Holy Eucharist, and dealing with objections

[D_Martin]

D_Martin. You said in post 4:
Jesus says “the flesh” profiteth nothing.
Do you think Jesus was referring to HIS flesh?
If not, why bring it up as an objection.
If so, WHY would Jesus leave His own context in this teaching?
Please consider that Jesus did not say: “My flesh profits nothing.”
JOHN 6:51b 51b . . . . and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
So we would both agree that Jesus giving HIS FLESH on Calvary is not mere metaphor correct?
And can we both agree that when Jesus says . . . .
JOHN 6:63 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
. . .that Jesus is NOT referring to HIS own Sacred flesh?

Ok then, the Lord says before what you have referred to : 47: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48: I am that bread of life.

So let me ask you this, we know that the Lord Jesus is the Word of God, and in the first chapter in John, John states: Jn:1:1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2: The same was in the beginning with God.
3: All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4: In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Jesus the Word of God, being the same that was in the beginning with God. Was He The bread of Life then, or only after He came down from Heaven?

Didn’t Jesus say elsewhere that His Words are Life and Spirit? Therefore if you eat the bread of Life, is it the Word of God? Or is it some physical thing?

Again It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing.

Also, if some one would take part in the Eucharist and didn’t believe, would that person receive eternal life? And if some one believed Jesus like the man on the cross did with Him, and didn’t take part in the Eucharist like he did, then would he be denied the Presence of God?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

D_Martin:

The receiving of the bread and the wine doesn’t put you in the Presence of the Lord God. It is he who has found Grace in God’s sight and is justified through Faith that is to receive the bread and the wine that Jesus has brought to him.

You missed the whole covenential aspect of my post. I wasn’t just talking about words that appear here and there.

The covenant is sacred and entered into by both God and His chosen representative. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Lastly Jesus Christ. It is not the believer that establishes the covenant, but rather God. Therefore Abraham’s Faith Justified him in God’s eyes, making him a chosen vessel for establishing His Covenant with him.

The Bread and Wine of the Eucharist, which are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ IS the new and everlasting covenant. Mark 14 This is HOW the covenant is entered into with Our Lord Jesus Christ. Not rattling off a pat phrase. Do you really think that PROVES you have Faith? Plus it is completely non-Biblical. The proof is in the doing. That is how a covenant works. It has requirements that are stipulated by GOD, not your neighborhood tent preacher. Where is a saving “phrase” ever mentioned in the Bible?

 

[sousley]

The type cannot be more perfect than its fulfillment.

Jesus already explained to the Pharisees that: 48. “I am the Bread of Life. 49. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and they died. 50. This is the Bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.”

If the manna was real and provided corporal nourishment, then the perfection brought by Jesus must be greater than the old. To say that the bread and wine gives no grace is to equate it to the desert. As one poster pointed out, they already had shewbread (bread of the presence) at the temple.

 

[rcwitness]

After the disciples heard what the Lord said about eating Him, and they seemed to have a problem understanding and then Jesus said:

Jn:6:63: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

And since the understanding that the Truth of God says is that He speaks of is spirit, and life how is it that the Catholic theology sees it otherwise? Such as physical blood and flesh. If this is what Catholic theology says it is, then why isn’t it real flesh and real blood? Why did the Lord chose to use wine and bread which is not real flesh and blood?

If Jesus, according to your interpretation of 6:63, tells the disciple He means spirit and life, not His literal flesh and blood, why do they still leave Him in 6:66???

The literal flesh and blood is literal because it is what it is in Spirit and Truth. It is what God and heaven know it to be. Not what man sees it to be. It is a sacrament of faith. Faith that Jesus’ Word is binding on heaven and earth. The Word became flesh. Do you separate them now? The Word alone was not sufficient to save us…the Word needed to become flesh in order to reconcile us to God. How was this accomplished? Verse 51 answers he will give us His flesh. The passion and the Lord’s Supper are joined. Where the flesh of God is, there is the whole treasure of wisdom. There is the hidden Manna from heaven.

This is only believed through faith. Only those who obey the Father’s will who draws us together in this Holy Communion are one with Him and Him with us.

Yet, your faith is true according to belief in the gospel of the Scriptures. You are joined to us in baptism and belief in common Christian faith. This is a partial, imperfect Communion. We are all being perfected in Christ.

Peace
Michael

 

[Cathoholic]

D_Martin. You asked in post 21:

Jesus the Word of God, being the same that was in the beginning with God. Was He The bread of Life then, or only after He came down from Heaven?

