- Status
R
R_C
Guest
Shown? I don’t think so!
Actually, through countless Eucharistic miracles, it is the Lord who has literally shown those scholars to be wrong. I guess it’s never a good idea to appeal to supernatural explanations when rational ones fully suffice, but since God mercifully granted these sings to the Church way before Luther or anybody thought about denying the Real Presence, it is good to make them known.
You focus a lot on John 6. How do you explain Matthew 26:27-28?
Even if, for the sake of the discussion, we assume that you’re right, isn’t it a clear temptation to sin? Because even if you are right and the wine is just wine, when the Lord says “drink…this is my blood” the apostles should have refused, pointing out that it was unlawful to do that.
Forgive me, this reminds me a bit of those communities that claim that Jesus is not God. They give you a lot of Bible quotes and a lot of explanations that “clearly show” that He is not God. Then, of course, they hardly can explain why, when Thomas called him “my God”, Jesus did not rebuke Him, but said “because you have seen, you have believed”.
Christ said “drink…this is my blood”. His words will never pass. It may be wise to accept that it may be possible that the teaching you have received is incorrect.
W
William_C
Guest
Countless Eucharistic miracles? C’mon. The writer of Hebrews tells us that God has, “in these last days spoken to us by His Son.” For the moment, God has said all He’s going to say, and God’s people ought to be suspicious of anyone claiming “miracles.” Miracles are not the norm, today.
”This is my blood,” is a classic metaphor: one thing put for another thing employing the verb “to be.”
Where is it said it’s unlawful to drink wine?
It seems obvious to me that the apostles understood Christ’s words as metaphor. You know, there’s no verb in the passage indicating the wine ***became ***blood, but only a metaphor that every human mind recognizes. Even the Catholic mind recognizes metaphors, except for two: “this is my body,” “this is my blood.” Catholics will not recognize those metaphors.
Is it wise for you to do the same, R_C?
R
R_C
Guest
Not even for a split second I have not kept in mind that everything I have learned and know may be wrong. Not even for a second I have not kept in mind that perhaps it is all an illusion, that perhaps there is no good and bad, no soul, no God, nothing. Only then I can truly say with no fear: “all I know is that I know nothing.”
It is with no pride at all, but in full humbleness, that I tell you with the words of the Apostle Paul, that I simply hold to the traditions as the apostles passed them unto me, and that it is this tradition what I am also passing on to you.
The tradition, acknowledged by Early Church Fathers, by centuries of theologians, and even by some protestant communities, is that the Bread and Wine become true Body and true Blood.
You may smile at the idea of Eucharistic miracles, perhaps because you do not know about them. There have been truly countless of occasions in which, for instance, a priest has doubted of the Real Presence of Christ and the consecrated host has started to bleed. On one occasion, a priest put a consecrated host inside his breviary to take it to a sick patient, and when he opened the breviary, it was soaked in blood. In other occasions, the host transformed before the priest and the faithful into flesh - in modern times, scientists determined that it was myocardial tissue from a heart. All of these have happened not just once or twice, but consistently throughout the centuries, and we still have relics of some of these. You are totally free to not believe in them. But the witnesses saw them take place, and the relics are there, and they draw people to God, and make them grow in humbleness and virtue.
Yes, miracles may not be the norm, but they do take place. Even Eucharistic miracles. Why don’t you check this video?(real scene) [(zoomed-in scene)](ilpanevivo.org/video/scena ingrandita.mpg) This was witnessed not only by hundreds, but was also recorded by many, since the Mass was being transmitted on the national French television network. Just check it out.
I do not try to convince you, to convert you, or to make you believe in anything. All I can do is pass onto you what has been passed onto me since the days of the Lord:
I can therefore tell you that there are many others that bears witness of this truth; and I know that the witness which they witness of is true. Now I ask you: to what Tradition are you appealing yourself? Who has been your Teacher? Or is this your own interpretation? For surely there is a need to understand where does something proceed from if we want to discern its truthfulness.
It is with no pride at all, but in full humbleness, that I tell you with the words of the Apostle Paul, that I simply hold to the traditions as the apostles passed them unto me, and that it is this tradition what I am also passing on to you.
The tradition, acknowledged by Early Church Fathers, by centuries of theologians, and even by some protestant communities, is that the Bread and Wine become true Body and true Blood.
