Contradicitions

[Sixtus]

Jesus is present in the Eucharist sacramentally and not physically. We don’t eat a part of His body. He is present under the appearances of bread and wine. So we are not eating meat when we sacramentally receive His body and blood.

SO Fr Sherpa on those mysterious occasions when we receive His precious blood, why is it we taste blood?

Why is that Fr Sherpa?

Please tell me, I cannot wait to hear what you have to say

 

[DallasCatholic]

SO Fr Sherpa on those mysterious occasions when we receive His precious blood, why is it we taste blood?

Why is that Fr Sherpa?

Please tell me, I cannot wait to hear what you have to say

If you want an answer from Fr. Serpa you should probably go the “Ask an Apologist” forum. Speaking only for myself, I have never tasted blood during Holy Communion.

 

[cpayne]

SO Fr Sherpa on those mysterious occasions when we receive His precious blood, why is it we taste blood?

Why is that Fr Sherpa?

Please tell me, I cannot wait to hear what you have to say

Well----well----huh?

 

[Catholig]

I have no problem using theology to answer the questions. The problem comes in when I’m told “it’s been answered” when it has not. Using theology is valid, but using a circular argument to prove a point is useless. In fact, the “theology” that was used is faulty. I tried to use evidence by giving the official church position on transubstantiation, only to get rebuttal that was contradictory to the Catechism, and seeing those that gave it either not understading the problem, or turning away from it.

I think this is really where the problem rests. Today’s American Catholics are really out of touch with the official position of the Holy See. There has been a “re-inventing” of the Catholic church in this country that has made up its own form of Catholicism that hardly resembles the position of Rome on many matters.

Even now a new “evangelical” trend is taking place. Men like John Martinoni, Karl Keating, and Patrick Madrid attest to this.

Anyway, thanks for the efforts to answer my questions. I appreciate it. I’ll keep looking for the answers.

Mepatri, It’s been answered. That is all I can say. I pray that you may be able to accept the truth that Christ is present in the Eucharist as he said, and as the early church fathers reiterated.

Also if you decide to answer this, or post a reply, please, please, show me how I am contradicting Rome, or any official church document, because if I am I will gladly change my position (you know that while Jesus is literally present the accidents of bread remain).

Catholig

 

[Atemi]

Again, your question shows either that
a.) You do not understand the concept of transubstantiation
or
b) you are being willfully ignorant.

Christ said you must do so.

Maybe He did not understand Transubstantiation either. I don’t know.

 

[DallasCatholic]

Christ said you must do so.

Maybe He did not understand Transubstantiation either. I don’t know.

I guess I should just chalk that up to willfull ignorance since obviously Christ, being God, knows everything.

 

[tdgesq]

I guess I should just chalk that up to willfull ignorance since obviously Christ, being God, knows everything.

Actually Dallas, it’s what’s know as “invincible ignorance.” In other words, the ignorance is deliberate and goes so deep that the person is willing to publicly embarrass himself over and over again.

Hey Atemi, the answer is “yes.” Catholics do believe that they gnaw on the flesh of Christ when they receive communion. Of course it isn’t meat like a slab of prime rib on your dinner plate, but you already knew that. And why aren’t any of the true Catholics backing you up here? Apparently all of us have the same deep misunderstanding of transubstantiation.

Why don’t you just come out and admit it. You left the Catholic Church because you didn’t understand the doctrine. Now you want to justify your poor choice by pretending like everybody just doesn’t understand what Rome really teaches. Isn’t that really what’s going on here?

 

[adrift]

Council of Trent

On the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist.

In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant,-that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God: for thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have treated of this most holy Sacrament, have most openly professed, that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable a sacrament at the last supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified, in express and clear words, that He gave them His own very Body, and His own Blood; words which,-recorded by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by Saint Paul, whereas they carry with them that proper and most manifest meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers,-it is indeed a crime the most unworthy that they should be wrested, by certain contentions and wicked men, to fictitious and imaginary tropes, whereby the verity of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which, as the pillar and ground of truth, has detested, as satanical, these inventions devised by impious men; she recognising, with a mind ever grateful and unforgetting, this most excellent benefit of Christ.

 

[Atemi]

If you’re referring to “not eating meat on Friday”, as was a discipline within the Church in times past (and still during Lent)…“meat” was very narrowly defined. It WAS beef, poultry…[don’t remember the rest], but it WAS NOT e.g. fish. Now by almost any generic definition of meat (as flesh), fish would be included. Shrimp would be included. But for the purposes of this discipline, fish and shrimp (and some other flesh/meat) were not included.

The discipline was actually “You shouldn’t eat certain types of meat on Fridays, but it’s OK to eat others such as seafood.” And of course, the flesh of Christ (meat as you would say) was one of those that were approved.

LOL. OK.

I am not so interested in the “don’t eat meat (Jesus)” angle as proposed in the OP.

I am only interested in the intriguing position many Catholics today take, insisting that they literally eat the flesh of Christ as He commanded…but are not literally, literally eating the flesh of Christ.

For example, I asked another Catholic in this thread if they gnawed the flesh of Christ as commanded, and as every RC apologists says I should. They said the mere fact that I asked that question proved that I didn’t know what Transubstantiation was.

I grew accustomed to this approach when I was a Catholic, and it is sometimes still interesting to see repeated as time goes on.

 

[tdgesq]

LOL. OK.
For example, I asked another Catholic in this thread if they gnawed the flesh of Christ as commanded, and as every RC apologists says I should. They said the mere fact that I asked that question proved that I didn’t know what Transubstantiation was.

I answered your question. And your being intellectually dishonest again. You put “meat” in little parentheses behind your statement. You continue to embarrass yourself, and you don’t even realize it.