I know where you are going with this D_Martin and it’s not going to work.

There is a sense where Jesus’ sacrifice was on Calvary and another sense that Jesus’ one once for all sacrifice transcends time.

That’s WHY Father Abraham can get to Heaven—because of Jesus’ sacrifice.

That’s WHY Moses can get to Heaven—because of Jesus’ sacrifice.

That’s WHY St. John can say . . .

**REVELATION 13:8 (KJV) ** “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

I asked you before and you did not give me an answer so I will ask it again.

When Jesus says “the flesh” is of “no avail” is He including His own Sacred Flesh? Is Jesus’ flesh of “no avail”?

I’m saying “no” it cannot be concerning JESUS flesh. What do you say D_Martin?

JOHN 6:63 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

 

[runningdude]

Are you going to honestly tell me I wasn’t talking about the text in question, chapter 6 of the gospel according to John? I wasn’t talking about the whole of the gospels. You remove text from its context. WOW

I’m sorry I thought this was the place to discuss Catholic theology, Catholics predominantly declare that the Presence of the Lord Jesus Christ is in the Eucharist. Which seems to be a presumption based on a theology not scripture. There is no statement that I am aware of that states plainly that His Presence is in what the Catholic Church calls the Eucharist.

The Letters of Saint Paul predate the Gospels. Saint Paul discusses in detail the significance of the Eucharist. However, Saint Paul describe in detail the rituals used. He was an early bishop writing to other early bishops about high-order theological points.

The bishops already had learned the basics of the Eucharist in their priestly formation. Saint Paul was not going to condescendingly write a detailed how to manual. Rather, assuming his audience fully grasped the basics, he discussed the nuances of Christ’s sacrament.

The Gospels, written/compiled after the letters were sent, provide a timeline as to when the Eucharist was instituted, placing it at the beginning of Christ’s Passion, on the Thursday before his death. This is to emphasize its link to the life giving nature of Christ’s death. However, the authors assumed that the basic theology of the Eucharist was already understood. The authors were writing for a Christian audience already instructed in matters of the faith, and did not rehash the basic of the faith.

Thus the reason that the “theology” is not “based on scripture” is that the theology predates and inspired the scripture.

 

[D_Martin]

You missed the whole covenential aspect of my post. I wasn’t just talking about words that appear here and there.

The covenant is sacred and entered into by both God and His chosen representative. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Lastly Jesus Christ. It is not the believer that establishes the covenant, but rather God. Therefore Abraham’s Faith Justified him in God’s eyes, making him a chosen vessel for establishing His Covenant with him.

The Bread and Wine of the Eucharist, which are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ IS the new and everlasting covenant. Mark 14 This is HOW the covenant is entered into with Our Lord Jesus Christ. Not rattling off a pat phrase. Do you really think that PROVES you have Faith? Plus it is completely non-Biblical. The proof is in the doing. That is how a covenant works. It has requirements that are stipulated by GOD, not your neighborhood tent preacher. Where is a saving “phrase” ever mentioned in the Bible?

No one is arguing the Covenant nor the bread and the wine in what Jesus says it is, in the covenant. As I have already mentioned most Catholics state that the Presence of God is in the bread and the wine. Jesus never said He was or God was Present in the bread and wine “Eucharist”. Nor did any of the writers of the NT state any where that the Presence of God the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, all or anyone of, is present in the Eucharist, this is a Catholic theology. And one’s Faith is proven by the revelation of the Presence of God with him. No one proves God, God makes evident by His revaluation which is His choosing to do with whom ever He chooses.

If some one would take part in the Eucharist and didn’t believe would that person receive eternal life, or be in the Presence of God? And if some one believed Jesus like the man on the cross with Him and didn’t take part in the Eucharist then would he be denied the Presence of God?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

D_Martin:

If some one would take part in the Eucharist and didn’t believe would that person receive eternal life, or be in the Presence of God?

I think St. Paul answers your question: 1 Cor 11:27-29

 

[D_Martin]

D_Martin. You asked in post 21:
I know where you are going with this D_Martin and it’s not going to work.
There is a sense where Jesus’ sacrifice was on Calvary and another sense that Jesus’ one once for all sacrifice transcends time.
That’s WHY Father Abraham can get to Heaven—because of Jesus’ sacrifice.
That’s WHY Moses can get to Heaven—because of Jesus’ sacrifice.
That’s WHY St. John can say . . .
**REVELATION 13:8 (KJV) ** “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”
I asked you before and you did not give me an answer so I will ask it again.
When Jesus says “the flesh” is of “no avail” is He including His own Sacred Flesh? Is Jesus’ flesh of “no avail”?
I’m saying “no” it cannot be concerning JESUS flesh. What do you say D_Martin?
JOHN 6:63 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Cathoholic

The only thing I am doing is responding to your request, of why the opposition to the Catholic Church’s theology on the Eucharist.

