Do We Eat Flesh, Bread, Or What?

[NDfan]

Regarding the prior post:

Transubstantiation was not dogmatically defined as a reuqired belief of Catholics until 1215 AD at the Second (?) Lateran Council under Pope Innocent III.

True that the council didn’t initiate the doctrine. It’s interesting that there was still discussion on the subject however in the thirteenth century which required a dogmatic decree.

And discussion at Trent which issued another statement in the 13th session.

While I don’t want to get off-track, y’all might want to investigate the issue of how Jesus Christ who came to fulfill the Law would violate the Law by commanding us to drink blood which is prohitbited in the Law. Consider Mark 14:23-25 “23And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. 25Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” Do you see it? He takes the cup, says it is the blood of the New Testament and THEN calls it what it is “the fruit of the vine” which he would not drink until… In this is it not clear that his intent is NOT transubstantiation ?

You lost me here. Fruit of the vine refers to wine not blood. So Jesus is saying HE is not going to drink wine again with the Apostles until HE drinks it new in HIS Father’s Kingdom. Clearly not transubstantiation.

Elsewhere:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=300315&page=10

… I’ve posted some links to sermons that deal directly with this issue. Faith cometh through hearing, so listen and see if it comes to you as it did to me – as a gift by God’s grace, and not by my own will or any act of man (to include ministrations of the priestly office.)

I’ll have to check them out but don’t have time now.

PEACE

 

[pete_29]

Jesus said “THIS IS MY BODY” and “THIS IS MY BLOOD” in three of the Gospels.

 

[sandusky]

Jesus said “THIS IS MY BODY” and “THIS IS MY BLOOD” in three of the Gospels.

Those are metaphors!!!

A metaphor is a declaration that one thing is (or represents) another; or, comparison by representation.

Met´-a-phor. Greek, metaphora, a transference, or carrying over or across. From meta, beyond or over, and pherein, to carry.

The figure is a “Representation” or “Transference.” It is recognized by some form of the verb,
***to be.***I am the door

I am the vine; you are the branches

THIS IS MY BODY…THIS IS MY BLOOD

All flesh is grass

My flesh is true food

My blood is true drink

We are the sheep of His pasture

The Lord God is a Sun and Shield

His truth is a shield and buckler

You are the salt of the earthAnd so on.

 

[pete_29]

Those are metaphors!!!

A metaphor is a declaration that one thing is (or represents) another; or, comparison by representation.

Met´-a-phor. Greek, metaphora, a transference, or carrying over or across. From meta, beyond or over, and pherein, to carry.

The figure is a “Representation” or “Transference.” It is recognized by some form of the verb,
***to be.***I am the door

I am the vine; you are the branches

THIS IS MY BODY…THIS IS MY BLOOD

All flesh is grass

My flesh is true food

My blood is true drink

We are the sheep of His pasture

The Lord God is a Sun and Shield

His truth is a shield and buckler

You are the salt of the earthAnd so on.

Yeah, Right. Where does it say they were metaphors in the Bible. Nice try.

 

[sandusky]

Yeah, Right. Where does it say they were metaphors in the Bible. Nice try.

FYI, Pete: what I’ve listed are but a few metaphors, and each of them is in the Bible.

 

[broski234]

Ahh don’t need to get my facts straight. The council of Trent issued a statement on Transubstantiation in the 13th session and I quote:

The Council of Trent defined transubstantiation as “that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation”,

I never said they developed the doctrine as yes it already existed.

Never said anyone challenged the fact that it didn’t happen. Stop putting words in my mouth or post to be correct.

And I have looked it up. The substance changes but the accidents don’t. Check your facts unless it’s a typo. You say the accidents change. They most certainly don’t

Yes brother agree 100%. So let’s stop defining it and let it be. I don’t question Christ on anything. I question the RCC. 2 different things. Don’t use physics to support your claim. If the substance changes then the bread no longer exists. If the bread no longer exists then if we test it after consecration it would be flesh. But that’s not the case so perhaps Christ wasn’t telling us HE changes it. Maybe you should stop putting words into Jesus’ mouth.

PEACE

Somebody got their info from wikipedia! Nice. However, I do have my facts straight. The substance changes, the accidents remain. You have proven yourself to be one of the disciples of Christ that just couldn’t accept this teaching and found it too hard. Actually, Christ was telling us it changes. He said that “this is MY BODY” while holding up bread. Tell me, where does it say symbolic anywhere in any of the gospels or in John 6?

 

[elijio]

Ok, I have a couple of questions for this thread regarding this verse:

John 6:53 (New King James Version)
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

When and how do protestants do this ‘‘symbolically’’ or other???

