Eating His flesh

[FCEGM]

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.

TLM, as the Lamb of God He is more real than the lambs of the Old Covenant sacrifice. And, yes, the Eucharist is indeed the Living Flesh - the glorified Living Flesh, not the bits of flesh, e.g., one could have taken from the Lord was He was being scourged. That Living Flesh is made present to us sacramentally for our food that we may truly become Who we eat - other Christs. A book you might find helpful in understanding this identification of Christ with those in Him - and thus our need to partake of Himself in the Eucharist - is Bl. Columba Marmion’s Christ In His Mysteries, Zaccheaus Press

An article by Msgr. Robert Sokolowski in an issue of “Homiletics and Pastoral Review” (Winter, 1997); specifically about Transubstantiation he makes some cogent points that help illustrate the truth of the Catholic teaching:

". . .to say that in the Eucharist the bread and wine remain what they are but acquire a new signification would contradict the logic of the Incarnation. Christ was not simply a prophet who pointed out the way to the Father; he was the way to the Father. He did not just communicate the truth about God, he was the Word of God. The believer comes to the Father not by the way and the truth that are signified by Christ, but through Christ himself, who is the way, the truth, and the life. Analogously, if the bread and wine were to remain bread and wine, they would point us toward the Death and Resurrection of Christ and toward the Son of God, they would signify him and what he did, but they would not be his presence and the presence of his action among us. The Eucharist would fail to continue, sacramentally, the form of the Incarnation, and we would be deprived of the presence, the bodily presence, of the way, the truth, and the life. The Incarnation would have been withdrawn from the world… . .

. . .it is the very material and bodily quality of the Incarnation that calls for Transubstantiation in the Eucharist. If Christ is to be present in the sacrament, he must be present in his divine and human natures, in his soul and body. And if his body is to be present, the bread cannot be. The one thing cannot be two material substances, both bread and a human body, not even the glorified human body of Christ. If it is the one it cannot be the other. The two bodily natures exclude one another, and it is the bodily presence of Christ that is specifically emphasized in the words of consecration. The body of Christ is not with the bread but takes the place of the bread in the change we call Transubstantiation. If we deny this change, we deny the bodily presence of the glorified Christ, and hence we deny the presence of Christ. Without Transubstantiation the sacramental presence of Christ would not occur.

Protestants who do not believe in the Real Presence view the bread and wine used in the Eucharist to be given additional meaning in the same way. Once the bread and wine is consecrated, the bread takes on the additional meaning of being Christ’s body, and the wine takes on the additional meaning of being Christ’s blood. The bread and wine don’t literally change but instead take on a higher meaning within the context of the sacrament. Once the Eucharist is consumed and the sacrament is complete, the bread and wine lose the additional meanings they had during the ceremony and become simply bread and wine again."

So, TLM, in Protestantism it is the community giving meaning to the bread and wine, rather than Christ Himself Who gave (and gives) nothing but Himself - not something besides Himself - and unites us to all that He Is - not to something that is Him plus something else. Eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood is not belief in Him, but HIM.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

The Catholic Church has never taught that it’s the “actual physical flesh of Jesus,” so your question is meaningless.

It’s on the level of, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

Pradon but the church does teach that the Euchaist is the actual body and blood ( flesh and Blood if you like) under the appearance of bread and wine.

 

[tee_eff_em]

So the Eucharist isn’t really the actual physical flesh of Christ?

I thought we did this already?

That’s not what I was taught in Catholic school.

Yes, many report having been poorly catechized.

tee

 

[sphilomena]

examiner.com/x-12444-Houston-Roman-Catholic-Examiner~y2009m8d22-The-Eucharist–real-presence-real-miracles

Haven’t been around in a while, but this post caught my eye. For anyone who truly wants evidence, the Eucharistic miracles fill that requirement. I just came across these videos and the article today. Yes, we are taught that we receive the “body, blood, soul and divinity” of Jesus in Holy Communion.

Last week I also heard the priest speak of seeing a youtube video (don’t know how to find it), that told the story of a host particle (dropped, placed in water in the tabernacle, developed a red streak in the water, etc.) in South America that was tested in three labs - not being told what it was, of course. Each lab confirmed that it was living blood, and one expert even said that the owner of the blood was beaten savagely.

