A Tale of Two Eucharists

[clmowry]

So I driving down NASA Road in TX right now and what do I spy but a billboard advertising a local church that reads.

(substance)

With a big picture of a loaf of bread.

So there ya go.

Chuck

 

[DMECH]

Fr. Casey points out that Jesus didn’t stop them, he didn’t try to correct their understanding of what he said. If he was speaking symbollically, wouldn’t he have brought them back to make sure they understood this? Since he was speaking literally, there could be no confusing his meaning and therefore no need to correct their understanding. They just couldn’t accept it.
.

Isn’t it interesting that that line in the Bible is John 6:66. Recognize the number?

This is my very first reply so forgive me if I did it wrong.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

yes, i would say that a helium-filled balloon has a different individual substance than does a water-filled balloon or an air-filled balloon.

Depending on the relative amounts of these individual substances involved, we could find ourselves holding either a big fat water balloon without any gases at all; or a water balloon also containing some leftover hydrogen gas or leftover oxygen gas.

So I think we have either
–only one individual substance in the balloon, water; or
–two individual substances, water and one of the gases;
–where before we had three separate individual substances…

So it would seem there has been inside the balloon…what shall we call it; oh, I don’t know–how about: “a substantial change”?

Yes, that makes sense to me, ToAslan! And please, feel free to call me Soc (or Sock if something i say stinks).



It’s plausible that under the right circumstances, the hydrogen and oxygen might bond to make nothing but water (or H2O) in the one balloon.

Let’s consider whether the opposite might be true, too. Imagine that we had an indestructible balloon. Imagine also that in that balloon was liquid water, hydrogen gas, and oxygen gas. You and i agree that it is entirely possible that the balloon might contain three individual substances (the substances of water, of hydrogen and of oxygen).

Now, let’s also say we heated the water inside that indestructible balloon so incredibly hot that it began to boil, and then vaporize, and then continued to heat to the point that every one of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms separated one from another, leaving absolutely no water molecules. We would then have nothing but hydrogen and oxygen in the balloon, as the water would have ceased to exist.

At that point, what was once three individual substances would not be only two. Does this sound accurate, my friend?

http://www.arborsci.com/CoolStuff/stop-the-pop.jpg

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

So I driving down NASA Road in TX right now and what do I spy but a billboard advertising a local church that reads.

(substance)

With a big picture of a loaf of bread.

So there ya go.

Chuck

God has a great sense of humor! or maybe he was trying to get your attention, CLM?



Did you ask Him what He was trying to say to you?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Fr. Casey points out that Jesus didn’t stop them, he didn’t try to correct their understanding of what he said. If he was speaking symbollically, wouldn’t he have brought them back to make sure they understood this? Since he was speaking literally, there could be no confusing his meaning and therefore no need to correct their understanding. They just couldn’t accept it.

Isn’t it interesting that that line in the Bible is John 6:66. Recognize the number?

This is my very first reply so forgive me if I did it wrong.

Was the friar speaking to the mob that wanted to make Him king by force and start the Jewish-Roman war 40 years early, or was the friar speaking of the 12 disciples?

To which group did Jesus fail to explain what He meant by calling Himself the bread from heaven?



biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=6&version=31

 

[DMECH]

Philosophy was a subject I struggled with in college, but I will attempt to answer you my way…a little on the simple side, if you will. At the time, they were Jews who were looking for a King to release them from the bondage of the Romans. And Jesus wasn’t their man. They wanted the physical side, not the spiritual side. But as it relates to today, could it be something else? That is I believe that the disciples that turned away are the present protestant faiths. I don’t think that I would go as far as say that they are anti-Christs, but unbelievers in the Eucharist as the true Body and Blood of our Lord. Although I have heard a few that are so blantly anti Catholic that I would call them anti Christs.

I am, as my children used to say, a plain old mom. So go easy on me.

 

[steve_b]

How can what the Eucharist is be a side issue, SteveBee? It seems to me that this is the primary issue at hand.

Already answered. It is truly Jesus body blood soul and Divinity sacramentally present in the Eucharistic elements.
Soc:

Regarding the quotes you provided, i’d like some assurance they can be trusted before i accept them as true.

Pretty potent quotes…eh?

1st quote

Ignatius (disciple of St John)

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 ~A.D. 110]). I originally gave you ch 6 it should have been ch 7. Mea culpa!!
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vii.vii.html

2nd quote
Justin Martyr (labored in Rome, many ECF’s quote him)

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (*First Apology *66 ~A.D. 151]).
ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.x.ii.iii.html

3rd quote
Irenaeus (disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of St John the apostle)

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (*Against Heresies *4:33–32 ~A.D. 189]).
newadvent.org/fathers/0103433.htm

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103502.htm
Soc:

With this in mind, i have two questions:

1. • How do you know they were sincere, but not sincerely wrong?

