Holy Eucharist, and dealing with objections

[Philthy]

No one is arguing the Covenant nor the bread and the wine in what Jesus says it is, in the covenant.

I would say that in a sense you are arguing exactly that. Christ said at the last Supper, in reference to the bread and wine “This is my body” and “this is the new Covenant in my blood”. Catholics take that for what he actually said and you, apparently, do not. ISTM that your position is the “theology” while the Catholic position is actually truer to Scripture.

Jesus never said He was or God was Present in the bread and wine “Eucharist”.

Scripture reveals to us that Jesus is God from the first chapter of John, which has already been provided on this thread. He said at the last supper that “this is my body” - how do you interpret what that statement means? If he is God and the bread is “his body” how, exactly, do you arrive at the conclusion that God is not present in the bread?? Where in Scripture does it say or even suggest that he’s not present in the bread?

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. "

Again, Christ explicitly said that it , and Paul reaffirms it in 1 Cor when he said “For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body… anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment[* (http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/11#54011029-1) on himself.”
Here is additional support of the Catholic position using Scripture, reason and history:

• The language used in John 6 is not symbolic or metaphorical - especially the progressively literal “gnawing” language that Christ uses.
• Those who heard him speaking - including the Apostles - interpreted him literally
• Christ claims that one’s salvation hinges upon his message and yet He does not correct or explain himself. If He was speaking metaphorically and did so poorly enough that not one person understood him, then he is responsible for misleading them. If he was speaking literally however, this issue resolves itself.
• His language ties in to the Last Supper where He clarifies the “eat my flesh” language by explaining that the New Passover bread and wine “is” His flesh and blood.
• Paul reiterates this literalistic language in his letter to the Corinthians “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”
• Christ is “made known” to the disciples in the breaking of the bread in Acts
• The description of the early Church from Acts 2:42 says,
  “They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.” They were “devoted” to the breaking of the bread and it is place on par with the Apostles teaching and prayer; and it is clearly differentiated from mere fellowship as that is referred to separately as the communal life.
• A reliable (martyr for the faith) first generation disciple of John, the author of John 6 (St Ignatius of Antioch) describes the Eucharist as the “flesh of our Lord which suffered for our sins and which God raised up…”
• Many other ECFs use this exact language - the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ
• No one for the first 1500 years of the faith - except heretics such as the gnostics - denies the teaching.

The Catholic position is a strong one on every count: Scripture, reason and history. One does have to be open to it, however, to see it’s full force and beauty.

Blessings -

 

[Philthy]

I found and old post of mine on the topic that was written to a fellow Catholic who was asking for help in defending the teaching of the Real Presence that might be helpful…
A cursory review of some relevant OT texts:
“… Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he [was] the priest of God Most High.” (Gen 14:18) This is important in that Christ is described as “Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” (Heb 6:20) and then the author of Hebrews in Ch 7 goes on to explain this more fully. The question is does “…the Son of God, remains a priest continually.” (Heb 7:3)? From the Catholic perspective, the offering of Christ in Eucharist (under the appearances of bread and wine) is the simple answer.
Passover involving the killing of a lamb, marking with it’s blood, and the requirement to eat the lamb. Many overlook this last point. This is important in that the Last Supper occurred at Passover.
Some NT texts:
Establish firmly the link of Jesus as the “lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”. Remember: the lamb was not only slaughtered, but was also eaten as part of the Passover ritual.
Review John 6: Jesus is adamant in sticking to his literal position: “I am the bread of life; whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” Most of those who heard him could not believe Him because they didn’t understand Him and they trusted in their flawed understanding and adherence to old ways more than they trusted in Him. The apostles, however, took a different approach(*except *Judas - read carefully the text) . Although confused by what He said, they had faith in HIM and when asked, “Do you also wish to leave?” Peter replied, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”. They didn’t understand, but they placed their trust in Him - in who He was and what He said - above their intellectual capacity. They denied themselves – their own understanding – and became like children and had faith.
It’s also worth noting that IF, as those who deny the RP claim, Jesus was speaking figuratively in John 6, THEN he had an obligation to explain himself to those who were confused. He had done this a number of times - explained the “leaven of the Pharisees” , explained the parable of the seeds, etc. But here he does not explain his teaching as anything different than exactly what he said. If he misled them through his words and it resulted in them “following him no more”, then he had an obligation to clear things up. After all, he described his words as “spirit and life” - to use those words in a manner which, when reasonably interpreted to drive others away would be a sin. He did not retract anything and offered no explanations, and no one really understood Him…until the Last Supper, as part of the Passover meal (where a lamb was to be eaten so that death would “pass over” them), Jesus finally reveals the fullness of what He meant in John 6. It is recorded in all 3 synoptic gospels:
“Jesus took bread, blessed and broke [it], and gave [it] to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Think of Him emphasizing those words as he held up that bread/chalice – this…is….my body, my blood. Now, at last, they got a major glimpse of the explanation of how they could possibly “eat his flesh and drink his blood”, but there is still more.
(con’d)

