Catholics lack common sense.

[Gabriel_of_12]

I cleared up the spirit miscommunication; God help me if I implied implicitly or explicitly a symbolic Spirit of God. Hopefully to got the correct understanding that the human flesh and blood of Jesus was a nonliteral aspect of the literal truth of Spirit and life; He was referring to being steeped into Him spiritually, not literally. (John 6:63) The words I speak are “Spirit and Life” To eat Jesus literally makes no sense at all but to feed on the Word of Life, which is Christ makes a lot of sense and this is how He meant it and this is how the church in Acts celebrated; breaking of “BREAD”, not “FLESH”; toss away you revised history Books and stick with the trusted one; you rituals and sacraments will not do what you hope they will.

Peace also be with you; I got to get the much desired ZZZZZ’s

I hope you read the email or PM that I sent you for post#76. Born of water and spirit has zelch to do with water baptism. Just because you see water you cannot assume baptism

Gabriel of 12;
Well I still dont understand your symbolic faith here? How can you “feed on the Word of life” if their is no “True presence” of Jesus flesh and blood?? of which Jesus teaches is his body and blood. See my problem with your non literal aspect of seperating the Word of God Jesus himself from his Spirit, this is a new invention by man. Iam sorry but it appears you have a heretical view of Jesus and the Spirit when you deny his true presence as Jesus himself commands us to consume in order to have life.

So if I were to give you a list of Christian saints and martyrs from the second century on… who died for this Eucharistic faith of the true presence of Jesus body and blood, and has recorded their faith as I believe as a Catholic today which conflicts with your “late” interpretation of Jesus teachings. Would it give authenticity for you to my Catholic faith proving what is and was believed from the apostles placing your interpretation in the new category of protestant man made teachings in a symbolic presence?

I know its a long shot for you, because if you deny the apostolic teaching of John, Paul and Jesus himself, how would you see this mystery of God through the eyes of Saints and Martyrs who went to their deaths for this Eucharistic faith.

So I ask you, do you know of any Christian from antiquity that believes and practiced his Christian faith as you have described here in a symbolic presence? Or is your interpretation of scripture “new” adding to the over 30,000 different protestant christian denominations and non denominations

Let me be clear here, my interpretation of scripture is not my interpretation, as you claim to your own biblical interpretation of Jesus teachings from Johns gospel in bread of life discourse. You see my scripture interpretation that I hold to is 2000 year old, how old can you prove your interpretation is? and who can testify to your “new” biblical interpretation?

I believe this is what seperates the 2000 year old Apostolic Christian Truth from the “new” invented gospels made by men, who twist words and sway the sheep with every wind of doctrine.

Lets us see if your biblical interpretations has the four marks of the Church of Jesus Christ which is One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church.

Prove your biblical interpretation of a symbolic presence of Jesus, and that the sacramental baptism (which infuses grace upon the believer), does not save as believed by Christian Martyrs and Saints before 1500 a.d, or is your biblical teachings “new” and or heretical from heretics from antiquity.

You might be surprised that your biblical interpretation does not exist, but comes on the scene way after the reformers time. Because your protestant fathers from the 16th century believed in the True presence, where you get your new gospel of a symbolic presence is never believed in as your interpretation goes, until protestantism splintered off into many man made theologies. Or maybe you did not know man invented the new theology of “Sola fide” Sola Scriptura", surely you know this historical fact dont you? It was never believed in during the Apostolic biblical period and it was never believed in for the next 1600 years after the resurrection.

So there is no agree to disagree between the teachings of Jesus and the new teachings of men. Either you accept the teachings of Jesus in faith, or you reject them by justifying your own teachings founded upon the new inventions by men in the “Sola” theologies and the many other self proclaimed christian faiths that invented new biblical interpretations apart from the Sola theologies.

Peace be with you

 

[SeanTom]

DEFENSE OF
THE REAL PRESENCE

Look at Holy Scripture: Jesus often used symbolic language; He used it to give a deeper, spiritual meaning to His words (not to confuse His listeners.). Cardinal Wiseman said that,

“Whenever our Lord’s hearers found difficulties, or raised objections to His words from taking them in their literal sense, while He intended them to be taken figuratively. His constant practice was to explain them instantly, in a figurative manner, even though no great error could result from their being misunderstood.”

An example of this was when Jesus said to his disciples, “Lazarus our friend sleepeth; but I go that I may wake him out of sleep.” His disciples then said, “Lord, if he sleepeth, he shall do well.” Jesus then said plainly, “Lazarus is dead.” Christ did not leave them with the misunderstanding that they expressed.

In another incident Jesus told Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, that “unless a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.” Nicodemus then asked, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born again?”. Jesus then answered him precisely by telling him that a man must be “born again of water and the Holy Ghost.” Christ again corrects his misunderstanding.