And if they don’t do it at all, Why not?

Peace.

 

[pete_29]

FYI, Pete: what I’ve listed are but a few metaphors, and each of them is in the Bible.

Sorry, I’m not buying it. I haven’t had time to check each of your examples, but most of the “metaphors” you used Jesus used to teach. This is my Body and This is my Blood, Jesus is telling the Apostles to do this.

 

[po18guy]

Ha do to be 2 posts. Sorry

Not quite my brother. I believe matter coming into existence by GOD at HIS command for sure. But then that matter would have a substance we can define. With the Lord’s Supper we have matter that already exists and has a substance defined as bread and wine. If the substance is changed to flesh and blood then the substance of bread and wine do not exist anymore. Correct?

Backward. The substance is changed to Christ. The physical appearance (the accidents) remain bread and wine.

Only the accidents are retained through a miracle.

Backward again. The substance is changed through a miracle.

So great. That means then someone who has an allergy to wheat or is an alcoholic does not have to worry anymore because GOD has changed the substance. Just like I believe the Genesis account I surely can believe GOD can handle simple bread and wine right? Absolutely.

But now here’s the problem. What happens when we examine the consecrated bread and wine? What is the substance? It’s still bread and wine. But wait you just got done saying GOD changes the substance to flesh and blood. So why is it bread and wine. The accidents have nothing to do with it because the accidents don’t carry the substance. So that means someone is wrong. Either GOD is not doing what you say HE is doing, or the church misunderstands what they thought HE was going to do. There’s just no way around this. If the substance is still bread and wine then no transubstantiation has taken place. Hence the teaching is wrong.

Is there any possibility, however tiny and remote, that your understanding of it is incorrect? Especially since your adult faith life has taught you to disbelieve in Catholic teaching?

Yes and I do too. It’s the most sacred thing we do in our worship. Agree 100%. But challenging the Eucharist is not a recent thing as you say. The Gnostics challenged the Eucharist. Why? Because they didn’t believe that bread and wine could ever symbolize Jesus. Why? Because they believed all matter in this world was evil and evil could never symbolize Christ. Had the gnostics understood the teaching to be a change literally in substance they would have agreed and rejoiced at partaking in the supper. As mentioned to chester the doctrine of transubstantiation fits right in with gnostic theology and many believe it was they who started this practice.

You lost me here, trying to associate Catholicism with Gnosticism. Who do you think declared Gnosticism heretical? It wasn’t Luther. All matter is good, having been created by God, Who, in Genesis, saw that it was good. The bread and wine are good, having been created by God.

Ok fine Jesus changed their substance. Then if the substance changes then why does Jesus refer to the cup as the fruit of the vine? Fruit of the vine means wine. Jesus says HE will not drink this fruit of the vine again with the Apostles until new in GOD’s Kingdom. So Jesus is saying HE is going to drink wine and still refers to the substance as being wine even after you claim HE consecrated it. Don’t you see the problem here??

The devil is in the details and you are searching the details, looking for doubt. You found it.

If the substance really changes then an alcoholic would have no problem with partaking in the cup. Yet the Priest would caution you not to because there is wine in the glass. But that can’t be if the substance has changed. It’s simple science. And don’t think GOD is not a scientist. HE’s the ultimate scientist and would have to be to create the universe.

I have no ability to erase your doubts, which are many, and profound. As I spoke before, the Holy Spirit is the one who will come to your assistance, if you allow Him.

 

[po18guy]

Sola Scriptura does not divide.

This is just silly.

 

[po18guy]

