How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[Joshua27]

[Forgive my slow typing, I’m trying to keep up Lol]

Remember, Christ himself equates “teaching” with “bread”…

John 6: 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread [consume Christ teachings] will live forever; and the bread [teaching] that I will give is my flesh [real spiritual meat] for the life of the world

."

52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” [Thinking carnally/physically]

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.

54 Whoever eats my flesh [Bread=Word] and drinks my blood [Innocent; life-giving water] has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains [Participates=are one] in me and I in him.

Can you describe your worship service, how Jesus is made present to you and your community? thanks:thumbsup:

I don’t understand the question could you rephrase…?

Joshua if what you say is true; then why did Jesus celebrate Mass with his disciples after the resurrection?

Luke 24:29 But they urged him, "Stay with us, for it is nearly evening and the day is almost over." So he went in to stay with them.

30 And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them.

31 With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight.

32 Then they said to each other, “Were not our hearts burning (within us) while he spoke to us on the way and opened the scriptures to us?” …

Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread.

Did he celebrate Mass? Or did he simply break bread with them? Notice that he was going to leave before they stopped and urged him. Also notice that the evening was drawing near (time for another dinner/supper).

Evident in Paul’s rebuke of the people at Corinth, realize that no one eats like this…not even today: no one shares the food of their meal with each other. We all get our own plates, rush through our meal and move on. Christ is deliberate in how he shares his food, thus is was almost a signature of him. That’s why - immediately after - they knew who he was.

Also notice that while this day was Sunday, it was evening, which means it was officially the start of the next day (Monday) by dinner time [recall *first evening and then morning is the next day].

Amen, and we Catholics profess this; Why then is Jesus raise from the dead with his wounds? To offer his sacrificial body, blood for all our sins, for those souls in the past, present and those souls that have not been born. This standing is a Perpetual sacrifice being made for our past sins, our unconfessed sins, and future sins. Without the blood of Jesus their is no remission of sins.

Jesus sits at the right hand of God to claim as King of King and Lord of Lords the Kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven.

Amen…Amen. But have you ever noticed that while his wounds were still open, he had no blood? The life is represented in the blood, so where was his blood? Of course it was sacrificed before he returned to his disciples (recall Christ saying to Mary don’t touch me yet).

You mean to tell me that the perpetual slain lamb is not needed for the babies being born today? How can baptism save these infants and the lost souls if we no longer have the true presence of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity sacrifice to offer up to God? The same body God prepared a body for his son to remain eternally.

The law is eternal, which says that all those under a household are the responsibility of its head. So if the head is saved, so is all of the household…even babies. The blood of Christ already covers them as well.

Catholics never resacrifice Jesus, This eternal sacrifice is made present from the memorial passover feast when Jesus began at the last supper and finished it on the cross. Then delivered us (from his sacramental baptism) from evil when he resurrected to show the Father in heaven the paid price in his life for our sins.

We are drinking the cup of blessing in the present to drink of the 4th cup as Jesus did on the cross, is when we enter into the beatific vision of God. Do you remember Jesus and the apostles never drank of the 4th cup which is the climax of the passover feast. Yes the apostles have drunk their fourth cup in their martyrdom, but we are still celebrating the passover in the cup of blessing which is the third cup as Paul teaches.

Well that’s great to know! But the doctrine I linked (from Roman_Catholic’s post), as well as much of the arguments I’ve heard of others on this thread would suggest otherwise. My apologies if I misunderstood your meaning, particularly.

Yes… I would hope that it be God’s will for the final cup to pass over us, but it was given for all men to die once. So “not my will, but God’s be done.”

---

Nice conversation, Gabriel.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

And on a personal note if your right and it IS the Body and Blood of our Lord doesn’t that mean in the end we poop and **** Him out after digesting Him that is pretty nasty.

Such ignorance of the belief you speak of. :nope:

God bless you

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I understand what you’re saying, but what the church teaches and what others have said are two completely different things…and those are the people I’m correcting. My comments are to those who make this conclusion.

Not once have I said “church”. I am talking to believers, who believe in something incorrect.

Note what you said: "‘once, one sacrifice, forever’ are all things that a Catholic, with a proper understanding of the Church’s teaching, would agree with".

Then the very fact that I am still here arguing my point means that there are those believers who do not have a proper understanding of the Church’s teaching, correct?

