How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[rev_kevin]

Hi, Rev Kevin,

“Trap”? What “trap”?

It appears to me that you are alrady in a box. Merely saying, “I don’t see it…” and “What evidence is there…” is hardly an argument against belief. We are not talking about an algebra equation that can be proven - even to the last member in the algebra class… We are talking about an article of FAITH. Our Faith is on the words of Christ - since you only want what is in the Bible (as opposed to the full Deposit of Faith that also includes Apostolic Tradation) you will be forced to go and climb this wall at this with only one hand. But, that is your choice. What should be noted is that you have been given at least five different scripture sections clearly identifying that Christ gave us His Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity that are hidden under the appearances of Bread and Wine.

The burden is on you, Rev. You do realize that the Church of Christ came into existence on that First Pentecost Sunday - and your church was 16 centuries behind this. All of the official teaching of the Church of Christ - and, that would be the Catholic Church - clearly identifies that Christ is present at the Consecration. Sixteen humdred years later - someone decides that this is just a symbol? And, they try to use the Bible - whose Canon was established by the Catholic Church to prove this? Does this make any sense to you?

But, again, the issue is one of Faith - and St. Augustine may have said it best (Early Church Father who firmly believed in Christ being physically present in the Eucharist) when prayed for more Faith so he could understand - not more understanding so he could have faith.

Now, really, if you do not have Faith here, you just do not have Faith. But, there is nothing stopping you from asking for more Faith. In fact, I think there are several posters out there who will be joining me in praying that you do get that needed increase in Faith.

Oh, and that “Trap” you worried about … I think it is the Loving Arms of Our Savior. He really is in the Eucharist… that is why it is called the Real Presence. You know, He was once asked how much He loved us … and He stretched out His Arms … and was then nailed to the Cross.

God bless

So telling the truth that " don’t see it"or "hat evidence is there"is somehow hardly a agument against belief. I don’t see it means I don’t see that the real body of Jesus is in the bread and you have not proven otherwise which is what I mean by what evidence is there. The only thing that has been pointed out is “this is my body” which I say is meant as a symbol and not his actual body. You say that it can’t be proven but yet you choose to defend it by saying the proof is “this is my body.” You say that your faith is on the word of God then you say that I only want what is only in the Bible, well isn’t the Bible the word of God.
Faith is a allegeance to duty or a person. LOYALTY. fidelity to one’s promises. belief and trust in and loyalty to God. belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion. firm belief in something for which there is no proof. complete confidence. something that is believed especially with strong convistion, a system of religious beliefs.
Please don’t tell me that I have no faith just because I don’t see things the way you see them. I don’t question your faith so please don’t question mine.
What are the 5 verses that are hidden under the bread and wine?

Do you know how sick and tired I am hearing that my church was founded in the 16 century and yours was since the first pentecost. And by the way I don’t believe that the CC is the church founded by Jesus eather.
Now if I don’t have faith that Jesus is in the bread and wine then I have no faith is something to laugh at. I don’t need your prayers of getting more faith because I have faith, just not from your religions point of it.
Another thing, don’t tell me that I worried about the loving arms of Our Savior because I’m not. I love Our Savior more than you can imagine. Just don’t give me that because I don’t believe or follow the CC that my faith, love, belief in Our Savior is any less then yours.

 

[shawn38]

Wow! And Christ is not capable of giving his body and blood under outward appearances? Explain to me Rev how God is not capable of such a possibility?

I don’t understand what you mean by outward appearance. I thought that the eucharist maintains the outward physical appearance of bread and wine and its scientific properties, but to the faithful, it becomes the body and blood of Christ.

Matt 26
27Then he took the cup…
28This is my blood…
29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine…

So we go from wine to blood and back to wine. If were expected to accept the transubstantiated wine as blood as verse 28 indicates, but not take verse 29 literally too. This would seem inconsistent.

 

[shawn38]

The Lord did not institute His church on arbitrary symbols.

Did someone ever say that the symbols were arbitrary? I have not. They are very symbolic.

 

[shawn38]

But, again, the issue is one of Faith - and St. Augustine may have said it best (Early Church Father who firmly believed in Christ being physically present in the Eucharist) when prayed for more Faith so he could understand - not more understanding so he could have faith.

