Does scripture actually teach transubstantiation?

[toaslan]

I believe that Both “Daily Bread” in Luke and and “Supersubstantial Bread” in Matthew are both correct translations

this great point, Jerry-Jet, did come up before on this thread, but I don’t think anybody followed up on it. It is YET another scriptural support for transubstantiation.

Can anybody speak more to the “daily bread” of the Our Father being rightly translatable as both *Daily Bread *and Supersubstantial Bread? (apologies to the original poster of this angle, maybe you can bring that post forward or something…)

symbolic Hogwash teachings

now, see, we are avoiding derogatories like that on this thread, OK?

Give us this day our supersubstantial bread!

Amen!

 

[pneuma07]

I will bring in other sources of information…in due time. Insisting that it must all be considered up front simply **shows that the case for transubstantiation is very weak **-- a strong case would demonstrate conclusive proof from almost any set of source material. Scripture doesn’t do that, and so you insist on widening the topic…seemingly for the sake of proving that you’re right?

.

 Dear PCM and all,   

         we should distinguish among  different levels to keep

our vision on the long and useful thread we owe you as clear as possible, IMHO.
Once again you met with the “holistic” natural tendency which is present more or less in catholics. Some of them could
express dissent about the particular approach.
Others accepted it more easily, looking at the positive side of
a particular focus such as the one proposed here.

This line of discussion aside, what the thread is showing is a
large number of independent contributions which adhere strictly to
the scriptural approach of the OP.
Leaving aside the meaning of the expression “conclusive proof”
( which sooner or later we should try to get, hopefully distinguishing it as clearly as possible from a pure and simple
“what we can always and safely state has certainly not been reached in any thread”), many insightful posts by several contributors have provided what can be considered a serious and strong overall scriptural case for …well I’d say more for Real Presence than for transubstantiation as such.

While it is to be fairly noted that a complete refutation of each and every point in favour of RP we can find here ( if possible at all), should be a very heavy task for a single poster and his time, the fact remains that the thread, far from escaping the proposed illustration, has tackled it, seriously and directly.

Offering any reader a wide range of points making up what
can be considered a very valid help to accept RP as scripturally
founded, presented by people who have accepted the OP’s own methodology ( even if, for someone, sometimes criticizing it).

Once agreed on this as the main aspect of the thread ( which we should be ready to reconsider once the whole range of positive points are refuted, but which so far means the case for transubstantiation has been shown strong), we can usefully go on debating on the merit of the proposed methodology.

 

[Miner3]

Thank you toaslan for your kind reprove,

I don’t do these forums (oh really). OP must mean originating post but I assume again.

Yes, I stated it wrong, the invite that I read was for any scriptural support for this belief. I was just commenting on the method directed by the originator and wondering why a train like this would continue with no resolution in sight.

2 Timothy 2:14
Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I know this thread is about transubstantiation. However Reducation I have questions. In my studies about all these matters I’ve gone back to the early church fathers and also picked up some material on how Jesus taught as a Rabbi using mishnaic concepts. (I’m still a novice in this area though I have attended a Messianic Jewish service during Shabbat in Golders Green London England while other community members banged on the windows yelling "you
re not Jews! Strange since it was shabbat!) I am still learning about changes between Pre and Post Exilic Judaism. I’m weak here. What materials can I review about this matter. Also what is the difference between the Babaloynian Mishna and (I forget the name) the other writings. And what do the Jews think of the Alexandrian writings translated into greek? Especially the apocrypha? As far as transubstantiation I’m still with the Catholics on this issue. I had interesting conversations about John 6 with several pastors I know and they stop dead and say honestly they don’t know. One suggested that he’s not sure whether you believe in that or not is necissary for salvation. Or in other words “it’s besides the point” I can’t take that view. Still studying.

Did not Our Lord say, “…he who denies me before other men I will deny him before the Father…”? Those poor folks banking on the windows and shouting against recognizing Jesus fit that description.

 

[mikeledes]

Mikeledes, If you have not already read them, please read posts 248 and 249 which have become a spin off topic in another thread:
Transubstantiation Analogy form OT to NT

I apologize if I haven’t read your posts thoroughly and may repeat some of the ideas you have been expressed. I’ve been so busy juggling work and and apologetics that I haven’t had the time to read posts the way I would like to read them. Most of what I post in this thread are really reposts of what I have said in previous threads dealing with this topic.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[onenow1]

Hi, PC-M

Quote= PC-M
verse 60, Jesus had not yet clarified he was teaching a spiritual truth. In fact, I would say verse 63 is a response to 60. Verse 64 tells that some will fail to believe and have faith, and that Jesus knew it would be this way from the beginning. 66 is a fulfillment of that.