You may smile at the idea of Eucharistic miracles, perhaps because you do not know about them. There have been truly countless of occasions in which, for instance, a priest has doubted of the Real Presence of Christ and the consecrated host has started to bleed. On one occasion, a priest put a consecrated host inside his breviary to take it to a sick patient, and when he opened the breviary, it was soaked in blood. In other occasions, the host transformed before the priest and the faithful into flesh - in modern times, scientists determined that it was myocardial tissue from a heart. All of these have happened not just once or twice, but consistently throughout the centuries, and we still have relics of some of these. You are totally free to not believe in them. But the witnesses saw them take place, and the relics are there, and they draw people to God, and make them grow in humbleness and virtue.
Yes, miracles may not be the norm, but they do take place. Even Eucharistic miracles. Why don’t you check this video?(real scene) [(zoomed-in scene)](ilpanevivo.org/video/scena ingrandita.mpg) This was witnessed not only by hundreds, but was also recorded by many, since the Mass was being transmitted on the national French television network. Just check it out.
I do not try to convince you, to convert you, or to make you believe in anything. All I can do is pass onto you what has been passed onto me since the days of the Lord:
It is amazing that the best quote I can think of is that of Martin Luther: how can you possibly believe, based on who knows what teaching, that the Eucharist is not real body and real blood, if in 1500 years none of the Apostles or the Fathers of the Church or any theologian ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present. It is not credible, nor possible that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived.
I can therefore tell you that there are many others that bears witness of this truth; and I know that the witness which they witness of is true. Now I ask you: to what Tradition are you appealing yourself? Who has been your Teacher? Or is this your own interpretation? For surely there is a need to understand where does something proceed from if we want to discern its truthfulness.
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
ah no–that would make it private revelation.
W
William_C
Guest
Errr, I will concede that It would be both.
R
R_C
Guest
Trust me, there is nobody more careful and less prone to acknowledge something as a miracle than the Church. However, when a host transforms in such way, or when a few hundred hosts remain unaltered for hundreds of years, it’s ludicrous not to call them such, inasmuch as they are unexplainable.
Also, forgive me, but the Church has a few centuries of experience in discerning spirits and knowing what comes from God and what from the devil. Those “so-called miracles”, be assured, are not the work of the devil, who would never do anything to increase the people’s love to God - which is what these marvelous events have done.
It is sad, however, that you do not believe that the Holy Spirit works marvelous miracles throughout the world. That is indeed the ordinary way in which God works, because a miracle, no matter how small and minuscule may appear to us, is always very great in the eyes of those who experience it.
Anyways I brought to you all I had to, and I am very happy, because these matters never remain unsettled, and one day we will know without the possibility of doubt what right now we only have as a blessed hope based on faith.
I dare say that I know that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, and I suspect that you hold the same belief, though you do not think the actual body and blood are present. Others don’t even acknowledge that Christ is present. Others don’t even know Christ.
Jesus knows what’s going on, He will make things work out just fine, one way or the other.
W
William_C
Guest
You know, R_C, I truly appreciate your kind heart, and its concern for my spiritual well being.Trust me, there is nobody more careful and less prone to acknowledge something as a miracle than the Church. However, when a host transforms in such way, or when a few hundred hosts remain unaltered for hundreds of years, it’s ludicrous not to call them such, inasmuch as they are unexplainable.
Also, forgive me, but the Church has a few centuries of experience in discerning spirits and knowing what comes from God and what from the devil. Those “so-called miracles”, be assured, are not the work of the devil, who would never do anything to increase the people’s love to God - which is what these marvelous events have done.
It is sad, however, that you do not believe that the Holy Spirit works marvelous miracles throughout the world. That is indeed the ordinary way in which God works, because a miracle, no matter how small and minuscule may appear to us, is always very great in the eyes of those who experience it.
Anyways I brought to you all I had to, and I am very happy, because these matters never remain unsettled, and one day we will know without the possibility of doubt what right now we only have as a blessed hope based on faith.
I dare say that I know that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, and I suspect that you hold the same belief, though you do not think the actual body and blood are present. Others don’t even acknowledge that Christ is present. Others don’t even know Christ.
However, I’m not on board with transubstantiation, and doubt I ever will be, and I’m not on board with “real presence” either, and it’s not because I haven’t considered them.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Totally missed the mark. People have always chosen to not believe something when it upsets their world. So people think that man did not go to the moon but to someplace in Arizona, or was it Utah? People did not believe the world was round instead of flat nor did they believe the sun was the center of the solar system, not the earth. Look at the Old Testament and what the people witnessed, yet they still rebelled against God and Moses. Adam walked and talked with God and still chose to ignore God’s instructions. It is in our nature to do this, it seems.