Augustine as late at 400 AD, quotes Cyprian as saying that the juice is offered in remembrance as a type and foreshadow of the blood of Christ:

““Observe” he (Cyprian) says, in presenting the cup, to maintain the custom handed down to us from the Lord, and to do nothing that our Lord has not first done for us: so that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be mixed with wine. For, as Christ says, ‘I am the true vine,’ it follows that the blood of Christ is wine, not water; and the cup cannot appear to contain His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened, if the wine be absent; for by the wine is the blood of Christ typified, that blood which is foreshadowed and proclaimed in all the types and declarations of Scripture.” (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book 4, ch 21, quoting Cyprian)

 

[PRmerger]

Did someone ever say that the symbols were arbitrary? I have not. They are very symbolic.

That is a tautology. Symbols are symbolic?

That provides no insight whatsoever.

 

[Cinette]

Why don’t you speak directly to me? Is that any less rude? The few times I have sniggered it has only been in reply to smug superiority. I otherwise am very sincere and serious here. But I won’t just take self-righteous accusations with a loving smile.

*One could say that when I wrote that post I was reflecting aloud…sort of talking to myself… Now you interpret that as rude! Hmmm… Perhaps it follows since your stance on this discussion has been one of misinterpretation throughout.

Is this necessary?

Catholics on this thread have been stating their belief and have a right to do so just as non-Catholics have a right to state why they have a different belief. Those who snigger do not do justice to themselves. Perhaps it might be a good idea to reflect and consider rather than to dismiss outright.

I am always grateful to Protestants for their participation because it gets me going… I go and check and discuss their comments and beliefs and look for the correct interpretation. I find it interesting and stimulating and I grow and learn. Protestants are valuable to us.

God bless all
Cinette

 

[KathleenGee]

Tertullian’s teachings are still kept and drawn on in the Catholic Church. But he later fell into a type of heretical ascetism…a great loss.

We already have a dispute here over what is concrete and what is symbolic. So we can’t even go forward. The Church did go forward with the apostles and their successors.

 

[KathleenGee]

tqualey,

Post 445 nails it. It is a matter of faith. All the hashing over and over, sharing historical documents means nothing.

Assuming the Catholic Church is considering itself superior is not what it is drawing on. What the Church is drawing on is its founder in Christ. There have been proud and arrogant clergy, but that is not the spirit of the Church, the bride of Christ.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine…

. . . but not take verse 29 literally too. This would seem inconsistent.

shawn,

Just out of curiosity what is the literal interpretation of verse 29 (the whole verse) ?

Thanks,
VC

 

[larkin31]

*One could say that when I wrote that post I was reflecting aloud…sort of talking to myself… Now you interpret that as rude! Hmmm… Perhaps it follows since your stance on this discussion has been one of misinterpretation throughout. *

Help me understand–what have I misunderstood?

 

[shawn38]

That is a tautology. Symbols are symbolic?

That provides no insight whatsoever.

No it’s not.

tau·tol·o·gy   
–noun, plural -gies.

1. needless repetition of an idea, esp. in words other than those of the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clearness, as in “widow woman.”
2. an instance of such repetition.

Just as the Jews were commanded to keep the Passover for several reasons, we are told commanded to “Do this” in remembrance of Him.

The Lord’s Supper is an anti-type of the Jewish Passover.

1 Cor 5:7 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

 

[shawn38]

Assuming the Catholic Church is considering itself superior is not what it is drawing on. What the Church is drawing on is its founder in Christ. There have been proud and arrogant clergy, but that is not the spirit of the Church, the bride of Christ.

But what it has to do with is the sufficiency of Christ’s death for the atonement of sins. The mass signifies that Christ’s death was not sufficient.

The Paradox

“Real Presense” believers ridicule non-real presense believers on the basis that we put Christ in a box, that Christ can’t do everything He wants like transforming bread and wine into His body and blood.

Yet, “Real Presense” believers fail to believe that Christ’s death was sufficient at forgiving all sins of the believer and that additional atoning work (ie. mass) is necessary.

Non-real presense belivers are expected to believe that Christ can do everything except for dying once for all sins.

Christ cannot do everything! Can He lie?

