Eating His flesh

  • Thread starter Thread starter TLM08
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TLM08 said:
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?

:confused:
Click to expand...
How would you have had them explain the Real Presence?

:confused:

tee
 
nlm said:
Even as a monk,we were expected to believe that the host and the wine through the process of
Code: 
transubstantiation
are
Code: 
transformed
into the ACTUAL body and blood of Christ.
Click to expand...
Either

  • *]You misunderstood
    *]You were, indeed, misinformed

    Transubstantiation has *nothing *to do with transformation.

    tee
 
FCEGM said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yet another “former Catholic” off on his adventure to find something deeper than the Eucharist.
The sad part is, this guy has ping-ponged back and forth so many times he cannot claim ignorance, like some uninformed Catholics out there.
To know the truth and reject it, is far worse.
Pray for his soul.
 
Verbum_Caro said:
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
Click to expand...
The belief they were teaching is a BIG one. It’s not simply the significance of the liturgical colors for instance which really don’t matter much in the overall grand scheme of things. But what exactly the eucharist consists of, a sacrement of the church is BIG stuff don’t you think? To simply brush it off as human error just seems wrong somehow. It should not also be "blammed " on regional differences as the cathecism should be the link between all areas geographically speaking should it not?NLM
 
tee_eff_em said:
Either

  • *]You misunderstood
    *]You were, indeed, misinformed

    Transubstantiation has *nothing *to do with transformation.

    tee
Click to expand...

  • My understanding of " transubstantiation" is the process of one substance in this case the bread and the wine becoming another substance the body and blood. If this is not correct, please explain the term for me.NLM
 
TLM08 said:
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?
Click to expand...
The Greek Orthodox and other Orthodox Churches simply say the Bread and Wine are changed by the Holy Spirit into the Body and Blood of Christ and leave it at that. (And surely Greeks know what their own ancient philosphy taught better than you do.)

BTW–“pantheism” is NOT the same thing as “polytheism.”

You’d be a much more formidable opponent if you knew what you were talking about.
 
bpbasilphx said:
The Greek Orthodox and other Orthodox Churches simply say the Bread and Wine are changed by the Holy Spirit into the Body and Blood of Christ and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
This was my dilemma before I reverted. Trying to understant the Eucharist. I looked and looked for something, anything that would explain it to me.
Eventually I just had to accept it by faith.
Which ultimately, is all we can really do.
 
nlm said:
But what exactly the eucharist consists of, a sacrement of the church is BIG stuff don’t you think? To simply brush it off as human error just seems wrong somehow.
Click to expand...
You’re correct. Very big.

But I didn’t brush it off as human error. You asked how it could be that people are taught incorrectly. The reason is human error (either of the individual teacher or the student).

Teaching contrary to the Church is malpractice if you are entrusted to teach what the Church holds.

VC
 
FCEGM said:
Sadly, yes; and as futile as trying to find something greater than God.

Most definitely, JaS.
Click to expand...
This once again is so typical of my experience on this forum.When we ask direct questions IF they become the least bit uncomfortable then we become," those Protestants". How sad really to become so defensive. Just give the answer. Do you not think that when explaining something as fundamentally important as the Eucharist ALL members of the Catholic Church around the world should be taught the same belief? Even on this thread, not all catholic respondants can agree as what is meant by the actual presence in the host and the wine.But yet you pretend to be the experts or at least experts enough to ridicule other Christians.Rule # 7 of this Forum states,“Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board”. It is silent however on Catholics respecting others. Many are but many are not.It’s easy to see why countries such as Ireland had religious wars for so long.If a fellow christian can’t ask an honest question and expect a respectful response then there is something very wrong.NLM
 
JustaServant said:
This was my dilemma before I reverted. Trying to understant the Eucharist. I looked and looked for something, anything that would explain it to me.
Eventually I just had to accept it by faith.
Which ultimately, is all we can really do.
Click to expand...
As a former revert myself I can totally understand where you are at. You and I have more in common than you think. My problem is not with the fact that the Eucharist has a very significant meaning far beyond that of mere bread and wine. It does! Jesus instituted this sacred meal as a remembrance of him and his sacrifice on the cross. He didn’t just suggest that we eat this meal when we gather for worship, he commanded it!