I
inkaneer
Guest
So what’s the problem? Can’t be scripture can it? If it is then please give us the book, chapter and verse(s). I am sure that as a protestant, which you claim you are, you are cognizant that there is no other higher authority than scripture and if scripture is definite on something then you have to be also. And the words of Jesus, “This IS my body…” are very definite, especially in the original Greek.
Now you might not fully understand how that bread can become the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ. But there is no wiggle room here. The early church knew that. They taught that the Eucharist was the actual body of Christ. Did the early church error? No, for that would be unscriptural. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth. Jesus said that He, Himself, would remain with His Church until the end of the age. Do you really think Jesus would go through all that He did and then allow His Church to teach error? Does that make sense to you?
Transubstantiation is nothing more than a word invented to try define how the Eucharist is Jesus’ body. Bear in mind that this is one of the mysteries of Faith. These are mysteries because our understanding of them is imperfect. It is not a complete understanding. The Trinity is another mystery of faith that the story of Augustine and the boy on the beach illustrates quite well. They are mysteries because we, with our finite minds, are trying to understand the infinite. We cannot do it. It is an impossibility. We, therefore, accept them even though we do not fully comprehend them. We accept them on faith.
W
William_C
Guest
Just as a “rose is a rose by any other name,” so is a metaphor a metaphor in any language.
There was not consensus on that. Some said it was symbolic, some said it was spiritual, some said it was literal. So the early church didn’t teach transubstantiation either in “seed form” or any form, IMO.
No, they just didn’t know.
It’s not unscriptural for the church not to know something. Today’s Roman Catholic church still doesn’t know things. For instance, it doesn’t know that happens to those who die in infancy unbaptized.
Depends upon whether or not Jesus meant by His words what you say He meant by words, doesn’t it?
Transubstantiation is more than a word, my friend.
It’s a secular philosophical construct which attempts to describe how something can become something else, but stay the same. It can be asserted, but it can’t be proven.
Jesus words “this is my body…this is my blood,” are metaphors. One thing put for another employing the verb “to be.”
There is nothing in Jesus statements indicating the elements “become” His body and blood."
F
Faithdancer
Guest
I’m amazed at the doublethink and self-contradictions!
Jesus Christ’s own statements can’t be taken literally when it suits one’s bias and metaphorically when it doesn’t. Jesus uses the simple declarative about Himself in John 6 and elsewhere. What an enormous stretch to say He was speaking metaphorically about Himself!
Jesus Christ’s own statements can’t be taken literally when it suits one’s bias and metaphorically when it doesn’t. Jesus uses the simple declarative about Himself in John 6 and elsewhere. What an enormous stretch to say He was speaking metaphorically about Himself!
W
William_C
Guest
I take what Jesus said in a literal fashion.
His statements are literally, really, truly, actually, without doubt, METAPHORS in their grammatical construction.
I
inkaneer
Guest
You make the same mistake the Jews did in John chapter 6. When Jesus spoke of the manna, the bread from heaven, their ancestors had in the desert the Jews knew exactly what He was speaking about. They knew this story as it had been told to them countless times since they were children and they probably retold it to their children. They knew Jesus was speaking literally of a material object that sustained their forefathers. But then Jesus switches over to the manna of the New Covenant, the bread from heaven, which he claims is his own body. The Jews are aghast as they clearly understood Jesus to be still speaking literally about a material object. NOW, **and this is critical ** Jesus, as a teacher owes it to clear up any misunderstanding. And He does. He does so by saying that His words are spirit. That is it. Jesus is not speaking of a material food here. It is a spiritual food. Jesus makes no mention of it not being literal because Jesus is speaking literally of a spiritual food. That is where the Jews and some of the disciples [and apparently you too] made their mistake.
All of this will come together at the Passover seder meal when Jesus will take the Old Covenant seder and make it into the New Covenant Mass.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Well then Jesus sure fooled the early church. They took him literally. Seems like, according to you, Jesus screwed up. And that church, the one Jesus said would be led into all truth, taught error.