 

[Philthy]

These events were so important that St Paul was also given divine revelation concerning them: 1Cor 11: 23-29 “I pass on to you what I received from the Lord…This is the new testament in his blood…whoever eats is “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”. Notice how Paul builds on the importance of this memorial, that to receive the Eucharist unworthily constitutes one being “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”. How could this be – actual guilt of the body and blood of the Lord if, in fact, it were merely a symbolic memorial? Once again Scripture points us to an interpretation most consistent with the Catholic teaching of the Real Presence, and we aren’t done. In addition to St. Pauls account (and Hebrews above) we also have some additional NT material from the gospel of Luke and from Acts:
Read Luke 24:13 - 35 v16: The two disciples on the road to Emmaus were “prevented from recognizing him…v30-31 " as they walked along and talked with the Resurrected Jesus. Until he…took bread blessed it, broke it and gave it to them. Then their eyes were open and the recognized Him.” v35 They told the others “…how He was known to them in the breaking of the bread.” Now we have a miracle involving Christ being “recognized” in the “breaking of the bread” – isn’t that somewhat odd that while He could reveal himself the usual way – as He did at all other encounters before His ascension, that He chooses to reveal himself “in the breaking of the bread”? I think it points to something important and continues to build upon the Scriptural witness already established: the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ. Lastly, from the Scriptural record we have Lukes account in Acts.
Acts 2:42 “They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.”
Lets start with an observation: the breaking of the bread is placed on par with the apostles teaching, community of believers and prayer. This makes no sense if the Protestant/non-denom understanding of the Eucharist is accurate, does it. If they disagree, then ask them how it makes sense. Tell your friend, "I understand devotion to teaching, communal life and prayer. But what exactly is “devotion” to the breaking of the bread? How is devotion to the breaking of the bread practiced by non-Catholics on a par with Scripture? With prayer? Are you as devoted to the breaking of bread as you are to prayer and Scripture study? For Catholics we are - just as the original community of Christians was. And on this point we will proceed to just one ECF – St Ignatius of Antioch. He was a first century bishop, martyr and disciple of St John. Do you think his opinions of the “breaking of bread” might give us a reliable understanding of St John’s understanding? Of course it would, since he learned his theology from St John himself and was such an exemplary Christian that he was a canonized Saint.That would help us to understand John 6 better…
(Con’d)

 

[Philthy]

Here is his famous quote from his letter to the Smyrnaeans. It is in a section where he is trying to keep the flock away from the gnostic heretics.
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” It’s important to realize that part of the error that gnostics held to was that Christ never actually had a body. They believed he was purely spiritual. It is for this reason that they would not partake of the Eucharist - because to do so would be to adhere to the belief of Ignatius and the other Christian disciples of the literal presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And yes, he used the word “Eucharist” – that is an early part of Christianity as well. The important part, however, is that by condemning the heretics, Ignatius teaches us what he undoubtedly learned from St John the Apostle, and what true Christians believed from the beginning: that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ. This is completely at odds with your friends who hold symbolic views or some variation of it. It is once again completely consistent with the Catholic Church’s theology. And so, in the end, what do we have? We have Scripture supporting the Catholic position and the ECFs supporting it as well. And what do they have? Interpretations of Scripture that have developed, based on their adherence to the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide (salvation is by faith alone), that do not even remotely deny the Real Presence.
They will claim that Christ was speaking “spiritually” in John 6 and then attempt to twist the words “spirit and truth” to mean “symbolic”. Spirit and symbol are completely different.
They will claim that since salvation is by faith alone that our interpretation of John 6 can’t be correct because it would violate salvation by faith alone. This, of course, is an error on two levels: First, salvation is not by faith alone as James 2 and many Scriptures attest to. Secondly, it is an act of faith to believe in the Eucharist.
They will do this over and over with various Scriptures, picking and choosing how it refutes the Catholic position by implication. They are mistaken in every case and a knowledgeable Catholic can easily demonstrate this. What they can never do is show you any Scripture or ECF clearly articulating that the Eucharist is not the body of Christ, nor can they use either to clearly articulate that the Eucharist is only a symbol. Catholics recognize the symbolic nature of choosing a broken piece of bread and wine also, and we share that relatively unimportant dimension of this mystery, but we also recognize the larger mystery – that these elements become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ and in receiving them we receive Eternal Life.
Peace be with you!

