Help me get past cannibalism

[Louemma]

You’re avoiding my question. If the early Church taught what you believe regarding the Eucharist, if the early Church denied that the Eucharist was the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ, then show where the early Church denied this. If you have the facts on your side, then present the facts. Why is that such a hard concept?

Do we have disciples(The early Church Fathers) as say,another Jeffery Donner
I’m through debating this because I fear you see the Lord’s supper as the real eating and drinking of Jesus and not for the spiritual things of God but you are thinking in the flesh.
I think it odd that you keep referring to non Catholic belief on the Lord’s supper.I bet you won’t find too many Catholics who believe the disciples ate the flesh of Jesus or drank his blood(FOR REAL).Don’t you think this is why they used bread and wine so you believing that Jesus was ate in the sense of the chomping down of Jesus makes someone very odd:knight2: You all better watch your backs with this one

 

[VociMike]

Do we have disciples(The early Church Fathers) as say,another Jeffery Donner
I’m through debating this because I fear you see the Lord’s supper as the real eating and drinking of Jesus and not for the spiritual things of God but you are thinking in the flesh.
I think it odd that you keep referring to non Catholic belief on the Lord’s supper.I bet you won’t find too many Catholics who believe the disciples ate the flesh of Jesus or drank his blood(FOR REAL).Don’t you think this is why they used bread and wine so you believing that Jesus was ate in the sense of the chomping down of Jesus makes someone very odd:knight2: You all better watch your backs with this one

You’re just admitting that you can find zero evidence that the Early Church, and the Early Church Fathers, denied the Real Presence. If you had evidence you’d present it. You don’t have that evidence because it doesn’t exist. But you will continue to stick with your 500 year old heresy anyway, despite the witness of the Church, despite the witness of history.

 

[Louemma]

My friend we are not corrupt. We are made in the image of God. As people we are spritulized bodys. Our bodys manifest the spirit this is how God made us and this is the body we are feeding.

When you have the concept that we are corrupt. You will not understand where Catholics come from. You wanted to know what we teach here it is. I would only be thinking carnaly if I believed the eucarist as you do.
Jesus came to restore us to our roots. If we are open to his grace we can be restored now. Tell me how can a corrupt body be a new creature in Christ? How can a corrupt body perform righteousness?

2 Cor. 5:17 - Paul says that if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. He is not just the old creation that is covered up. The old has passed away, and behold, the new has come.

According to (See 1 John 1:8 If we claim to be without sin,we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
As long as your in the flesh,and sin is in the flesh,then you are full of corruption and this is why the scripture says,(See Romans 12:2) This is why we are to renew our minds daily.Because as long as we are in the flesh we are full of sin and therefore this is why this body dies and goes back to dust.
We are restored to God,through Jesus and that would be our spirit.A corrupt body being a new creature in Christ is speaking of one born of the Spirit,receiving a new heart and this is why we are a new creature in Christ.(See the story of Jesus speaking with Nicodemus.

 

[Louemma]

You’re just admitting that you can find zero evidence that the Early Church, and the Early Church Fathers, denied the Real Presence. If you had evidence you’d present it. You don’t have that evidence because it doesn’t exist. But you will continue to stick with your 500 year old heresy anyway, despite the witness of the Church, despite the witness of history.

Oh please What I am admitting is anyone who thinks the disciples drank the Blood of Jesus (For Real) might be a little loco
You provide scripture stating this was not a symbolic act.You provide scripture saying the disciples drank the literal blood of Jesus and we will talk.As far as I can see your trying to prove they had Jesus for supper literally and this my friend is disturbing knowing your out there somewhere

 

[beckycmarie]

You might find this helpful, references to the Real Presence in Scripture and writings of early Church fathers:

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

 

[StrawberryJam]

Oh please What I am admitting is anyone who thinks the disciples drank the Blood of Jesus (For Real) might be a little loco
You provide scripture stating this was not a symbolic act.You provide scripture saying the disciples drank the literal blood of Jesus and we will talk.As far as I can see your trying to prove they had Jesus for supper literally and this my friend is disturbing knowing your out there somewhere