Bob and Penny Lord have books and videos about this subject. Hope my link above works properly.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bpbasilphx View Post
The Catholic Church has never taught that it’s the “actual physical flesh of Jesus,” so your question is meaningless.

It’s on the level of, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”
Pradon but the church does teach that the Euchaist is the actual body and blood ( flesh and Blood if you like) under the appearance of bread and wine.

---

**The key word being debated here here is “physical”.

Jesus in heaven doesn’t say “Ouch!” if someone chews a host or it gets dropped.

The traditional Western teaching is that the SUBSTANCE (which has a technical meaning) of the Body and Blood of Christ exist under the ACCIDENTS (again, a technical term, but one of the accidents is appearance) of bread and wine.

In other words, the Eucharist is SUBSTANTIALLY (which has a technical meaning, remember) the Body and Blood of Christ, not physically.

In other words, TLM, you clearly misunderstood what you were taught in school.**

 

[allhers]

An article by Msgr. Robert Sokolowski in an issue of “Homiletics and Pastoral Review” (Winter, 1997); specifically about Transubstantiation he makes some cogent points that help illustrate the truth of the Catholic teaching:

That article by Msgr. Robert Sokolowski, that you posted, was beautiful!

 

[jpjd]

When Catholics eat the actual physical flesh of Jesus Christ, it this flesh actually alive or is it dead?

When Catholics partake of the Eucharist, we are eating the glorified Christ, living, and present in the Eucharist – body, blood, soul, and divinity. We are not eating His dead flesh for that would be cannibalism, and His dead flesh is no longer on earth as matter. We are eating the Risen Christ, who physically suffered, died, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. He is glorified.

The Eucharist is His glorified body, blood, soul, and divinity – His substantial Real Presence – in the appearance of bread. Ditto with the Precious Blood; it is His glorified body, blood, soul, and divinity – His substantial Real Presence – in the appearance of wine.

In the consecrated bread and wine, the substance of bread and wine is present no longer; it has become the substance of the glorified, Risen Christ.

Hope that answers your question.

 

[TLM08]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bpbasilphx View Post
The Catholic Church has never taught that it’s the “actual physical flesh of Jesus,” so your question is meaningless.

It’s on the level of, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”
Pradon but the church does teach that the Euchaist is the actual body and blood ( flesh and Blood if you like) under the appearance of bread and wine.

---

**The key word being debated here here is “physical”.

Jesus in heaven doesn’t say “Ouch!” if someone chews a host or it gets dropped.

The traditional Western teaching is that the SUBSTANCE (which has a technical meaning) of the Body and Blood of Christ exist under the ACCIDENTS (again, a technical term, but one of the accidents is appearance) of bread and wine.

In other words, the Eucharist is SUBSTANTIALLY (which has a technical meaning, remember) the Body and Blood of Christ, not physically.

In other words, TLM, you clearly misunderstood what you were taught in school.**

Catholic sources will admit that this theory (accidents & substance) came from the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle who lived sometime around the 4th century BC. Ancient Greek culture was notoriously pantheistic worshipping many gods. Why did the church embrace this?

 

[tee_eff_em]

Catholic sources will admit that this theory (accidents & substance) came from the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle who lived sometime around the 4th century BC. Ancient Greek culture was notoriously pantheistic worshipping many gods. Why did the church embrace this?

*Beware of Greeks (whether or not they are bearing gifts)? *Bah!


tee

 

[franklinf]

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!

1. Why Scripture alone? Does the Bible say that?
2. Why would you completely discount those that lived in Jesus’ time and were taught by the apostles? Don’t you think that if the apostles and followers of Christ believed in the Real Presence, then they are probably right? Or, were the followers of Christ just completely misguided until the protestants came along?

 

[TLM08]

1. Why would you completely discount those that lived in Jesus’ time and were taught by the apostles? Don’t you think that if the apostles and followers of Christ believed in the Real Presence, then they are probably right? Or, were the followers of Christ just completely misguided until the protestants came along?

