Eat my flesh symbolic meaning Believe in Christ

[twf]

LOC: With all due respect, your understanding of Church history is most incorrect in this matter. As has already been shown, the Early Fathers also believed in the Real Presence. Like I said before, I understand that this thread must be keeping you busy, but could be please respond to be my set of 11 questions? I’ve posted them twice now. (on page 2 you’ll find them)
The doctrine was not accepted in the 13th century. There is an important distinction between acceptance and official proclamation. A doctrine is only officially defined, traditionally, if there is a question regarding htis particular doctrine…or it seems relevent for whatever reason. For example, the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is God was not officially proclaimed until the 4th century (I believe)…yet no one would suggest that the Church did not teach and believe that the Holy Spirit was God since apostolic times.
God bless,
Tyler

 

[kevinfraser]

burn:

There’s no such thing as “accidents”.

Is this logical error not called argumentum ad ignorantiam - where you deny the existence of the ‘accidents’ of Aristotle’s System of Categories because of your ignorance of its existence? I think you presume the word “accidents” is defined by its consensually accepted idiomatic sense of “happenstance” or “coincidence” rather than being defined by its etymology: (from Latin accidere, to happen what happens to be in a subject; any contingent, or nonessential attribute). I suggest reading about Aristotle’s System of Categories, especially the relationship of accidents to substance. Here’s a place to start: newadvent.org/cathen/01096c.htm

burn:

That’s terminology from medieval science.

This assertion is also an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) because you never heard of Aristotle’s accidents before, a term never having had to do with science of any time, but from philosophy.‘Terminology’ refers to your missing knowledge of the word ‘accidents’ in its given context.

Fallacy of exclusion violating principle of total evidence, based on your previous argument from ignorance, I think (anybody need to correct me?) Perhaps more accurately “argumentum ad ignorantia ignorantium?” If you had known the meaning of the word ‘accidents’ in its context here, you would not have given the erroneous premise you did, because of how it would have called your credibility into question: nobody shoots their own foot on purpose.

So you told me my correct reference to ‘accidents’ was wrong because you’d never heard it refer to Aristotle’s Categories before. Then you told me the word and context you misunderstood was from “medaeval science” when it’s actually from philosophy.

burn:

We now know

Fallacy of anonymous authorities. You assert a pure assumption attributing no source, so there’s no way to evaluate reliability of any information you may present. Specifically: Who is ‘we’? You knew nothing of Aristotelian accidents so you are clearly no kind of authority on the subject. This excludes you from ‘we.’ Are you implying that I’m part of ‘we’? You didn’t ask to include me, nor indicate a criteria for my presumptive inclusion. Others? Who? A fallacy built upon a fallacy, built upon the previous fallacies. You’ve built a house on sand. But you offer still more:

burn:

that it is still bread and wine through and through, physically.

Slothful Induction. You present fallacy exclusively, then an untested and unreferenced conclusion, no doubt willing to argue that your conclusion is “common sense” with no further supports offered. You employ fallacy to imply that I am wrong.

Apropos, here is hard scientific research about the Eucharist:
cmns.mnegri.it/miracolo/voiceofscience1.html

burn:

It’s not an optical illusion of some sort…

Fallacy of Distraction - Complex Question. You assert ‘accidents’ are not illusion. You assert Eucharist is false. Accidents are not substance. Substance is not appearance. Appearance does not prove nor disprove Eucharist. The two questions are unrelated so one cannot prove nor disprove the other.

Did you not also hope to imply (or perhaps you’d call it ‘prove’) to a reader who “knows where you’re going” that I believe in such nonsense as alchemy by association with ‘medaeval science’? By this subterfuge would you imply that my faith in the Eternal Truth of the Holy Eucharist equates to a belief in alchemy? Or perhaps imply that I commit material idolatry with all this compound fallacy masquerading as “proof.”

Read up a bit and we’ll talk more?

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Spiritus Dei:

To quote from my bible’s notes on John 6:64:

The flesh profiteth nothing.

Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they [the Jews] supposed they were to eat His flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit anything. But it would be the height of blasphemy to say that the living flesh of Christ (which we recieve in the Blessed Sacrament, with His Spirit, that is, with His Soul and Divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing, He would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us.

The Bible’s note cannot be correct for then Christ is an incognizant loon disconnected from reality, answering direct objection to eating HIS literal flesh as bread, for life, with babble about the carnal nature of flesh.

62 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Christ says the WORDS they are scandalized by are Spirit and Life.

53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.

Following Christ’s exposition then, “eateth my flesh” = Spirit; “drinketh my blood” = life.

We must eat the Letter of Christ and obey the Spirit of it to have life in ourselves.

Thus Christ applied to Himself the following vivid figure where eating the Word of God results in being salvation, being called by His name (=eternal life):

Jer 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.(KJV)

Christ spoke elsewhere of Eating BREAD = Doctrine:

Matthew 16:5 And when his disciples were come over the water, they had forgotten to take bread. 6 Who said to them: Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. 7 But they thought within themselves, saying: Because we have taken no bread. 8 And Jesus knowing it, said: Why do you think within yourselves, O ye of little faith, for that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand, neither do you remember the five loaves among five thousand men, and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves, among four thousand men, and how many baskets you took up? 11 Why do you not understand that it was not concerning bread I said to you: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees? 12 Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

All who ingest the orthodox teaching of Christ’s Person and Work and obey that revelation shall be quickened by the Spirit unto eternal profit.

This is confirmed the entire NT, only believing in Christ results in life, nothing else.

Acts 4:12 12 Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

metal1633:

Your being disengenuous. Or you have a reading comprehension problem.

Whe he contrasted flesh and spirit he was not talking about HIS Flesh which he would give us to eat. Read it again. I said…

He didnt say that at all. Your reading into it your Interpretation. The Words “Flesh and Spirit” when opposed to each other in the NT never mean figurative and literal. Flesh means the sinfull nature of carnal man, contrasted with the nature empowerd by the Spirit. His meaning is clear. Carnal man cannot understand Him, only those of the Spirit can.

YOU, like those who left Him that day, are thinking after the Flesh, not the Spirit. It offends your fleshy human sensibilities to think you must Eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood. But that is EXACTLY what He meant. He said it FOUR TIMES.

Here let my quote that last part again…snip

That is impossible as Christ is not a loon disconnected from reality, answering direct objections to eating HIS literal flesh with irrelevant babbling about the carnal nature of man.

62 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Christ says the WORDS they are scandalized by ARE Spirit and Life = not literal.

Following Christ’s exposition then, “eateth my flesh” = Spirit; “drinketh my blood” = life.

We must eat the Teaching about Christ and obey the Spirit of it to have life in ourselves.

Thus Christ applied to Himself the following vivid figure where eating the Word of God results in salvation, being called by His name (=eternal life):

Jer 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.(KJV)

This follows Christ’s figure elsewhere where Eating BREAD = believing Doctrine:

Matthew 16:5 And when his disciples were come over the water, they had forgotten to take bread. 6 Who said to them: Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. 7 But they thought within themselves, saying: Because we have taken no bread. 8 And Jesus knowing it, said: Why do you think within yourselves, O ye of little faith, for that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand, neither do you remember the five loaves among five thousand men, and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves, among four thousand men, and how many baskets you took up? 11 Why do you not understand that it was not concerning bread I said to you: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees? 12 Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

All who ingest the orthodox teaching of Christ’s Person and Work and obey that revelation shall be quickened by the Spirit unto eternal profit.

This is confirmed the entire NT, only believing in Christ results in life, nothing else.

Acts 4:12 12 Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Little Mary:

LetsObeyChrist, this particular thread is not terribly long yet. Notwithstanding that, most of these posts are directed at you/your posts. I should think you would take great interest in what each one has to say. Particularly since you have undertaken the discussion of a topic that is at the very heart of the Catholic faith. That might not mean much to you, but I’ll give benefit of the doubt here and assume that you do respect the beliefs of others?