What is disturbing is that you are talking about a belief the largest christian body in the world shares while you sit back in judgment of them and calling them a little loco. You have mentioned disease several times. What disease could come from the blood and body of the perfect Jesus Christ?
So far, your objections amount to “that’s yucky because I think so”

 

[VociMike]

Oh please What I am admitting is anyone who thinks the disciples drank the Blood of Jesus (For Real) might be a little loco
You provide scripture stating this was not a symbolic act.You provide scripture saying the disciples drank the literal blood of Jesus and we will talk.As far as I can see your trying to prove they had Jesus for supper literally and this my friend is disturbing knowing your out there somewhere

You’re just being dismissive because you have no evidence for your position. You can’t cite a single Early Church Father (nor a single Apostle for that matter) who denied the Real Presence. You can’t cite a single Apostle or Early Church Father who believed what you believe. So you try to hide that uncomfortable reality with smilies and wisecracks.

You do not believe what the early Church believed regarding the Eucharist. If that is an incorrect statement, simply provide the historical evidence to prove it wrong.

 

[VociMike]

So far, your objections amount to “that’s yucky because I think so”

Well put. I wonder if she thinks a baby drinking mother’s milk is yucky too. Is that cannibalism too? Because a baby drinking mother’s milk is the closest analogy I have come up with to the Eucharist, where the “victim” feeds the “consumer” at no harm to the “victim” but with life-giving benefit to the “consumer”.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Well put. I wonder if she thinks a baby drinking mother’s milk is yucky too. Is that cannibalism too? Because a baby drinking mother’s milk is the closest analogy I have come up with to the Eucharist, where the “victim” feeds the “consumer” at no harm to the “victim” but with life-giving benefit to the “consumer”.

You outdid me there VociMike.

If the Eucharist is merely a symbol, then one could argue their faith could be merely symbolic and nearly everything else can be reduced in such a way. There were no symbolic baptisms, or symbolic weddings, or symbolic forgiveness of sin, or symbolic sacraments in the early church. What humans think about what Jesus asks is irrelevant to what Jesus asked. He does not need humans to approve of his methods.

 

[piejesu]

It might be helpful to discuss the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist as a metaphysical reality which it IS, and avoid the confusion that often crops up around the mistaken notion that this real presence is a material one.

From Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”

Transubstantiation is a marvellous and unique** conversion** distinct from **natural ** conversions.

In the sphere of nature substantial transformation is always accompanied by accidental changes also. The Eucharistic conversion is a substantial conversion of a special kind, because the whole substance, matter and form, of the bread and wine is converted, while the accidents remain unchanged. It has no analogue either in the natural or in the supernatural order and is thus justly designated by a special name: Transubstantiatio.

 

[Odell]

According to (See 1 John 1:8 If we claim to be without sin,we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
As long as your in the flesh,and sin is in the flesh,then you are full of corruption and this is why the scripture says,(See Romans 12:2) This is why we are to renew our minds daily.Because as long as we are in the flesh we are full of sin and therefore this is why this body dies and goes back to dust.
We are restored to God,through Jesus and that would be our spirit.A corrupt body being a new creature in Christ is speaking of one born of the Spirit,receiving a new heart and this is why we are a new creature in Christ.(See the story of Jesus speaking with Nicodemus.

You don’t have to sin. The only reason people sin is because they lack the grace of God. This is what Christ came for right? Christ did not come to cover a corrupt body but to give us the grace to change interior. You wouldn’t be able to make that change if your corrupt. We are still made in the image of christ.

You have failed to answer my question on how a corrupt body can perform righteousness?

Our bodys manifest this new creation in Christ in our deeds. We are new creatures threw out. Again this is what the eucarist is feeding. A spiritualized body not just plain old spirit we are changed internally.

 

[Louemma]

What is disturbing is that you are talking about a belief the largest christian body in the world shares while you sit back in judgment of them and calling them a little loco. You have mentioned disease several times. What disease could come from the blood and body of the perfect Jesus Christ?
So far, your objections amount to “that’s yucky because I think so”

 

[Louemma]

Well put. I wonder if she thinks a baby drinking mother’s milk is yucky too. Is that cannibalism too? Because a baby drinking mother’s milk is the closest analogy I have come up with to the Eucharist, where the “victim” feeds the “consumer” at no harm to the “victim” but with life-giving benefit to the “consumer”.

