How do I answer the following question...?

[Danny_Clover]

He never asked the Apostles to literally walk through Him like a door, but He did ask them to eat His body

big difference

After which, He gave them a piece of bread, not a piece of His flesh.

 

[Danny_Clover]

It has everything to do with it, it discusses the Eucharist in very direct terms and indicates that one of the worst possible sins you can commit is to partake of the Eucharist unworthily.

I agree. Our religion believes the same thing. However, the OP was asking how to convince someone that the Eucharist is really Christ’s flesh.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

After which, He gave them a piece of bread, not a piece of His flesh.

He gave them a piece of something that had the incidentals of bread, but was his flesh.

Why did many of his followers leave Him when He said that they must eat His body and drink His blood? If He was speaking metaphorically, why would they leave? If they misunderstood Him (ie, He really meant it metaphorically), why did He allow them to leave based on a misunderstanding?. Not too charitable, I’d say–and very unChrist-like.
He didn’t stop them, because they did understand Him.

 

[crazzeto]

I agree. Our religion believes the same thing. However, the OP was asking how to convince someone that the Eucharist is really Christ’s flesh.

you snipped half of what I wrote, i.e. the direct logical conclusion which is drawn from this passage… So that when a protestant tries to say… oh… Christ is sitting at the right hand of the father, followed by “many people will say Christ is here, or there, do not believe them” in some sort of suggestion that anyone saying that the Eucharist is anything but the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord… Well, lets just say that this passage in Corinthians is the first red flag that perhaps that individual is drawing incorrect conclusions about the Eucharist.

The Apistolic Church has always maintained that the Eucharist is the body, blood soul and divinity of Christ. That is, the Catholic Church as well as the various ethnic Orthodox Churches (Oriental and Eastern).

 

[Danny_Clover]

He gave them a piece of something that had the incidentals of bread, but was his flesh.

How do you know that?

Why did many of his followers leave Him when He said that they must eat His body and drink His blood?

Why did the Rich Young Ruler leave? Why did people leave Him whenever He spoke?

If He was speaking metaphorically, why would they leave?

Do you know what post hoc ergo proctor hoc means?

If they misunderstood Him (ie, He really meant it metaphorically), why did He allow them to leave based on a misunderstanding?.

Why did He allow the Rich Young Ruler to leave?

To answer two…

He allowed the RYR to leave, because the RYR made a decision based on the Truth.

In other words, he understood correctly what our Lord was saying, he just didn’t like what He said.

And how do you know that the people in your scenario didn’t understand?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Why did the Rich Young Ruler leave? Why did people leave Him whenever He spoke?

Why did He allow the Rich Young Ruler to leave?

To answer two…

He allowed the RYR to leave, because the RYR made a decision based on the Truth.

In other words, he understood correctly what our Lord was saying, he just didn’t like what He said.

 

[jmcrae]

The wine remains wine, the bread remains bread, but they also become the Body and Blood, the transubstantiated Presence.

This is incorrect. There is no duality happening.

The appearances (including the tastes and effects) of the bread and wine remain, but their substances (that which makes them to be “bread” and “wine”) is gone, and has been replaced with the substance of the living Christ - Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.

 

[choy]

After which, He gave them a piece of bread, not a piece of His flesh.

yes, it looked like bread, but he said, “take this and eat, THIS IS MY BODY”

unless you’re saying that Jesus is lying when He said “this is my body”

 

[Danny_Clover]

(name removed by moderator):

By the way the logical fallacy you are refering to is not relevant to the passages Luigi quoted.

Actually, it is a textbook example of post hoc ergo proctor hoc.

yes, it looked like bread, but he said, “take this and eat, THIS IS MY BODY”

unless you’re saying that Jesus is lying when He said "this is my body

And, again, HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? How do you know that it was really His flesh? How do you know that Jesus was really commanding them to break His condemnation of cannibalism?

 

[Danny_Clover]

Look, I realize I’m a Protestant and, as such, you all think I’m a moronic scumbag who couldn’t possibly have any clue what I’m talking about, but simply saying “no it’s not” because you can’t bear to admit that a Protestant pointed out that your fellow Catholic made a logical fallacy doesn’t make it so.

Frankly, it’s just foolish and doesn’t represent the Catholic Church well.

If your fellow Catholic says “Jesus said something, they left, therefore, they must not have understood”, that is a textbook example of post hoc ergo proptor hoc.

Now, back to my ignore list where I should have put you after your first rude post.

choy:

a. because Jesus said so

When did Jesus ever say this?

b. because it was how the Apostles taught it from Pentecost, and the same teaching is brought today by the Apostolic Church

Ah, so then you don’t actually believe it because the Bible says so, but because you believe that somebody else believed it, which begs the question, how did they know it?

 

[Returning_Home]

Turns out that many more Catholics believe in the True Presence than that poll showed, because the wording of the poll was bad and people were thus confused about how to answer.

Are you sure you mean symbolic here? If it is real, then it is not symbolic.

Since returning to Catholicism, I’ve taken communion a number of times and have yet to have any flesh or blood in my mouth. It’s always been bread and wine.

