R
ralphinal
Guest
And thus spoak ralphinal, “As no answer is given me, I must conclude that one is not possible. Therefore, this interpretation is incorrect. Jesus was speaking literally.”
- Status
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
There could be a million reasons why someone didn’t respond to one of your posts.
Your deduction from silence appears quite absurd to me.
It is very likely as this thread grows to many pages, the posts in the early pages will be unread.
Not because no one can answer them, but because no one read them.
Perhaps Catholic Answers one day will have threads display a “tree” listing all posts and those that directly answer them.
Then at a glance one might see which ones were unanswered.
Now no one knows.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Then I appologise to you. I will re-post it so taht you can see it.
I ask again, if there is nothing there in the Sacrifice of the Mass, in other owrds, we are not literally eating his body and blood, then why does Paul seem so adament in 1 Corinthians that it is literally his body and blood?
1 Cor 10:16 “the cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the BLOOD OF CHRIST? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the BODY OF CHRIST?”
It seems to me that Paul sees literal Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist.
1 Cor 11:23-29 "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and after he had given thanks, broke it and said, ‘This is MY BODY that is for you. DO this in rememberance of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in MY BLOOD. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have no answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. FOR ANYONE WHO EATS AND DRINKS WITHOUT DISCERNING THE BODY, EATS AND DRINKS JUDGEMENT ON HIMSELF.
First, how did Paul know what was said had he not been taught? If he was taught, then he must have been taught a literal understanding of the words of Christ. After all, how can you discern anything other than the literal? If it is not literal, how can falure to discern bring judgement?
I would also like to point out that if you compare the words of Christ at the Last Supper to the use of the same words in the Old Testament, “do this as a rememberance of me” becomes “perform this sacrifice as a memorial sacrifice to me.” How is there a sacrifice if nothing is sacrificed?
Also remeber that in order for the Pascal lamb to have an effect, it had to be eaten by the Isrealites. Both Paul and John refere to Jesus as the Paschal Lamb and Lamb Of God (1 Cor 5:7, Jn 1:29, Revelation). If Jesus is the Pascal Lamb of the New Covenant, then we must EAT HIS FLESH for the sacrifice to have an effect.
As I see it, either you are correct or the Apostles and thus the Catholic Church is correct. Choose wisely, for there are souls on the line.
L
Little_Mary
Guest
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?
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
As your entire post is predicated upon this participation being real and not spiritual, if I prove it is the latter everything else you built upon it being the former, is wrong.
In context Paul illustrates by parallels the type of participation he means:
1CO 10:18 Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar?
[Eating the sacrifices is not eating the substance of either the altar or God]
1CO 10:19 Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything?
1CO 10:20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons.
1CO 10:21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons.
[Participants with demons are not ingesting the substance of demons, otherwise there could be no occasion where any could eat meat sacrificed to idols:]
1CO 10:25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience,
1CO 10:26 for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”* n
*1CO 10:27 If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.
1CO 10:28 But if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience’ sake* n*–
1CO 10:29 the other man’s conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience?
1CO 10:30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?
One could not thank God for partaking of demons.
Therefore the participation believers have in the body and blood of Christ is spiritual and not actual.
Transubstantiation could not have happened as Christ Himself describes the contents of the cup as wine after its consecration:
Mt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
29 And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.
30 And a hymn being said, they went out unto mount Olivet.
**Moreover the Eucharist is done in remembrance of Christ, if the species of the bread and wine are Christ then it is an encounter with Him and cannot be eaten in remembrance of Him.
It is elementary, One does not eat in remembrance of what was eaten, that is impossible.**
R
ralphinal
Guest
Close, but not quite. Look carefully at the verses. This is against eating food offered to idols. Are you saying that the Euchirist is the same as idolatry? Why would failure to discern the Body and Blood be sinful? What about the Paschal Lamb/Lamb of God comparison?
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
me thinks you can’t prove the validity or soundness of your argument and so we must now endure empty verbiage.
so be it, I can handle it.
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
No, Paul is discussing “sharing, participation” and he not equating idolatry with the Eucharist.
1 Cor 13:16 The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?
17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread.
18 Behold Israel according to the flesh. Are not they that eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
He is directly comparing the koinwnia (vs 16) believers have in Christ’s body and blood with (vs 18) the koinwnos Israel according to the flesh have with the altar.
It is obvious this sharing, participation must be spiritual as none in their right mind would believe the Israelites ate “transubstantiated altar” when they ate the sacrifices.
KJV 1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning (diakrinw) the Lord’s body.
252 diakrinw
Meaning: 1) to separate, make a distinction, discriminate, to prefer 2) to learn by discrimination, to try, decide 2a) to determine, give judgment, decide a dispute 3) to withdraw from one, desert 4) to separate one’s self in a hostile spirit, to oppose, strive with dispute, contend 5) to be at variance with one’s self, hesitate, doubt
If the species were actually the body and blood of Christ then making a distinction is unecessary, then it is what it is.
That mental judgment deciding this “is the body and blood of Christ” is necessary is proof it is so “spiritually speaking” and not the substance itself.
Therefore there is no support here for transubstantiation.
D
David_Brown
Guest
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
David Brown:
You forgot to include your argument.
I understand, I am sleepy also, good night.
You forgot to include your argument.
I understand, I am sleepy also, good night.
D
David_Brown
Guest
“It is elementary: Eating Christ results in life; Believing in Christ results in life therefore Eating =(is a symbol for) Believing (as both result in life to the doer).”
An invalid argument is still and invalid argument. The logical form of your argument is:
X results in Y ; Z results in Y ; Therefore X = (is a symbol for) Z .
If you read the argument syllogistically, then YOU did not distruibute the middle term in either premise (“A” propositions, to use standard Aristotelian form, do not distribute their predicates–check any logic text book).
An invalid argument is still and invalid argument. The logical form of your argument is:
X results in Y ; Z results in Y ; Therefore X = (is a symbol for) Z .
If you read the argument syllogistically, then YOU did not distruibute the middle term in either premise (“A” propositions, to use standard Aristotelian form, do not distribute their predicates–check any logic text book).
D
David_Brown
Guest
O
oat_soda
Guest
The catechism says to properly interpret scripture, you must read the new testament in light of the old, and the old in light of the new. The eucharist is prefigured in the old testament. for instance:
the offering of Melchizedek: Gen 14:18-20
“but melchisedech the king of salem, bring forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God, blessed him and said: blessed be abram by the most high God, woh created heaven and earth”.
16 Exodus 15:16 “and moses said to them: this is the bread, which the lord hath given you to eat”.
the sacrifice of the covenant on the mountain of sinai: Ex 24:3-8 “moses built and altar at the foot of the mount… sacraficed pacific victims of calves to the lord… then moses took blood and sprinkled it upon the people and said: this is the blood of the covenant which the lord hath made with you concerning all these words.”
Sacrafice for sin. Levitivus 6:29
“every male of the priestly race shall eat of the flesh thereof, because it is Holy of Holies”.
the manna in the desert. Ex 16:2-4
“… and the children of Isreal said to them: would to God we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat over the** flesh pots, and ate bread** to the full… and the Lord said to Moses: behold I will rain bread from heaven for you”.
Elijah strengthened by bread from heaven: III Kings 19:4-8
"an angel of the Lord touched him and said to him arise and eat. he looked and behold there was at his head a** hearth cake** and vessel of water.
The banquet of wisdom: Prov 9:1-6
“…she hath slain her victims, mingled her wine, and set forth her table…and to the unwise she said: come, **eat my bread, and drink the wine **which I have migled for you. forsake childishness and live…”
The prophecy of Malachi Mal 1:11:
“…my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation, for my name is great among the Gentiles saith the Lord of hosts.”
The paschal lamb and the unleavended bread: Exodus 12,13:18
“you shall eat unleavened bread”.
We have bread and wine as an offering and as food from heaven, and eating flesh for the remission of sins, sacrifice and offering. When Jesus said “Take, eat this is my Body, this is my Blood”, he was alluding to all of these prefigurements in the Old Testament and was not talking figuratively. He does not say “this represents my body” or “here is my body” but “this is my body”. No competent speaker would ever talk like that, least of all the Lord.
the offering of Melchizedek: Gen 14:18-20
“but melchisedech the king of salem, bring forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God, blessed him and said: blessed be abram by the most high God, woh created heaven and earth”.
16 Exodus 15:16 “and moses said to them: this is the bread, which the lord hath given you to eat”.
the sacrifice of the covenant on the mountain of sinai: Ex 24:3-8 “moses built and altar at the foot of the mount… sacraficed pacific victims of calves to the lord… then moses took blood and sprinkled it upon the people and said: this is the blood of the covenant which the lord hath made with you concerning all these words.”
Sacrafice for sin. Levitivus 6:29
“every male of the priestly race shall eat of the flesh thereof, because it is Holy of Holies”.
the manna in the desert. Ex 16:2-4
“… and the children of Isreal said to them: would to God we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat over the** flesh pots, and ate bread** to the full… and the Lord said to Moses: behold I will rain bread from heaven for you”.
Elijah strengthened by bread from heaven: III Kings 19:4-8
"an angel of the Lord touched him and said to him arise and eat. he looked and behold there was at his head a** hearth cake** and vessel of water.
The banquet of wisdom: Prov 9:1-6
“…she hath slain her victims, mingled her wine, and set forth her table…and to the unwise she said: come, **eat my bread, and drink the wine **which I have migled for you. forsake childishness and live…”
The prophecy of Malachi Mal 1:11:
“…my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation, for my name is great among the Gentiles saith the Lord of hosts.”
The paschal lamb and the unleavended bread: Exodus 12,13:18
“you shall eat unleavened bread”.
We have bread and wine as an offering and as food from heaven, and eating flesh for the remission of sins, sacrifice and offering. When Jesus said “Take, eat this is my Body, this is my Blood”, he was alluding to all of these prefigurements in the Old Testament and was not talking figuratively. He does not say “this represents my body” or “here is my body” but “this is my body”. No competent speaker would ever talk like that, least of all the Lord.
In Semitic cultures, the expresstions “to eat flesh” and “drink blood” means to inflict serious bodily injury. That is why we cannot believe that the Jews understood Jesus metaphorically because he would in effect be saying “unless you assault and severely torture me, you have no life in you,” which of course is utter nonsense. That’s why the Jews were disgusted; they understood him literally, and correctly, and since they were unable to stomach the idea of cannibalism, they left. Nowhere did the Jews ever equate phago (eat) or trogo (chew) with believe.
See Micah 3:3 for Jewish use of the expression.
See Micah 3:3 for Jewish use of the expression.
M
Mr.Ruggerio
Guest
Anyone notice how on matters, such as the Eucharist, confession, baptism, it is the Catholic church that takes the relevant passages literally, and the Protestants that adopt a symbolic approach.
Let me suggest as a rule of interpretation that on the very important points involving grace, such as the Eucharist, the passage’s meaning should be easily accessible to everyone so that as many as possible could avail themselves of this source of great grace. Literalism, which is probably the simplest form of Biblical interpretation, makes this possible. Anyone can do it, such that you don’t even need a degree in Greek in order to understand John 6 for example.
The Bible pure and simple is a profoundly Catholic sentiment.
Let me suggest as a rule of interpretation that on the very important points involving grace, such as the Eucharist, the passage’s meaning should be easily accessible to everyone so that as many as possible could avail themselves of this source of great grace. Literalism, which is probably the simplest form of Biblical interpretation, makes this possible. Anyone can do it, such that you don’t even need a degree in Greek in order to understand John 6 for example.
The Bible pure and simple is a profoundly Catholic sentiment.
S
SteveG
Guest
This is like saying …
Driving my car to work results in my arriving at work.
Riding the bus to work results in my arriving at work.
Therefore driving my car = riding the bus.
…umm, I don’t think so.
This DOES prove that the result is the same under each component scenario, It DOES NOT prove that the two scenarios are the same in their components.
In strictly non religiouis terms, your example of Eating and Believing produce the same RESULT. That does not mean they are the same thing. Under your scenario it would be more correct to say that two separate actions (Eating and Beleiving) produce the same result without saying anything about their equivalence. Another example…
Drinking water sustains life
Eating food sustains life
Therefore eating food = drinking water
…Again do you see how two separate things can have the same effect without being the exact same thing? And in this example the anology fits even better as these two different components which help produce the same effect are also complementary. This should be rewritten as…
Drinking water sustains life
Eating food sustains life
Therefore both drinking water AND eating food contribute to sustaining life.
…Which would be closer to the Catholic understanding of your original argument which should more accurately read…
Eating Christ results in life
Believing in Christ results in life
Therefore both eating Christ AND believing in Christ work to result in life.
L
Little_Mary
Guest
sigh Yet another example of a non-believer taking a phrase out of context in order to support his own opinions and interpretations.
Christ himself most certainly does not describe the contents of the cup as wine after its consecration. Read it again, and this time, read the entire passage.
I am inclined to agree with other posters here that you are not interested in anything but your own opinion and interpretations which are just that, your own opinions and interpretations. They carry no weight here.
However, my friend, keep praying reading and studying - the Truth always rises to the top.
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
Mr. Ruggerio:
So we are to be absurd literalists? Follow that advice here and insist Christ is speaking about bread. If you won’t follow your own advice I guess we know what we can do with it:
Matthew 16:5-13 5 And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. 6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, *It is *because we have taken no bread. 8 *Which *when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? 9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake *it *not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12 Then understood they how that he bade *them *not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Anyone notice how you failied to address any issue?
So we are to be absurd literalists? Follow that advice here and insist Christ is speaking about bread. If you won’t follow your own advice I guess we know what we can do with it:
Matthew 16:5-13 5 And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. 6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, *It is *because we have taken no bread. 8 *Which *when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? 9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake *it *not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? 12 Then understood they how that he bade *them *not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
L
LetsObeyChrist
Guest
Little Mary said:sigh Yet another example of a non-believer taking a phrase out of context in order to support his own opinions and interpretations.
Christ himself most certainly does not describe the contents of the cup as wine after its consecration. Read it again, and this time, read the entire passage.
I am inclined to agree with other posters here that you are not interested in anything but your own opinion and interpretations which are just that, your own opinions and interpretations. They carry no weight here.
However, my friend, keep praying reading and studying - the Truth always rises to the top.
After removing the ad hominem I discovered you had nothing to say.
Thanks for trying.
R
Richard_Lamb
Guest
It seems to me that the 2 do not follow as Jesus used beleiving inhim in many other instances.
This is a link where I did a search of the word belief. Feeding or eating is not in all of these texts.
What we beleive and accept is not only what the apostles believed at the time of this passage, which was that he meant a literal eating of his flesh and he made no effort to correct this, but we also beleive how this and other scripture passages. Were lived out in the life of the church. How they bleived and practiced based on the preaching and teaching of the apostles and how this was handles…It is because of the Eucharist that the early beleivers were accused of cannibalism. Do you think those that dies beleiveing this died for a mere Symbol?
By the way welcome aboard and join the frey, I remember you from Carm.
This is a link where I did a search of the word belief. Feeding or eating is not in all of these texts.
What we beleive and accept is not only what the apostles believed at the time of this passage, which was that he meant a literal eating of his flesh and he made no effort to correct this, but we also beleive how this and other scripture passages. Were lived out in the life of the church. How they bleived and practiced based on the preaching and teaching of the apostles and how this was handles…It is because of the Eucharist that the early beleivers were accused of cannibalism. Do you think those that dies beleiveing this died for a mere Symbol?
By the way welcome aboard and join the frey, I remember you from Carm.
- Status