Eating His flesh

[Non_Serviam]

This has been a most interesting thread to read. My pov is somewhere between that of TLM and the catholic position. It seems abundantly clear that the early church believed in Real Presence. That said, belief in Real Presence isn’t a synonm for belief in transubstantiation.

If one looks at Aquinas’ descriptions of the substance and accidents of consercrated bread, the deficiencies of this pre-scientific framework become clear. Now that substances can be examined at the molecular level and with DNA analysis, it becomes clear that the concepts of substance and accidents that were in place when the dogma was promulgated no longer accurately describe what something is “made” of.

With regard to John 6, the passage makes no sense in a eucharistic context as the listeners would not have been able to point to the last supper and say “that’s what he meant”. They had real flesh on Jesus’ real bones, no communion hosts. TLM’s point about Jesus rebuking those who are only looking for a meal ticket is correct-in fact a number of parallels with the woman at the well in John 4 should be noted, including:

• Jesus offering something spiritual and receiving a response based on physical desire
• Jesus putting stumblingblocks in the path of listeners through hard conditions
• Jesus using food analogies to describe spiritual concepts.

Lastly with regard to I Corinthians, if you review the entire epistle, you’ll see that the Paul is engaged in an extended discussion of problems in the body-the local Corinthian church-he talks about divisions in the body because of immorality, body divisions due to personality cults, body divisions due to misue of spiritual gifts and divisions caused by gluttony and lack of charity during the love feast.

In failing to discern the body of Christ-the church and letting others go hungry while gorging people were eating and drinking damnation. Paul’s recollection of the last supper is to remind the Corinthians that the feast is to remember Christ’s sacrifice by which they became part of His body, and how their actions toward each other blaspheme that sacrifice.

 

[yorkieville]

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.

Excellent post! When I read that particular reply, as a new member, I had second thoughts about remaining in this forum.

Yours in Christ,
Sheila

 

[iona_scribe]

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?

From a pagan culture, yes. But the great philosophers Plato and Aristotle were monotheists. There is a certain amount of knowledge to be obtained about God and the nature of things using logic and observing the natural world. Later Christian theologians were happy to incorporate whatever parts of these observations that were true to inform their understanding of Biblical revelation.

 

[truevaticanii]

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

We receive Him LIVING! and He LIVES in us, He is not dead when we receive Him, and He does not die after consumption…

John 6:53 or Douay-Rheims: John 6:54

 

[johnignatius]

If one looks at Aquinas’ descriptions of the substance and accidents of consercrated bread, the deficiencies of this pre-scientific framework become clear. Now that substances can be examined at the molecular level and with DNA analysis, it becomes clear that the concepts of substance and accidents that were in place when the dogma was promulgated no longer accurately describe what something is “made” of.

However, it is stated in the Nicene Creed that the Father and the Son are of the same substance, yet this is obviously not on a physical level either as God is not made up of molecules. Transubstantiation can never be scientifically proven as it is purely a matter of faith based both on the words of John 6, the letter to the Corinthians and the other Gospels, and on the fact that Jesus left us the Church to be our guide.

Incidentally, what “special pleading” does the Catholic Church employ, as it states on your profile?

 

[Julian0404]

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

“…This is MY Body…” ( not Metaphysical body ). I have never had the term “metaphysical” switch for the “true” body & blood of JESUS in the sacrament. In fact I believe I heard Father Corapi the other day being very explicit on the real presence of JESUS body in the sacrament.
How is it that you rely upon the “metaphysical” when JESUS was clear about the “actual” body & blood?

 

[panevino]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TLM08
Simply put, for many reasons, the changing of the communion wafer into the actual body and blood of Our Lord does not make biblical sense.

Hi thought I’d add something. Though realize it’s likely been stated.

1- gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he [was] the priest of the most high God.

2- psalm 110:4The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.5 The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. -

1. Heb5:5-10. … As he saith also in another [place], Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec…&6:20
2. Heb7:24 But this [man], because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

4a. Heb9:11 For the law having a shadow of good things to come…

1. Exo 29: 32 And Aaron and his sons shall eat the flesh of the ram, and the bread that [is] in the basket, [by] the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.33 And they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate [and] to sanctify them: but a stranger shall not eat [thereof], because they [are] holy.
   See also Exo 29:23
2. Lev 6:14 And this [is] the law of the meat offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before the LORD, before the altar…16 And** the remainder thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat: with unleavened bread** shall it be eaten in the holy place; in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation they shall eat it.
3. Deu16:2 Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the LORD thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the LORD shall choose to place his name there.3 Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, [even] the bread of affliction; for thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste: that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life.
4. Exo12:8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; [and] with bitter [herbs] they shall eat it…14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
5. Exo12:Israel in their generations. 43 And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This [is] the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof:
6. 1 cor 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
7. John6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?
8. John6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them,** Doth this offend you?62 [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; **the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
9. Rom 8: 13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Gal5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

 

[tee_eff_em]

“…This is MY Body…” ( not Metaphysical body ). I have never had the term “metaphysical” switch for the “true” body & blood of JESUS in the sacrament. In fact I believe I heard Father Corapi the other day being very explicit on the real presence of JESUS body in the sacrament.
How is it that you rely upon the “metaphysical” when JESUS was clear about the “actual” body & blood?

When I posted that, it was counterpoint to the OP’s assertion regarding the actual physical flesh of Jesus Christ.

The word *physical *may denote any number of qualities, among them:

• 
  *]That of being a tangible object (which the Eucharist is)
  *]Synonymous with *corporeal, of-a-body *(which, again, may be applied to the Eucharist)
  *]Empirically discernable (which one may apply to a Eucharistic host, but miracles aside no *flesh *will be found there)
  
  Transubstaniation is a *metaphysical *change – A change of *reality *-- Which renders Christ really present in the Eucharistic species.
  
  tee