 

[KathleenGee]

Shawn,

Scripture says the just man sins 7 times a day.

And at this very moment, there is ALOT of it is going on 24/7 all over the world.

Padre Pio said the world will not realize how much good the Mass has done until it is gone. Revelations refer to the ceasing of the Daily Sacrifice.

Your local Catholic bishop and pastor pray for all people who live in their diocese and parishes and offer up the Mass for you as well. St. Justin the Martyr is the first to teach others what the Mass was, not even particularly focusing on the Eucharist as everyone believed in those days.

Jews who come to witness the Mass.can see so much meaning…John Paul II said Catholics are fulfilled Jews…Read, ‘Salvation is from the Jews’, by Roy Shoeman…in fact he has his site, www.salvationisfromthejews.com.

Scott Hahn was very anti-Catholic, always focusing on our ‘works’. Then he went into a Catholic Mass and immediately understood everything that was happening. He is a former protestant minister and great convert. He explains in great depth the sacraments. Dr. Scott Hahn.

I like to study Scripture from the Mass. It would be good for you to go to a daily Mass where the priest explains the Liturgy of the Word readings and the communicants respond in dialogue. Yes, Jesus is the Atonement for our sins, the Paschal Lamb, and there is no perfection until we are saved in heaven.

 

[shawn38]

shawn,

Just out of curiosity what is the literal interpretation of verse 29 (the whole verse) ?

Thanks,
VC

In a nut shell

I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine. He is done with earthly rites, and this moment points them to a future reunion, Christ’s return, at the marriage supper of the Lamb.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine. He is done with earthly rites, and this moment points them to a future reunion, Christ’s return, at the marriage supper of the Lamb.

That is the literal interpretation? Also, what do you make of the rest of that verse?

Thanks,
VC

 

[shawn38]

Shawn,

Scripture says the just man sins 7 times a day.

Where scripture says that, I’m not sure.

Everyone will attest to the fact that we still sin. We have a sinful nature about ourselves. But by becoming a curse to the Law, Christ abolished our obligation to the Law. So are we to keep on sinning, God forbid. Paul handles this quite well in Romans. Anyone who thinks Christ’s death on the cross is a free pass to keep on sinning, well they never knew Him.

But Christ now lives to make intercession for us in Heaven, in the Heavenly true tabernacle. It’s not through any new sacrifices (Hebrews handles quite well), but the one sacrifice that was sufficient for all time. It’s by grace that we are saved. Grace is not somekthing we could ever merit. That is the beauty of the gospel. We no longer have to worry about our certainty if we just trust in the Lord.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Shawn38,

I can’t believe you are really taking some selected writings from certain ECF and claiming that they spoke for the Catholic Church.

Here is a link to the definitive statement and teachings of the Catholic Church on the Real Presence - catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=9873

You really have to look at the big picture if you are going to criticize the big picture.

God bless

I’m taking a historical look at matters. The way the church refuted the Gnostics was based upon the symbolic view. As late as 200 AD, Tertullian bases the reality of Christ’s body on the cross, upon the fact that the bread is symbolic:

“Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, “This is my body,” that is a “figure of my body.” On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)

Had Tertullian argued, just as Irenaeus did, that the natural elements of common juice and bread were transubstantiated into something different than what they appear, namely the body and blood of Christ, the Gnostics would have agreed completely. However they did not. The literalistic language was typical of how people talked on all sides of the debate before 200AD. Transubstantiation only became official Catholic doctrine in 1215 AD, with Pope Innocent III, in the Fourth Lateran Council.

 

[Ismael]

Yet, “Real Presense” believers fail to believe that Christ’s death was sufficient at forgiving all sins of the believer and that additional atoning work (ie. mass) is necessary.

We do not fail to see that in Christ’s sacrifice.

Read what the Cathechis says for example:

Christ’s death is the unique and definitive sacrifice

613 Christ’s death is both the Paschal sacrifice that accomplishes the definitive redemption of men, through “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”, and the sacrifice of the New Covenant, which restores man to communion with God by reconciling him to God through the “blood of the covenant, which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”.