At still another time, Jesus said to His disciples, “Take head and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” The disciples then thought that Jesus was talking about their taking no bread with them. Jesus, knowing what they were thinking, explained Himself and asked, “Why do you not understand that it was not concerning bread? I said to you, Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” The disciples then understood that Jesus was talking about their doctrines.

In all these incidents Our Lord explained the meaning of His figurative speech even though taking His words literally would have caused no great harm. We know from this, most certainly, that where there would arise a misunderstanding that would cause harm, Our Lord would most definitely make things very clear to his listeners. We have just such an incident in the Gospel (John 6:48-72):

When Jesus was teaching in the synagogue, He told His listeners that: “The bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.” The Jews then, “strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Jesus then, rather than give a figurative meaning to His words as He did in the above examples, repeated the same in more emphatic terms:

                                                                       1

“Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you….For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.”

This was a command, and a divine precept. Many of his disciples murmured at this saying, “This saying is hard, and who can hear it?”

Jesus, knowing this, said to them, “Doth this scandalize you?” And, rather than give a figurative meaning still, “many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus, knowing that they had taken Him literally, was then prepared to allow even the twelve apostles to leave Him; Jesus asked His twelve, “Will you also go away?

It is obvious that Jesus meant His words to be taken literally, the way Catholics have always believed them. Jesus promised: “The bread that I will give is my flesh…”. On the eve of His death Jesus fulfilled His promise saying, “Take ye and eat. This is my body.”

Those who have the true Faith accept this. Before the “Deformation” of the 16th century, when being Christian was synonymous with being Catholic, all Christians believed this and obeyed Our Lord’s command by receiving Him in the Eucharist so that they would “have life”.

The above is just one other way of making meaning out of our understanding and faith in Jesus coming to us through the Consecrated Bread and Wine.

 

[SeanTom]

For those who have a problem with accepting the fact that the consecrated Host and Wine contains the Body and Blood of Jesus, whom they can not see since there is no change in substance, you might tell them the following : The Holy Spirit is one of the three persons in the Holy Trinity. These three persons are equal in that each of them represent the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit united as one. Each one is all three. Knowing this, you can believe that when you take the Consecrated bread and wine into your body, you are also consuming the Holy Spirit, who was sent down from Heaven to be with us.

Therefore, you are receiving the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit entering your body through the Consecrated bread and wine. They can not be separated. This is done through the Holy Spirit who is with us.

The Holy Spirit can not be seen, but is like the wind - you can not see the wind but you can feel its effect on you, and you know it is real. Thus, not seeing the actual body of Jesus in the Consecrated bread or wine does not mean that we are not receiving Him; but, actually, we are receiving Him through the Holy Spirit who, like the wind, can not be seen… Another example is when we breathe air. We can not see the air we breathe, but yet it is necessary for this air to enter our bodies allowing us to sustain life. Likewise, we can not see the Holy Spirit entering our body through the Consecrated bread and wine, but because of the words of Consecration, as given to us by Jesus Himself, the consecrated bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Jesus, who, I believe, enters our body through the invisible Holy Spirit.

So, if one says that the Body and Blood of Jesus can not be in the Consecrated bread and wine since there is no change in the substance received, you might say that Jesus is in this bread and wine, in the form of the Holy Spirit, who is invisible to us, as the air we breath is invisible to us. Jesus said, when breaking the bread , “Take; this is my body.” and when He took the cup said, “This is my blood”. When Jesus was resurrected, He sent the Holy Spirit down to be with us. In my humble opinion, I really and truly believe that the Holy Spirit, though invisible, becomes the Consecrated bread and Consecrated wine, and by doing so, Jesus enters our body when we consume either the Consecrated bread or Consecrated wine. This action makes it more feasible to understand as to how Jesus enters our body when we partake of Communion, without actually changing the substance as seen by us humans.

Recall that during Mass, the Priest says, while holding his hands over the hosts and wine: “Let your SPIRIT come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ”.

Jesus has two natures - human and divine. This divine nature of Jesus enters our body, through the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Holy Spirit, who is also the Father and the Son, through His divine nature, continues his mission to renew the hearts of Communion recipients."

Please know that the above is my opinion. I have given this a lot of thought and am using the common sense that our Lord gave me in my attempt to come up with a reasonable answer to those who question our belief in the Consecrated bread and wine. Whether I am right or wrong, I feel the above will especially help children who have questions on how this miracle can happen. Regardless of what I said above, any person of the Holy Trinity coming into our bodies through the Consecrated bread and wine will result in our bodies accepting the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as one. We are truly receiving the body and blood of Jesus by taking the consecrated bread and wine.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

For those who have a problem with accepting the fact that the consecrated Host and Wine contains the Body and Blood of Jesus, whom they can not see since there is no change in substance, you might tell them the following : The Holy Spirit is one of the three persons in the Holy Trinity. These three persons are equal in that each of them represent the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit united as one. Each one is all three. Knowing this, you can believe that when you take the Consecrated bread and wine into your body, you are also consuming the Holy Spirit, who was sent down from Heaven to be with us.