1. 
   As Paul would say, (paraphrased) if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, our faith, and everything about it, is nonsense, and we are the most pitiful dopes on the planet for putting faith in this faith. [1 cor 15:16-19]
   Soc:
   

   1. • How do you know that these quotes allegedly attributed to them are what they actually wrote or said?
        

   1. 
      The same way you know
      • Jesus is real
      • The resurrection is real
      • the bible is truly scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit
      • written by the vary people mentioned in the various books
      • etc etc etc
        It’s the authority of the Catholic Church who was eye witness, and passed the faith on faithfully to each generation that verifies this… As Augustine would say, I wouldn’t believe the gospels if it weren’t for the authority of the Catholic Church.*

 

[toaslan]

…please, feel free to call me Soc (or Sock if something i say stinks)…indestructible balloon. Imagine also that in that balloon was liquid water, hydrogen gas, and oxygen gas. You and i agree that it is entirely possible that the balloon might contain three individual substances (the substances of water, of hydrogen and of oxygen).

Now, let’s also say we heated the water inside that indestructible balloon so incredibly hot that it began to boil, and then vaporize, and then continued to heat to the point that every one of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms separated one from another, leaving absolutely no water molecules. We would then have nothing but hydrogen and oxygen in the balloon, as the water would have ceased to exist.

At that point, what was once three individual substances would not be only two. Does this sound accurate, my friend?

Soc! (I started taking liberties with your name a few pages back, you knucklehead ) Is that sentence meant to read “…what was once three individual substances would NOW be only two.”?

Assuming that it was a typo: my answer is that yes, it sounds accurate that what once was three individual substances has become two individual substances.

 

[toaslan]

So I driving down NASA Road in TX right now and what do I spy but a billboard advertising a local church that reads.

(substance)

With a big picture of a loaf of bread.

So there ya go.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Philosophy was a subject I struggled with in college, but I will attempt to answer you my way…a little on the simple side, if you will. At the time, they were Jews who were looking for a King to release them from the bondage of the Romans. And Jesus wasn’t their man. They wanted the physical side, not the spiritual side. But as it relates to today, could it be something else? That is I believe that the disciples that turned away are the present protestant faiths. I don’t think that I would go as far as say that they are anti-Christs, but unbelievers in the Eucharist as the true Body and Blood of our Lord. Although I have heard a few that are so blantly anti Catholic that I would call them anti Christs.

I am, as my children used to say, a plain old mom. So go easy on me.

Easy i shall be, DM, and as respectful as i am to the woman who gave me birth.

My thought is that Jesus was facing a mob that was not thinking rationally. Ancient Jerusalem during the time of Roman occupation, was, in many ways, like modern Iraq is today, during the time of military occupation by the U.S. military. There were terrorists (called Zealots) and insurgents who, in the name of God, wanted an all out-war with the Romans. An all-out war is what they got, and Jerusalem was completely destroyed in 70 A.D. I read what the Jewish historian Josephus wrote about that war, and it was not pretty. Hundreds of thousands of people died, and the Jewish nations were destroyed.

Jesus was a man of peace. He told us to love our enemies. He did not come to this world to start a war. So i believe He had to nip this one in the bud before it turned into one. That’s what would have happened if He did not do something drastic to disperse the mob, for John tells you and me:

After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.

(John 6:14-15)
Later, the mob tracks Jesus down, and He persuades them to go away by telling them He is the bread of life, whom they have to consume. Taking Him literally, they disperse. The consequence is that some of Jesus’ regular followers leave Him, too. So many, in fact, that Jesus turns to His closest followers (the 12) and asks:

“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

(John 6:67)

Can you at least see, ma’am, in this historical context, how Jesus had a good reason to not explain why He said what He said, at least until the mob dispersed?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Already answered. It is truly Jesus body blood soul and Divinity sacramentally present in the Eucharistic elements. …

It’s one thing to say what one believes. It’s a significantly different thing to say why one believes in a way that convinces one who does not yet believe the same. Why do you believe in the Eucharist, SteveB?

 

[clmowry]

You really think Jesus deliberately misled his follwers as a means of crowd control?

Chuck

Easy i shall be, DM, and as respectful as i am to the woman who gave me birth.

My thought is that Jesus was facing a mob that was not thinking rationally. Ancient Jerusalem during the time of Roman occupation, was, in many ways, like modern Iraq is today, during the time of military occupation by the U.S. military. There were terrorists (called Zealots) and insurgents who, in the name of God, wanted an all out-war with the Romans. An all-out war is what they got, and Jerusalem was completely destroyed in 70 A.D. I read what the Jewish historian Josephus wrote about that war, and it was not pretty. Hundreds of thousands of people died, and the Jewish nations were destroyed.