You are right, I do. But it is slow work responding to every post. I see its grown to 200+ posts while I am still in the double digits.

I hope those posting there will check back in the future for a response, its going to be awhile.

May God grant peace (and patience) to everyone!
al

 

[Fiat]

JohnCarroll:

Dear Lets

There are a thousand different positions on what the “plain meaning of scripture” is-- on any group of verses. Who made YOU so smart that you finally know what the Lord was getting at ? If sola is so great why doesn’t it work ? Are all the other interpretations wrong because only you are listening to the Holy Spirit? Are you so smart that you know better than the very hearers of those original New Testament letters ( the early fathers)? Sola is just egotism by another name.

Great point. In spite of Protestant complaints of the office of our Holy Father, individual protestants go to great lengths to establish themselves as infallible popes.

 

[BobCatholic]

The problem with “communion=symbolic only” is that it violates the overwhleming evidence of Old Testament Typology.

If you look at all the types in the Old Testament which were fulfilled in the New Testament, you’ll notice that the old testament type was a symbol of something that later was fulfilled by the real thing.

Some great examples:

The Passover Lamb is a foreshadow (a symbol) of the Lamb of God (Jesus Christ) who takes away the Sins of the World.

The Ark of the Lord is a prefigurement of Mary
It contained the Word of God - so did Mary
It contained manna - Mary contained the Bread of Life (Jesus Christ)
it contained Aaron’s staff - Mary contained the one who held that staff - the authority from God

These show that the prefigurements (in the OT) were fulfilled with the real thing (in the NT)

So why isn’t manna fulfilled by the Real Thing (Jesus Christ, under the appearances of BREAD in the Eucharist?)

and the Bread of the Presence which is fulfilled with the Bread which IS the presence?

And the Lamb (eaten at Passover) to be fulfilled with the Lamb of God (eaten at each mass in the form of bread & wine?)

And in Malachi 1:11, the “pure offering” is not fulfilled by the purest possible offering: The body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ? (Something sorely missing in LOC’s church, his church does not fulfill this)

Col 2:17 is a BIG GIANT HINT OF THIS BIBLICAL REALITY

LOC really needs to get his Old Testament Typology in order. According to him, a symbol in the old testament is now fulfilled with a symbol instead of the real thing, violating the giant patten which is throughout the old testament (and Col 2:17)

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Little Mary:

Spokenword, what you’ve said here hits close to the mark, but
Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. I guess you could say we take a BOTH, AND approach.

Little Mary,I respect what you believe. I only can speak to you from my experience. Ive been on both sides of the fence[natural and spiritual][35years catholic]. I take communion very seriously. I will not receive unless im in the state of grace. Am I missing out on the graces?, I honestly and sincerely believe that Christ is in me and what more grace is there than having Christ live in you. I am that temple of the living God. Like I said I will find out what I missed [maybe]out when I come into His Presence. GOD BLESS

 

[kevinfraser]

LetsObeyChrist:

As a sola scripturist

To prove your assertion that the sayings of the man Martin Luther called sola scriptura is true, you have to accomplish this, or you’re placing the sayings of a man above scripture:

1. Using only the Bible, prove from the Bible that the Bible is the rule of faith.
2. Using only the Bible, prove which books belong in the Bible.
3. Using only the Bible, prove to us both that you have the authority to infallibly interpret the Bible for us both.

Here are some problems you will be tempted to ignore, but they are central.

Put stock in the sayings of no man. Martin Luther is a man, sola scriptura is his theory and is not in the Bible. Therefore you can’t put any stock in sola scriptura. That’s why sola scriptura is self-refuting. Bit of a show stopper, I know.

If you ignore this, as many protestants do, you will have to acknowledge that in 2 Timothy 3:16-17… the greek ophelimos means “helpful” not “sufficient” in any sense. Not a proof.

If you ignore that, remember that John could only refer to the OT since the NT didn’t exist then. Not a proof.

You’re going to have a hard time proving this because it’s impossible, but if you can pull it off, believe me, you can ignore all the other posts, and I’m sure the posters will enthusiastically release you from responding because…

This, we gotta see.