Contd.Yes but Paul calls it a loaf even after the supposed consecration. Why doesn’t he say flesh??But they didn’t eat the bread yet did they? It wasn’t eating it that opened their eyes. It was the act of Christ breaking the bread and handing it to them. The bread itself did nothing. It was Christ.No GOD is not confined by physics I would agree. But GOD gave us physics and the church uses it to describe the supper. We can’t play games here. The church locked themselves into a corner by doing this. If we just say that Christ is present somehow when we partake of the supper then that would be fine. But no the RC had to take it a step further and define the doctrine of transubstantiation at Trent. Then issue a decree that no one outside the RC had a valid Priesthood to consecrate the elements. Yet we are all called to a Holy Priesthood.Believe it or not I’m in agreement with you on this. So then again don’t create a doctrine that can’t be supported. Leave it alone and stop telling Non-RC folks that they don’t have a valid Eucharist. The RCC has no right to do this. Only Christ can decide where HE will make HIMSELF present. And HE gives us a clue when HE states where 2 or 3 are gathered in MY name I am there among you. Yet the RCC wants to put a box around Jesus and say HE is only within their churches because only they have valid holy orders and only they can consecrate hosts. If Jesus wants to be in the bread we use on Sundays then I’m sure HE is. We struggle just as much on obedience as the RCC and Orthodox churches.Well after being in the RCC for over 40 years the Spirit led me to a new church. I pray all the time for just guidance. GOD help me with your guidance please. Why is the spirit not leading me back to the RCC??Well then if the substance is truly changed then she should have no problem. But here you go she can’t because the substance remains. Hence it’s not flesh it’s bread. Sorry my brother but accidents of bread cannot cause a problem for a celiac. She has to ingest the bread for it to affect her. You simply can’t ingest accidents. Don’t you think that if Christ really wanted us to eat HIS literal flesh that this celiac would not have a problem with the bread? Of course. Because the substance would truly be gone and only flesh would remain. Accidents can’t affect a celiac, they can’t make you drunk, they can’t give you an allergic reaction etc. etc. Again I will ask this as I have before. If you take an antibiotic for an infection but Jesus changes the substance to sugar will the infection still be healed? No of course not. The accidents of an antibiotic cannot heal the infection. The body needs the substance .This is apples and oranges. Jesus had healing power and so did Peter. Through the spirit. What does that have to do with the substance of bread and wine? Again if the substance really changed then the bread would be gone. That would be easy to believe if it really happened. But it doesn’t. We still have bread and that’s the problem. You’re asking me to believe a false teaching.PEACE Brother.

WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING:
newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3

 

[ncgolf]

Those are metaphors!!!

A metaphor is a declaration that one thing is (or represents) another; or, comparison by representation.

Met´-a-phor. Greek, metaphora, a transference, or carrying over or across. From meta, beyond or over, and pherein, to carry.

The figure is a “Representation” or “Transference.” It is recognized by some form of the verb,
to be.

I am the door

I am the vine; you are the branches
Why not passages similiar to John 6:52 where the people ask Jesus how this man can give us his flesh to eat …

You would think someone would have asked in those 2 methaphors … is not this man made of wood or something along those lines. Scripture does not seem to indicate they were confused when Jesus used those metaphors.

John 6:52 exists precisely because they recognized he was not speaking metaphorically … hence they were confused … and rightly asked a question in hopes Jesus would clarify.
​

​

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Those are metaphors!!!

A metaphor is a declaration that one thing is (or represents) another; or, comparison by representation.

Met´-a-phor. Greek, metaphora, a transference, or carrying over or across. From meta, beyond or over, and pherein, to carry.

The figure is a “Representation” or “Transference.” It is recognized by some form of the verb,
***to be.***I am the door

I am the vine; you are the branches

THIS IS MY BODY…THIS IS MY BLOOD

All flesh is grass

My flesh is true food

My blood is true drink

We are the sheep of His pasture

The Lord God is a Sun and Shield

His truth is a shield and buckler

You are the salt of the earthAnd so on.

There is one distinct difference that I see in what you highlighted in red above as compared to what you highlighted in blue.

The structure of those phrases in blue are opposite of the structure of the phrase in red.

In the blue, the person is first referred to and then the inanimate object. This is true whether Jesus is talking about Himself or referring to His followers. I (Jesus) am (that) the door, etc.

In the red, the inanimate object is first referred to, and then the person, Jesus…This (the bread) is my body (Jesus). This (the wine) is my blood (Jesus).

Only at the last supper is this structure of phrasing unique (at least that I can find in the Bible). This is the only place in the Bible I can find where God says first that an inanimate object is Him.

What Jesus says at the last supper is not metaphor…it is The Word of God made flesh, performing a miracle for His disciples. A miracle in which Jesus commanded His disciples to particpate in as often as they do it in rememberance of Jesus, The Lamb of God. The true passover meal of those being saved from death eating the true Passover Lamb.

The miracle in which the apostles and all believers, from the time of the Last Supper (which was the Passover feast) until Jesus returns again in glory, in every age before us and in every age after us, are called to participate, in order to have life eternal and be transformed into One Body…The Body of Jesus…The Church…The Bride of Christ prepared to meet the Groom when He returns for His Bride.

God bless all!!!

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

The bread itself did nothing. It was Christ.

And this statement above, in my opinion, is the most accurate, deeply theological, faith filled statement made on this or any other thread regarding this topic.

If we meditate on this statement, and pray for Holy Spirit to speak to us, and listen…this statement above is the key to understanding the miracle of The Eucharist. It was, and is, and always will be Christ. It is all about Jesus!