My disagreement is that the bread and wine actually change into his real flesh and blood. Many apologists on both sides are only repeating lies and bad research done by men of eras gone by who themselves had a desire to prove or disprove their position. Most of us here in these forums are guilty of doing the same thing… me included. History has been rewritten a thousand times over. I don’t trust mankind as far as I can throw it. But I do believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God and my choice for a trustworthy authority.

I make no claim to infallibility, but by simply going back to the scriptures and reading what it says, I cannot see any evidence that Christ wants us to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood even if it looks like bread and wine. The way that Jesus taught and the sheer volume of figurative language in the Gospel of John makes this pretty obvious.
 
TLM08 said:
As a former revert myself I can totally understand where you are at. You and I have more in common than you think. My problem is not with the fact that the Eucharist has a very significant meaning far beyond that of mere bread and wine. It does! Jesus instituted this sacred meal as a remembrance of him and his sacrifice on the cross. He didn’t just suggest that we eat this meal when we gather for worship, he commanded it!

My disagreement is that the bread and wine actually change into his real flesh and blood. Many apologists on both sides are only repeating lies and bad research done by men of eras gone by who themselves had a desire to prove or disprove their position. Most of us here in these forums are guilty of doing the same thing… me included. History has been rewritten a thousand times over. I don’t trust mankind as far as I can throw it. But I do believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God and my choice for a trustworthy authority.

I make no claim to infallibility, but by simply going back to the scriptures and reading what it says, I cannot see any evidence that Christ wants us to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood even if it looks like bread and wine. The way that Jesus taught and the sheer volume of figurative language in the Gospel of John makes this pretty obvious.
Click to expand...
“Former revert”. You obviously are unable to see the problem/contridiction/dark humor in what those two words…wow. Let me put this as nicely as I can: we have NOTHING in common.
Anyway. I’m not into online counseling, but I’ve told you before, your problems with religion in general go much deeper than theological. A simple read through your posting history reveals more than maybe you wished to. Lemmie put it this way, if I were still a preacher in a Baptist church, I would be VERY LEERY of your darkening the door of the church.
You have ping-ponged back and forth so many times, I seriously dont think you know what you believe. If you stuck with one religion, I could at least respect that.
But you are all over the map.
I think seriously what you should do is stop worrying about what Catholics or Protestants or what anyone else believes. And try to find out why you are such an unsettled person. That might mean some conseling.
Not trying to be mean. just in a hurry this morning and I am trying to be direct and honest.
I hope you find peace.
 
JustaServant said:
“Former revert”. You obviously are unable to see the problem/contridiction/dark humor in what those two words…wow. Let me put this as nicely as I can: we have NOTHING in common.
Anyway. I’m not into online counseling, but I’ve told you before, your problems with religion in general go much deeper than theological. A simple read through your posting history reveals more than maybe you wished to. Lemmie put it this way, if I were still a preacher in a Baptist church, I would be VERY LEERY of your darkening the door of the church.
You have ping-ponged back and forth so many times, I seriously dont think you know what you believe. If you stuck with one religion, I could at least respect that.
But you are all over the map.
I think seriously what you should do is stop worrying about what Catholics or Protestants or what anyone else believes. And try to find out why you are such an unsettled person. That might mean some conseling.
Not trying to be mean. just in a hurry this morning and I am trying to be direct and honest.
I hope you find peace.
Click to expand...
You are so right. I must agree with you my friend. I probably do need counseling. We all seek peace. You see, I am a sinner in desparate need of the Lord Jesus, who is my savior, counselor and source of peace.

*“For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given and the government
will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” *Isaiah 9:6

God Bless.
😉
 
Your problem my friend is that you seem to be going through life being a professional “former”. THAT is the problem. You will never make a good Protestant/Catholic/Atheist/Hindu/Muslim/Wiccan until you figure out why.
 
nlm said:
My understanding of " transubstantiation" is the process of one substance in this case the bread and the wine becoming another substance the body and blood. If this is not correct, please explain the term for me.NLM
Click to expand...
That does sound correct – A change of *substance (transubstantiation) *not a change of form (transformation).