—Here’s an edit to my post just to show you I did link to it—

1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.

…However the following is what I’ve been accurately arguing against…

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, -]the Eucharist is also a sacrifice/-]. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: “This is my body which is given for you” and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

You’re going to have to run this by me again. I work for the goverment and as such… well you can guess

If I understand the above it is not the belief of the Church the you have a problem with but a belief wrongly held by some within the Church? A belief which the Church does not teach? I.E. Christ is resacrificed over and over at Mass?

God bless you

 

[UNITE_MY_WILL]

NOT ME!!!
And from my protestant days this still holds true “God said it, and I believe it!”

Joh 6:32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world.”
Joh 6:34 They said to him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”
Joh 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.
Joh 6:36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.
Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out.
Joh 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me;
Joh 6:39 and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day.
Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
Joh 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.”
Joh 6:42 They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
Joh 6:43 Jesus answered them, “Do not murmur among yourselves.
Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.
Joh 6:46 Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father.
Joh 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
Joh 6:48 I am the bread of life.
Joh 6:49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
Joh 6:50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
Joh 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.”
Joh 6:52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
Joh 6:53 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;
Joh 6:54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. **
Joh 6:55 ** For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
Joh 6:58 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."
Joh 6:59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper’na-um.
Joh 6:60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
Joh 6:61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
Joh 6:62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
Joh 6:63 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.
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
Joh 6:65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
Joh 6:66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
Joh 6:67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
Joh 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
Joh 6:69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
Joh 6:70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?”
Joh 6:71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.

and…
Mat 26:26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” **
Mat 26:27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;
Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant**, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

CONT…

 

[UNITE_MY_WILL]

And…
Gen 14:18 And Mel-chiz’edek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.
Gen 14:19 And he blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth;
Gen 14:20 and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” And Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

and…
**Psa 110:4 The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchiz’edek.” **

and…
Mal 1:10 Oh, that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire upon my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand.
Mal 1:11 For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.
Mal 1:12 But you profane it when you say that the LORD’s table is polluted, and the food for it may be despised.
Mal 1:13 ‘What a weariness this is,’ you say, and you sniff at me, says the LORD of hosts. You bring what has been taken by violence or is lame or sick, and this you bring as your offering! Shall I accept that from your hand? says the LORD.
Mal 1:14 Cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished; for I am a great King, says the LORD of hosts, and my name is feared among the nations.

and…
Exo 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old; you shall take it from the sheep or from the goats;
Exo 12:6 and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs in the evening.
Exo 12:7 Then they shall take some of the blood, and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat them.
Exo 12:8 **They shall eat the flesh **that night, roasted; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it.

and…
Joh 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

and…
1Co 5:7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed.
1Co 5:8 Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

and…
1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, **is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not **a participation in the body of Christ?
1Co 10:17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

Peace,
T

 

[UnworthyApostle]

My post earlier coupled with the Bible verses posted by other members demonstrate that Christ is literally present in the Eucharist. See, when scripture alone is used, the discussion just turns into a verse slinging match. When I was an Evangelical Lutheran, I believed in the Literal Presence, but other’s within the evangelical circle disagreed with me. The discussions looked much like this one that is on this post. So, when traditon is removed from the equation, chaos happens.
In the words of St. Jerome:
“And let them not flatter you themselves if they think they have Scripture authority since the devil himself has quoted Scripture texts…we could all, while preserving in the letter of Scripture, read into it some novel doctrine”
I or anyone else can read what we want to see in scripture, so tradition is needed to establish orthodoxy.
So, let these words of Chrysostom suffice to show what the Catholic Church has always taught:
“Do we drink blood, and eat flesh? And then be perplexed (for when He began to discourse concerning these things, even at the very sayings many were offended), therefore lest they should be troubled then likewise, He first did this Himself, leading them to the calm participation of the mysteries. Therefore He Himself drank His own blood.” It seems many are still offended today.

 

[Joshua27]

You’re going to have to run this by me again. I work for the goverment and as such… well you can guess

If I understand the above it is not the belief of the Church the you have a problem with but a belief wrongly held by some within the Church? A belief which the Church does not teach? I.E. Christ is resacrificed over and over at Mass?

God bless you

I just re-read my answer to you and it does sound confusing (LOL).