Of course not because this is not flesh and blood now is it.Gotta come up with something better then this to say drinking blood is ok:thumbsup:

 

[Louemma]

You don’t have to sin. The only reason people sin is because they lack the grace of God. This is what Christ came for right? Christ did not come to cover a corrupt body but to give us the grace to change interior. You wouldn’t be able to make that change if your corrupt. We are still made in the image of christ.

You have failed to answer my question on how a corrupt body can perform righteousness?

Our bodys manifest this new creation in Christ in our deeds. We are new creatures threw out. Again this is what the eucarist is feeding. A spiritualized body not just plain old spirit we are changed internally.

This is what I’ve been saying,the Lord’s supper is a spiritualism feeding.Eating Jesus’s spirit body,feeding on the tree of life is quite different in a sense of REALLY drinking blood.
I believe I will take my leave of this thread because there is some type of communication problem going on here.I say we do this as a symbolism of eating his flesh and drinking and you say a spiritualism feeding.Do these two not mean the same?
At least perhaps our seeing things differently has strengthen those among us who is weaker in their faith.
This discussion and the confusion has led me to come to the conclusion that I will have to continue this discussion after I have read up on just how it is you believe and read about Eucharist.

 

[VociMike]

Of course not because this is not flesh and blood now is it.Gotta come up with something better then this to say drinking blood is ok:thumbsup:

Still waiting for all those Apostles and Early Church Fathers who deny the Real Presence. Looking forward to a big list.

Sorry you gained no insight from my analogy.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Still waiting for all those Apostles and Early Church Fathers who deny the Real Presence. Looking forward to a big list.

Sorry you gained no insight from my analogy.

Breast milk has *tons of white blood cells in it. *It’s like a blood transfusion actually.

Great analogy- even though it was said there is no analogy for it. I’d say yours comes as close as one can get.

 

[Louemma]

Still waiting for all those Apostles and Early Church Fathers who deny the Real Presence. Looking forward to a big list.

Sorry you gained no insight from my analogy.

Well friend you’ll have to wait awhile longer as I don’t think I’m understanding when you say a real presence.Of course he was there
However not being familer with all the Catholic beliefs,I think we lost understanding a long while back on this thread.
I will say the disciples were not cannibals and they did not eat Jesus’s earthly body.They took the bread as representing his flesh and drank the wine representing his blood.
Gaining insight to your analogy,it would help if I understood what you believe as a Catholic
So were good here:thumbsup:

 

[StrawberryJam]

Well friend you’ll have to wait awhile longer as I don’t think I’m understanding when you say a real presence.Of course he was there
However not being familer with all the Catholic beliefs,I think we lost understanding a long while back on this thread.
I will say the disciples were not cannibals and they did not eat Jesus’s earthly body.They took the bread as representing his flesh and drank the wine representing his blood.
Gaining insight to your analogy,it would help if I understood what you believe as a Catholic
So were good here:thumbsup:

I’m searching the library button here for you right now. Since, I am not a believer. I do have some words on it in other books I have been reading. One is Life of Christ by Fulton Sheen. I found it in my parish library, and I just realized I should have returned it last week.

 

[Louemma]

Breast milk has *tons of white blood cells in it. *It’s like a blood transfusion actually.

Great analogy- even though it was said there is no analogy for it. I’d say yours comes as close as one can get.

Does this mean were all transfused with cow blood
you are right however but white blood cells is only a portion of the formula to blood.
Keep searching friend.The Catholic belief is a wonderful place to start.

 

[Louemma]

I’m searching the library button here for you right now. Since, I am not a believer. I do have some words on it in other books I have been reading. One is Life of Christ by Fulton Sheen. I found it in my parish library, and I just realized I should have returned it last week.

Thank You,I really appreciate it and it will come in helpful in knowing what I’m even debating about