John 6:63 . "It is the spirit that gives life the flesh has nothing to offer. The words I speak are spirit and they are life.

If this verse is clarifying that the flesh is meaningless, are we to uderstand that the flesh of Jesus is also meaningless ? Wouldn’t we have to surmise that Jesus passion on the cross is also without meaning ? I think the reason for Jesus even coming down from heaven collapses if indeed this opinion of yours were true.

VS.48-52 explains it all and in my humble opinion. When Jesus says,
'I am the bread of lifeYour fathers ate manna in the desert and they are dead; but this is the bread that comes down from heaven,so that a person may eat it and not die.

He goes on to say; I am the living bread which has come down from heaven.Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and the bread I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world.

Mark 10: 27, Jesus gazed at them and said with man it is impossible , but not with God for with God all things are possible.

On good friday Jesus died, at the 3PM hour just as the Jews were slaughtering the lambs, and then, they ate the Lamb.

John 1: 29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and said " Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

If I recall correctly Jesus is called the Lamb of God at least 20 times in the book of revelation.

Peace,OneNow1

 

[mikeledes]

I don’t think I noticed this before, Michael.

Jesus says, I came down from Heaven

The crowd says, **"What you say is FALSE–you were born like anybody else–your parents are Joseph and Mary and you live down the block–we’ve known you your whole life, and you certainly did not come down from heaven; you’re a local like everybody else… **
Mike, you are saying that their response makes no sense if they were not responding to a literal interpretation of Jesus’s declaration about His origin.

So, the crowd takes Him literally even at this early point in the Discourse.

And they continue to take Him literally all the way through.

So the REASON Jesus goes from Flesh/Bread to Ascension is to show how literal the flesh/Bread is, right?

Because He intends the Ascension to be also understood literally.

But–and is this a new point to anybody else but me?–But though Jesus intends Ascension literally, that concept also cannot be understood literally AT THE MOMENT, right? For there is no way the disciples present, including the Twelve, can fully understand this reference to a miraculous Ascension literally at this point in the Discourse…

The reaction to both teachings–that He is the flesh which is the Bread of Life to be eaten, **and **that He will ascend in glory returning whence He came–both meant literally, both to be accepted in belief without much understanding but unconditionally accepted nevertheless.

And those who believed Him not only got one reward of that belief:

1. the revelation at the Last Supper of HOW Jesus would literally give His flesh to them as bread to be eaten (i.e., in an unbloody manner);

they also got another reward of belief, that is

1. to literally see fulfilled the promised event of His return to His Father (those who rejected Him did not get this reward of belief).

These insights are deeper scriptural support for Transubstantiation: Jesus says, take Me literally about **all **the following things:

I came down from heaven
I am like the Manna only even more real
Eat my flesh
I will return to Heaven whence I came
This teaching is your Life

Thank You Michael!

Excellent analysis!

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

If John 6:51-58 were talking about faith, then there would be no controversy because he just talked about faith in v.v. 29 -35. And as I have shown in two other posts, the established pattern in Jesus’s method of teaching/preaching is one of progressive revelation. He moves from ambiguity to greater clarity, not from clarity to greater ambiguity. So he would not start with the literal meaning first (i.e. faith) and then use the figure, as occurs in John 6. Also, when He does use figurative language difficult to understand, either He or the evangelist explains what He mean. Secondly, John 6:56 talks about “abiding.”

56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

Abiding occurs subsequent to incorporation into Christ, after one has believed.

John 15:3-4
**3"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. **

1 John 2:24,28

24As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
28Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.

So eating the Body of Christ and drinking His Blood is a means of abiding in Christ. Thus it was most appropriate for Him to start with faith in chapter 6 and then move to abiding in Christ through the Eucharist because coming to faith precedes abiding and one must believe* first *before partaking of the Eucharist. Only those who abide in Christ will continue to have eternal life and will be raised on the last day.

John 15:4-6

**4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. **

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

John 6:35

**35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. **

What does Jesus mean? He is basically saying that He is the source of all life giving spiritual nourishment. He is the only one that can satisfy our hunger and thirst for righteousness. Those who wish to partake of this spiritual nourishment must come to Him in faith.