Therefore, you are receiving the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit entering your body through the Consecrated bread and wine. They can not be separated. This is done through the Holy Spirit who is with us.

The Holy Spirit can not be seen, but is like the wind - you can not see the wind but you can feel its effect on you, and you know it is real. Thus, not seeing the actual body of Jesus in the Consecrated bread or wine does not mean that we are not receiving Him; but, actually, we are receiving Him through the Holy Spirit who, like the wind, can not be seen… Another example is when we breathe air. We can not see the air we breathe, but yet it is necessary for this air to enter our bodies allowing us to sustain life. Likewise, we can not see the Holy Spirit entering our body through the Consecrated bread and wine, but because of the words of Consecration, as given to us by Jesus Himself, the consecrated bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Jesus, who, I believe, enters our body through the invisible Holy Spirit.

Gabriel of 12;
Thank you for your well thought out explanation of the Eucharist. Transubstantiation clarifies that in the Consecrated bread and wine truly become the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. The substance of the bread and wine is what changes into the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ to our souls, while the accidents of bread and wine remain these to our flesh which is of no avail.

Another point I wish to add here is that upon consuming the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ in his Eucharist (thanksgiving) It is Jesus himself who consumes us in reality that unites all believers in him where God is all and in all making us one body in Jesus Christ, thus as scriptures confirm Jesus is the head, the Catholic church is the body of Jesus Christ on earth, because his presence is truly present in his Eucharistic parousia. When the Spirit and the Bride say “come” (Revelations 22:17 The Spirit and the bride 11 say, “Come.” Let the hearer say, “Come.” Let the one who thirsts come forward, and the one who wants it receive the gift of life-giving water). IMHO the Church confirms that all these who have believed this faith in the Eucharist are united both in heaven and earth in the communion of saints, when not even death can seperated us from the Love of God.

1329 The Lord’s Supper, because of its connection with the supper which the Lord took with his disciples on the eve of his Passion and because it anticipates the wedding feast of the Lamb in the heavenly Jerusalem.The Breaking of Bread, because Jesus used this rite, part of a Jewish meat when as master of the table he blessed and distributed the bread, above all at the Last Supper. It is by this action that his disciples will recognize him after his Resurrection, and it is this expression that the first Christians will use to designate their Eucharistic assemblies; by doing so they signified that all who eat the one broken bread, Christ, enter into communion with him and form but one body in him.
The Eucharistic assembly (synaxis), because the Eucharist is celebrated amid the assembly of the faithful, the visible expression of the Church.

1330 The memorial of the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection.
The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church’s offering. the terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, “sacrifice of praise,” spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used, since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.
The Holy and Divine Liturgy, because the Church’s whole liturgy finds its center and most intense expression in the celebration of this sacrament; in the same sense we also call its celebration the Sacred Mysteries. We speak of the Most Blessed Sacrament because it is the Sacrament of sacraments. the Eucharistic species reserved in the tabernacle are designated by this same name.

1331 Holy Communion, because by this sacrament we unite ourselves to Christ, who makes us sharers in his Body and Blood to form a single body. We also call it: the holy things (ta hagia; sancta)150 - the first meaning of the phrase “communion of saints” in the Apostles’ Creed - the bread of angels, bread from heaven, medicine of immortality, viaticum…

1332 Holy Mass (Missa), because the liturgy in which the mystery of salvation is accomplished concludes with the sending forth (missio) of the faithful, so that they may fulfill God’s will in their daily lives.

Peace be with you

 

[SeanTom]

Gabriel of 12,

I would think that the last few postings should wind up this topic. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[KathleenGee]

I think the protestants here should study the ancient catechisms and liturgies and then they will see we have not deviated.

I think the whole problem with protestantism is that it cannot accept God working through human authority in the New Testament.

I have listened to a number of very good sermons by Protestant leaders, but many times they draw on experiences of the Old Testament, and practically nothing from the New.

I have never once doubted my entire life that Jesus is Who I receive. My First Holy Communion felt like my soul was being scrubbed clean with a brush…and I felt such holiness, only 6 years old.

There are many, many more times I receive but without any feeling or emotion. I receive in faith.

After dealing with some Catholic converts who were still on their journey, I obtained the book by Fr. Thomas DuBay, SM, on ‘Faith and Certitude’. Subsequently, he states that continually doubting and dissenting is akin to intellectual illness.

Something to reflect on.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Gabriel of 12;
Well I still dont understand your symbolic faith here? How can you “feed on the Word of life” if their is no “True presence” of Jesus flesh and blood?? of which Jesus teaches is his body and blood. See my problem with your non literal aspect of seperating the Word of God Jesus himself from his Spirit, this is a new invention by man. Iam sorry but it appears you have a heretical view of Jesus and the Spirit when you deny his true presence as Jesus himself commands us to consume in order to have life.