My concern is for believers, not the Church. Now I know many equate “church” as “body of believers”, but we have so many Churches (denominations) today - all with valid pieces of truth - that I don’t like to paint with too broad of a brush anymore.

1362 of the link you gave me says this…which I agree with:

*The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial. *

However the document then goes into #1365 and further…which is what I argue against:

Because it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: “This is my body which is given for you” and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

…From the same link you provided me.

I’m arguing, “because it was already performed in the past - and remains effective for eternity - the weekly Eucharist offered (the bread and wine many participate in today) is not a sacrifice, but a memorial (exclusively)…because the original sacrifice - made back then - is (still) eternally effective.”

 

[Nominefili]

Every year after lent I am taught something very important. This time for some reason I could not get my mind off of the Eucharist.

John 6:66 (the devils numbers) That blows my mind.

Did anyone ever really make that connection. That is the scripture where the disciples that could not accept the true teaching that Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is the living Christ left Jesus and walked away.

Judas comes to mind. It was Judas that was one of his Apostles and left Jesus. Did you notice when he left him. At the Eucharist!!! Judas could not accept that teaching.

As a kid me and my brother when we were first beginning to drive would go to Church and split right after communion. My Dad would always say are you like Judas are you going to leave right after the Eucharist

I never really understood until years later what he was saying. Trust me I stay now!!

Jesus was quite clear when he stated For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. John 6:53-56)

Even the disciples said this is a hard saying who can listen to it? See Jesus knew some would not believe. This is where Judas fell away. John 6:64.

Many say he was speaking sybolically. But he wasn’t. If so both the Jews who were suspicious of him and the disciples who accepted everything up to this point would have remained with him if he were.

But he did not correct the protesters.

12 times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven.

4 times he said he said they would have to eat my flesh and drink my blood.

Who can really accept this teaching? Can you?

We as Roman Catholic’s are not just symbolically commemorating Jesus in the Eucharist we are actually participating in his body and blood as Paul tells us.

The cup of blessing which we bless, IS IT NOT a participation in the blood of Christ. The bread which we bread, IS IT NOT a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor 10:16)

Jesus said DO THIS in memory of me!! Do This!!!

The burden of proof is on those who claim it is merely symbolic. Both the Scriptures and the early church confess the Real Presence.

John 6:52-56:

"Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

 

[cbsjrcol]

I just re-read my answer to you and it does sound confusing (LOL).

My concern is for believers, not the Church. Now I know many equate “church” as “body of believers”, but we have so many Churches (denominations) today - all with valid pieces of truth - that I don’t like to paint with too broad of a brush anymore.

1362 of the link you gave me says this…which I agree with:

The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.

However the document then goes into #1365 and further…which is what I argue against:

Because it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: “This is my body which is given for you” and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

…From the same link you provided me.

I’m arguing, “because it was already performed in the past - and remains effective for eternity - the weekly Eucharist offered (the bread and wine many participate in today) is not a sacrifice, but a memorial (exclusively)…because the original sacrifice - made back then - is (still) eternally effective.”

I have enjoyed following this discussion and I would simply add the following comment…It’s a common mistake to equate sacrifice with death. To understand the sacrifice of the Mass, it is essential that one understand the biblical picture of a sacrifice: It is always a gift; it is not always a killing. This is why Scripture can speak of a sacrifice of praise (Hos. 4:12) and the sacrifice of thanksgiving (Ps. 50:14).

God’s Peace

 

[Radical]

The burden of proof is on those who claim it is merely symbolic. Both the Scriptures and the early church confess the Real Presence.

I believe that you should have specified that your interpretation of Scripture results in scripture confessing to a Real Presence. You quote John 6:52-56:

"Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

Non-literal intrepretations of that passage have a very long history. Augustine for example stated (in On Chrstian Doctrine bk 3) :

*…If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. *

I do not feel compelled to accept your interpretation and understand that scripture confesses a RP.

I believe that you also should have specifed that certain early Chruch fathers (except for the likes of Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Augustine) confessed to a belief in a RP.

Given that scripture need not be interpreted to confess a RP and that the early church was far from uniform wrt its beliefs regarding the Lord’s Supper and given that we all note that no observable change occurs in the elements, I would suggest that the burden of proof lies with those claiming that a real bodily presence exists where where no physical presence exists.