In this verse, Jesus sets the stage for the greatest form of spiritual nourishment that He will give to those who believe in Him, namely, His own self in the Eucharist. So it makes sense that Jesus would first talk about faith (i.e. coming to Him) before talking about how He will feed the believer. You must go to your grocery or supermarket first before you can purchase the food. The wonderful thing is that the Eucharist is freely offered to the believer.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sambos671]

The problem is not that scripture does not support transubstantiation it is how each of us views scripture. What to take literally and what not to take literally. We can glean which way to take something by the text of the passages, but for those who cannot countenance a divergence from their already accepted beliefs, they will attempt to force a square peg in a round hole so to speak. The question as to what Jesus really meant when he said you must eat of my flesh. Literally or figuratively. The text indicates a literal view. However, there will always be the person who says Jesus couldn’t have meant it literally. Jesus was talking about his suffering or spiritual food not the actual elements themselves. Since the same scripture is being viewed differently by opposing parties what authority can one appeal to for an accurate understanding. Logic? The problem with that is Faith often supersedes Logic. Logic is an approach to a matter that has guidelines. Unfortunately, the topic matter is one that is outside the bounds of Logic. The Catholic Church calls it a Mystery with good reason. Our methodology is limited. Our understanding faulted. What does the scripture say? It’s evident but is it acceptable? I think this is why Judaism and Orthodox Christianity (this includes Catholics) relies so heavily on oral tradition. Keep in mind that the new testiment for the most part is like the Talmud Oral tradition written down. We can approach scripture an understand it but what authority do we go to to access those areas we don’t undersand? Protestants would say the Holy Spirit but if the same Spirit led us why so many different denominations? Human influence? What can be trusted to be from the Spirit? Doesn’t seem consistent. Just a thought.

 

[utunumsint]

Great post Sambos.

OK. So here is my two cents, for what its worth.

1 John 42-3

This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world.

If there is a possibility that this passage can be applied to the Eucharist as well, then I’m up for believing in transubstantiation. Even if all I’m doing is hedging my bets, at least I wont have inadvertantly cooperated with the spirit of the antichrist.

And if I’m wrong, when I get to heaven (I hope), the most I’ll get is some ridicule: “I can’t believe you took me litteraly, you numskull” Get on in here and I’ll set you straight.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Catholic_Author]

PCM, et al,

I recall reading in this thread that you (PCM) recognized that there was more evidence presented in this thread for Real Presence than for Transubstantiation. I think this is a fair assessment however, I find that from Real Presence it is possible to reason to Transubstantiation. Allow me to explain and please have patience with me as I am not classically trained in philosophy or logic… but I know something of syllogisms.

Major Premise 1
Death occurs when the body is separated from the spirit and life occurs when the body is united with the spirit.

Minor Premise 1
When Christ died His soul was separated form His body, hence death.

Conclusion 1
When Christ was resurrected His soul was reunited with His body therefore wherever the living Jesus’ spirit is there too must also his body be, else His body will not be living but will be dead. And we know that He is living so His body which is part of Him must also be alive and united with His spirit.

---

Major Premise 2
Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. I will not rehash the many proofs supplied in this thread but it seems that this is generally accepted as true even if one only accepts His presence in a “spiritual” way

Minor Premise 2
Jesus rose from the dead. Every Christian accepts this. It’s not worth arguing here.

Conclusion 2
Therefore, since Conclusion 1 is correct and Jesus’ spirit is in the Eucharist, there too must His body also be.

In short, if a Christian accepts that Jesus’ spirit is in the Eucharist he must also accept that his body is there, else he is insisting that Jesus’ body is separate from His spirit, which would mean death, and Jesus is not dead but risen and living. To contradict this is to contradict Christianity… it is to say that Christ either did not rise or is not living and that would mean to cease believing as Christians do, to cease being Christian.

Thank you.

 

[JReducation]

If see you and others here take this view so contrary to my own. Sigh.

A QUESTION CAN BE LIMITED JUST TO SCRIPTURAL BASIS.

If anybody wants to start another thread about ALL THE BASIS, or JUST ECF BASIS or BASIS FROM TRADITION or BASIS FROM THE CATECHISM or SOME COMBINATION OF ONE, TWO OR ALL THREE or MORE for Transubstantiation, then why not do so?

To accept the framework of the OP is NOT TO ACCEPT some version of Sola Scriptura.

SOLA SCRIPTURA IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE.