So if I were to give you a list of Christian saints and martyrs from the second century on… who died for this Eucharistic faith of the true presence of Jesus body and blood, and has recorded their faith as I believe as a Catholic today which conflicts with your “late” interpretation of Jesus teachings. Would it give authenticity for you to my Catholic faith proving what is and was believed from the apostles placing your interpretation in the new category of protestant man made teachings in a symbolic presence?

I know its a long shot for you, because if you deny the apostolic teaching of John, Paul and Jesus himself, how would you see this mystery of God through the eyes of Saints and Martyrs who went to their deaths for this Eucharistic faith.

So I ask you, do you know of any Christian from antiquity that believes and practiced his Christian faith as you have described here in a symbolic presence? Or is your interpretation of scripture “new” adding to the over 30,000 different protestant christian denominations and non denominations

Let me be clear here, my interpretation of scripture is not my interpretation, as you claim to your own biblical interpretation of Jesus teachings from Johns gospel in bread of life discourse. You see my scripture interpretation that I hold to is 2000 year old, how old can you prove your interpretation is? and who can testify to your “new” biblical interpretation?

I believe this is what seperates the 2000 year old Apostolic Christian Truth from the “new” invented gospels made by men, who twist words and sway the sheep with every wind of doctrine.

Lets us see if your biblical interpretations has the four marks of the Church of Jesus Christ which is One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church.

Prove your biblical interpretation of a symbolic presence of Jesus, and that the sacramental baptism (which infuses grace upon the believer), does not save as believed by Christian Martyrs and Saints before 1500 a.d, or is your biblical teachings “new” and or heretical from heretics from antiquity.

You might be surprised that your biblical interpretation does not exist, but comes on the scene way after the reformers time. Because your protestant fathers from the 16th century believed in the True presence, where you get your new gospel of a symbolic presence is never believed in as your interpretation goes, until protestantism splintered off into many man made theologies. Or maybe you did not know man invented the new theology of “Sola fide” Sola Scriptura", surely you know this historical fact dont you? It was never believed in during the Apostolic biblical period and it was never believed in for the next 1600 years after the resurrection.

So there is no agree to disagree between the teachings of Jesus and the new teachings of men. Either you accept the teachings of Jesus in faith, or you reject them by justifying your own teachings founded upon the new inventions by men in the “Sola” theologies and the many other self proclaimed christian faiths that invented new biblical interpretations apart from the Sola theologies.

Peace be with you

“The words i speak are spirit and life”; you are to feed on the word of God because in them you will find eternal life, which is in Christ Jesus, the “Living Word”, that is how you feed on Christ, though his word, just as He said. Paul chastised the Colossians for needing milk, strained carrots and other baby food, when they should have been feeding and growing and teaching; eating the steak. But being the carnal Christian, which would be the majority, they have need of being fed the elementary things of Jesus still. As Chistians we are born again and as babes in Christ we need the milk of the word, then as we continue feeding on the word, we reach the point where we now feed ourselves and when we really grown, not only do we feed ourselves, but we are able to feed others as well. This should be the result/pattern of the sanctifying work of the Spirit in our lives, but too many Christians hinder the HS and their growth is stunted.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

DEFENSE OF
THE REAL PRESENCE

Look at Holy Scripture: Jesus often used symbolic language; He used it to give a deeper, spiritual meaning to His words (not to confuse His listeners.). Cardinal Wiseman said that,

“Whenever our Lord’s hearers found difficulties, or raised objections to His words from taking them in their literal sense, while He intended them to be taken figuratively. His constant practice was to explain them instantly, in a figurative manner, even though no great error could result from their being misunderstood.”

An example of this was when Jesus said to his disciples, “Lazarus our friend sleepeth; but I go that I may wake him out of sleep.” His disciples then said, “Lord, if he sleepeth, he shall do well.” Jesus then said plainly, “Lazarus is dead.” Christ did not leave them with the misunderstanding that they expressed.

In another incident Jesus told Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, that “unless a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.” Nicodemus then asked, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born again?”. Jesus then answered him precisely by telling him that a man must be “born again of water and the Holy Ghost.” Christ again corrects his misunderstanding.

At still another time, Jesus said to His disciples, “Take head and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” The disciples then thought that Jesus was talking about their taking no bread with them. Jesus, knowing what they were thinking, explained Himself and asked, “Why do you not understand that it was not concerning bread? I said to you, Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” The disciples then understood that Jesus was talking about their doctrines.

In all these incidents Our Lord explained the meaning of His figurative speech even though taking His words literally would have caused no great harm. We know from this, most certainly, that where there would arise a misunderstanding that would cause harm, Our Lord would most definitely make things very clear to his listeners. We have just such an incident in the Gospel (John 6:48-72):

When Jesus was teaching in the synagogue, He told His listeners that: “The bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.” The Jews then, “strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Jesus then, rather than give a figurative meaning to His words as He did in the above examples, repeated the same in more emphatic terms:

                                                                       1

“Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you….For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.”