So in the benefit of my experiences with most of the Christian theologies in thie country (USA) I ‘m telling you. The sticking point, if you will, is that the Catholics declare that God’s Presence is in the Eucharist. No self respecting fundamentalist worth his salt is going to deny anything the Bible states, but if the bible doesn’t say it, then it’s theology, that is of men.

If you don’t believe, if you haven’t received the Spirit and the Life then it is of no avail. That is what Jesus is saying. To what good is the body without receiving the Life that is of Christ. How is that any different then the question I ask you, which was the response whether you liked it or not.

If some one would take part in the Eucharist and didn’t believe would that person receive eternal life, or be in the Presence of God? And if some one believed Jesus like the man on the cross with Him and didn’t take part in the Eucharist then would he be denied the Presence of God?

 

[D_Martin]

The Letters of Saint Paul predate the Gospels. Saint Paul discusses in detail the significance of the Eucharist. However, Saint Paul describe in detail the rituals used. He was an early bishop writing to other early bishops about high-order theological points.

The bishops already had learned the basics of the Eucharist in their priestly formation. Saint Paul was not going to condescendingly write a detailed how to manual. Rather, assuming his audience fully grasped the basics, he discussed the nuances of Christ’s sacrament.

The Gospels, written/compiled after the letters were sent, provide a timeline as to when the Eucharist was instituted, placing it at the beginning of Christ’s Passion, on the Thursday before his death. This is to emphasize its link to the life giving nature of Christ’s death. However, the authors assumed that the basic theology of the Eucharist was already understood. The authors were writing for a Christian audience already instructed in matters of the faith, and did not rehash the basic of the faith.

Thus the reason that the “theology” is not “based on scripture” is that the theology predates and inspired the scripture.

That’s a interesting thought, but I beg to differ, the truth that we know that is of God is based on revelation that is of God and the trust in the witnesses of that revelation. Jesus revealed His risen self to the disciples and we trust it, just as God has entrusted them with it. Theology, like unto philosophy is of men, but theology is particular to religions. And philosophy is more of a secular or social/civil pursuit. Apostle Paul experienced revelation, not the thinking, or speculations that may seem right, that would be of his own mind, though yes I do believe there are cases in his writings where he states that something is of his own opinion. Which tells us that if it is of his own opinion, then he would say so.

And note everything that Jesus said to the disciples, is a revelation that is of God. Also note that men didn’t fulfill any of the previous covenants that were of God, God fulfilled them all in Jesus Christ which is the interpretation of the Word of God to men.

 

[Cathoholic]

D_Martin. You felt compelled to bring up the sola Scriptura issue on this thread so I need to touch on that here too in response:

but if the bible doesn’t say it, then it’s theology, that is of men.

Where is the verse that says? . . . .

Phantom Verse but if the bible doesn’t say it, then it’s theology, that is of men.

Or is what you are saying . . . “theology . . . of men”?

Is the Canon of Scripture “theology . . . of men” D_Martin?

If it is merely “theology . . . of men”, why should I believe it as the written word of God?

If it is not “theology . . . of men” . . . . where is the verse in Scripture that says:

Phantom Verse 2 “In the Bible belong the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, . . . .etc. etc. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, . . . . Jude, and Revelation.”

D_Martin you also said:

So in the benefit of my experiences with most of the Christian theologies in thie (sic) country (USA) I ‘m telling you. The sticking point, if you will, is that the Catholics declare that God’s Presence is in the Eucharist.

I’m not sure what you mean by “the Catholics declare that God’s Presence is in the Eucharist”.

The Eucharist IS Jesus D_Martin, but I will assume you meant that (but clarification was still needed here as there are other readers).

There is NO BREAD and NO WINE that remains concerning the Eucharist after the elements are consecrated. Only the appearances of such.

The Eucharist is the substantial presence of Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul, and Divinity.

Again, NO BREAD and NO WINE remain.

I gratefully WORSHIP the Holy Eucharist. I gratefully WORSHIP Jesus.

If the Eucharist were anything less, I would not WORSHIP the Holy Eucharist.