I guess I’ll just repeat: I think you make a BIG MISTAKE when you whine about being limited to scripture. We all know there is other support. IT IS JUST OUTSIDE THE VALID VALID VALID SCOPE OF THIS THREAD.

dang. Haven’t you all noticed that really good work from many diverse posters has concentrated on this thread? That happened because IT IS A GOOD OP, and also because PC kept providing tension for it. I wish other OPs were as tightly, explicity and simply framed…

Well, I for one am not tired of this thread as posed, but if it is hen-pecked to death there will be nothing for it to do but die! Is that what you want?

TOASLAN

I sense the frustration in this post, because you really want to remain faithful to the request in the original post by PCM. Unfortunately, I cannot support this methodology, because it is not the way that Catholics study scripture, much less the sacraments, which is ultimately the question of this thread. When you enter the domain of transubstantiation, you enter the domain of the Eucharist, ergo Sacraments. If you introduce the term transubstantiation, you’re begging the question of philosophy and tradition, because that’s where the term comes from.

I believe in being accommodating to an OP or even a person with special needs; but I think that we can over accommodate. That’s not the way that real life works. I don’t know how other Catholics on this thread feel, but I feel that I have wasted time here. I made one last attempt to speak directly to PCM about his original post and methodology. He ignored me, as he has ignored each of my posts that I have directed to him. There is no reason to remain here to help someone who ignores my existence.

You may be frustrated because I don’t see this as you do. I hope that you may also see my frustration.

As a convert, I too had to submit to the rigours of this method. Like many who are seeking answers, we have to allow the respondent to answer using their breadth and scope. In the end, I had to decide when to put a period on this and decide whether I believed it or not.

If, on the other hand, the original posters is not seeking faith answers, but is more interested in academic answers, the response is very simple. No . . . scripture does not mention transubstantiation. The biblical writers never heard of the term. However, the term arose years later when the exegetes carefully studied what the biblical writers put on paper and gleamed their understanding of the Eucharist. A reality does not have to be named in order to be recognized. In fact, this is not usually the case. In any logical endeavor, we look at the details and the idea. Later, we give them a name. Such is the case with the Eucharist. The NT writers spoke what they received. Later it was named.

As to whether we can or even should do scripture in isolation, I continue to repeat that it is an incomplete approach. Since this is a Catholic forum, allegedly, I believe it is fair to show how the Catholic Church also considers it an incomplete approach.

I realize that you’re in catechetics and I am not. You folks are in a different ballpark with your own rules and I respect them. But I am neither trained to play by those rules nor do I find them intellectually compelling, I find that they are meant for the religious education classroom.

I am going to be moving on to other threads. As this one seems to be more of a religious education class and I am not interested in being there. Thank you for your time and your support and hope that we can work together on some other thread. I have made some friends on this thread and will probably return to share with them. As to the original OP, I am finished. Because, thus far, all I’ve done is engaged in a monologue with this person. I speak and he ignores. That’s rude. See my post 351.

 

[JReducation]

Here are some citations that I found on the Vatican’s website regarding the use of and interpretation scripture. If you note, their methodology is very much tied into the use of tradition, literary expression, and the Magisterium.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm#81

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

126 We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:

1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, "whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up."99
2. The oral tradition. "For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed."100
3. The written Gospels. "The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus."101

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

 

[JReducation]

James,

your approach is both philsophically and mathematically logical. Therefore, it is the most sensible approach. I asked PCM to rework hs approach for one that is more logical, but have not received a response.

As far as I’m concerned, I have nothing further to provide for this thread. If there are blockades all over the place, you can only go so far before everyone begins to repeat the same things over and over again.

I don’t know about everyone else. For me, the methodology has to change or there is nothing further that I can contribute. I always share this story, because it is soooooooo true.

When I went to RCIA I really wanted to be a Catholic. I asked the teacher a a few questions on the hypostatic union. Remember, I was coming from Judaism so the concept of a God-Man was of most interest to me. I had studied it in theology and philosophy, but wanted to understand how it fit into the daily life of the average Catholic, particularly liturgy. So I asked, “I understand the concept of the God-Man from theology and philosophy, but can you show me, using the language of logic how the Church’s prayer, especially the Liturgy of the Hours represents this fundamental tenet of Catholicism? Afterall, you say ‘as the Church prays so must she teach and vis a vis.’ But I don’t see this played out in the Liturgy of the Hours? What am I missing?” When the woman tried to parcel it out like somone putting away the groceries in a pantry, instead of presenting me with a heuristic and hollistic paradigm, I left and never returned.