 

[Abu]

D_Martin #38
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.

Such confusion and disbelief is precisely because the poster is not listening to Christ but picking and choosing to suit a preconceived error.

The clarity and directness of Christ – “This IS My Body” at the Last Supper after carefully teaching in Jn 6:51: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh," establishes the reality.

Jn 6:55: For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. And many walked no more with Him. (Jn 6:66). Did he say “you misunderstood Me”? No, He let them go – take note.

Then, to make absolutely certain there was no mistaking what He was saying, Jesus said to the Twelve, “What about you, do you want to go away too?” To which Simon Peter replied, “Lord, who shall we go to? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe” (John 6:59-68).

With Christ’s teaching on His Body to eat and His Blood to drink, He made sure that this was not misunderstood by:

1. Reemphasizing His teaching and refusing to change it even when many left Him
2. By questioning, ensuring that His Apostles, with Peter the Supreme Vicar of His Church, understood and assented to His teaching – so clear as to His meaning – that the doubters left Him.

We listen to the Sacred Scriptures: “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)

And yet you have the selfists who denigrate Christ and his Church by concocting their own fancies.

 

[Cathoholic]

D_Martin. You stated:

Your assumptions that I felt something, or you know what I am doing or where I am going with something . . .

I was talking about the direction of where your argument (“this” and I gave the quote) would logically take us.

Go back and re-read the post.

And I pre-empted the direction of your argument you were attempting to set me up with.

Quote from D_Martin (post 19).

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 have already had that argument brought up against the Eucharist to me before and the argument/idea is built upon a fallacious thought of “either/or” aspect concerning Jesus’ sacrifice.

And since you did not continue with your argument, it suggests to me that when my response was . . .

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

. . . . and gave three reasons WHY this is true, and you did not try to further your argument, suggests I was correct.

Concerning your ideas in post 35, you said:

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

All the LOL’s aside, you still did not address the point. The issue that YOU brought up was sola Scriptura (“if the bible doesn’t say it, then it’s theology, that is of men.”).

And my counter-point was, that you were making a self-contradicting statement (I showed WHY too) and that I won’t accept an argument built upon a false premise (the premise of sola Scriptura).

Yet I and other Catholics enjoy and are willing to discuss the issue of the Eucharist on the grounds of Scripture.

But when you matter-of-factly tossed in a SOLA Scriptura premise, it had to be addressed otherwise it appears I am accepting your (false) premise.

And all the LOL’s do, is ridicule my idea without addressing my idea. And that’s fine. I have no problem with that. But I STILL want you to address the issues and ideas D_Martin.

You also said:

Technically the Word of God is the Truth, therefore anything other that the Truth is what?

I agree. You and I are 100% in the same camp on this.

The question then is, WHAT makes up the “Word of God” (which suggests another false premise that it appears you are trying to build upon)?

Are you going to give us “theology of men” and say the “Word of God” is the Bible ALONE?

Or are you going to be consistent with Scripture and say in a primary sense the “Word of God” IS Jesus Christ. But in a secondary sense, the “Word of God” is Oral Tradition, Written Tradition (the Bible), and the PROPER interpretation of this Word (by the Magisterium)? (You affirming either one of these would discredit the idea that the “Word of God” is reducible to the printed page.)

You also stated:

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

But don’t you see? This statement of yours shows the NEED for a proper interpretation of Scripture AND submission to the proper interpretation. That’s WHY Jesus can say (in an Old Covenant sense but there is a New Covenant sense of this too) . . . .

JOHN 5:38-40, 45-47 . . . . 38 and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe him whom he has sent. 39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. . . . . 45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; it is Moses who accuses you, on whom you set your hope. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"

You look at this (below) and say you are “affirming Scripture” by asserting we are not called to really eat Jesus flesh and drink His blood (despite Jesus saying exactly that).

