T
TLM08
Guest
When Catholics eat the actual physical flesh of Jesus Christ, it this flesh actually alive or is it dead?
- Status
J
juliamajor
Guest
since your reconversion back to your Fundamentalist ways you have become an anti-catholic gadfly.Your sarcasm and just plain old meaness doesn’t say much for you as a"bible believing Christian".I always thought ‘love God and love your neighbor’ were Jesus’
primary commands?but I may be wrong since I’m only a Catholic Christian. There will be no debate on this thread, so any would be posters-Save your breath! He has come to belittle and denigrate-so be forewarned
primary commands?but I may be wrong since I’m only a Catholic Christian. There will be no debate on this thread, so any would be posters-Save your breath! He has come to belittle and denigrate-so be forewarned
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
John 6:35 (KJV)When Catholics eat the actual physical flesh of Jesus Christ, it this flesh actually alive or is it dead?
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
you figure it out
B
Ben_F
Guest
He was alive when he first gave us his body and He’s still alive today. He wants this so we will be in him and he in us. It’s the only way. Without this we are nothing but dirt.
P
Pug
Guest
The tomb is empty.When Catholics eat the actual physical flesh of Jesus Christ, it this flesh actually alive or is it dead?
(That means he is the Living One).Also, remember that the presence of Christ is not such that if you divide the host that one person gets a knee and one person gets a foot! The presence is the same in each piece, whole and entire, after you divide it. That means it is not like a piece hacked off of a body, as perhaps your question supposes.
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
Catholics do not eat the *physical *flesh of Jesus Christ.
Catholics eat the *metaphysical *flesh of Jesus Christ, who is alive.
Happy to help,
tee
L
Lainey63
Guest
Trolling…:yawn::yawn:When Catholics eat the actual physical flesh of Jesus Christ, it this flesh actually alive or is it dead?
T
teachccd
Guest
Bible believing Christian,When Catholics eat the actual physical flesh of Jesus Christ, it this flesh actually alive or is it dead?
Read your answer here: John 6:51
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
You must first read your bible before you can believe it…teachccd
M
Michael1985
Guest
Perhaps we can be a little bit nicer to those who are outside the Church, it was a genuine question and some people attacked TLM. Even if we have the strongest arguments in the world we will never convert anyone if we don’t have Christ’s love. This board is a witness to the world, these posts become searchable on Google.
We need to encourage an environment where people want to ask questions, and not get attacked or put down for asking.
I always say the only stupid question is the one you don’t ask.
The Eucharist is the living flesh of Christ, I always think of it as Christ loving us. A dead thing cannot love.
We need to encourage an environment where people want to ask questions, and not get attacked or put down for asking.
I always say the only stupid question is the one you don’t ask.
The Eucharist is the living flesh of Christ, I always think of it as Christ loving us. A dead thing cannot love.
T
TLM08
Guest
Thank You. My understanding on this even as a catholic was unclear. The answer I got growing up in catholic school was just that it was “a mystery”. I suspect that there are many others even on these forums that might not understand the catholic position. This was helpful. Does that mean he is physically present but in a spiritual way?
T
TLM08
Guest
I am sorry that you feel this way. My question was not intended to be offensive or disrespectful. We know that Christ dies on the cross and remained in the tomb for three days. During that time his *physical flesh *was physically dead. Perhaps the idea that His physical body was really dead for a period of time seems offensive. But it is true. It is also true that the Church teaches that we are to eat his actual flesh. Yes, it is a hard teaching indeed.since your reconversion back to your Fundamentalist ways you have become an anti-catholic gadfly.Your sarcasm and just plain old meaness doesn’t say much for you as a"bible believing Christian".I always thought ‘love God and love your neighbor’ were Jesus’
primary commands?but I may be wrong since I’m only a Catholic Christian. There will be no debate on this thread, so any would be posters-Save your breath! He has come to belittle and denigrate-so be forewarned
We also know that he rose from the dead, appeared to the twelve apostles and then appeared to many before His assention into Heaven where he currently sits at the right hand of God. You would be suprised at how many good christians, catholic and non-catholic alike do not understand that the assention means that the physical body of Jesus Christ is in Heaven.
I am a seeker of the truth not debate. Perhaps my tendency toward black and white thinking gets me in a bit of trouble sometimes.
L
Lainey63
Guest
Let me offer my apologies TLM and here is some information from the Catechism of the catholic church.