Many of us, especially newer Catholics, want the big picture and the entire picture. I was fortunate, because the brothers at our parish were very much into Bonaventure (Franciscans of course). So the pastor took his time and answered my questions using a lot of Bonnie’s theology and philosophy. Otherwise, I would still be of the Jewish faith.

I believe this where we’re at here. We have a paradigm here for studying this topic that is not heuristic and certainly is fragmented. Something fragmented neither teaches nor learns from itself. As you say, try doing simple math without an axis. You can only go in two directions and you’re trapped on a pendalum. Scripture has a tradition that is just as important to it as rise/run is important to a slope.

If we discuss the slope as whole, I’m willing to chime in. Otherwise, I feel like I’m plum out of any new ideas.

Those are just my two cents.

Toaslan, at an academic level I can respect the theoretical benefit of studying this topic from a scripture-only basis. But I have some discomfort with the approach. This style of decompositional analysis is a “western” methodology and something we instinctively do as a matter of our social conditioning (ironically it’s our default “traditional” modus operandi). Although its not a direct analogy, In math/science we can not solve parametric equations of “N” unknowns with less than “N” or more equations. In other words if there are 3 unknowns we need 3 or more equations.

In studying Christian spiritual matters I am not as comfortable with a piece-wise decompositional methodology.

 

[Good_Fella]

With respect, I feel that such a thing is out of place here. It’s rather simple as to why – even if all of those “miracles” were 100% real (a point which I do not concede), that says nothing as to what actually happens in all of the other cases where transubstantiation supposedly happens. With these “miracles”, you see a real, physical change, and if they’re authentic, I have no trouble accepting them. There’s tangible, real, evidence.

If you have no trouble accepting Eucharistic miracles because of the observable physical changes that take place, why are their authenticity a point which you do not concede? And why do you question whether these miracles are authentic in view of the physical transformations of the accidents that you require in order to be satisfied? You contradict yourself.

Do you believe that the incorporeal human soul leaves the corporeal body at the point of death? And if so, do you consider this event a miracle of God? There certainly isn’t a natural explanation for this. The separation of the soul from the body is another instance of a divine miracle occurring without a visible sign of any physical change taking place. Anyone who has witnessed the moment when someone passes away cannot report having seen the soul leave the body. Your line of reasoning is dangerous, for logically it is on a course towards atheism. The atheist denies the existence of God and the human soul because they are empirically unobservable.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Nita]

***…In verse 63, Jesus explains…

John 6:63 Amplified***
*63 It is the Spirit Who gives life [He is the Life-giver]; the flesh conveys no benefit whatever [there is no profit in it]. The words (truths) that I have been speaking to you are spirit and life.
*
I have a couple of questions as to the Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage…

1. If Jesus himself said (verse 63) that the words he’d been speaking were of spiritual significance, rather than fleshly, does that not apply to the whole of the passage? Does it not clearly indicate the symbolism of the passage?

.
I think St. Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians should help clarify that Our Lord’s words in John 6:62 in no way contradict a literal understanding of eating His flesh and drinking His blood.
1 Cor 15:44-45 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

St. Paul is referring here (last Adam) to our risen Lord - which includes his risen (“spiritualized”) body and blood as well as His soul and divinity. He is life and spirit.

Your post cites John 6:63. It’s interesting that the verse just before that mentions Our Lord’s ascension (which would take place after His resurrection). Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?" It used to puzzle me; why did He say that here? what was the connection with the bread of life discourse? For those who accept the earlier verses literally, it perhaps serves as an indication of “when” they would experience eating His flesh and blood. For those who reject, or are offended by the concept of eating His flesh and blood, it should help allay any cannibalistic perceptions. This would be a raised, spiritual body (to use St. Paul’s words).

---

I took your original post. Didn’t have time to read all the pages. If someone else has pointed out the 1 Cor verse, I apologise for the repetition.

Nita

 

[guanophore]

This post was taken from another thread where it was off topic:

Yes now we’re getting to some good stuff. I don’t believe the Holy Spirit would guide true Christians to opposite actions. I think what happens is someone decides not to listen to the Holy Spirit because they either think they know better or just refuse to listen. Just my opinion but would like to hear yours

I believe there’s no denying that moral compass. I just know in my life I’ve always known what’s right and wrong. I didn’t need the church to tell me. I’m not discounting the church by the way But I chose to do the wrong thing anyway. Why?? Why else do we do stupid things. Selfish attitude, immmediate pleasure, you name it. If someone truly feels that the Holy Spirit is moving them we may never really know.