We looked at John 6:63.

JOHN 6:63 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

You said this merely means:

If you don’t believe, if you haven’t received the Spirit and the Life then it is of no avail. That is what Jesus is saying.

But that is NOT what Jesus is saying here in John 6:63. Here is what He really said . . .

JOHN 6:63 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

**If Jesus were trying to say here what you are asserting . . . . **

. . . . if you don’t believe, if you haven’t received the Spirit and the Life then it is of no avail. That is what Jesus is saying.

** . . . . Jesus would not refer to the Spirit giving “life” in the context of an unbeliever. **

But Jesus DOES refer to the Spirit giving “life” in this context.

JOHN 6:63a 63 It is the spirit that gives life, . . . .

If your thinking about this verse were correct the verse SHOULD read . . . .

NOT JOHN 6:63 (but a D_Martin Phantom Verse) 63 It is not the spirit that gives life because I am talking now about an unbeliever. And by the way MY flesh is of no avail either.

Jesus is NOT speaking about HIS Sacred flesh being of “no avail” D_Martin.

Jesus redeemed not merely the elect but the whole of creation (yes some men reject His sacrifice but this is not the context of John 6:63). Remember the result of sin and a fallen world was not just upon people but upon the whole created universe (that’s WHY even the first-born cattle of the Egyptians died in Egypt at Passover which was among other things, a reminder of the fall and the need for deliverance from the bondage of sin).

So Jesus would NEVER say His Sacred flesh is of “NO avail”. He would (and did) say He gives His flesh for the life of the WORLD.

That’s WHY the very St. John in this very same Gospel can say earlier in John 3:16a: “16 For God so loved THE WORLD that he gave his only Son . . .”

Does THIS sound like Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary is of “no avail”?

And in John 6 (just a few verses earlier) Jesus just got done informing every one, He gives HIS FLESH for . . . . “The life of THE WORLD!”

JOHN 6:51b and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

Does THIS sound like Jesus’ flesh is of . . . . “no avail” D_Martin?

It is NOT Jesus’ flesh that is of “no avail” D_Martin. It is your flesh and **my flesh **apart from Jesus that is of no avail.

What Jesus was warning the Jews of is, “don’t think because you are Israelites, Jews, Pharisees, etc. that you can save your self by your mere works of the Old Covenant or your pedigree”.

That’s what “the flesh” meant to Jesus’ hearers at that time D_Martin.

JOHN 6:63 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

You cannot use your unbelief and possible incredulity about Jesus’ command to “eat my flesh and drink my blood” as an excuse to say Jesus’ Sacred flesh is of “no avail” D_Martin.

 

[runningdude]

That’s a interesting thought, but I beg to differ,…

On which part do you differ? I was addressing the intent of the author, not who was the author. The author intended to discuss detailed detailed information regarding the Eucharist, not provide an introduction to the Eucharist. The audience (the bishops of various communities) were already aware of the basics. This applies whether the author is God himself, or the individual author writing under divine inspiration.

 

[UbiCaritas15]

If you don’t believe, if you haven’t received the Spirit and the Life then it is of no avail. That is what Jesus is saying. To what good is the body without receiving the Life that is of Christ. How is that any different then the question I ask you, which was the response whether you liked it or not.

If the Eucharist is the life (“For the life of a creature is in the blood,” Lev 17:11 → “This is my blood of the covenant” Matt 26:28 → “The blessing-cup, which we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ; and the loaf of bread which we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?” 1Cor 10:16

So if **life **is in blood, and blood is **Jesus’ blood **(which would then have Jesus’ life) and the blood we bless is a sharing/participation/koinonia, then body would have received the life if one received the Eucharist.

*If some one would take part in the Eucharist and didn’t believe would that person receive eternal life, or be in the Presence of God? *

“Everyone is to examine himself and only then eat of the bread or drink from the cup; because a person who eats and drinks without recognizing the body is eating and drinking his own condemnation.” 1 Cor 11:28-29

So yes, a person would still be receiving the Eucharist, but to not discern the body (or care to discern the body) had serious consequences, because the taking part in the Eucharist is an action.

“On this foundation, different people may build in gold, silver, jewels, wood, hay or straw, but each person’s handiwork will be shown for what it is. The Day which dawns in fire will make it clear and the fire itself will test the quality of each person’s work.” 1 Cor 3:12-13

So we will be judged by our actions. If, then.