Ask your pastor, ask your whole congregation if you want. See what happens if you tell your pastor you don’t believe sola scriptura anymore because you don’t think it’s biblical, and you want him to preach on it. If you persist in seeking this illumination of objective logical truth from your presbyters, you will eventually be invited to leave them, and join another denomination whose beliefs are closer to your own, like “the Catholics.” You will also be ostracized first, perhaps cruelly. Ask around: chnetwork.org/

You’re closer to the Kingdom than you know, LetsObeyChrist!

I pray to be worthy to be the Holy Spirit’s ventriloquist dummy because I stand on the shoulders of giants:
catholic.com/library/What_Your_Authority.asp

You can profit much by prayerfully reading this article.

If you are intellectually honest, this article will eventually cause you to renounce sola scriptura for the error it is. That will start an avalanche. However, I’m afraid most Protestants put their fingers in their ears and start singing “laalalala I can’t hear you lalala” when confronted with this reality. They choose this customary, inculturated lie called Sola Scriptura without a hint of analysis. Lock, stock, barrel, hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, tackle, wristwatch.

Satan is the father of all lies and a murderer from the beginning, so we pray you won’t do that too.

Posters, let’s all please pray now for Divine guidance for the Child of God who calls himself “LetsObeyChrist” in his earnest Journey of Faith:

In the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: Jesus you are Lord! May the Holy Spirit which Jesus guaranteed to the Apostles against error in faith and morals, guide and enlighten all inquirers, gently drawing them ever closer to Truth itself which is The Eucharistic Sacred Heart of the Eternal Word, Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. In the name of the father and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.

Thousands will include you and all protestants today in their Rosary Intentions via virtualrosary.org Jesus even gave us His very own Mom from the Cross to be ours, too! Alleliua!

If you’d like to hear a Catholic Preacher “bring down the duck,” listen to this hour:
ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/dload1.asp?rafile=et_1.ra&source=frmselectseries.asp&seriesID=&T1=corapi

PM me if you want more listening. Pax.

 

[BobCatholic]

kevinfraser:

To prove your assertion that the sayings of the man Martin Luther called sola scriptura is true, you have to accomplish this, or you’re placing the sayings of a man above scripture:

1. Using only the Bible, prove from the Bible that the Bible is the rule of faith.
2. Using only the Bible, prove which books belong in the Bible.
3. Using only the Bible, prove to us both that you have the authority to infallibly interpret the Bible for us both.

Sola scriptura is refuted by my infamous 4 questions (your question #2 touches on one of them), but let’s save that for another thread. There’s a “why I rejected sola scriptura” thread that’s open.

 

[GoodSamaritan]

The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Where else in the NT does ‘spirit’ connote symbolism? When we hear that Angels are ‘spirit messengers’, does this mean that angels are symbolic? When we hear that God is spirit, does this mean that God is symbolic? Your interpretation of how ‘spirit’ affects this meaning just isn’t plausible if you let Scripture interpret Scripture. This symbolic interpretation is neither Biblical, Historical (the Church Fathers NEVER took these words to be symbolic), nor Logical. Eating flesh and drinking blood, in the Arab/Jewish culture, when used symbolically meant to ‘persecute’ someone. Why would Jesus tell us, ‘Unless you persecute me, you will have no life in you.’? Since we are to do this many times over, how can we persecute Christ, as you would say he commands, if he’s already in Heaven?
BTW, it’s really tough to commit, as Paul says in 1 Cor 11:24, a sin against the body and blood of someone, if there is not an actual body to sin against, no?
Paul actually makes it clear to us in Romans 8:1:

**‘the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him, it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it because it is judged spiritually.’ (1 Cor 2:14). **

So many seem to embrace things like the Ascension, the Incarnation, and the Virgin birth as literal yet can’t seem to grasp this…Why? If we cannot understand it, do we then say it’s not possible? Peter had the right idea when Christ asked him if the 12 would also leave him and he basically said, ‘Lord, I have no idea why you want me to eat you but you’re the Son of God the Messiah and so I will do as you command.’
Now THAT’S what I call Faith.