Of course some of Christ’s followers who learned at the feet of the apostles developed some wrong ideas. Many of the New Testament letters were actually written to correct errors in the early church!

There was certainly not universal acceptance of the Real Presence in the early church. Some early fathers accepted it and some did not. Just like today if you speak with many catholics as they exit Mass on Sunday, when asked, an astouding number will say that the Eucharist is a symbol of the body and blood of Jesus, not the actual flesh and blood.

But again, I have to wonder why the church embraced ancient greek (pantheist) philosopher Aristotle’s theory regarding accidents and substance? Ancient Greek culture was steeped in paganism. Why would the church embrace his theories?

 

[franklinf]

Of course some of Christ’s followers who learned at the feet of the apostles developed some wrong ideas. Many of the New Testament letters were actually written to correct errors in the early church!

There was certainly not universal acceptance of the Real Presence in the early church. Some early fathers accepted it and some did not. Just like today if you speak with many catholics as they exit Mass on Sunday, when asked, an astouding number will say that the Eucharist is a symbol of the body and blood of Jesus, not the actual flesh and blood.

Well then, are they really Catholic?

What about question 1? Why Sola Scriptura?

 

[tee_eff_em]

But again, I have to wonder why the church embraced ancient greek (pantheist) philosopher Aristotle’s theory regarding accidents and substance? Ancient Greek culture was steeped in paganism. Why would the church embrace his theories?

Why do you suppose the Church embraced Greek language, mathematics, astronomy, and any number of other disciplines? “”

John 1:46

tee

 

[TLM08]

Why do you suppose the Church embraced Greek language, mathematics, astronomy, and any number of other disciplines? “”

John 1:46

tee

The ancient greek philosophers were brilliant men indeed, but why would the church seek to embrace the teachings of a pagan philosopher (Aristotle) to explain theological, especially a christian concept like transubstantiation and the real presence? Isn’t this what the Holy Spirit is for?

 

[nlm]

Having lived a Catholic life for 50 years I also was taught BY THE CHURCH,PRIEST AND NUNS that communion was the ACTUALL BODY AND BLOOD of Christ. There was no glorified, resurected nothing added to the explanation.We were also told if we touched the host with our fingers the host would BLEED. I am NOT making this up.Of course as I grew up I set aside the 'it would bleed "story. Even as a monk,we were expected to believe that the host and the wine through the process of transubstantiation are transformed into the ACTUAL body and blood of Christ. What I am finding interesting with this thread is this. I read a few weeks ago on another thread that once the Church “officials” inspired by the Holy Spirit spoke on specific issues that even those who perhaps do not agree accept and abide by those directives from the Vatican.Look at how many differing opinions on this one subjest we have seen in the past few days.My experience as a Catholic was EXACTLY what I am witnessing here today.It came to the point where no two individuals priests included could agree on issues as important and as long standing as this one. How is it that some who have answered here were taught that communion is one thing while others were taught another? If the Spirit inspired information comes from the Vatican, should all Catholics not be taught the same beliefs? Now BEFORE I get yelled at as has been the case on this forum, I am NOT being sarcastic nor disrespectful of the Catholic church by asking.I REALLY want to know. NLM

 

[Verbum_Caro]

why would the church seek to embrace the teachings of a pagan philosopher to explain theological, especially a christian concept?

TLM,

You seem to be thrusting with two swords here. dD you object to a *pagan *philosopher, or do you object to a *philosopher?

*In other words, would you mind a Christian philosopher?

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

How is it that some who have answered here were taught that communion is one thing while others were taught another? If the Spirit inspired information comes from the Vatican, should all Catholics not be taught the same beliefs?

Hi NLM,

The reason this can be so is because *individual *teachers can teach error.

But you are right that all Catholics should be taught the same truth. But, human nature being what it is, some may get taught erroneously and some may learn poorly.