A little background first:
“The church sees the Eucharist prefigured in Melchizedek’s offering of bread & wine Geneis 14:18, manna in the desert, & the Passover meal’s unleavened bread & cup of blessing.” “Jesus prefigured the Eucharist when he mulitplied food for the hungry crowds & he first announced it a Capernaum. Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper, which He celebrated w/his apostles on the Jewish feast of Passover” (The Catechism Handbook pg 56 Par 2 &3)…
“The Eucharist is the presence of Christ. The substance of bread & wine becomes the substance of the body & blood of Christ in a change called the transubstantiation. Only the appearance of bread & wine remain.” (The Catechism Handbook p 57 par 2)
“The Eucharist makes present Christ’s body given for & his blood poured out for us. It makes present the sacrifice of the cross”…
remembering it & applying its graces to us. The Eucharist is the same sacrifice as that of the cross; only the manner of offering is different." (par 1)
So in essence because Christ is not bound by distance or time we are present at his crucifixion…with Him. “His passion is not repeated but made present.” (you know same book different page 50)
Other instances which prefigure the Eucharist (in my mind at least) He was born in Bethlehem…city of bread I think is the translation. He was placed in a manger…which is the feeding bin for the animals. Bread of Life. The shepherds came to see him and left giving glory to God…He is the Good Shepherd. I don’t know if this exactly answers your question but I thought this would help you as well.
T
TLM08
Guest
Thank You and no problem!Let me offer my apologies TLM and here is some information from the Catechism of the catholic church.
A little background first:
“The church sees the Eucharist prefigured in Melchizedek’s offering of bread & wine Geneis 14:18, manna in the desert, & the Passover meal’s unleavened bread & cup of blessing.” “Jesus prefigured the Eucharist when he mulitplied food for the hungry crowds & he first announced it a Capernaum. Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper, which He celebrated w/his apostles on the Jewish feast of Passover” (The Catechism Handbook pg 56 Par 2 &3)…
“The Eucharist is the presence of Christ. The substance of bread & wine becomes the substance of the body & blood of Christ in a change called the transubstantiation. Only the appearance of bread & wine remain.” (The Catechism Handbook p 57 par 2)
“The Eucharist makes present Christ’s body given for & his blood poured out for us. It makes present the sacrifice of the cross”…
remembering it & applying its graces to us. The Eucharist is the same sacrifice as that of the cross; only the manner of offering is different." (par 1)
So in essence because Christ is not bound by distance or time we are present at his crucifixion…with Him. “His passion is not repeated but made present.” (you know same book different page 50)
Other instances which prefigure the Eucharist (in my mind at least) He was born in Bethlehem…city of bread I think is the translation. He was placed in a manger…which is the feeding bin for the animals. Bread of Life. The shepherds came to see him and left giving glory to God…He is the Good Shepherd. I don’t know if this exactly answers your question but I thought this would help you as well.
That all makes good sense and I do understand these aspects of there the teaching on the Eucharist comes from. It’s just that if this is real flesh being eaten… even under the appearance of bread and wine then it must be said to be either living flesh or dead flesh. The Old Testament offerings were slain and eaten after death, and that was the basis for my question. Scott Hahn says that you had to EAT the Lamb! But obviously Jesus is not a real Lamb.
In reading John 6, it is obvious that Jesus is rebuking the crowd when they showed up looking for a literal breakfast the morning after he fed the five-thousand of them.
“…I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill” John 6:26
These people were hungry and in trying to provoke Jesus into giving them more food the crowd brought up manna.
They were only thinking of satisfying that physical hunger. Jesus said “feed on me” as a way to teach them to look toward eternal life.
In John 4:32-34 Jesus said: “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.” Then his disciples said to each other, “Could someone have brought him food?” (again the disciples were thinking physical eating) “My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.”
I think he just said that his “food” is believing in him and doing his will. Jesus makes no mention of eating his body and drinking his blood here but in John 6, he hammers the same idea home again to the crowd when he says you must eat my flesh and drink my blood. My flesh is true food indeed!
I think that Catholic teaching about the Eucharist is beautiful in many ways but it seems that the doctrine of transubstantiation developed out of a very ancient misunderstanding of the New testament writings.
But then again… I make no claims to infallibility so I could be wrong. God have mercy on me if I am.
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
I mean he is Really Present.
To describe the Real Presence merely as *spiritual *is to describe is incompletely. The Servant of God, Paul VI, in *Mysterium Fidei *says this:
tee
L
Lainey63
Guest
So continue on to John chapter 6…I am seeking & learning just like you. So I keep learning, praying to know, accept & do God’s Will for me. And I believe seek & ye shall find. But it is the truth we must be seeking. Create a clean heart in me O God. I also know that there are many, paradoxes in the Bible and we all can argue our points from Scripture and with the use of Scripture validate our own beliefs…no matter how distorted our belief may be. Because most of us just want to be right… So we have to be careful.Thank You and no problem!