I can show you so many Catholics that don’t believe in going to confession. Who don’t believe in the real presence. I would say that if you put all Catholics in a room, I bet less than 50% of them know all doctrine. And what they do know I would say they don’t agree with 100%. This is just my opinion. But that’s been my experience growing up Catholic and now. I remember the meat n fridays thing changing almost yearly as a child. But what good is having doctrine if you’re not going to follow it?

What I meant was I liked your idea of going outside the Bible and the labels of Roman Catholic and Protestant and taking a strict look at history. What I merely asked was could you show documentation where any of the 12 apostles actually peformed the mass and believed in the real presence?? This singularly would bring me back to the church and would confirm that I’m wrong about John chapter 6. That’s all

I commend the rest of this thead to you. I am also curious as to what you think Jesus meant when He said “this is my body, which is given up for you”?

 

[CentralFLJames]

For those who reject, or are offended by the concept of eating His flesh and blood, it should help allay any cannibalistic perceptions. This would be a raised, spiritual body (to use St. Paul's words). Nita

Very good insight Nita. Thanks for sharing that.
I wanted to add to your comment here and take note that cannibalism is repulsive because it taken to mean in both convention and in the formal definition of the word (Webster) eating human flesh.
Webster Definition of Cannibalism:

Main Entry: can·ni·bal·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈka-nə-bə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1796
1 : the usually ritualistic eating of **human flesh **by a human being
2 : the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind
3 : an act of cannibalizing something
— can·ni·bal·is·tic \ˌka-nə-bə-ˈlis-tik\ adjective

The term is completely mute and inapplicable in application to **divine **flesh. The fundamental and universal natural human aversion and repulsion to cannibalism is one of the things that separates humans from animals. We do not eat our own. We always consume from things lower in the food chain. Note here too that we also eat things in the lower food-chain which all in turn derive their sustenance from the soil of the earth and the ground (a soil cursed by God as a consequence of Adam’s fall [Gen 3:17]). This implies that our very human need to nourish ourselves with food from the earth requires us to eat food that comes from the curse of sin. Thus the very food we eat in a manner is like a slow poison that brings us eventual death.

The entire food chain is inverted with the Eucharist. Now we have a divine food that comes from the purest of the purest of places - Heaven sent manna - the Bread of Life (Psalm 81:16 But I would feed you with the** finest of the wheat**, And with honey from **the rock **I would satisfy you [ed. the mead of Peter’s Church?]).

Through the Eucharist humanity can now for the first time in its history partake of divine food that comes from a place **above itself ** infinitely HIGHER UP in the food chain where no curse is deserving - heaven ( Rev 22:3). Thus in The Eucharist we have a new higher order food that can nourish us in ways that lead to eternal life!

From the context of the risen Christ the entire biblical story (OT + NT ) is a profoundly simple and very logical. The Eucharist is the embodiment of the same living and spoken** “Word**” that was invoked both to “Let there be Light” and to “give them Life so that they may live more abundantly”. The same Word that becomes flesh through the cooperation with humanity (Mary and Abraham) in the Incarnation is the same Word that transforms us to Eternal Life by transforming fallen Children into Children of Light with the Bread of Life which rains down from heaven over the whole field of God. It is the same Word that promised to not leave us orphans and which dwells among us as Emanuel; the very same who frees us from the bondage of sin to lead us home to the eternal freedom of the promised land - God’s Kingdom.

Psalm 34:8
O taste and see that the LORD is good; How blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him!

Our biggest labor is simply to put aside our pride to extend our hand to chose our portion knowing that the gift can never be repaid. How merciful and good God is to explain through the consequence of disobedience that equality with God is not something to be grasped at (as in Eden) and all we need do instead is ask for what we want and He will extend it to us as a free gift (if it benefits us). If humanity thought to steal divinity through taking the forbidden fruit how can it not accept the fruit of Eternal Life as a gift that brings it the same thing? The answer is PRIDE. Some humans are too proud to accept a gift since they can not return something of equal or greater value. So rather than accept a great gift that can not be repaid some through pride will disavow the value of the gift to their own loss; and some others will not accept because they know they are not worthy and can not imagine that unconditional Love could ever be greater than Justice.

God Bless,
James

 

[sambos671]

Don’t forget that Jesus said he was the bread of life with a direct reference to manna (what is it?).