VC

 

[TLM08]

Having lived a Catholic life for 50 years I also was taught BY THE CHURCH,PRIEST AND NUNS that communion was the ACTUALL BODY AND BLOOD of Christ. There was no glorified, resurected nothing added to the explanation.We were also told if we touched the host with our fingers the host would BLEED. I am NOT making this up.Of course as I grew up I set aside the 'it would bleed "story. Even as a monk,we were expected to believe that the host and the wine through the process of transubstantiation are transformed into the ACTUAL body and blood of Christ. What I am finding interesting with this thread is this. I read a few weeks ago on another thread that once the Church “officials” inspired by the Holy Spirit spoke on specific issues that even those who perhaps do not agree accept and abide by those directives from the Vatican.Look at how many differing opinions on this one subjest we have seen in the past few days.My experience as a Catholic was EXACTLY what I am witnessing here today.It came to the point where no two individuals priests included could agree on issues as important and as long standing as this one. How is it that some who have answered here were taught that communion is one thing while others were taught another? If the Spirit inspired information comes from the Vatican, should all Catholics not be taught the same beliefs? Now BEFORE I get yelled at as has been the case on this forum, I am NOT being sarcastic nor disrespectful of the Catholic church by asking.I REALLY want to know. NLM

Read John 6 in context and you will see that John 6 has absolutely nothing to do with the Last Supper. Jesus was harshly rebuking the a segment of the crowd who were seeking him out for a free meal instead of eternal life. This was the same crowd that Jesus fed the previous day when he fed the five-thousand. It really is as simple as that!

Eating his flesh and drinking his blood is a metaphor for “doing the will of God.”

Also see John 4:32-34"

“I have food to eat that you know nothing about.” Then his disciples said to each other, “Could someone have brought him food?” “My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.”

 

[FCEGM]

Of course some of Christ’s followers who learned at the feet of the apostles developed some wrong ideas.

Who, for instance, and what wrong ideas specifically about the Eucharist?

Many of the New Testament letters were actually written to correct errors in the early church!

Errors IN the early Church, not errors OF the early Church - you recognize the distinction? An example of such correction is 1 Cor 11:17ff where St. Paul addresses the error of disbelieving the Real Presence exampled by unworthily preparing receiving It.

There was certainly not universal acceptance of the Real Presence in the early church. Some early fathers accepted it and some did not

Please tell us of a Church Father who denied the Real Presence.

Some articles for you:

bringyou.to/apologetics/num8.htm

bringyou.to/apologetics/num30.htm

catholic-legate.com/dialogues/taylorjohn6.html

catholic-legate.com/images/legate_title.jpg

Your lack of faith in the Holy Spirit to preserve the visible Church of the Apostles contradicts biblical faith as taught by St. Paul. If you do not place faith in the Apostolic Tradition of the Church you place your faith in your understanding of the Bible, i.e., in yourself.

All Apostolic Churches agree on the Eucharist. Those denominations that rely on Scripture alone do not agree with the age-old practice of the Apostolic Churches and disagree with one another about the Eucharist. Now the Holy Spirit unites what was divided; He doesn’t divide what is one. The unity of belief of all Apostolic Churches on the Eucharist as the Risen Flesh of Christ and as a re-presentation of His Sacrifice points to the Holy Spirit uniting different times and different peoples in one Teaching and Truth, while the divided practice and teaching of “Bible Christians” on this central point shows those “Bible Christians” without the Holy Spirit and slaves to a spirit of disunity, i.e. the Enemy.

 

[FCEGM]

Read John 6 in context and you will see that John 6 has absolutely nothing to do with the Last Supper. Jesus was harshly rebuking the a segment of the crowd who were seeking him out for a free meal instead of eternal life. This was the same crowd that Jesus fed the previous day when he fed the five-thousand. It really is as simple as that!

Eating his flesh and drinking his blood is a metaphor for “doing the will of God.”

Also see John 4:32-34"

“I have food to eat that you know nothing about.” Then his disciples said to each other, “Could someone have brought him food?” “My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.”

TLM, you are sounding more and more like someone sticking his fingers in his ears, stomping his feet and whistling so as not to hear what he doesn’t want to hear. All these points you try to make (your statement re John 6 is especially ludicrous) have been more than well-addressed, but your refusal to believe is just that. Since you can’t understand, you won’t believe.