Your position is untenable as you make Jesus a liar. That, my friend, is most definitely not recommended.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
So what’s the problem? Can’t be scripture can it? If it is then please give us the book, chapter and verse(s). I am sure that as a protestant, which you claim you are, you are cognizant that there is no other higher authority than scripture and if scripture is definite on something then you have to be also. And the words of Jesus, “This IS my body…” are very definite, especially in the original Greek.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Now you might not fully understand how that bread can become the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ. But there is no wiggle room here. The early church knew that. They taught that the Eucharist was the actual body of Christ.
Kelly goes on: “Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” (ibid., 197–98).
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Did the early church error?
“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]).
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
No, for that would be unscriptural.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth. Jesus said that He, Himself, would remain with His Church until the end of the age. Do you really think Jesus would go through all that He did and then allow His Church to teach error? Does that make sense to you?
.
Originally Posted by inkaneer
So what’s the problem? Can’t be scripture can it? If it is then please give us the book, chapter and verse(s). I am sure that as a protestant, which you claim you are, you are cognizant that there is no other higher authority than scripture and if scripture is definite on something then you have to be also. And the words of Jesus, “This IS my body…” are very definite, especially in the original Greek.
Does scripture say it is a metaphor or are you injecting your own bias into it??? The Greek here is very definite. The word that is transalated into English as “is” is the Greek word esti This word is the third person singular of the verb “to be” and is literal in the sensethat it means “is really” If Jesus wanted this to be a metaphor there are about 36 other words that could have been inserted rather than esti so your insistence that this is a metaphor is unsupported.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Now you might not fully understand how that bread can become the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ. But there is no wiggle room here. The early church knew that. They taught that the Eucharist was the actual body of Christ.
Who said it was symbolic? Give us the names of these early church people and quote their works. I can give you names and their quotes that say the early church was definitely teaching that the Eucharist was the Body anbd Blood of CXhrist. In fact, the renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
Kelly goes on: “Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” (ibid., 197–98).
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Did the early church error?
How do you know that? Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John the same John who wrote the gospel and chapter 6 of it which is the Eucharistic discourse. You are trying to tell me that He didn’t know!!! He knew alright. He knew more than you would like him to know. Look at what Ignatius wrote while being taken to Rome to be martyred:
“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]).
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
No, for that would be unscriptural.
Some things are not known but others are. The Eucharist is known.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth. Jesus said that He, Himself, would remain with His Church until the end of the age. Do you really think Jesus would go through all that He did and then allow His Church to teach error? Does that make sense to you?
No, Jesus gave us the church as a way of knowing what He taught. Hecould have taught all of us Himself, after all He was God wasn’t He? But He didn’t. So now you are down to doubting Jesus’ own words and what He meant by them. That destroys your idea that scripture is the final authority. Now the finalauthporoity is you because you decide what Jesus meant or didn’t mean. You have, in your own mind, become God.
.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Transubstantiation is nothing more than a word invented to try define how the Eucharist is Jesus’ body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Bear in mind that this is one of the mysteries of Faith. These are mysteries because our understanding of them is imperfect. It is not a complete understanding. The Trinity is another mystery of faith that the story of Augustine and the boy on the beach illustrates quite well. They are mysteries because we, with our finite minds, are trying to understand the infinite. We cannot do it. It is an impossibility. We, therefore, accept them even though we do not fully comprehend them. We accept them on faith.
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Transubstantiation is nothing more than a word invented to try define how the Eucharist is Jesus’ body.
So is the Trinity my friend. There is more support in scripture for Transubstantiation than there is for the Trinity. You understand the Trinity not in Biblical terms but rather in Greek philosophical terms. And it was the Church who defined the Trinity just as it defined Transubstantiation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Bear in mind that this is one of the mysteries of Faith. These are mysteries because our understanding of them is imperfect. It is not a complete understanding. The Trinity is another mystery of faith that the story of Augustine and the boy on the beach illustrates quite well. They are mysteries because we, with our finite minds, are trying to understand the infinite. We cannot do it. It is an impossibility. We, therefore, accept them even though we do not fully comprehend them. We accept them on faith.
When Jesus spoke the words, “This is My Body” the Bread became His Body. Just as when Jesus spoke the words, “Lazurus, come forth” the dead man came forth. The disciples on the road to Emmaus didn’t recognize Jesus even when Jesus explained the scriptures to them. They only recognized Him when He took the bread and said the blessing and then disappearred. And what was the blessing? It was, “This is My Body” They recognized Jesus in the Eucharist
- Status