JOHN 6:53-56 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

The Church looks at this (above) and says it is affirming Scripture by believing Jesus and asserting we ARE called to really eat Jesus flesh and drink His blood.

Who are you going to believe? I will affirm what Jesus said which is also the Church’s teaching.

And this is not an easy teaching D_Martin.

You cannot come to this with a little more study or Scripture scholarship alone. We NEED to do that type of thing (study Scripture, etc) to be sure! We need to LABOR for the food that endures to eternal life.

But in and of itself, our LABORS alone are not going to get us there.

This is a great grace that we as believing Catholics have D_Martin that apparently you do not have (or have, but have rejected).

I have no idea why this is so and will not pretend I do know why.

But as a Catholic I joyfully give thanks to God for revealing this to me and allowing me the grace to believe it. I thank God for allowing me to somehow understand something that is above my mere 5 senses.

Many of the other Catholics here no doubt feel the same way as I. So you can understand WHY we would defend Jesus’ words.

 

[adrift]

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?

I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

52

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”

53

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

Would you please answer the question in 24.

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.

John 6 says hat you must eat His body and drink his blood in Mathew Jesus tells them how.

 

[Cathoholic]

D_Martin. You stated in post 37:

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.

In a certain sense they eventually did (in a Eucharistic sense) gnaw upon Jesus.

St. Augustine said (in about the year 400 A. D., approximately 1000 years before the invention of Protestantism) that when Jesus held up the Eucharist at the last supper, Christ carried Himself “in His own hands.”

ST. AUGUSTINE “Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Quote about the Last Supper from St. Augustine’s “Explanations of the Psalms” 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

A brief review of some of the Greek as it pertains to the Bread of life discourse may be helpful.

Phago and Trogo

According to my (Protestant) Vines Expository:

Variations of the Greek word “phago” (“phago”), to “munch” or “chew” is used four times (eat = phago in John 6:50, 6:51, 6:52, and 6:53)!

Then in John 6:54, 6:56, 6:57, and 6:58, St. John uses the Greek word “trogo” (“trogo”) to drive home the point even further.

(sorry ? type to use Greek letters above for “phago” and “trogo”)

According to “Vine’s Expository Dictionary,” a Protestant English-Greek Bible study dictionary,

• Phago means “to eat, devour, consume . . .”
• Trogo means “primarily to gnaw, to chew, stresses the slow process; . . .”

Vine’s then goes on to opinionate that the word “trogo” must be used “metaphorically” in John 6.

The writers of this dictionary feel compelled to offer commentary here (but don’t do that anywhere else where the words phago and/or trogo are used in Scripture). Bold above “to gnaw” mine.

The language is so strong these writers have to “interpret away” the plain literal language of Jesus’ words against their own lexicon!

Sometimes, my Protestant friends will try to play games with the Greek to circumvent what Jesus actually said.

But recall the Greek Orthodox affirm this too. They are not “Romanists”. The Greek Orthodox are not “Papists”.

For all practical purposes, all ancient Greek Christians (they were actually Catholic back then) have seen the real presence of Christ (until Protestantism) in the Eucharist. And they didn’t have to go to Protestant Seminary (because Protestantism wasn’t invented yet) to learn ancient Greek. That was their native language back in the ancient Church. Incidentally, I am not suggesting that St. Augustine was Greek merely because I quoted him above–He wasn’t. But if you want I can include Greek speaking fathers statements too. But at this point it really isn’t a matter of “intellect” so much as it is of “grace” and “will” to be able to believe Jesus words.

You asked also in post 38 . . . .

Is it His flesh that gives Life or is it His Words that give Life.

It is not an “either/or” item but rather a “yes/and”.

Catholics affirm ALL of what Jesus said.

Also from post 37

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.

And I have pointed out WHY Jesus cannot possibly be referring to His own Sacred Flesh here (but many try to say JESUS’ flesh "profiteth NOTHING”). And I think it is spiritually catastrophic that they think this way and has far reaching effects even unto future generations (and I have explained why it cannot be that Jesus’ flesh profit nothing).

“The flesh” to an ancient Jew had to do with a person under their own power and genealogy (Jesus used it this way again in John 8:15).

St. Paul ALSO teaches us about “the flesh”.

Let’s look at “the flesh” as St. Paul applies this term “the flesh” to himself in giving us further insight. We will see again that “the flesh” IS “of no avail” (but this does NOT mean JESUS’ FLESH is of no avail)!