 

[Radical]

I have enjoyed following this discussion and I would simply add the following comment…It’s a common mistake to equate sacrifice with death. To understand the sacrifice of the Mass, it is essential that one understand the biblical picture of a sacrifice: It is always a gift; it is not always a killing. This is why Scripture can speak of a sacrifice of praise (Hos. 4:12) and the sacrifice of thanksgiving (Ps. 50:14).

God’s Peace

The ECFs also viewed good works as constituting sacrifices. So then in your opinion, what is the sacrifice in the Catholic Mass…who is giving what gift to whom?

 

[cbsjrcol]

I believe that you should have specified that your interpretation of Scripture results in scripture confessing to a Real Presence. You quote John 6:52-56:

"Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

Non-literal intrepretations of that passage have a very long history. Augustine for example stated (in On Chrstian Doctrine bk 3) :

*…If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. *

I do not feel compelled to accept your interpretation and understand that scripture confesses a RP.

I believe that you also should have specifed that certain early Chruch fathers (except for the likes of Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Augustine) confessed to a belief in a RP.

Given that scripture need not be interpreted to confess a RP and that the early church was far from uniform wrt its beliefs regarding the Lord’s Supper and given that we all note that no observable change occurs in the elements, I would suggest that the burden of proof lies with those claiming that a real bodily presence exists where where no physical presence exists.

I might suggest that you google “eucharistic miracles”. One miracle that is endorsed by the Catholic Church happened in the 8th century in Lanciano Italy. You might find it interesting.

God’s Peace

 

[cbsjrcol]

The ECFs also viewed good works as constituting sacrifices. So then in your opinion, what is the sacrifice in the Catholic Mass…who is giving what gift to whom?

I might suggest you refer to the Catholic Catechism para 1362-1372. You probably already have a link to it, but… usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt1art3.shtml#1362

God’s Peace

 

[Radical]

I might suggest that you google “eucharistic miracles”. One miracle that is endorsed by the Catholic Church happened in the 8th century in Lanciano Italy. You might find it interesting.

God’s Peace

Thanks, I know of such alleged miracles and note:

a) that “miracle” doesn’t match the claim. The claim is very specific in that the whole Christ is supposed to be truly, really and substantially present, yet the alleged miracle has (in the ones I have looked at) only a bit of his heart present. Further, the explanation that I have been given as to how Christ can be present “whole and entire” in heaven and in thousands and thousands of bits at once is b/c of the nature of his presence in the bits. I note however, that his molecular presence in the bit from the Eucharistic miracle is not at all like his alleged presence in the Eucharistic elements…so how does that work? Is the heart of Christ in heaven whole?..or are a few bits missing?; and

b) the integrity of the evidence is dreadful…ie tracing the tested piece back to the element that was originally consecrated.

 

[cbsjrcol]

Thanks, I know of such alleged miracles and note:

a) that “miracle” doesn’t match the claim. The claim is very specific in that the whole Christ is supposed to be truly, really and substantially present, yet the alleged miracle has (in the ones I have looked at) only a bit of his heart present. Further, the explanation that I have been given as to how Christ can be present “whole and entire” in heaven and in thousands and thousands of bits at once is b/c of the nature of his presence in the bits. I note however, that his molecular presence in the bit from the Eucharistic miracle is not at all like his alleged presence in the Eucharistic elements…so how does that work? Is the heart of Christ in heaven whole?..or are a few bits missing?; and

b) the integrity of the evidence is dreadful…ie tracing the tested piece back to the element that was originally consecrated.

I have enjoyed our conversation and will pray for the blessings of the Holy Spirit to come upon you. I was for many years a “cafeteria Catholic” and over the last couple of years have come to the realization that my faith is kind of like being pregnant…either you are or not, or said another way…either you’re with us or against us. It is comforting to know that as Christians we believe almost the same things and that is wonderful. The reading of Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn was a great personal help to me. I have great appreciation for Ecumenism and hope that one day we will all be ONE just as Jesus desires!!

God’s Peace

 

[Nicea325]

I would suggest that the burden of proof lies with those claiming that a real bodily presence exists where where no physical presence exists

Nope! That is merely a cop-out by those who deny it. The burden of proof is on those to support such a novel belief from the early church. History is not on your side and to state otherwise is a mere fallacy. Even early church councils confirm it.

Renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

Here a few sources:

Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

Clement of Alexandria

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

**
Council of Nicaea I**

“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters *, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

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” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

Council of Ephesus

“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).*

 

[Nicea325]

It is not symbolic. Since when was the Spiritual considered NOT real!?

It was Real and it was Spiritual (this is not a paradox)…but the most important point I want to emphasize is "It was already done for you on that day."

THIS is why OUR partaking of it is now a memorial, because it was already performed back then. Christ has already sacrificed himself for you; us. There is no additional work required on our part (once we’ve laid our sins on the lamb) but to thank Him by remembering what he has done.

Note: Christ is speaking to his disciples about something that was about to soon occur (present tense) back then, that they would see happen. Today, our reckoning of it is past tense. But we are stuck in a time loop of sin because we can’t accept that we have already been saved, and sanctified (if we laid our sins onto the lamb).

It is a lie; a subtle deception by our enemy to believe that we have to sacrifice Christ over and over, of which the repeated act suggests that the original act wasn’t good enough.

The Son NOW sits at the right hand of the Father, doesn’t he? He’s not on the alter anymore, correct? He now sits at the right hand of all power and glory, waiting until his enemies are made his footstool.

But think about this: who is the only one who’d revel in Christ, the Son of God, reliving and resuffering the most painful and agonizing moment in his life, but the only one who caused the conditions that required Christ to make this sacrifice in the first place?

See.

…But to answer your question about people misunderstanding, here’s what Christ said to his close disciples…

…So not everyone was supposed to know at the same time.

Sorry,been there…done that! You still have not provided me the overwhelming evidence that the EARLY CHURCH & FATHERS all taught it was merely symbolic?

 

[answermethis]

Not I. My Lord is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinityin the Blessed Sacrament :knight1:

 

[Roy5]

I haven’t taken a poll, but over the years I have discussed theology, including the Eucharist, with a number of Catholics - family members and friends.

It seems to be that almost all of them treasure the Eucharist but do not believe that they are receiving the actual body and blood of Christ. Like most Protestants, they regard it as symbolic - important and even powerful to most of them but not as the church teaches. Are these people heretics? Have they automatically excommunicated themselves? Should they avoid receiving communion altogether? What should they be told? I doubt if their priests know their doubts or disbeliefs. Should they confess their disbelief?
My analysis? We live in an age when it's difficult for most people to believe that a prayer of consecration spoken by a priest in any way changes the substance of bread and wine. That can seem like a superstition more in keeping with the Middle Ages. But the idea that the spirit of Christ is present at Mass - that he is indeed present - is easy to accept. Didn't he promise to be with us always and everywhere?

 

[cbsjrcol]

I haven’t taken a poll, but over the years I have discussed theology, including the Eucharist, with a number of Catholics - family members and friends.

It seems to be that almost all of them treasure the Eucharist but do not believe that they are receiving the actual body and blood of Christ. Like most Protestants, they regard it as symbolic - important and even powerful to most of them but not as the church teaches. Are these people heretics? Have they automatically excommunicated themselves? Should they avoid receiving communion altogether? What should they be told? I doubt if their priests know their doubts or disbeliefs. Should they confess their disbelief?

My analysis? We live in an age when it's difficult for most people to believe that a prayer of consecration spoken by a priest in any way changes the substance of bread and wine. That can seem like a superstition more in keeping with the Middle Ages. But the idea that the spirit of Christ is present at Mass - that he is indeed present - is easy to accept. Didn't he promise to be with us always and everywhere?

Let me share one “cradle Catholic’s” view… I had the opportunity recently to make a quick announcement at the end of Mass regarding a class we were going to conduct on “The Mass Explained”. My final words to the congregation were in the form of a question…“Ask your spouse etc…to explain to you Why they are a Catholic?”. Several folks came up to me after and said they had never thought of actually being able to define (in words) why they were Catholic. My favorite comment though was from a person who simply said “because my parents told me I was a Catholic”. This person went on to say that the last time they had studied Catholicism was for Confirmation…at age 12.

I don’t think this is unique to the Catholic Church, but I only mention it to say that each and every one of us needs to be able to answer the question…why are you a ???

Finally, the lack of knowedge by a Catholic does NOT mean that the teachings of the Church are incorrect.

God’s Peace