 

[choy]

Actually, it is a textbook example of post hoc ergo proctor hoc.

And, again, HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? How do you know that it was really His flesh? How do you know that Jesus was really commanding them to break His condemnation of cannibalism?

a. because Jesus said so
b. because it was how the Apostles taught it from Pentecost, and the same teaching is brought today by the Apostolic Church

 

[jmcrae]

If your fellow Catholic says “Jesus said something, they left, therefore, they must not have understood”, that is a textbook example of post hoc ergo proptor hoc.

No one is saying that they didn’t understand. They understood perfectly - which was why they left - and why Jesus didn’t chase after them saying, “I didn’t mean what you thought I meant!”

 

[jmcrae]

Since returning to Catholicism, I’ve taken communion a number of times and have yet to have any flesh or blood in my mouth. It’s always been bread and wine.

It has always been Jesus, under the appearances of bread and wine.

 

[crazzeto]

Actually, it is a textbook example of post hoc ergo proctor hoc.

And, again, HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? How do you know that it was really His flesh? How do you know that Jesus was really commanding them to break His condemnation of cannibalism?

Have you ever considered how the precepts found in Deut 12 play into the entire discourse in John 6?

John 6:

Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. (6:52) If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.
Joh 6:52 (6:53) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Joh 6:53 (6:54) Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
Joh 6:54 (6:55) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Joh 6:55 (6:56) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 (6:57) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.
…
Joh 6:60 (6:61) Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it?
Joh 6:61 (6:62) But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?
Joh 6:62 (6:63) If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Joh 6:63 (6:64) It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Now here’s the thing, taken in and of it’s self one must wonder why were the Jews so scandalized? Sure it’s a little grotesque but these people lived in voilent times, they were at least as desensatised to violence as we were. One might expect them to just draw the conclusion that Jesus was nutzo, and just walk away… Not angry, but perhaps moching him…

The reason they are scandalized is because of the laws which God gave to Moses for his chosen people. Laws created in part for practial reasons, but also in order to communicate a point many hundreds of years later right there:

Deu 12:23 Only beware of this, that thou eat not the blood, for the blood is for the soul: and therefore thou must not eat the soul with the flesh:
Deu 12:24 But thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water,
Deu 12:25 That it may be well with thee and thy children after thee, when thou shalt do that which is pleasing in the sight of the Lord.

God tells the Jews not to “eat”/(drink) the blood of an animal. Rather it is to be poured out like water on the ground first. Why? Because the blood is the very essense of that being, it is it’s soul, it’s life. Christ is using this to drive home his point, take my blood, my life, my soul, my divinity. He who takes this will have ever lasting life, he who rejects this has no life in him.

 

[Danny_Clover]

Have you ever considered how the precepts found in Deut 12 play into the entire discourse in John 6?

John 6:

Now here’s the thing, taken in and of it’s self one must wonder why were the Jews so scandalized? Sure it’s a little grotesque but these people lived in voilent times, they were at least as desensatised to violence as we were. One might expect them to just draw the conclusion that Jesus was nutzo, and just walk away… Not angry, but perhaps moching him…

The reason they are scandalized is because of the laws which God gave to Moses for his chosen people. Laws created in part for practial reasons, but also in order to communicate a point many hundreds of years later right there:

God tells the Jews not to “eat”/(drink) the blood of an animal. Rather it is to be poured out like water on the ground first. Why? Because the blood is the very essense of that being, it is it’s soul, it’s life. Christ is using this to drive home his point, take my blood, my life, my soul, my divinity. He who takes this will have ever lasting life, he who rejects this has no life in him.

Whatever. I’m not wasting my time on this any more. I’m going swimming.

 

[jmcrae]

When did Jesus ever say this?

I thought Protestants were supposed to be Bible experts?

Matthew 26:26
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

Mark 14:22
And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

Luke 22:19
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

1 Corinthians 11:24
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

John 6:26-69

26Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

27Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

28Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

30They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

31Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

32Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

33For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

34Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

…]

41The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

42And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

43Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

45It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

46Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

47Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48**I am that bread of life.
**
49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

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

64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

69And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

 

[crazzeto]

Whatever. I’m not wasting my time on this any more. I’m going swimming.

Well I can’t lie, I’m more than a little saddened that you are opting not to try and address what the scriptures have to say about the Eucharist being the body, soul and divinity of our risen Lord and saviour Christ Jesus. May God bless you.

 

[jmcrae]

Ah, so then you don’t actually believe it because the Bible says so, but because you believe that somebody else believed it, which begs the question, how did they know it?

Actually, what we believe is that it got into the Bible because the Apostles believed it and were teaching it to the Church, prior to the writing of the New Testament.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Do you know what post hoc ergo proctor hoc means?

I do now

And it has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. Again, I can not imagine a Jesus that would allow a good number of his disciples to leave based on a misunderstanding. That is not only non Christ-like, it is demonic. Even a fallen human being confronted with a similar situation would run after them with a “Hey wait, you didn’t understand what I was saying”.