Let’s look at Philippians 3:3-6 for a reasonable example of the Jewish meaning of what “the flesh” means to an ancient Jew.

St. Paul specifically talks about the phrase “the flesh” with regards to himself.

Let’s see how he uses it. (Special emphasis will be mine)

PHILIPPIANS 3:3-4 3 For we are the true circumcision who worship God in spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in THE FLESH.
4 Though I myself have reason for confidence in THE FLESH also.
If any other man thinks he has reason for confidence in THE FLESH, I have more:

Why? Why St. Paul, can you say that before you were a Christian, you had so much confidence in THE FLESH?

(Fortunately St. Paul is about to tell us why.)

PHILIPPIANS 3:4b-6 4b If any other man thinks he has reason
for confidence in THE FLESH, I have more:
5 circumcised on the eighth day,
of the people of Israel,
of the tribe of Benjamin,
a Hebrew born of Hebrews;
as to the law a Pharisee,
6 as to zeal a persecutor of the church,
as to righteousness under the law blameless.

“The law” incidentally that St. Paul is blameless in, is ritual law, NOT moral law.

Jewish pedigrees and various Old Covenant rituals are in “the flesh” (such as circumcision, etc. where Paul refers to himself as “blameless”).

St. Paul when referring to moral laws (in 1st Timothy 1:15), refers to himself as “foremost” among sinners and NOT “blameless”.

I’ll keep you in my prayers D_Martin and I’ll hang around this thread awhile longer to see if there are any other issues that perhaps I can help clarify. I’m sure others will do the same.

God bless you D_Martin and thank you for the lively discussion.

Cathoholic

 

[D_Martin]

Look, the practice of looking to theology in order to interpret scripture has been going on for ages. What we are supposed to do is look to Jesus because He is the interpretation and fulfillment of the Word of God to mankind to the Father’s satisfaction. The simple reality is that the Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God of God, is the substance necessary to sustain, and be in the Presence of the Almighty God, (Kingdom of Heaven). Just as the body and blood and the bread (not speaking in your religious context here) in this case is necessary for existence in the world. No bread, (if you don’t eat) you don’t continue in the world, have no blood or no body you don’t be in the world. If you are sustained with the necessities to be in the world, you are justified to be in the world, no matter who you are. But that doesn’t justify one’s existence in the Presence of God, you know, where He is, Heaven. Nothing of the earth is going to justify one’s existence in Heaven. What Life that is of Heaven justifies being in Heaven and what life is of earth justifies being in the earth.

Its not rock surgery nor is it brain science, nor is the Eucharist something to worship as the Presence of God. Jesus didn’t come into the world so God can dwell in bread and wine, He came into the world to dwell in you via the Holy Spirit, so that you may worship in Truth and Spirit and have eternal Life. Back in the day the Israelites didn’t worship the tabernacle, they worshiped the God who was to dwell in it.

You can go to Heaven without consuming the Eucharist, but you can’t go to Heaven without consuming the Word of God. The theft, who called upon the Mercy of the Lord, while on the cross, has proved that.

 

[adrift]

You can go to Heaven without consuming the Eucharist, but you can’t go to Heaven without consuming the Word of God. The theft, who called upon the Mercy of the Lord, while on the cross, has proved that.

53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
56 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”

A question that is still being asked

66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

As a result of what? This is a question that has been asked but you do not seem to want to address just walk away.

 

[Cathoholic]

D_Martin. You said,

Look, the practice of looking to theology in order to interpret scripture has been going on for ages.

Yes. In an extreme sense, for about 500 years.

Also you said:

Nothing of the earth is going to justify one’s existence in Heaven.

Is Jesus’ precious life-giving sacrifice on Calvary “of the earth” in your estimation D_Martin?

And this . . . .

Jesus didn’t come into the world so God can dwell in bread and wine, . . . .

But Jesus doesn’t dwell IN bread and wine.

Why? Because there is NO bread and wine that remains except HIM, Jesus Who IS the bread of life.

Jesus IS the bread which endures to eternal life. And He specifically tells us, We MUST eat His flesh and drink His blood.

Yet you D_Martin say we must NOT eat His flesh and Drink His blood.

You also said:

You can go to Heaven without consuming the Eucharist, but you can’t go to Heaven without consuming the Word of God.