This was a command, and a divine precept. Many of his disciples murmured at this saying, “This saying is hard, and who can hear it?”

Jesus, knowing this, said to them, “Doth this scandalize you?” And, rather than give a figurative meaning still, “many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” Jesus, knowing that they had taken Him literally, was then prepared to allow even the twelve apostles to leave Him; Jesus asked His twelve, “Will you also go away?

It is obvious that Jesus meant His words to be taken literally, the way Catholics have always believed them. Jesus promised: “The bread that I will give is my flesh…”. On the eve of His death Jesus fulfilled His promise saying, “Take ye and eat. This is my body.”

Those who have the true Faith accept this. Before the “Deformation” of the 16th century, when being Christian was synonymous with being Catholic, all Christians believed this and obeyed Our Lord’s command by receiving Him in the Eucharist so that they would “have life”.

The above is just one other way of making meaning out of our understanding and faith in Jesus coming to us through the Consecrated Bread and Wine.

None believed it and believed they were literally eating the Christ; try reading the ealiest account of the church, which you will find in gthe Book of Acts and you will see the breaking of bread. The flesh He was giving for the world, was the brutal death on the cross.

Believe what you want; you have been told the truth and reject it, what more can one do for you except pray, so i will pray for you and wish you long life.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

I think the protestants here should study the ancient catechisms and liturgies and then they will see we have not deviated.

I think the whole problem with protestantism is that it cannot accept God working through human authority in the New Testament.

I have listened to a number of very good sermons by Protestant leaders, but many times they draw on experiences of the Old Testament, and practically nothing from the New.

I have never once doubted my entire life that Jesus is Who I receive. My First Holy Communion felt like my soul was being scrubbed clean with a brush…and I felt such holiness, only 6 years old.

There are many, many more times I receive but without any feeling or emotion. I receive in faith.

After dealing with some Catholic converts who were still on their journey, I obtained the book by Fr. Thomas DuBay, SM, on ‘Faith and Certitude’. Subsequently, he states that continually doubting and dissenting is akin to intellectual illness.

Something to reflect on.

Name the protestant leaders to who you refer to as good preachers and i will tell you if they are good or not; I am very familiar with many and some are brilliant and gifted by God and some sound good, but are frauds.

 

[KathleenGee]

I have listened to local ministers. But I can see that they are also giving an incomplete perspective…they don’t realize how much more there is to faith within the Church.

Protestants do well to go back to the ancient liturgies…I finished reading a book this past winter, the liturgy of St. James the Lesser who headed the Church of Jerusalem…the tone and perspective is the same as today…

No, people would not consider ‘eating’ the Eucharist…it is called, or was understood as reception. The Jews ate the manna from heaven. But Christians broke bread. There were non believers who attended these gatherings in the Roman times…the word ‘sacrament’ comes from sacramento…sacred oath.

Eating is not a word used in receiving sacred, physical form. Also note, in contrast to Protestant memorial services of their communion, the bread and wine is left out to be tossed. Our sacred species are treated most reverently and appropriately through Church guidelines, the Body and Blood of Jesus that is not consumed during Mass time, is not thrown in the garbage can.

The great heresy of that time was not believing the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. If you read ancient liturgies, some written by Church Fathers who were pupils of the original Apostles, and then attended Mass in a moderate parish, whether Latin or vernacular, you would see the same elements, tone, and perspective.

A woman from Oregon grew up in an anti-Catholic protestant family. She got hold of ancient catechisms. She studied the early faith well. Then she got hold of a modern Catholic catechism and converted, because the teachings were the same.

How did this happen? It was the Holy Spirit working through the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the bishops and believers…in union with the rock of Peter…

It is the teaching Magesterium of the Church through which the transmission of faith of the apostles is handed down each generation. Our understanding of Scripture must understand each part in context of the entire whole, all must align within the Sacred Tradition of the Church drawn only from the oral tradition of Jesus Christ given to us through His apostles who approximated…

So a Catholic, or practically most priests for that matter, cannot recall if you begin, ‘Now we turn to the Gospel of Matthew, Ch and verse…’ But we know the Gospels through our minds and hearts, familiar with the passages…and we have 3 cycles of the Word of God…meaning we cover the entire Bible…so if you go to Mass every Sunday for 3 years, you will have covered the whole Bible.

Finally, the Word of God is spoken in sacred space…When we hear the Word of God in the manner of which we do with ancient sacred symbols of the lighted sanctuary, the altar table, the candles and light, the renewal of our baptism when we walk into bless ourselves with Holy Water, we profess the Word of God not only with our lips, but with our entire beings.

The sacred space becomes for us an arena so to speak, where we witness again the lives and events of the ancient Jewish people through the Liturgy of the Word, and following the Gospel and homily, we then begin the Liturgy of the Eucharist, where the Word Made Flesh is fulfilled.