GS

 

[GregC]

LetsObeyChrist:

Transubstantiation is an invention of Radbertus (831), a monk in the monastery of Corbie, France and originally fought against by the RCC. Not until th 13th century during the medieval period was it finally accepted.

Sounds like something from a Chick comic book. Here’s the truth…

newadvent.org/cathen/11518a.htm

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

Gerry Hunter:

Well, now you’ve got another problem. :banghead:

If the phrase “eat the flesh and drink the blood” is being used figuratively, then it had an idiomatic meaning among the Jews of the time, just as it has for Arabs (also a Semetic people) today. The phrase, figuratively used, means to inflict a serious injury upon someone, particularly through a defamatory lie, or some kind of false accusation.

So to take it figuratively (and may I note in passing how strange I find it that John 6 is almost the only biblical passage that, along with the words of institution at the last supper, that sola scriptura advocates take figuratively ), one would have to conclude that Jesus was saying, to use the modern idiom, that to have eternal life in him, they had to trash him. Not a very satfying interpretation, I’d suggest.

The more replies you post, the clearer it becomes that you are undertaking an exercise in eisegesis, not exegesis.

Blessings,

Gerry

The argument is a straw man. It gives an absurd meaning to the symbols used and then points how absurd such meaning is.

Christ did not speak of “eating bread…flesh …blood” to mean “inflict a serious injury upon someone, particularly through a defamatory lie, or some kind of false accusation.”

Rather in context we see “eating bread” is symbolic of believing doctrine:

Matthew 16:11-12 11 Why do you not understand that it was not concerning bread I said to you: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees? 12 Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

He is doing the same here in Jn 6 as He Himself insists eating flesh cannot profit and only the Holy Spirit quickens. Thus He is proving their literal interpretation must be wrong:

John 6:64 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Christ Himself defined the words “eat heavenly bread…ME…my flesh…drink my blood” as “spirit and life.”

Now one may say “well eating His literal flesh and drinking His literal blood” results in one receiving “spirit and life.”

However Christ ruled that out expressly saying only the Holy Spirit makes the dead alive, eating flesh (with its blood) profits nothing.

Therefore when Christ defined His words as “spirit and life” He is denying they are flesh, that their outer meaning is meant. Rather the flesh of these words cover the spirit and life meaning within, they refer to an act that results in eternal life. That very act was defined by Christ at the very beginning of this dispute:

John 6:27-29 27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed. 28 They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

metal1633:

Your history is a little off.

He knew the Apostles and he believed in the Real Presence.
Or how about St Justin…

You need to find out just exacly what the Ancient Church believed.

Transubstantiation is an invention of Radbertus (831), a monk in the monastery of Corbie, France and originally fought against by the RCC. Not until th 13th century during the medieval period was it finally accepted.

The idea is not in the Bible.

As for Ignatius you are reading into his words transubstantiation when in fact he speaks no differently that would a Protestant Pastor, who understood these symbols to be Christ’s flesh and blood spiritually speaking.

That Ignatius may very well be saying this as Protestants pastors do is clear from the following:

…there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that liveth and speaketh, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.-Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, VII

Figurative language abounds, “fire desiring to be fed, water that lives and speaks, heavenly bread, blood which is love and eternal life.”

Rather than transubstantiated flesh, it seems to me Ignatius would consider it requires “discernment” to believe the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, because these are so spiritually speaking and not in reality.

As for Justin Martyr I concede he does speak of transmutation that could be considered a forerunner of transubstantiation.

However Christ’s words are above these men and He is emphatic in His rejection of the idea flesh is the antidote for mortality:

John 6:64 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Rather it is the Spirit who quickens and flesh profits nothing in this regard. Therefore Christ’s words are not about literal flesh and blood, they are spirit and life = symbols the bring the Spirit and Eternal Life to those who ingest Christ in truth, by believing in His Person and Work.

 

[agname]

You’re grasping for straws.

Ignatius:
Note: (Friend of Polycarp)
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. …They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 A.D. 110]).

Cyril of Jerusalem:
“Then, having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth his Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before him, that he may make the bread the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ, for whatsoever the Holy Spirit has touched is surely sanctified and changed. Then, upon the completion of the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over that propitiatory victim we call upon God for the common peace of the churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and offer this sacrifice for all who are in need” (Catechetical Lectures 23:7–8 A.D. 350]).

Irenaeus:
Note: (Disciple of Polycarp…who was a disciple of John the Evangelist.)
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, **how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” ** (Against Heresies 4:33–32 A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and **the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” ** (Against Heresies 5:2 A.D. 189]).

Augustine:
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 A.D. 405]).

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 A.D. 411]).
…

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).

 

[BobCatholic]

LetsObeyChrist:

Transubstantiation is an invention of Radbertus (831), a monk in the monastery of Corbie, France and originally fought against by the RCC. Not until th 13th century during the medieval period was it finally accepted.

This is the second time you’ve made this claim in the thread. Please show me a citation.

In the meantime,
catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp
catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp
scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

The idea is not in the Bible.

Translation into English: “that is not in MY INTEPRETATION of the Bible”

Your interpretation of the Bible is not the same as the Bible unless you are claiming personal infallibility. From the DCF message board I know you, and I know you are not claiming that.

As for Ignatius you are reading into his words transubstantiation when in fact he speaks no differently that would a Protestant Pastor, who understood these symbols to be Christ’s flesh and blood spiritually speaking.

Interesting, but you forget these famous lines:

Ignatius of Antioch letter to the Smyrneans:

wesley.nnu.edu/noncanon/fathers/ante-nic/ignatius/igsmyr.htm

6:6 But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us, how that they are contrary to the mind of God.
6:7 They have no care for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty.
6:8 They abstain from **eucharist **

(thanksgiving) and prayer,
6:9 because they allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up.

Again, no symbolism here. If they don’t believe that the Eucharist is not the body and blood of Christ, they hold “strange doctrines” contrary to the faith. If he meant it as symbolic, he would have said something along those lines.

Now, here’s the rub: I know you’ll disagree with me on this, and that’s fine. Under the rules of Sola Scriptura, how do we solve this controversey and infallibly determine which one of us is correct?

Oh wait. There is no way, under Sola Scriptura, so doctrinal relativism is the result, and this thread will continue for hundreds more posts “my opinion is…” “the Pillar of Truth teaches…” “well I disagree, for my opinion is…” “yeah but the Pillar of Truth teaches…” will be the way this will continue for hundreds of more posts

It is important to know which one of us is correct. Christ said we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life.

If He meant it literally, and you believe it is a symbol, you’re in trouble.
If He meant it symbolically, and we believe it is literally, we’re in trouble.

Either which way, we gotta know for sure, for souls are at risk.
I’m not willing to risk my soul on a gamble, and I know you won’t either. However, I trust in the Pillar of Truth while you trust in yourself. I’ll grant that you’re trying your best to follow Christ, but you’re not infallible. You have admitted this in the past.

We are not meant to go at it alone, Christ did not leave us orphans. You believe that the Holy Spirit, enabled men to copy, preserve, distribute and to make sure that the Scriptures got to you intact, but for some reason you don’t believe that the Apostolic interpretation of scripture was not preserved by the Holy Spirit in the same way. I wonder why.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

agname:

You’re grasping for straws.

Ignatius:
Cyril of Jerusalem:
Irenaeus:
Augustine:

Catholic apologist appeal to patristic thought is undermined by the fact they don’t heed that testimony in all areas, for example chiliasm (Rv 20):

Revelation 20:4…and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished…

We must now point out how Papias… says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth.-Fragments of Papias, From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, VI (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1, p. 154).

Or Athanasius’ rejection of councils being able to promulgate doctrine not already announced in the divine scriptures:

but about the faith they wrote not, It seemed good,' but, Thus believes the Catholic Church;’ and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to shew that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolical; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles.-Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, Part I. History of the Councils, Athanasius.