This is a partial truth as it is overly reductionistic. You neglected some other categories.

You said:

You can go to Heaven without consuming the Eucharist,

Catholics affirm a Baptized baby for example can go to Heaven without consuming the Eucharist.

You also said:

but you can’t go to Heaven without consuming the Word of God.

This is a partial truth too.

The question here is HOW? How does a person “consume the Word of God?”

You would say, Scripture and Scripture ALONE. And I would say that is a partial truth and taken by itself is UNSCRIPTURAL.

You also neglected to say:

You can consume the Word of God (even in your sense D_Martin), and still end up in Hell. You can have people who are members of Jesus, they are members of the vine (see John 15), yet they refuse to REMAIN members of the vine and do NOT ABIDE in Jesus (where have we heard that language before? See John 6:56).

JOHN 6:56 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

And for those people who steadfastly REFUSE to believe in Jesus, AND in what Jesus says, DO NOT ABIDE IN HIM and they get “cast aside” and “burned” Scripture tells us (see John 15:6).

Even DISCIPLES of Jesus can reject Him and bring about terrible consequences for themselves BECAUSE they later reject Jesus.

JOHN 6:50-51 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

What did the Jews think Jesus meant here?

Fortunately the Holy Spirit tells us in the very next verse.

JOHN 6:52 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Now what does Jesus say in response?

Here is what you wished the verse said D_Martin (but doesn’t).

NOT JOHN 6:53 (Phantom Verse) 53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, its not rock surgery nor is it brain science, nor is the Eucharist something to worship as the Presence of God. I don’t really mean my flesh and blood! You people are carrying this way too far.

Is that what Jesus says? No! What does Jesus REALLY say? Fortunately wee find out in the very next verse . . . .

JOHN 6:53-58 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” 59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caperna-um.

Well Jesus own disciples will know better than to really take Jesus at His word right?

Wrong!

JOHN 6:60 60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

We already talked about the flesh being “of no avail” and saw it is NOT Jesus’ flesh that is of “no avail”.

And what does Jesus refer to some of these people who are rejecting this as (some of which who were described as “disciples”)?

JOHN 6:64a 64a But there are some of you that do not believe." . . .

Jesus refers to these “disciples” of His as people who do NOT BELIEVE (they are being lumped in as unbelievers).

Well what happened to those “disciples” who did “not believe”? What happened to those “disciples” who said “HOW can this man give us His flesh to eat!”?

**NOT JOHN 6:66 (Phantom Verse) **66 After this many of his disciples drew back but came to their senses and reunited with Jesus and the Apostles several weeks later, after somehow now realizing Jesus didn’t really mean what He said.

No! These “disciples” drew back from our Lord Jesus NEVER to go about with Him again because of this. They NEVER returned D_Martin! And it was over this very issue.

JOHN 6:66 66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

Jesus own “disciples” sadly leave Jesus because they refuse “to believe”.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

There is also the issue of the Lord’s Prayer, which we were taught to say by Jesus in Matthew 6 and Luke 11.

“Give us this day our daily bread” is probably not the best translation from the Greek:

"τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς " - that interesting word translated as “daily” in the English is “ἐπιούσιος” - epiousios - epi = transcendent or beyond,* ousios* - substance or matter - a word found only in the New Testament in all the known Greek language literature of the time, and which seems to exist only in a Eucharistic context (there were other perfectly good terms that could have been used to mean “every day” in Greek.) Its literal meaning is “transubstantiated” or “supersubstantial” as the Council of Trent said - something that has transcended its apparent substance. (It is translated as supersubstantialem in the Vulgate (Matthew 6:11) and accordingly as supersubstantial in the Douay-Rheims Bible (Matthew 6:11). There are arguments for other interpretations, of course. But this seems very solid to me…

 

[Philthy]

Look, the practice of looking to theology in order to interpret scripture has been going on for ages. What we are supposed to do is look to Jesus because He is the interpretation and fulfillment of the Word of God to mankind to the Father’s satisfaction. The simple reality is that the Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God of God, is the substance necessary to sustain, and be in the Presence of the Almighty God, (Kingdom of Heaven). Just as the body and blood and the bread (not speaking in your religious context here) in this case is necessary for existence in the world. No bread, (if you don’t eat) you don’t continue in the world, have no blood or no body you don’t be in the world. If you are sustained with the necessities to be in the world, you are justified to be in the world, no matter who you are. But that doesn’t justify one’s existence in the Presence of God, you know, where He is, Heaven. Nothing of the earth is going to justify one’s existence in Heaven. What Life that is of Heaven justifies being in Heaven and what life is of earth justifies being in the earth.