Every gesture and action of priest and assembly has meaning and professes our faith in the Lord…so we have disciplines…we have to tow the line so to speak. As we pray, we believe…in contrast to followers of Sola Scriptura, we continue in the manner of the Jewish people, that God does not come to individuals but to a gathering of peoples…of every race and culture, all praising God with the Holy Angels in union, “Sanctus, sanctus sanctus!..”

 

[SeanTom]

Timothy Piper,

I appreciate you taking time out to respond to my posting, and I appreciate you wanting to say prayers for me. But I still stand by my beliefs as stated in my last posting. I’ve been with many Theologians over the years and am presently with one every Wednesday morning - they all agree with my understanding of the significance of our belief in Holy Communion. Our Lord has spoken and who are we to disbelieve what He had to say. Some day we will all have to stand before our Lord and give an accounting as to our beliefs in His Word.;

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Timothy Piper,

I appreciate you taking time out to respond to my posting, and I appreciate you wanting to say prayers for me. But I still stand by my beliefs as stated in my last posting. I’ve been with many Theologians over the years and am presently with one every Wednesday morning - they all agree with my understanding of the significance of our belief in Holy Communion. Our Lord has spoken and who are we to disbelieve what He had to say. Some day we will all have to stand before our Lord and give an accounting as to our beliefs in His Word.;

We will give an account, some for judgment and some for rewards; all depends on the path one is one, the wide or narrow, both are marked heaven, but only one ends in heaven.

Jesus and Paul were both very clear as to the manner to which Jesus spoke concerning the Lords Supper. I guess it depends on how one defines a theologian; it is a title given to men by men.

Enjoy your journey and live long and prosper.

 

[SeanTom]

Thanks for your concern.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Gabriel of 12;
Well I still dont understand your symbolic faith here? How can you “feed on the Word of life” if their is no “True presence” of Jesus flesh and blood?? of which Jesus teaches is his body and blood. See my problem with your non literal aspect of seperating the Word of God Jesus himself from his Spirit, this is a new invention by man. Iam sorry but it appears you have a heretical view of Jesus and the Spirit when you deny his true presence as Jesus himself commands us to consume in order to have life.

So if I were to give you a list of Christian saints and martyrs from the second century on… who died for this Eucharistic faith of the true presence of Jesus body and blood, and has recorded their faith as I believe as a Catholic today which conflicts with your “late” interpretation of Jesus teachings. Would it give authenticity for you to my Catholic faith proving what is and was believed from the apostles placing your interpretation in the new category of protestant man made teachings in a symbolic presence?

I know its a long shot for you, because if you deny the apostolic teaching of John, Paul and Jesus himself, how would you see this mystery of God through the eyes of Saints and Martyrs who went to their deaths for this Eucharistic faith.

So I ask you, do you know of any Christian from antiquity that believes and practiced his Christian faith as you have described here in a symbolic presence? Or is your interpretation of scripture “new” adding to the over 30,000 different protestant christian denominations and non denominations

Let me be clear here, my interpretation of scripture is not my interpretation, as you claim to your own biblical interpretation of Jesus teachings from Johns gospel in bread of life discourse. You see my scripture interpretation that I hold to is 2000 year old, how old can you prove your interpretation is? and who can testify to your “new” biblical interpretation?

I believe this is what seperates the 2000 year old Apostolic Christian Truth from the “new” invented gospels made by men, who twist words and sway the sheep with every wind of doctrine.

Lets us see if your biblical interpretations has the four marks of the Church of Jesus Christ which is One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church.

Prove your biblical interpretation of a symbolic presence of Jesus, and that the sacramental baptism (which infuses grace upon the believer), does not save as believed by Christian Martyrs and Saints before 1500 a.d, or is your biblical teachings “new” and or heretical from heretics from antiquity.

You might be surprised that your biblical interpretation does not exist, but comes on the scene way after the reformers time. Because your protestant fathers from the 16th century believed in the True presence, where you get your new gospel of a symbolic presence is never believed in as your interpretation goes, until protestantism splintered off into many man made theologies. Or maybe you did not know man invented the new theology of “Sola fide” Sola Scriptura", surely you know this historical fact dont you? It was never believed in during the Apostolic biblical period and it was never believed in for the next 1600 years after the resurrection.

So there is no agree to disagree between the teachings of Jesus and the new teachings of men. Either you accept the teachings of Jesus in faith, or you reject them by justifying your own teachings founded upon the new inventions by men in the “Sola” theologies and the many other self proclaimed christian faiths that invented new biblical interpretations apart from the Sola theologies.

Peace be with you

Perhaps you should read the Talmud; it gives a clear idea what is meant by feeding on something as used in Jesus day. You overlook the fact that the Bible is the “Living” Word of God. You can feed on something that is “living”; but you do not eat the flesh of Jesus; it is after all a piece of cooked dough and only in your imagination is it a piece of flesh, but still tastes like a piece of dough because that is what it is.

I can eat a hamburger and imagine it is fish, but it still looks and tastes like a hamburger because it is.