 

[Catholig]

LOL. OK.

I am not so interested in the “don’t eat meat (Jesus)” angle as proposed in the OP.

I am only interested in the intriguing position many Catholics today take, insisting that they literally eat the flesh of Christ as He commanded…but are not literally, literally eating the flesh of Christ.

For example, I asked another Catholic in this thread if they gnawed the flesh of Christ as commanded, and as every RC apologists says I should. They said the mere fact that I asked that question proved that I didn’t know what Transubstantiation was.

I grew accustomed to this approach when I was a Catholic, and it is sometimes still interesting to see repeated as time goes on.

Atemi et al.,

What answer are you looking for? Everyone here has given the best answers possible, and if you cannot accept them then there is nothing further we can do. It is christ who is present, it is his body, it is his blood, but it has the accidents, the properties of bread and wine. You want us to say that it is literally flesh & blood to the exclusion of these accidents? That the properties which remain are simply an illusion?

Catholig

 

[DallasCatholic]

Atemi and Mepatri,
I owe you both an apology for my comments. Whatever reasons I might have felt were justified at the time I see that I have not been living my faith in these comments and I ask your pardon. I will endeavor to be a better example of Christ.

Pax Christi.

 

[ricmat]

LOL. OK.

I am not so interested in the “don’t eat meat (Jesus)” angle as proposed in the OP.

I am only interested in the intriguing position many Catholics today take, insisting that they literally eat the flesh of Christ as He commanded…but are not literally, literally eating the flesh of Christ.

For example, I asked another Catholic in this thread if they gnawed the flesh of Christ as commanded, and as every RC apologists says I should. They said the mere fact that I asked that question proved that I didn’t know what Transubstantiation was.

I grew accustomed to this approach when I was a Catholic, and it is sometimes still interesting to see repeated as time goes on.

I haven’t read all the previous posts, but yes, Catholics are indeed literally eating the literal flesh of Christ (in the Eucharist).

 

[Atemi]

Atemi and Mepatri,
I owe you both an apology for my comments. Whatever reasons I might have felt were justified at the time I see that I have not been living my faith in these comments and I ask your pardon. I will endeavor to be a better example of Christ.

Well I understand things can get heated in these discussions. I know that too well and I catch it within myself as well.

I do not believe you owe me an apology, but I respect the humility alone.

Thank you for taking the time to say what is on your mind where others, including myself, may not.

 

[teachccd]

I believe that the OP wanted to know whether or not we consume flesh when we receive the Eucharist. Christ did say, much to the misinterpretation of many, " Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you." (John 6:53) The word used for eat did mean to chew or gnaw. That is why many, even today, refused His teachings and walked away.

He used this terminology to emphasize the importance of consuming the “Lamb of God” as did the Jews at Passover. He was to be the new covenant made for all and this continued the covenant made where the Passover lamb must be eaten.

At the last supper Jesus said, “Take and eat; this is my body. then He took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matthew 26:26-28)

When Jesus died on the Cross for us, He gave us Himself as a sacrifice for our sins. The whole Christ died. Yes, He died in the flesh as the incarnate God, but He died complete. His sacrifice could only be made if He died completely human as well as completely God. This hypostatic nature could not and can never be separated. Many try to do this when they deny Mary being the Mother of God. The Person of Jesus Christ gave His life for us. The incarnate second Person of the Trinity gave His life for us.

When we receive the Eucharist we receive nothing less than the Person of Jesus Christ, whole and complete. That includes His body, blood soul and divinity. Many protestants use the verbage of being “covered” by the blood of Christ. While the theology is correct, we are “covered” by the entire Christ. In Catholic theology we express knowing that we are infused by the graces received by the redemptive death of Christ.

So, is our lenten discipline obscured when we receive the Eucharist? No. Only if you focus on one aspect of who Christ is. Catholic theology always sees things as both/and not either/or. Jesus is both God and Man and that is Who we receive in the Eucharist, not a piece of flesh…God Bless you and may Our Lord give you peace…

 

[Wisdom]

According to the Compendium of the CCC in question 282 we see the following:

282. How is Christ present in the Eucharist?
1373-1375
1413
Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist in a unique and incomparable way. He is present in a true, real and substantial way, with his Body and his Blood, with his Soul and his Divinity. In the Eucharist, therefore, there is present in a sacramental way, that is, under the Eucharistic species of bread and wine, Christ whole and entire, God and Man.

Excellent quote note the emphasis in a unique and incomparable way ie mystery and present in a true way but not ACTUAL the words actual never appear in the catechism or any church teaching regarding the Eucharist thus the emphasis on sacrament and not actual cannibalism. In another way to put it Christ entire essence is presnt in a real and substantial way but not in actual way as when he was on earth. Of course the earliest Christians referred to the Eucharist as the medicine of immortality it was the sacrament that helped your immortal soul it was not mean to keep your physical body alive via its nutrient of meat.

One must lack the basic philosophical skills to make such a misguided and childish mistake. The problem here is not catholic teaching but the lack of knowledge of modern day protestants with no philosophy background to tackle the basics of their conundrum.
Yes we consume Christ via a sacramental means but not in a carnal means. Thus the mystery of the eucharist that the East don’t like to define because of this aspect of mystery even though they basically beleive the same thing and the term transubstantion still leaves some level of interpretation open to the mystery.
As the early church father St Justin mid 2nd centruy referred to this mystery as being transmutation which in phsyics is a Transformation of one element into another by one or a series of nuclear reactions. Can Jesus Christ do this? You bet he can, because he promissed us? ANd if you don’t beleive it your suffereing from a lack of faith as the first century Jews did when he spoke the very same words that protestants doubt like the Jews before them.