tee
 
nlm said:
This once again is so typical of my experience on this forum.When we ask direct questions IF they become the least bit uncomfortable then we become," those Protestants". How sad really to become so defensive. Just give the answer. . . . But yet you pretend to be the experts or at least experts enough to ridicule other Christians.Rule # 7 of this Forum states,“Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board”. It is silent however on Catholics respecting others. Many are but many are not.It’s easy to see why countries such as Ireland had religious wars for so long.If a fellow christian can’t ask an honest question and expect a respectful response then there is something very wrong.
Click to expand...
Well, you see, the answers on this thread - to questions that are hardly uncomfortable - have already been given (and no one has pretended to be an expert - although I did quote one :)). It’s not defensiveness here that you see, but commiserating wonder mixed with sorrow at the blindness some exhibit vis-a-vis the Reality of the Eucharist
Just give the answer. Do you not think that when explaining something as fundamentally important as the Eucharist ALL members of the Catholic Church around the world should be taught the same belief? Even on this thread, not all catholic respondants can agree as what is meant by the actual presence in the host and the wine.
Click to expand...
We are taught the same belief but how that belief is so has sometimes - as in your Catholic education - not been explained properly; also, some Catholics have interiorized the correct instruction imperfectly and thus find difficulty in expressing the Faith adequately OR know the Faith well but likewise can’t express it well (I haven’t seen much of that on this thread, though).
 
My disagreement is that the bread and wine actually change into his real flesh and blood.
Then you disagree with Jesus and agree with all the thousands in John 6 who walked with Jesus no more on this very issue.
 
JustaServant said:
Your problem my friend is that you seem to be going through life being a professional “former”. THAT is the problem. You will never make a good Protestant/Catholic/Atheist/Hindu/Muslim/Wiccan until you figure out why.
Click to expand...
I will abandon whatever I must in order to follow the the Lord Jesus Christ and obey him as to the best of my ability. It is only the shed blood of Jesus Christ that saves. Religion cannot save anyone.
 
bpbasilphx said:
My disagreement is that the bread and wine actually change into his real flesh and blood.
Then you disagree with Jesus and agree with all the thousands in John 6 who walked with Jesus no more on this very issue.
Click to expand...
Here yet is another reference to spiritual eating of The Word.

*“He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.” Deuteronomy 8:3 *

Manna was bread from Heaven sent by God to sustain life. Now the Word becomes flesh.

“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” John 1:14

More spiritual eating:

"But he said to them, “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.”
John 4:32-34

These followers left Jesus because they did think that he was talking about literal eating of his flesh. Remember, these people were looking for a free meal at the start of the Bread of Life discourse. Those who left were unbelieving leaches looking for nothing but a hand out.

"Jesus answered, “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

Jesus isn’t even speaking about the Last Supper, he is telling the followers to forget their stomachs, become true believers and start doing the will of God.

"Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.” John 6:35

He’s not talking about physical hunger and thirst here and he’s not talking about eating his body.

🙂
 
TLM08 said:
As a former revert myself I can totally understand where you are at. You and I have more in common than you think. My problem is not with the fact that the Eucharist has a very significant meaning far beyond that of mere bread and wine. It does! Jesus instituted this sacred meal as a remembrance of him and his sacrifice on the cross. He didn’t just suggest that we eat this meal when we gather for worship, he commanded it!

My disagreement is that the bread and wine actually change into his real flesh and blood. Many apologists on both sides are only repeating lies and bad research done by men of eras gone by who themselves had a desire to prove or disprove their position. Most of us here in these forums are guilty of doing the same thing… me included. History has been rewritten a thousand times over. I don’t trust mankind as far as I can throw it. But I do believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God and my choice for a trustworthy authority.

I make no claim to infallibility, but by simply going back to the scriptures and reading what it says, I cannot see any evidence that Christ wants us to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood even if it looks like bread and wine. The way that Jesus taught and the sheer volume of figurative language in the Gospel of John makes this pretty obvious.
Click to expand...
but then why did Jesus let the disciples leave when they were shocked He said we need to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood? if He was speaking figuratively, why didn’t He correct them?

also, the entire early Church believed in the Eucharist… St Justin Martyr said in around 150 AD that “we were taught” it’s literal… he lived so early in Church history and perhaps knew the Apostles, so it was likely he was taught this by the Apostles themselves. No early Church Father believed the Eucharist is symbolic…

Also, if it’s symbolic…why do we need to eat bread and wine to remember His sacrifice? why not simply remember?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top