The earliest acts of the church and earliest church “fathers” are the writers of the Scripture inspired by the HS. They broke bread, not ate flesh. To be considered early, they would have to be the first 50-100 years after the death of the last writer and you will not find the eating of any flesh, you will see this emerge around 275 to 330 years after the death of John. So you can argue till your blue in the face, but ti will not change the words of the apostles or that of Jesus.

You claim to adhere to the apostolic teaching; yet you deny the one is justified, positional saved from all sin the the penalty of such sin, by faith alone, which is the gospel or good news, which of course is predicated upon the bad news that all are sinners and are headed for death and hell and need to repent before God in order to be justified, but this to is God first moving. But to each their own path to his own salvation or destruction.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I can eat a hamburger and imagine it is fish, but it still looks and tastes like a hamburger because it is.

We are told that we become new creations in Christ, yet we still look like our old sinful self…

The earliest acts of the church and earliest church “fathers” are the writers of the Scripture inspired by the HS. They broke bread, not ate flesh. To be considered early, they would have to be the first 50-100 years after the death of the last writer and you will not find the eating of any flesh, you will see this emerge around 275 to 330 years after the death of John. So you can argue till your blue in the face, but ti will not change the words of the apostles or that of Jesus.

By your own standard of 50-100 years after Christ’s death:

Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“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]).

God bless

 

[Timothy_Piper]

For those who have a problem with accepting the fact that the consecrated Host and Wine contains the Body and Blood of Jesus, whom they can not see since there is no change in substance, you might tell them the following : The Holy Spirit is one of the three persons in the Holy Trinity. These three persons are equal in that each of them represent the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit united as one. Each one is all three. Knowing this, you can believe that when you take the Consecrated bread and wine into your body, you are also consuming the Holy Spirit, who was sent down from Heaven to be with us.

Therefore, you are receiving the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit entering your body through the Consecrated bread and wine. They can not be separated. This is done through the Holy Spirit who is with us.

The Holy Spirit can not be seen, but is like the wind - you can not see the wind but you can feel its effect on you, and you know it is real. Thus, not seeing the actual body of Jesus in the Consecrated bread or wine does not mean that we are not receiving Him; but, actually, we are receiving Him through the Holy Spirit who, like the wind, can not be seen… Another example is when we breathe air. We can not see the air we breathe, but yet it is necessary for this air to enter our bodies allowing us to sustain life. Likewise, we can not see the Holy Spirit entering our body through the Consecrated bread and wine, but because of the words of Consecration, as given to us by Jesus Himself, the consecrated bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Jesus, who, I believe, enters our body through the invisible Holy Spirit.

So, if one says that the Body and Blood of Jesus can not be in the Consecrated bread and wine since there is no change in the substance received, you might say that Jesus is in this bread and wine, in the form of the Holy Spirit, who is invisible to us, as the air we breath is invisible to us. Jesus said, when breaking the bread , “Take; this is my body.” and when He took the cup said, “This is my blood”. When Jesus was resurrected, He sent the Holy Spirit down to be with us. In my humble opinion, I really and truly believe that the Holy Spirit, though invisible, becomes the Consecrated bread and Consecrated wine, and by doing so, Jesus enters our body when we consume either the Consecrated bread or Consecrated wine. This action makes it more feasible to understand as to how Jesus enters our body when we partake of Communion, without actually changing the substance as seen by us humans.

Recall that during Mass, the Priest says, while holding his hands over the hosts and wine: “Let your SPIRIT come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ”.

Jesus has two natures - human and divine. This divine nature of Jesus enters our body, through the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Holy Spirit, who is also the Father and the Son, through His divine nature, continues his mission to renew the hearts of Communion recipients."

Please know that the above is my opinion. I have given this a lot of thought and am using the common sense that our Lord gave me in my attempt to come up with a reasonable answer to those who question our belief in the Consecrated bread and wine. Whether I am right or wrong, I feel the above will especially help children who have questions on how this miracle can happen. Regardless of what I said above, any person of the Holy Trinity coming into our bodies through the Consecrated bread and wine will result in our bodies accepting the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as one. We are truly receiving the body and blood of Jesus by taking the consecrated bread and wine.

Another major flaw to this line of thinking it the idea of “holy orders” that a man has the pwoer to call down “the host” from heaven at his calling and “the host” is obligated to respond. Won’t find that is the words of God anywhere. Furthermore, Jesus did away with the need of a priestly sacrifice remember the words “it is finished”! All the Father gave Him to do and all that was necessary to redeem the elect was complete; no more formal priesthood, so the idea of a levitical self-styled priesthood is not in the bible either and to the contrary the Bible said it was done away with, Hebrews 7,8 &9. So you have several issues that you must reconcile with God before you can even get to the bread.

Rituals and traditions are one path and there is another path the Bible speaks of; so each must chose the path that is right in his own sight. I have choosen the narrow path, but remember both paths are marked heaven, but both do not end there - spiritual food for thought or eating if you will. Pun intended.