God bless all!!!

 

[sandusky]

Why not passages similiar to John 6:52 where the people ask Jesus how this man can give us his flesh to eat …

You would think someone would have asked in those 2 methaphors … is not this man made of wood or something along those lines. Scripture does not seem to indicate they were confused when Jesus used those metaphors.

John 6:52 exists precisely because they recognized he was not speaking metaphorically … hence they were confused … and rightly asked a question in hopes Jesus would clarify.

You’re confusing Jn 6 with the Last Supper. :tsktsk:

In Jn 6, Jesus is speaking figuratively; any other understanding of the passage is, IMO, irrational.

 

[sandusky]

There is one distinct difference that I see in what you highlighted in red above as compared to what you highlighted in blue.

The structure of those phrases in blue are opposite of the structure of the phrase in red.

If I were to hold up a photograph of my Harley, and say to you, “This is my Harley,” what would you understand me to be saying?

I submit that the apostles understood Jesus in the same way. A metaphor is a metaphor.

Had Jesus held up the bread and said, "this is become my body," you’d have more of my interest with the Catholic theory.

 

[Mickey]

Had Jesus held up the bread and said, "this is become my body," you’d have more of my interest with the Catholic theory.

Hmmm? The “Catholic theory” has been understood as the Real presence for a couple millennium. But sandusky’s theory was popularized by Zwingli in the 16th century.

It is sad that you continue to resist the truth.

 

[ncgolf]

You’re confusing Jn 6 with the Last Supper. :tsktsk:

In Jn 6, Jesus is speaking figuratively; any other understanding of the passage is, IMO, irrational.

What … no … you posted metaphors … things that should not be confused … I submit no one was confused when Jesus said I am a door or I am a vine. You find nothing in the passages that follow those metaphors that suggest anyone had a hard time with what Jesus was talking about.

Do you see any confusion following those metaphors?

You do find confusion in John 6:52 … the people wonder how someone could give his flesh to eat … this indicates that the metaphor was not understood and they want an answer to the question. It never comes, suggesting He was not speaking metaphorically.

 

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

Has anyone mentioned that when Christ said His flesh was true meat, that many if his disciples left Him, but He didn’t explain Himself like He usually would?

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

If I were to hold up a photograph of my Harley, and say to you, “This is my Harley,” what would you understand me to be saying?

I submit that the apostles understood Jesus in the same way. A metaphor is a metaphor.

Had Jesus held up the bread and said, "this is become my body," you’d have more of my interest with the Catholic theory.

If you held up a photograph of your Harley and told me this is my Harley, I would understand that that was a photograph of your motorcycle…and then I would like to go take a ride with you!!

But you have no creative power in your words, so your photograph would remain your photograph and thus we could not ride your photograph. It is a mere representation of the true Harley, which is your bike on which we could go for a real ride (do you live in Maryland by any chance?.. it will be warm in a couple months and great bike riding weather here). We cannot ride your true Harley merely by looking at a photograph of it, and you saying this is my Harley, no matter how beautiful the photographic representation of the true Harley is.

You also do not have the apostle Paul telling me (and anyone else who might want to ride your Harley) that by dropping your photograph on the ground, or spilling oil on your photograph, or standing on your photograph, that we have treated the true Harley in an unworthy manner. 1 Corinthians 11:27-32

You also do not have the apostle Paul telling me (and anyone else who might want to ride your Harley) that by looking at a photograph of your Harley we actually participate in riding your true Harley. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17

And you do not have the creative power to say that the photograph of your Harley, must be eaten and drunk in order to truly ride your Harley.

But Jesus’ words at the Last Supper, the Passover meal, with Jesus as the true Passover Lamb about to be sacrificed for the sins of you and me and everyone else… are, This is my body, This is my blood.

And Jesus’ words in John 6 say that His flesh is true food and His blood is true drink, and whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood (participate in His sacrifice) will have eternal life.

And Paul clearly teaches about participation in Jesus’ body and blood (1Cor. 10:16-17), and about dishonoring the body and blood of our Saviour by receiving the bread and wine unworthily (1Cor. 11:27-32)

And the fact that the Church from the beginning taught “The Real Presence” removes this event from metaphor to reality. It is the fulfillment in reality, of all the metaphors which pointed to the True Lamb of God. It is the good news for us sinners!!!

And that is what makes this different from you and your photograph. Nothing against you or your photograph, or your Harley. I love Harleys…and if I got to know you, I’m sure I’d love you too!

God bless all!!!