Its not rock surgery nor is it brain science, nor is the Eucharist something to worship as the Presence of God. Jesus didn’t come into the world so God can dwell in bread and wine, He came into the world to dwell in you via the Holy Spirit, so that you may worship in Truth and Spirit and have eternal Life. Back in the day the Israelites didn’t worship the tabernacle, they worshiped the God who was to dwell in it.

You can go to Heaven without consuming the Eucharist, but you can’t go to Heaven without consuming the Word of God. The theft, who called upon the Mercy of the Lord, while on the cross, has proved that.

My sense is that you are neither prepared to discuss the issue in order to learn nor are you capable of defending your position. You simply believe what you believe as if you were infallible and pretty much ignore all the efforts here at being educated in the faith…
And for the record, you never did answer the simple question of what Christ meant when he said, “This is my body”.

blessings

 

[Abu]

D_Martin #49
You can go to Heaven without consuming the Eucharist, but you can’t go to Heaven without consuming the Word of God.

Another falsehood.

Certainly it is possible to be saved without knowing the Sacred Scriptures or being Catholic.

But the pathetic selfism in ignoring Christ’s clear teaching on His Body and Blood as food for the soul shows the extent to which private interpretation, conceit and evasion can go.

 

[bmonk]

Was it on the cross or at the last supper [that Jesus sacrificed himself]?

Yes.

That is like saying is it the celebration of the Marriage liturgy, and particularly the vows, or the act of consummation that makes the marriage. The two are integrally united, and together form one act of marriage. The consummation without the vows is lacking the commitment, and the vows without the consummation lacks the giving of self that completes the marital unity and allows it to be fruitful.

So with Jesus. The sacrifice on the Cross is made present and real to all the faithful through the Last Supper and its continuation in the Mass. Without the Last Supper and Mass, we would be left wondering if we shared in the sacrifice. It bears fruit in us through our presence at the sacrifice in and through the Mass.

But the Last Supper is only effective because it is followed by the sacrifice on the Cross. Both show Jesus giving himself without reserve to redeem us.

 

[bmonk]

…

Scripture reveals to us that Jesus is God from the first chapter of John, which has already been provided on this thread. He said at the last supper that “this is my body” - how do you interpret what that statement means? If he is God and the bread is “his body” how, exactly, do you arrive at the conclusion that God is not present in the bread?? Where in Scripture does it say or even suggest that he’s not present in the bread?

Again, Christ explicitly said that it , and Paul reaffirms it in 1 Cor when he said “For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body… anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment[* (http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/11#54011029-1) on himself.”
Here is additional support of the Catholic position using Scripture, reason and history:

• The language used in John 6 is not symbolic or metaphorical - especially the progressively literal “gnawing” language that Christ uses.
• Those who heard him speaking - including the Apostles - interpreted him literally
• Christ claims that one’s salvation hinges upon his message and yet He does not correct or explain himself. If He was speaking metaphorically and did so poorly enough that not one person understood him, then he is responsible for misleading them. If he was speaking literally however, this issue resolves itself.
• His language ties in to the Last Supper where He clarifies the “eat my flesh” language by explaining that the New Passover bread and wine “is” His flesh and blood.
• Paul reiterates this literalistic language in his letter to the Corinthians “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”
• Christ is “made known” to the disciples in the breaking of the bread in Acts
• The description of the early Church from Acts 2:42 says,
  “They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.” They were “devoted” to the breaking of the bread and it is place on par with the Apostles teaching and prayer; and it is clearly differentiated from mere fellowship as that is referred to separately as the communal life.
• A reliable (martyr for the faith) first generation disciple of John, the author of John 6 (St Ignatius of Antioch) describes the Eucharist as the “flesh of our Lord which suffered for our sins and which God raised up…”
• Many other ECFs use this exact language - the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ
• No one for the first 1500 years of the faith - except heretics such as the gnostics - denies the teaching.

The Catholic position is a strong one on every count: Scripture, reason and history. One does have to be open to it, however, to see it’s full force and beauty.