614 This sacrifice of Christ is unique; it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices. First, it is a gift from God the Father himself, for the Father handed his Son over to sinners in order to reconcile us with himself. At the same time it is the offering of the Son of God made man, who in freedom and love offered his life to his Father through the Holy Spirit in reparation for our disobedience.

and adds:

Our participation in Christ’s sacrifice

618 The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the “one mediator between God and men”. But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, “the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” is offered to all men.He calls his disciples to “take up [their] cross and follow (him)”,for "Christ also suffered for (us), leaving (us) an example so that (we) should follow in his steps."In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries. This is achieved supremely in the case of his mother, who was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive suffering. Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven.

Link: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1O.HTM

 

[PRmerger]

No it’s not.

tau·tol·o·gy   
–noun, plural -gies.

1. needless repetition of an idea, esp. in words other than those of the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clearness, as in “widow woman.”
2. an instance of such repetition.

Please explain, then, what you mean by this. It sounds like you’re saying “symbols are not arbitrary, they’re symbolic.” That sounds like a “needless repetition of an idea”, like “widow woman”. A tautaology.

But please explain what “symbols are symbolic” means.

Did someone ever say that the symbols were arbitrary? I have not. They are very symbolic.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Shawn38,

We need to be very clear about who it is you are talking about … truly … there seems to some genuine confusion here.

But what it has to do with is the sufficiency of Christ’s death for the atonement of sins. The mass signifies that Christ’s death was not sufficient.

Maybe the Mass signifies this you, Shawn38 - but, this is certainly not the teaching of the Catholic Church. Now, it was this same Catholic Church that gave you the Bible you are using - even the abridged version you have has 1Peter 3:18 in it - and, it clearly states that Christ died ONCE for all.

The Paradox

“Real Presense” believers ridicule non-real presense believers on the basis that we put Christ in a box, that Christ can’t do everything He wants like transforming bread and wine into His body and blood.

Now, by “Real Presence believers” do you mean Catholics? If you also are including another group, please identify them. And would that make “Non Real Presence Believers” everyone else?

Ridicule is never appropriate. I am not familiar with this idea of ‘…we put Christ in a box…’. Do you mean the Consecrated Host is placed in the Tabernacle?

Well, I guess you are going to have to explain that a little more. As I understand John 6, Christ demonstrated He had power over nature (fed 5,000 and clamed the sea) and then announced that He would give us His Flesh to eat - and, actually requires us to eat His Flesh if we are to have life in Him." The Jews walked away in disbelief. The 16th Century protestants and their followers walked away in disbelief. So, as I see it, either you believe the clearly stated words of Christ or, you don’t. If you are not sure about the Catholic teaching about the Real Presence … here is a link you may find helpful: catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=9873

Yet, “Real Presense” believers fail to believe that Christ’s death was sufficient at forgiving all sins of the believer and that additional atoning work (ie. mass) is necessary.

I have NO IDEA where you got that idea - but, it is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. Seriously, if you dispute Catholic teaching - then you need to become familiar with Catholic teaching from the Catholic Church - and not some round-about method where distortion and prejudice influce the writer. The link I gave you should clear up some errors in your concern.

Non-real presense belivers are expected to believe that Christ can do everything except for dying once for all sins.

Christ cannot do everything! Can He lie?

This really seems a bit jumbled. Let’s see if some clarification can help. Since you have identified yourself as a Protestant, that would appear to mean you are also a “Non-Real Presence Believer”. Is that correct? Since Protestantism is really not a set standard for belief - except to the extent that they all disavow anything Catholic (which makes even their abridged Bible a bit of logical problem…) it is hard to say what they exactly believe. So, if you are saying, “… that Christ can do everything EXCEPT for dyng once for all sins…” I guess you know what you are talking about. But, again, I would refer to 1Peter 3:18 for a totally different view.

So, let’s see where we are: I have identified that you really do not know Catholic doctrine and really should not be speaking about it because what you have said so far is filled with error about just what Catholics believe.

I have invited you to clarify the position you listed as a “Non-Real-Presence Believer” and requested that you square this with 1Peter 3:18.

Finally, you really are invited to look at all of John 6 and the Last Supper account listed in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Here you have the Words of Christ - the True God-man who stated very clearly what He was going to do and what we are expected to do if we are to follow Him.

I am lookikng forward to hearing from you

God bless.