God bless you

 

[Timothy_Piper]

We are told that we become new creations in Christ, yet we still look like our old sinful self…

Yep; spiritual creation in Christ Jesus. The HS dwells in all believers; yet you can’t see Him.

By your own standard of 50-100 years after Christ’s death:

Ignatius of Antioch

God bless
If you look at the quotes, there is nothing that says or implies “eating”; it said people deny the bread and the flesh meaning they deny the death and resurrection which is the heresy they were defending against. You can twist and turn anything someone says to fit an agenda, but you still have to get past the “holy orders” and “levitical style priesthood” to even get to the consecration of bread, Many obstacles that cannot be reconciled with God; so chose your path and in the end if you chose the correct one you will be in heaven, if not you will be in hell; like everyone.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Yep; spiritual creation in Christ Jesus. The HS dwells in all believers; yet you can’t see Him.

Nope, sorry. The scriptures say we become new creations in Christ, not new “spiritual” creations in Christ. Since I cannot see the change, if I had the lack of faith of you, I would deny this Scriptural belief…

If you look at the quotes, there is nothing that says or implies “eating”

I have no** taste **for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ

Ignatius says that he had no ‘taste’ (do you have to eat something to taste it ) for corruptible food. He desired the flesh of Jesus Christ.

You can twist and turn anything someone says to fit an agenda

Yes, you have shown this to be true.

I have shared truth with you. You can choose to reject it like those in John 6 did and walk away from the Lord but that is up to you. *so chose your path and in the end if you chose the correct one you will be in heaven, if not you will be in hell; like everyone. *

I will shake the dust from my sandals.

God bless you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The earliest acts of the church and earliest church “fathers” are the writers of the Scripture inspired by the HS. They broke bread, not ate flesh. To be considered early, they would have to be the first 50-100 years after the death of the last writer and you will not find the eating of any flesh, you will see this emerge around 275 to 330 years after the death of John. So you can argue till your blue in the face, but ti will not change the words of the apostles or that of Jesus.

Gabriel of 12;
Again Timothy Piper you have missed the topic or are changing the discussion here; For one I was asking you for witnesses from Christendom that interprets John 6;… as you do today? You will never find any, that is why I stated your new christian theology and biblical interpretation is a New gospel teaching. If I were to show you from antiquity those from history who held to a view similar to yours today about a symbolic presence of Jesus, we would find your biblical interpretation condenmed and public made a heresy.

Here are some witnesses and ancient Christian documents that believe and taught my Catholic faith and died for this belief. I list them for reasonable minds.

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thes. 2:15)

“And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim. 2:2)

THE BIBLE
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”

-1 Cor. 10:16-17

“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when 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 also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”

-1 Cor. 11:23-27

THE DIDACHE
The Didache or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” is a manuscript which was used by 2nd century bishops and priests for the instruction of catechumens. Many early Christian writers have referenced it making this document relatively easy to date.

“Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’”.

-Ch. 9:5

“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.’”

-Ch 14

ST. CLEMENT OF ROME (Alt)
St. Clement was the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome; otherwise known as the third Pope.

“Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity.”

Source: St. Clement, bishop of Rome, **80 A.D., **to the Corinthians

“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.”

Source: Letter to the Corinthians, [44,4]

CONT;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

---

ST. ATHANASIUS (Alt)
St. Athanasius was born in Alexandria ca. 295 A.D. He was ordained a deacon in 319 A.D. He accompanied his bishop, Alexander, to the Council of Nicaea, where he served as his secretary. Eventually he succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria. He is most known for defending Nicene doctrine against Arian disputes.,

“‘The great Athanasius in his sermon to the newly baptized says this:’ You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ. ‘And again:’ Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus His Body is confected.”,

-“Sermon to the Newly Baptized” ante 373 A.D.,

ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (Alt)
St. Cyril served as Bishop of Jerusalem in the years 348-378 A.D.,

"`I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, etc. [1 Cor. 11:23]’. This teaching of the Blessed Paul is alone sufficient to give you a full assurance concerning those Divine Mysteries, which when ye are vouchsafed, ye are of (the same body) [Eph 3:6] and blood with Christ. For he has just distinctly said, (That our Lord Jesus Christ the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks He brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is My Body: and having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, Take, drink, this is My Blood.) [1 Cor. 2:23-25] Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, (This is My Body), who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has affirmed and said, (This is My Blood), who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?

-"Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 1]

"Therefore with fullest assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mightest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are diffused through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, (we become partaker of the divine nature.) [2 Peter 1:4]

-"Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 3]

"Contemplate therefore the Bread and Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for though sense suggests this to thee, let faith stablish thee. Judge not the matter from taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that thou hast been vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ.

-“Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 6]”

THESE ARE JUST A FEW EYE WITNESSES FROM THE FIRST CENTURY ON… WHO PRACTICED AND WERE MARTYRED FOR THE CATHOLIC FAITH, AND MUCH MORE SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES.