Eat my flesh symbolic meaning Believe in Christ

[LetsObeyChrist]

ncgolf:

How can you say “only eat and drink”. I do not think you understand what you are saying. To be able to eat and drink our Lord in Holy Communion should be the absolute highlight of any Christian. That He humbles himself to be eaten and drunk in such ordinary substances is truly humbling for most Catholics. We realize what a gift He has given us.

I also find it disingenous that you say we do not experience His substance. Give some reasons why say Catholics do not experience substance. What does that mean?

Until the Second Coming the only physical presence of Jesus on Earth is in the Eucharist. The only place that can be found is in the Catholic Chuch.

According to Catholic teaching the accidents are not the substance of Christ.

Therefore they are, for all practical purposes, symbols of that substance.

If there is a real connect (in our realm) between the accidents and the substance and not a metaphysical one, why is there no change in the appearance of the accidents?

 

[Poisson]

LetsObeyChrist:

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Let me try asking one more time…

How does this verse (52)make sense in your context of eating his flesh and drinking his blood?
Is this Jew also taking him out of context the way you accuse us of doing?
Did everyone who left also take him out of context?

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

metal1633:

Again you but words in His mouth. YOUR words. He did NOT say “eating My Flesh profits nothing” That is YOUR interpretation.

If “John 6:64 is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing” is not in direct response to their interpreting “eat my flesh for life” literally then Christ is a loon, answering direct objections to His teaching with irrelevancies.

Nothing in scripture indicates Christ is a loon, that He babbles to questions irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent sayings.

Christ is clearly addressing their misinterpretation by pointing out eating flesh does not profit, only the Spirit gives eternal life.

John 6:64 is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing.

Then He says His words “eat my flesh…drink my blood” are spirit and life, which cannot be true if they are referring to “eating flesh” literally as that profits nothing.

Millions through the ages have interpreted this similarly, I am not alone.

 

[metal1633]

LetsObeyChrist:

According to Catholic teaching the accidents are not the substance of Christ.

Therefore they are, for all practical purposes, symbols of that substance.

If there is a real connect (in our realm) between the accidents and the substance and not a metaphysical one, why is there no change in the appearance of the accidents?

Your confusing Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation.

The Bread and Wine are SACRAMENTAL SIGNS. The Reality is the Body and Blood of Christ. The PHYSICAL reality is the Body and Blood of Christ.

In Consubstantiation, the bread and wine and the Body and Blood exist together.

In Transubstantiation, the bread and wine cease to exist. They BECOME CHRIST. That is the Apsotolic Doctrine, attested to by the Words of our Lord. This IS my Body. And attested to by the Fathers. “They 9the heretics) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist IS the FLESH of our Savior Jesus Christ”

 

[ncgolf]

LetsObeyChrist:

According to Catholic teaching the accidents are not the substance of Christ.

In a sense, the accidents remain but the substance is transformed. Here is a portion from Catholicenclyopedia.com.

The principal aim of speculative theology with regard to the Eucharist, should be to discuss philosophically, and seek a logical solution of, three apparent contradictions, namely:

(a) the continued existence of the Eucharistic Species, or the outward appearances of bread and wine, without their natural underlying subject (accidentia sine subjecto); …(removed other objections)
(a) The study of the first problem, viz. whether or not the accidents of bread and wine continue their existence without their proper substance, must be based upon the clearly established truth of Transubstantiation, in consequence of which the entire substance of the bread and the entire substance of the wine are converted respectively into the Body and Blood of Christ in such a way that “only the appearances of bread and wine remain” (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii: manentibus dumtaxat speciebus panis et vini).

They are saying it is converted but we see only the accidents. It is a mystery, I grant you, but not impossible.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

metal1633:

Your confusing Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation.

The Bread and Wine are SACRAMENTAL SIGNS. The Reality is the Body and Blood of Christ. The PHYSICAL reality is the Body and Blood of Christ.

In Consubstantiation, the bread and wine and the Body and Blood exist together.

In Transubstantiation, the bread and wine cease to exist. They BECOME CHRIST. That is the Apsotolic Doctrine, attested to by the Words of our Lord. This IS my Body. And attested to by the Fathers. “They 9the heretics) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist IS the FLESH of our Savior Jesus Christ”

No I am not. I directly question the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ when their appearance (or substance) does not change one iota.

 

[jpusateri]

LetsObeyChrist:

I believe the real presence of Christ, more so than Catholics.

Whereas you only eat and drink the accidents of Christ and DO NOT experience His substance, we who ingest Christ in truth and symbolize that true belief via the Eucharist do actually experience Christ’s presence in our assembly.

Fascinating, so you believe that when you partake, Christ is actually there, yet symbolic.

LetsObeyChrist:

According to Catholic teaching the accidents are not the substance of Christ.

Therefore they are, for all practical purposes, symbols of that substance.

If there is a real connect (in our realm) between the accidents and the substance and not a metaphysical one, why is there no change in the appearance of the accidents?

Yet you say that Catholics believe that he is actually there, but he is merely symbolically there. Which is it?

Is it just the expanation using the Aristotelian concepts of accidents and substance that are confusing you?

 

[SteveG]

LetsObeyChrist:

You failed to address Christ’s statements:

While He said eating flesh profits, gives life He then directly contradicts that, saying:

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.

Moreover Christ expressly says His words “eat my flesh…drink my blood” are “spirit and life.”

The only way Christ is not contradicting Himself is where “flesh and blood” are symbols referring to different things.

That cannot be if they are to be literally interpreted, then they are flesh and blood and do not profit or quicken.

So Christ directly refutes your insistence these unbelievers were right when misinterpreting Christ’s words in a fleshly manner, they are “spirit and life.”

.

a snippet from a discourse on this topic by Scott Hahn…

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.’"

Well, some people try to use that verse to nullify everything which is so patently obvious in the preceding verses. I used to as well until I tried to deal as honestly and prayerfully as possible with that passage. I’m talking about verse 63. If the disciples had just proceeded to take the flesh off the body of Christ right there and drink His blood, they would have done nothing supernaturally beneficial. Jesus is saying, “It’s the Spirit that gives life,” and so wait until the Spirit is given. When I breath my spirit upon the Cross. When the Spirit comes down at Pentecost, but especially when the spirit of Christ raises the body of Christ from the dead, it will be the Holy Spirit that makes Christ’s flesh and blood holy, glorious and powerful as food for our souls and bodies. Not just the flesh alone.

“And the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” What words? That you’ve got to eat my flesh and drink my blood, those words. So we can’t just say, “Well, the words themselves are all we need;” because if the words alone are all we take, we’re disobeying the words themselves. Did you catch that? I used to always say to these Catholics in Bible studies, “Look at verse 63. It’s the words of Christ that give life.” The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. That’s right, but what are those words? If you just simply take the words without the Eucharist, you’re disobeying the words because the words say, “Eat my flesh and drink my blood.” And it’s because of the Holy Spirit that we receive life in that flesh and now it all comes together. There’s no either/or; there’s a both/and.

In 63 we discover why Christ’s flesh and blood will be so powerful and animating for supernatural life. Verse 66, “After this, many of His disciples drew back…” We get the impression that the vast majority of them said, “This is just too much.” “…and no longer went about with him. And Jesus turned to the twelve;” he didn’t apologize. He didn’t say, “Now that we’re down to twelve, I’ll tell you what I really meant.” He didn’t say that at all. In fact he is perfectly willing for this obstacle to remain scandalous even to the twelve. “Do you also wish to go away. Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go?’” Almost implying we would leave if there was somebody else that we could trust more than you because what you said is rather baffling. But he says, “To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

 

[metal1633]

LetsObeyChrist:

No I am not. I directly question the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ when their appearance (or substance) does not change one iota.

Ahhh but the substance DOES change into the Body and Blood of the Lord. You are again ASSUMING your own conclusion.

Why not have the same faith in His Words the Apostles did and BELIEVE Him, even when you can’t see it or understand it. You are trying to use human reasoning , like the pharisees, to understand words that are spirit. You ask the same question they did. “How can this man give us His Flesh to eat?” Can’t you see that? You are still thinking after the flesh.

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

jpusateri:

Fascinating, so you believe that when you partake, Christ is actually there, yet symbolic.

Yet you say that Catholics believe that he is actually there, but he is merely symbolically there. Which is it?

Is it just the expanation using the Aristotelian concepts of accidents and substance that are confusing you?

Christ is with His people, personally dwelling in an among them. Especially this is true during the Eucharist remembrance of Him.

I find the distinction between accidents and substance bogus philosophy.

For example the accidents of a well done steak, are delicious. It is the substance of food.

To say its substance would remain unaffected by change in the accidents (and vice versa) however, is clearly absurd as seen in rotted steak, the accidents are ruined and it no longer is the substance of food.

 

[ncgolf]

LetsObeyChrist:

Christ is with His people, personally dwelling in an among them. Especially this is true during the Eucharist remembrance of Him.

I find the distinction between accidents and substance bogus philosophy.

For example the accidents of a well done steak, are delicious. It is the substance of food.

To say its substance would remain unaffected by change in the accidents (and vice a versa) however, is clearly absurde as seen in rotted steak, the accidents are ruined and it no longer is the substance of food.

Ahh! True colors show. You obviously do not believe Transubstantiation occurs. Your example, quite frankly stinks. Rooted food is still food, though unhealthy and distasteful for humans, vultures can eat it without becoming ill. You obviously believe God cannot do the impossible. Quit putting limits on what God can or cannot do.

 

[oat_soda]

LetsObeyChrist,

clearly we catholics disagree with your interpretation of scripture. we take something literally, you don’t -fine. here’s my challenge, give me one reference of a church father or early christian writting that supports your view that the eucharist is not literally the body and blood of christ.

sorry if these were already posted but these writings predate the reformation and the cannon of the bible (table of contents).
Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (*Letter to the Romans *7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“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]).

 

[LetsObeyChrist]

ncgolf:

Ahh! True colors show. You obviously do not believe Transubstantiation occurs.

What gave me away?

ncgolf:

Your example, quite frankly stinks. Rooted food is still food, though unhealthy and distasteful for humans, vultures can eat it without becoming ill. You obviously believe God cannot do the impossible. Quit putting limits on what God can or cannot do.

No, it illustrates accidents and substance are connected, it is not possible one change without effecting the other.

The philosophical distinction between them is bogus as my illustration proved beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[KennySe]

LetsObeyChrist:

According to Catholic teaching the accidents are not the substance of Christ.

Correct.

'Accidents" are the carnally perceived properties.

“Substance” is the actual “is”.

The “accidents” (carnally perceived properties) of Holy Eucharist are:
round, white, wheat, thin, no particual taste (there’s no excessive saltiness to it), there is no sugar)

But those are the “accidents” of the Holy Eucharist,. That is NOT what It “is”. What it “is” is Its Substance.

Holy Eucharist is the real presence of Jesus Christ. Holy Eucharist is the living Victim who reconciles us to the Father.
Holy Eucharist is the bread from heaven.

The liquid in the cup has properties (accidents) also.
wine, wet, smell of wine

But that is not what the liquid “is”.

Therefore they are, for all practical purposes, symbols of that substance.

No.

“Accidents” of any object are not symbolic of the “Substance” of that object.

“Accidents” are the properties of an object.

“Substance” is what that object is.

I have a wooden chair.

The chair is a chair. (“Substance”)

The properties “accidents” are: 4 24-inch wooden legs, a wooden back, a wooden seat.

Remove one of the accidents (cut the legs down to 23 inches).
The object remains what it is: a chair.

Replace an accident. (Exchange the 4 wooden legs with plastic legs). The object remains what it is: a chair.

Replace the SUBSTANCE of the object, then the object is not what it was.

I dismantle the various parts of the chair, and nail the parts together in an odd way: the four 24 inch wooden beams are placed on top of the thing. These beams are no longer legs because they are no longer supporting the thing.
The thing is no longer a chair, because I have nailed the parts together in a manner that the object may not be sat upon.

The object is no longer a chair. The SUBSTANCE has changed.
It is now… a piece of art, to be looked at and pondered.

If there is a real connect (in our realm) between the accidents and the substance and not a metaphysical one, why is there no change in the appearance of the accidents?

“Seeing is beleiving”, eh Thomas?

You must SEE the blood and TASTE the blood, and SMELL the blood, in order that there is blood.

And you have SEEN and TOUCHED the Risen Lord?

---

God is not limited to our laws of physics and philosophy and knowledge and wisdom and understanding.

Jesus said “This is my body…”

and His Apostles believed Him. Not because they SAW Jesus holding a mini-Jesus.
They believed Him through faith.

He said it and they believed Him.
His Apostles taught others, and they believed them.
Hence, we have the writings of Ignatius, third Bishop of Antioch, who had been taught directly by the Apostle John.

And where are the contemporary Christians of Bishop Ignatius, refuting him? If Ignatius had been teaching wrongly, contrary to the teaching of the Apostle John, where are fellow Bishops refuting Ignatius?

When Justin wrote to the Emperor “First Apology”, where are his Christian contemporaries correcting him, if he wrote wrongly that the food Eucharist is the flesh of Lord Jesus Christ?

YOU, or anyone, can look at the Sacred Scripture NOW in the 21st Century and have one’s view.
But the Catholic Church does not look at Sacred Scripture from the 21st Century. She looks at Sacred Scripture from the 1st Century onward. Proecting it. Preserving it. Interpreting it. Sharing it.

Why do the Greek-speaking Orthodox believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist? Can’t the Greeks understand their own Greek?
I challenge you to read what the Early Church Fathers: of both the Eastern and Western Church said about Eucharist.

Where are their contemporaries refuting them?

 

[ncgolf]

Come on … your example did nothing of the sort. You say substance and accident cannot change without one affecting the other.

Tell the Lord that. All things are possible with God. He allows it to happen at each and every Catholic Mass.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

LetsObeyChrist:

I find the distinction between accidents and substance bogus philosophy.

That’s strange, because no philosopher does, or ever did.

Since an accident, in philosophy, is a property displayed by something that exists, but which is not determinant in its existance, it is an actual, not a bogus, distinction.

I am, as it happens, wearing a pair of trousers, which exhibit the accident of being blue. If I put them in a vat of green dye long enough, they would exhibit the accident of being green, but would still exist as trousers, just as they had before, in spite of the change in their colour – the accident.

Do I detect, I wonder, a (common enough among Protestants) rejection of any work of God that involves matter? Catholics do not reject God’s work simply because it involves matter, because matter was created by God, who saw that it was good, and who used it as he saw fit.

It is a high price to pay, to cut down one’s grasp on philosophy, and reject anything involving matter, simply to support a cutting down of the fullness of the Apostolic Faith. And it is a needless payment.

Blessings,

Gerry

PS: We are still waiting for you to explain your basis for ascribing any authority to Holy Scripture. :yawn:

 

[BobCatholic]

Gerry Hunter:

PS: We are still waiting for you to explain your basis for ascribing any authority to Holy Scripture. :yawn:

I’m still waiting for his basis for ascribing any authority to his interpretation of holy scripture After all, he believes it is authoritative, but not infallible.

 

[GWitherow]

It was through an act of eating that the first Adam brought us death. It is through the act of eating that the second Adam brings us life.

 

[Count_Chocula]

LetsObeyChrist:

After removing the ad hominem I discovered you had nothing to say.

Thanks for trying.

Wow what a jack… anyways, we know a couple things in this chapter,

1. His disciples were following him for bread and fish, he even called them out on this.
2. Christ then instructed them to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood to live forever.
3. They think this is nuts so he says that their flesh which bread and fish wouldn’t help live forever profiteth nothing.
4. Christ points this out and says the flesh profiteth nothing, but the words he spoke are spirit and life. This means that his instructions to eat of his body and drink of his blood are spirit and life and will profiteth much.

If we are to consider Christ’s teachings and statements to be what sustains the spirit for ever lasting life then we must then conclude that we have to suck it in and eat of his flesh and drink of his blood.

See your argument backs you into a corner. Christ has double meaning here. That his teachings lead to eternal life in heaven? Yes of course. Do his teachings include Mass and communion and Eucharist and all that stuff? According to scripture yes.

After removing the Protestant drivel I found you had nothing worth hearing to say.

 

[Little_Mary]

LetsObeyChrist:

He took the time to explain His words are spirit and life, not flesh.

That only the Spirit gives life, not flesh which is of no avail.

There is a difference between the flesh and His flesh. He makes the difference quite clear.