That all makes good sense and I do understand these aspects of there the teaching on the Eucharist comes from. It’s just that if this is real flesh being eaten… even under the appearance of bread and wine then it must be said to be either living flesh or dead flesh. The Old Testament offerings were slain and eaten after death, and that was the basis for my question. Scott Hahn says that you had to EAT the Lamb! But obviously Jesus is not a real Lamb.
In reading John 6, it is obvious that Jesus is rebuking the crowd when they showed up looking for a literal breakfast the morning after he fed the five-thousand of them.
"…I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill" John 6:26
These people were hungry and in trying to provoke Jesus into giving them more food the crowd brought up manna.
They were only thinking of satisfying that physical hunger. Jesus said “feed on me” as a way to teach them to look toward eternal life.
In John 4:32-34 Jesus said: “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.” Then his disciples said to each other, “Could someone have brought him food?” (again the disciples were thinking physical eating) “My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.”
I think he just said that his “food” is believing in him and doing his will. Jesus makes no mention of eating his body and drinking his blood here but in John 6, he hammers the same idea home again to the crowd when he says you must eat my flesh and drink my blood. My flesh is true food indeed!
I think that Catholic teaching about the Eucharist is beautiful in many ways but it seems that the doctrine of transubstantiation developed out of a very ancient misunderstanding of the New testament writings.
But then again… I make no claims to infallibility so I could be wrong. God have mercy on me if I am.
I think we give the ancients injustice…if you have any interest in ancient societies & such note that most of our most complex mathematically equations come from the ancient Eygyptians, the plumbing system and other means of construction that the ancient Romans used could not be duplicated until the 20th century. The ancients knew alot. There were also other ancient cultures that employed various means that were not duplicated until the 20th century. I also heard someone talking about warriors on chariots who used the bow & arrow as someone else took the reigns of the horse & chariot…with that system they were able to shoot off as much continous fire power with their bows & arrows that a black hawk now can shoot off. So don’t be so quick to write off the ancient ones as not knowing as much as we do in our age.
T
teachccd
Guest
I offer TLM my apologies, as well. The initial question seemed provocative but that was my ignorance. I’m glad to see that TLM is getting the right information and again I am humbled on this forum. My fingers on this keyboard often do not reflect the love in my heart. I’m trying to connect the dots. Thank you for hitting me over the head with your post. I needed that. God bless you and all here… teachccd
T
TLM08
Guest
No offense taken.
The teaching itself on the real presence is highly provocative. The disciples themselves who saw Jesus perform miracles had a hard time with it. Therefore it’s almost unavoidable that any questions that would seek to dig deeper might be provocative as well.
Being the Son of God, Jesus was probably the most provocative man to walk the face of the earth. His teaching method reflected this. He spoke of His kingdom and people thought he was speaking about an “earthly” kingdom. He called himself a “door” a “true vine” and the “light of the world”. He said we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. This is all highly provocative stuff.
I’ve read the works of both Catholic and Protestant apologists trying to figure out who has the most logical position on this teaching. Scott Hahn’s book, “The Lamb’s Supper” is beautifully written and he makes some very good points. But no matter how I look at this issue, the Real Presence only works when seen through the lense of church Tradition. When examined in light of Scripture alone, it’s pretty clear that Jesus meant that the bread and wine represent his flesh and blood.
“But he said to them: I have meat to eat, which you know not. The disciples therefore said one to another: Hath any man brought him to eat? Jesus saith to them: My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, that I may perfect his work.” John 4:32-34 (Douay Rheims)
“For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.” John 6:56-58 (Douay Rheims)
It is clear that when Jesus says we must eat his flesh, or meat, he is commanding us to do the will of God.
As much as I love Jesus, I’m sure glad he wasn’t my algebra teacher!
B
Ben_F
Guest
Early Christians before the Bible was written ate his body with the knowledge that it was his flesh. Just because later , some have reinterpreted this, does not change the truth. Christ warned us about these types of people. The only way that I can be in Him and He in me is if I eat His Body and drink His Blood.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
The Catholic Church has never taught that it’s the “actual physical flesh of Jesus,” so your question is meaningless.When Catholics eat the actual physical flesh of Jesus Christ, it this flesh actually alive or is it dead?
It’s on the level of, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”
T
TLM08
Guest
So the Eucharist isn’t really the actual physical flesh of Christ?
That’s not what I was taught in Catholic school.
- Status