When Athanasius says:

Esti men gar hikanotera panton he theia graphe

Is indeed for sufficient above-all the of-God writing

***Context shows his characterization of Scripture as “divine” springs from his conviction it is above anything “human” ***including the councils of men:

Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divineScripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture… Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, Part I. History of the Councils, Athanasius.

Yet Catholic apologists reject this patristic testimony the church is to be ultra conservative (=sola scripturaist):

In the Lord’s apostles we possess our authority; for even they did not of themselves choose to introduce anything, but faithfully delivered to the nations (of mankind) the doctrine which they had received from Christ. If, therefore, even “an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel” (than theirs), he would be called accursed by us.- Apology, c. vi, Ante Nicene Fathers, Vol III, Wm B Eerdmans Pub, 1977 reprint, p. 246.

So when Catholics actually do heed these and other Patristic doctrines then any appeal to their teaching would at least be consistent.

Catholic inconsistency undermines their authority completely.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

LetsObeyChrist:

The argument is a straw man. It gives an absurd meaning to the symbols used and then points how absurd such meaning is.

Christ did not speak of “eating bread…flesh …blood” to mean “inflict a serious injury upon someone, particularly through a defamatory lie, or some kind of false accusation.”

Rather in context we see “eating bread” is symbolic of believing doctrine:

Strange how the context of the spoken language can be set aside to permit the construction of a “straw man”, and then a contrived context can be invented to support a presupposition.

But then, that is what one must do to attempt to argue against a truth revealed even before the text under examination.

I must point out that Catholics have endured this kind of attack for many centuries now. And history records that it has been made in the past with more aplomb and skill than the present one.

In the end, the basic error is the assumption that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, without anything to check the kind of quirky, individual interpretation we see in this argument.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

"
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

It is God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity Who says this. Holy God.

And the following words are not in contradiction as they are so often distorted to be, rather they reinforce the promise and Christ’s recognition that some would not accept this promise, for the spirit working in you gives you the grace to accept this miraculous promise:

"
[63] It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

Looking at Christ’s word’s as only symbolic is failing to see Christ’s promise for eternal life; the followers who left were looking at his words not with eyes filled with the spirit–which acknowlege that such a promise from God is quite a real promise, but with eyes that saw only the flesh in his words.

Christ emphasizes that we rely on God to grant us the grace to accept this incredible, incredible promise from the Saviour:

[64] But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
[65] And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

peace

 

[mel27]

LetsObeyChrist:

Catholic apologist appeal to patristic thought is undermined by the fact they don’t heed that testimony in all areas, for example chiliasm (Rv 20):

Revelation 20:4…and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished…

We must now point out how Papias… says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth.-Fragments of Papias, From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, VI (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1, p. 154).

Or Athanasius’ rejection of councils being able to promulgate doctrine not already announced in the divine scriptures:

but about the faith they wrote not, It seemed good,' but, Thus believes the Catholic Church;’ and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to shew that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolical; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles.-Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, Part I. History of the Councils, Athanasius.

When Athanasius says:

Esti men gar hikanotera panton he theia graphe

Is indeed for sufficient above-all the of-God writing

***Context shows his characterization of Scripture as “divine” springs from his conviction it is above anything “human” ***including the councils of men:

Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divineScripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture… Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, Part I. History of the Councils, Athanasius.

Yet Catholic apologists reject this patristic testimony the church is to be ultra conservative (=sola scripturaist):

In the Lord’s apostles we possess our authority; for even they did not of themselves choose to introduce anything, but faithfully delivered to the nations (of mankind) the doctrine which they had received from Christ. If, therefore, even “an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel” (than theirs), he would be called accursed by us.- Apology, c. vi, Ante Nicene Fathers, Vol III, Wm B Eerdmans Pub, 1977 reprint, p. 246.

So when Catholics actually do heed these and other Patristic doctrines then any appeal to their teaching would at least be consistent.

Catholic inconsistency undermines their authority completely.