Jesus was a man of peace. He told us to love our enemies. He did not come to this world to start a war. So i believe He had to nip this one in the bud before it turned into one. That’s what would have happened if He did not do something drastic to disperse the mob, for John tells you and me:

After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.

(John 6:14-15)
Later, the mob tracks Jesus down, and He persuades them to go away by telling them He is the bread of life, whom they have to consume. Taking Him literally, they disperse. The consequence is that some of Jesus’ regular followers leave Him, too. So many, in fact, that Jesus turns to His closest followers (the 12) and asks:

“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

(John 6:67)

Can you at least see, ma’am, in this historical context, how Jesus had a good reason to not explain why He said what He said, at least until the mob dispersed?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Quote:Originally Posted by Soc

How do you know that these quotes allegedly attributed to them are what they actually wrote or said?**
The same way you know

• Jesus is real
• The resurrection is real
• the bible is truly scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit
• written by the vary people mentioned in the various books
• etc etc etc
  It’s the authority of the Catholic Church who was eye witness, and passed the faith on faithfully to each generation that verifies this… As Augustine would say, I wouldn’t believe the gospels if it weren’t for the authority of the Catholic Church.

The thing is, SB, i’m not yet convinced of the historical reliability of the quotes you have given to me. I’m about as convinced of them as i am of the events of Socrates’ life. Allow me to explain:

I quote Socrates frequently, yet i know there are only 7 ancient manuscript copies of what Plato wrote about Socrates–only seven! The odds that Plato’s works were misquoted or mistranslated or deliberately altered are quite high.

Compare this to the ancient manuscript copies of the New Testament. There are more than 24,900 of them (more than 5,600 written in Greek, more than 2,000 written in Ethiopic, and more than 10,000 written in Latin). The odds that mistranslations or misrepresentations of what the authors wrote have crept into our modern translations are extremely low.

The truth is that there is more reliable historical evidence to support the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ than there is to support the life and death of my most beloved philosopher Socrates.

So when you quote from an early church father, i wonder how many ancient manuscript copies containing this quote are there? 12? 6? 1? If you can provide this information it will do a great deal to help me make up my mind as to the reliability of these quotes.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You really think Jesus deliberately misled his follwers as a means of crowd control?

Chuck

What do you think, CLM?

This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.”

–Jesus (Matthew 13:13)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Assuming that it was a typo: my answer is that yes, it sounds accurate that what once was three individual substances has become two individual substances.

Then, do you agree that what is the individual substance of water can become the individual substances of hydrogen and oxygen? and what are the individual substances of hydrogen and oxygen can, likewise, become the individual substance of water? That is, are you asserting that it is possible for one substance to become two, and two substances to become one?

 

[clmowry]

Not a chance.

His parables all point to a truth not a lie.

He did not tell parables in order to drive His followers away.

Chuck

What do you think, CLM?

This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.”

–Jesus (Matthew 13:13)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Not a chance.

His parables all point to a truth not a lie.

He did not tell parables in order to drive His followers away.

Chuck

Do you think there is a difference between telling a lie, and allowing someone to refuse to see the truth, CJM?
This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.”

–Jesus (Matthew 13:13)

 

[justinthemartyr]

Do you think there is a difference between telling a lie, and allowing someone to refuse to see the truth, CJM?
This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.”

–Jesus (Matthew 13:13)

You cannot “allow someone to refuse something”

You share the Truth with them, on any matter, whether it be they might be an alcoholic, or that Jesus died for them. It is up to them to believe it. Usually if you have had deep and meaningful experience and they respect that, they will be more likely to believe, but no one can make them. We have a duty to take the gospel and live it in the world, sharing it verbally if we have to. You must first give them the opportunity to see the Truth and then if they ask about it, answer in love.

 

[steve_b]

It’s one thing to say what one believes. It’s a significantly different thing to say why one believes in a way that convinces one who does not yet believe the same. Why do you believe in the Eucharist, SteveB?

The one who created everything that is, said to believe it.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You cannot “allow someone to refuse something”

You share the Truth with them, on any matter, whether it be they might be an alcoholic, or that Jesus died for them. It is up to them to believe it. Usually if you have had deep and meaningful experience and they respect that, they will be more likely to believe, but no one can make them. We have a duty to take the gospel and live it in the world, sharing it verbally if we have to. You must first give them the opportunity to see the Truth and then if they ask about it, answer in love.

If Jesus’ words that follow do not mean to allow someone to to reject the truth, then what do they mean, Justin?

This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.”

–Jesus (Matthew 13:13)