Blessings -

We can add to this list the fact that, in the Gospel according to John, when Jesus speaks, he speaks what is true. It is always the hearers who misunderstand him. (we see this with Nicodemus, Ch. 3, the Samaritan Woman, Ch.4, the Jews in Chapters 8 and 11, just to cite a few that come handily to mind)

Then, in John 6 Jesus speaks of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Later, as we know, at the Last Supper, he gives the disciples what he claims to be his body and blood. In John 6, many disciples leave him because they misunderstand him and believe he is speaking of eating and drinking his body (meat) and blood (from his veins)–when he is actually referring to what the Church has believed for nearly 2000 years now is His Body and Blood in the form of bread and wine, the “bloodless sacrifice” that is united with, and unites us with, the bloody sacrifice of the Cross.

 

[bmonk]

Look, the practice of looking to theology in order to interpret scripture has been going on for ages. What we are supposed to do is look to Jesus because He is the interpretation and fulfillment of the Word of God to mankind to the Father’s satisfaction. The simple reality is that the Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God of God, is the substance necessary to sustain, and be in the Presence of the Almighty God, (Kingdom of Heaven). Just as the body and blood and the bread (not speaking in your religious context here) in this case is necessary for existence in the world. No bread, (if you don’t eat) you don’t continue in the world, have no blood or no body you don’t be in the world. If you are sustained with the necessities to be in the world, you are justified to be in the world, no matter who you are. But that doesn’t justify one’s existence in the Presence of God, you know, where He is, Heaven. Nothing of the earth is going to justify one’s existence in Heaven. What Life that is of Heaven justifies being in Heaven and what life is of earth justifies being in the earth.

Its not rock surgery nor is it brain science, nor is the Eucharist something to worship as the Presence of God. Jesus didn’t come into the world so God can dwell in bread and wine, He came into the world to dwell in you via the Holy Spirit, so that you may worship in Truth and Spirit and have eternal Life. Back in the day the Israelites didn’t worship the tabernacle, they worshiped the God who was to dwell in it.

You can go to Heaven without consuming the Eucharist, but you can’t go to Heaven without consuming the Word of God. The theft, who called upon the Mercy of the Lord, while on the cross, has proved that.

No, Jesus did not come into the world to dwell in bread and wine. He came to bring us salvation. And one of the methods he used to bring that salvation to all who would come after his life on Earth was to give us the Church, and the Mass, so that they too could encounter him and receive him in truth. Dwelling in bread and wine is a means, not a goal for Christ.

Yes, you can go to heaven without consuming the Eucharist, or even being baptized. But if you have the opportunity to use effective means, and deny yourself those means, what does that say about your desire to use whatever will help you get to heaven, and so about your fundamental desire to be saved?

God offers us “ordinary” means–the human institution of the Church and its sacramental rituals–not because “extraordinary” means cannot be effective. But to deny those ordinary means and rely on the extraordinary means is presumptive and arrogant.

 

[Kamaz]

The subject of the Eucharist should be approached from a holistic point.

1. In Matt26: 26 - 28; Luke 22: 19 - 20, we see Jesus breaking the bread, blessing it and giving it to the apostles to eat as a symbol of his body that is given for them. 'Do it in remembrance of me [Jesus].
2. He also takes the cup and says, “take this and drink all of you, it is the blood of the New and everlasting covenant which is shed for you”.

The apostles would meet on the first day of the week to ‘break bread’ in remembrance of Jesus.
In I Corinthians 14, apostle Paul gives a guideline to the church at Corinth on how they should partake of the Lord’s table. The bible records eating together, each one of them with his food and wine.

Initially, the concept of Christ being in the bread in physical form was not there.
They were doing it in remembrance of him, and to follow his commandments.

The bread and wine were symbolic of the body and the blood; there-before, the high priest used to go to the ‘Holy of holies’ once every year to offer a sacrifice for atonement of the sins of all Israelites. Jesus came symbolically as the sacrificial Lamb of God for a NEW COVENANT.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I’m surprised to see you have yourself listed as a Catholic, since you don’t seem to be familiar with the Bible, let alone Catholic teaching.

The concept of Jesus Christ being present under the appearance of bread and wine was known and taught by the Apostle Paul: 1 Corinthians 11:27

The bread and wine are NOT symbolic of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, neither in the Church of the Apostolic age, nor in ours, nor in all the time in between. Even main line Protestants would fault your theology!

 

[Michael_Francis]

Note: Off topic posts have been split into a new thread at (Split) Statistical disparity of belief in the Real Presence