*And if some one believed Jesus like the man on the cross with Him and didn’t take part in the Eucharist then would he be denied the Presence of God? *

"Jesus replied to them: In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise that person up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. John 6:53-55

 

[Abu]

D_Martin #29
The sticking point, if you will, is that the Catholics declare that God’s Presence is in the Eucharist. No self respecting fundamentalist worth his salt is going to deny anything the Bible states, but if the bible doesn’t say it, then it’s theology, that is of men.

You have no credible reason to place the contrary opinions of others above the Christ who wrote nothing, and founded His Church on St Peter:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve also].

Sole authority to Peter:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Thus, His Church gave us the Bible and the reality is that the books that actually are declared the inspired Word of God was decided by Pope Damasus at a Council of Rome in 382, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo, 393, Carthage III 397, Carthage IV in 419 and canonised at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) – 46 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament.

Furthermore, you will find in that Bible:
Some things hard to understand. 2Pet 3:16.
No Scripture subject to private interpretation. 2 Pet 1:20-21.
Have need of an interpreter. Acts 8:30-31.

From: Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN) on 12-09-2004:
‘A sign of the reality of Presence of Christ in the Eucharist may be seen in what St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, in which he not only repeated the words and actions of the Last Supper but notes the punishment upon those who unworthily receive the Holy Eucharist:

‘11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 11:25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 11:28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 11:29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

‘Just as there were positive signs in the early Church to confirm divine realities—miracles, charismatic gifts—so there were negative signs to teach about unseen realities. The sickness and death found among the Christians at Corinth who unworthily approached the Holy Eucharist was a sign to the Church that this was no mere symbol but a divine Reality of Christ in His Body and Blood, as taught by Jesus Himself. And this should serve as a sign in the present as well, to Catholics who may be confused or ignorant on this point or to separated brethren who have been misled by mistakes of the past.’

 

[D_Martin]

D_Martin. You felt compelled to bring up the sola Scriptura issue on this thread so I need to touch on that here too in response:

Your assumptions that I felt something, or you know what I am doing or where I am going with something, so on and so forth is starting to sound kind of weird you know?

Where is the verse that says? . . . .
Phantom Verse but if the bible doesn’t say it, then it’s theology, that is of men.
Or is what you are saying . . . “theology . . . of men”?
Is the Canon of Scripture “theology . . . of men” D_Martin?
If it is merely “theology . . . of men”, why should I believe it as the written word of God?
If it is not “theology . . . of men” . . . . where is the verse in Scripture that says:

LOL, that’s like asking: Where in bible does bible verse refer to itself as the “bible”?

Technically the Word of God is the Truth, therefore anything other that the Truth is what? Also, it is obvious to anyone that reads and believes, scripture is documented by the trusted of God such as Moses for example. that’s why so many that oppose belief and trust in the Lord and what the Lord says seek to erode the Christian trust in the validity of the Bible. Just like the serpent did with Eve trying to erode their trust and belief in what the Lord God said, he had his own theology about what God said, hence it cost them very much. And don’t fool your self, the serpent most defiantly believes there is a God and He is the Creator and Judge.

Why isn’t theology included as scripture? There must be a very good reason for that. I do believe it’s the Catholic position that revelation, or at least significant revelation ended with the Apostles, at least I see many Catholics taking that position. If it’s the Catholic belief that revelation ended with the Apostles, and we all know that the Truth of God is revealed then how can theology be in the same class as the Bible? Truth that is of God is revealed of God by God, not speculated by men, to fill in something men don’t know.

 

[D_Martin]

On which part do you differ?

I do believe I already stated why I disagree, but again it looks like you couldn’t find error in my previous statements may be you will this time, am I correct in that assumption?

Your statement here seems true, is ether a lie, or you are very ignorant of the text in scripture.

Thus the reason that the “theology” is not “based on scripture” is that the theology predates and inspired the scripture.

Adam knew what he should have done by the revelation of God’s Word to him, in a Commandment. That’s not inspired friend, that’s revelation of the Word of God. Abraham then Abram wasn’t inspired to go to the land now known as Israel. The Lord God told Abram to go there and he went. Not inspiration instruction, or if you will, Commandment that is of God. Moses wasn’t inspired to go back to Egypt nor was he inspired to hang in the desert for approximately forty years dealing with the Children of Israel. He was told to by the Lord his God. Israel when they stood at the bottom of the mountain when the Lord God spoke the Ten Commandments directly to them, wasn’t inspiration, it was witnessed and experienced. Just as the rest of the bible is a documentation of witnesses of those who experienced the revelations of the Lord God to them.

