do know that it took several posts and many verses of Scripture, and do not want to ask you to repeat it. If you had to sum up the many trees of your hermeneutic into one forest comprising a sentence or two, what would you say?
Click to expand...
This is the basic hermeneutic:
  1. **Ambiguous Statement by Jesus **
  2. Misunderstanding/ Question
  3. Clarification
Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement that leads to a misunderstaning, objection, and/or a question, it elicits a clarifying response from either Jesus or the inspired author, especially in the case of John who consistently comments on many of Jesus’s statements for the sake of those reading his Gospel. This response gives a basic indication of what Jesus meant and also indicates whether Jesus was speaking literally or figuratively.

God Bless,
Michael
 
Please Note:

I apologize for not replying to more of your posts. This weekend i hope to remedy this, and also take the time to consider thoughtfully what you have said. I do appreciate the time you are all devoting to answering my questions.

👍
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
My sons bought me a shirt for my birthday with the words on it: “Easily Distracted.” I’d have to say they ring true in this case, as i’m not sure of what the hermeneutic is that you mentioned. I do know that it took several posts and many verses of Scripture, and do not want to ask you to repeat it. If you had to sum up the many trees of your hermeneutic into one forest comprising a sentence or two, what would you say?
Click to expand...
What, the Great Intellectual is having a blonde moment, just when things are starting to get interesting? 😛
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
Losing some followers to prevent the early onset to this war was paramount to Jesus achieving His objective of being crucified for the sins of the world’s people and rising from the dead. If an insurrection started, He might have died in a military skirmish, instead.

Do you agree with this assessment of history, Michael, or would you like more historical evidence?
Click to expand...
I don’t agree with your argument that he needed to lose some followers in order to prevent an insurrection. That is pure speculation. First of all, I believe that’s something John would have indicated in his commentary, especially when he explains many things. Secondly, there is no indication how many followers he lost. We know that at least two or three were lost because of the plural. If it was only a few followers, I doubt that would really have the impact you said it would have.

Third, it was Jesus’s popularity that motivated the chief priests and Pharisees to plot his downfall because they feared ROMAN retaliation:

John 11:45-48

**45Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him.
46But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things which Jesus had done.
47Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs.
48"If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” **
**49But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all,
50nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.”
51Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation,
52and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.
53So from that day on they planned together to kill Him. **

If we were to follow your logic, then Jesus would have never performed the ultimate sign that led many to believe in him - raising Lazarus from the dead - and caused the chief priests and Pharisees to take action which led to His crucifixion. In fact, if Jesus had followed your logic, he probably would have never been crucified. If He were unpopular, the chief priests and Pharisees would have dismissed him and not fear Roman retaliation. So the more popular Jesus became, the greater the fear, and this hastened his crucifixion. Your logic would have done the opposite. 🤷

God bless,
Michael
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
He did, however, need to keep the mob from beginning an insurrection, which might have started the holocaust of the Jewish-Roman war 40 years earlier than it actually occurred. According to the ancient historian Josephus, many hundreds of thousands of Jewish people died during that war, and nearly every major Jewish city was demolished. The Jewish Temple was destroyed by the Roman general Titus and the Jewish nation ceased to exist.

Losing some followers to prevent the early onset to this war was paramount to Jesus achieving His objective of being crucified for the sins of the world’s people and rising from the dead. If an insurrection started, He might have died in a military skirmish, instead.

Do you agree with this assessment of history, Michael, or would you like more historical evidence?
Click to expand...
I believe you have an error in logic. It is theoretically possible that the discourse on the bread of life did prevent the Jews from taking Jesus by force and making him king. The context, however, does not make this in anyway clear. It is, therefiore, a huge stretch to suggest that Jesus gave the discourse for that purpose or that “losing some followers was necessary to prevent the early onset to this war was paramount to Jesus achieving His objective of being crucified for the sins of the world’s people and rising from the dead. If an insurrection started, He might have died in a military skirmish, instead.”

If we applied this line of reasoning elsewhere in scripture we would strip the meaning and intent from the passages. Another thing to consider is that the line of reasoning you have presented is unique. I have never read anything by an ECF or anyone else that approximates your line of reasoning for dismissing the meaning and intent of John 6 as it applies to the Eucharist. I find the whole thing to be problematic.
 
Posts have been pruned to further discussion.
Please consider the situation dealt with.
MF
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top