I was addressing the intent of the author, not who was the author. The author intended to discuss detailed detailed information regarding the Eucharist, not provide an introduction to the Eucharist. The audience (the bishops of various communities) were already aware of the basics. This applies whether the author is God himself, or the individual author writing under divine inspiration.

So what you are telling me here is, the Lord Jesus speaks incompletely and with gaps, He needs others to fill in those gaps. Is that what you are saying? Jesus wasn’t smart enough to speak in a way that didn’t need additional info, and it was insufficient to be the full Truth. All things that were made were not made without Him, like the sun, the moon, the stars, the universe, all living things, so on and so forth but he needs the bishops to clear up a few gaps in what He says. You really expect me to believe that?

 

[D_Martin]

You have no credible reason to place the contrary opinions of others above the Christ who wrote nothing, and founded His Church on St Peter:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve also].

Sole authority to Peter:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Thus, His Church gave us the Bible and the reality is that the books that actually are declared the inspired Word of God was decided by Pope Damasus at a Council of Rome in 382, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo, 393, Carthage III 397, Carthage IV in 419 and canonised at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) – 46 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament.

Furthermore, you will find in that Bible:
Some things hard to understand. 2Pet 3:16.
No Scripture subject to private interpretation. 2 Pet 1:20-21.
Have need of an interpreter. Acts 8:30-31.

From: Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN) on 12-09-2004:
‘A sign of the reality of Presence of Christ in the Eucharist may be seen in what St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, in which he not only repeated the words and actions of the Last Supper but notes the punishment upon those who unworthily receive the Holy Eucharist:

‘11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 11:25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 11:28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 11:29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

‘Just as there were positive signs in the early Church to confirm divine realities—miracles, charismatic gifts—so there were negative signs to teach about unseen realities. The sickness and death found among the Christians at Corinth who unworthily approached the Holy Eucharist was a sign to the Church that this was no mere symbol but a divine Reality of Christ in His Body and Blood, as taught by Jesus Himself. And this should serve as a sign in the present as well, to Catholics who may be confused or ignorant on this point or to separated brethren who have been misled by mistakes of the past.’

Ah, Abu, just what does your rant got to do with the subject at hand?

 

[D_Martin]

If you don’t believe, if you haven’t received the Spirit and the Life then it is of no avail. That is what Jesus is saying. To what good is the body without receiving the Life that is of Christ. How is that any different then the question I ask you, which was the response whether you liked it or not.

If the Eucharist is the life (“For the life of a creature is in the blood,” Lev 17:11 → “This is my blood of the covenant” Matt 26:28 → “The blessing-cup, which we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ; and the loaf of bread which we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?” 1Cor 10:16

So if **life **is in blood, and blood is **Jesus’ blood **(which would then have Jesus’ life) and the blood we bless is a sharing/participation/koinonia, then body would have received the life if one received the Eucharist.

Ok then didn’t Jesus’ body bleed out into, or at the least onto the ground at the cross? Then was there blood in His body after He rose from the grave? And if so why wasn’t He bleeding allover the place when He showed Himself with the piercings to the disciples? And if not what was it that was the Life of His body? And why didn’t the disciples gnaw on His arms and legs in order to receive eternal life? Is it His flesh that gives Life or is it His Words that give Life.

Though Jesus has said this: Jn:6:63: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

It seems that you are trying to tell me that the blood and the flesh (bread and wine) are the Words that Jesus speaks that are spirit and are life.

 

[UbiCaritas15]

Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy and Immortal have mercy on us.
Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy and Immortal have mercy on us.
Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy and Immortal have mercy on us.

By virtue of the fact that Jesus is God, his words are actions. But faith is the gift which softens the heart unto belief. That is only a gift from God.

I’m not into arguing, only talking. . Have a great day.

 

[Abu]

As is quite evident, D_Martin who, while denying Christ:
*No self respecting fundamentalist worth his salt is going to deny anything the Bible states, but if the bible doesn’t say it, then it’s theology, that is of men *[post #29],
is quite unable to refute St Paul in the Bible given to the world by Christ’s Church, and has no answer to Christ through St Paul in 1 Cor. 11:23-29:
“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

As Fr Echert points out of the sickness and death attributed to the Corinthians’ denial by St Paul in verse 30:
“The sickness and death found among the Christians at Corinth who unworthily approached the Holy Eucharist was a sign to the Church that this was no mere symbol but a divine Reality of Christ in His Body and Blood, as taught by Jesus Himself.”