How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[rinnie]

a follower doesn’t neccassarily believe all that the master teaches… IE: Judas

You are making athe ssumption that because John uses the word disciples, he is claiming that those who left, believed Jesus was the Messiah. If you read through the 4 gospels you will find that Jesus had a lot of people following him but can you prove that those who followed Him and fell away accepted Him to be THE messiah. again IE Judas. Peter, John, and those who stayed with Him did not understand all that Jesus was teaching either, but they stayed with him, why? because Peter believed Him to be the Messiah.

In this instance i do not believe these people believed Him to be Messiah. they where following Him for what they can get physically. In this instance food. In a modern sense, Food stamps…or a handout.

Please take into concideration what John says about Judas and what he beleived, in the last part of ch.6 Juda continued to follow ( loose term but that is what he did) but did not accept Jesus as Messiah. ( the Holy one of God as Peter put it throught he words of John.)

How does John 6 fit with what John said was his purpose for this letter later. he said**" I write theses thing so that you may know that Jesus is the Messiah"? **to extrapulate comunion out of this passage becomes a stretch, and was not Johns intent when taking the above quote into concideration. The cup and wine where far off at this time and John doesn’t even include this during is rendition of the upper room.

Squiggley lines are concidered explatives( inapproprate language) in literary circles, used to try not to offend someone who might read them. especially public forums.
ex: newspapers…

If you don’t swear why use them( the squiggleys)? Not following your logic here.
I can change D***** to darn… but in the context of the type of sentence which D**** is usually being used, they are both being used for the same purpose.
Therefore both words become inappropriate. think about it.

Huh? Where did Judas ever deny that Jesus was the Son of God? Could you show me that scripture. Thanks I know that Judas was a devil and Jesus knew he would betray him. But where did it ever state that Judas did not beleve in Jesus. Even the devil himself believes in God for goodness sakes. He just rejects him. There is a big difference in rejecting God and believing that he exists.

 

[Nicea325]

I took your advice and this is what I found:
The doctrine (Eucharist) was approved by Council of Trent in the 16th century and the term was first used in the 12th century.
Eucharist is Greek (eucharistia) meandiing thanksgiving.
Eucharist is a symbol, that’s what St Augustine called it in the 4th century of the Christian era, “per modum symboli.”

When Jesus was about to die for the sins of the world, he had one last meal with his disciples. At this point Jesus wanted to teach the meaning of his death. Jesus took bread and tore it in pieces, saying this is my body. representing his body which will be torn and shredded for you. My body will be broken for your sake. The cup of wine was a symbol of Jesus’ blood which would be spilt for your sake. So the symbolic action of the Eucharist is that Jesus was saying these elements represent his death on the cross for our sins.

Kevin how about telling something new and not the same boring Protestant distortions? The doctrine of the Eucharist was APPROVED in the 16th century and first used in the 12th century? Okay Kevin,if you say so. Have you been bought out by Protestant distortions? Kevin care to show me which Apostle used the term Trinity and explained all three distinct persons?

As for Augustine believing the Eucharist was symbolic? Keep wishing the rest of your life he believed your novelty. Augustine a Protestant? :whacky:

 

[Nicea325]

*Originally Posted by shawn38
These select writings are of those considered ECF and must be considered when looking at the big picture. Lets not selectively dismiss certain works and claim others from the same ECFs.

If the “Real Presence” was the common understanding why didn’t transubstantiation become official Catholic doctrine earlier than 1215 AD, with Pope Innocent III, in the Fourth Lateran Council?*

If the “Trinity” and “Incarnation” and “Two-natures of Christ” and “Canon of Scripture” was the common understanding why did it take the church nearly 400 YEARS to make it OFFICIAL doctrine?

Shawn 38 care to elaborate?

 

[TriuneUnity]

*Originally Posted by shawn38
These select writings are of those considered ECF and must be considered when looking at the big picture. Lets not selectively dismiss certain works and claim others from the same ECFs.

If the “Real Presence” was the common understanding why didn’t transubstantiation become official Catholic doctrine earlier than 1215 AD, with Pope Innocent III, in the Fourth Lateran Council?*

If the “Trinity” and “Incarnation” and “Two-natures of Christ” and “Canon of Scripture” was the common understanding why did it take the church nearly 400 YEARS to make it OFFICIAL doctrine?

Shawn 38 care to elaborate?

He won’t be able to. Like many, there is the assumption that a doctrine began when a council made a statement about it. Of course, this is factually absurd.

The reason that a council was called to begin with was because a doctrine that was already accepted among the universal Christian community was being challenged by another element, usually in the minority. So, the ahistorical individual looks at the Council of Nicea and says “See, no one believed that Christ was fully God, equal with the Father, eternal, and uncreated until 325!” This is the same argument that skeptics and atheists make for the canon of Scripture, or its inspiration.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

When Jesus was about to die for the sins of the world, he had one last meal with his disciples. At this point Jesus wanted to teach the meaning of his death. Jesus took bread and tore it in pieces, saying this is my body. representing his body which will be torn and shredded for you. My body will be broken for your sake. The cup of wine was a symbol of Jesus’ blood which would be spilt for your sake. So the symbolic action of the Eucharist is that Jesus was saying these elements represent his death on the cross for our sins.

rev kevin, and others,

I’m not sure I’ve ever quite understood the core notion in this view, as represented above. What I don’t quite understand is the meaning of what Jesus is portrayed to have done.

What I mean is that it was the night before His agonizing death. He had one last moment with His apostles before the fulfillment of His whole purpose on earth, and it was a moment of (I would think) momentous import. A “Last Will and Testament” kind of moment, I suppose. Why would He perform so solemn an action, on so solemn a night, which seems to me, in this view, to be somewhat unnecessary?

I am asking this sincerely, I hope proponents of this view can help guide me, because I think I am missing an important piece of the puzzle. Is the idea that Jesus simply broke bread in order to show the Apostles, somewhat like a visual aid, that He was going to die?

Thanks,
VC

 

[Nicea325]

Now about your first sentence here, I never said that Christ is not capable of giving his body and blood under outward appearances, so don’t say something or insinuate something I never said. :dts:

About my face turning blue it would only be me holding my breath waiting for you to see the truth of what Christ meant. But I won’t give you the pleasure

I do not have to insinuate anything,your belief says it all.

I beg your pardon? Hold your breath for me to see the Truth? Last time I checked you follow a church founded CENTURIES later,so the pleasure is all mine to know you have no clue what Christ meant. By all means follow a ‘newbie’ church with a novel belief.

 

[cruisin]

Huh? Where did Judas ever deny that Jesus was the Son of God? Could you show me that scripture. Thanks I know that Judas was a devil and Jesus knew he would betray him. But where did it ever state that Judas did not beleve in Jesus. Even the devil himself believes in God for goodness sakes. He just rejects him. There is a big difference in rejecting God and believing that he exists.

I will agree this may be a little presumtious on my part after reviewing the text.

64
But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. 65 “those who would not believe.” Who was he referring to here? those who walked away? and the one who would betray? Judas?

65
And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” this statement, using an old cliche’, seperates the men from the boys here.
66
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
67
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
68
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
70
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?” This verse in it’self does not prove that Judas accepted Jesus as Messiah, but could accept that probability when including verse 69.
71
He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.

My point being is that John considered those who walked away disciples in one sense( for he probably spent much time with them and thought they beleived the way he did) but not acceptors of Jesus Messiah-ship, as he points out in verse 64.

When taking chapter 20 verse 31 into concideration, for one must when understanding Johns intent, Then there is only one conclusion that I can accept, and yours ain’t it. sorry :tiphat:
v.31
But these are written that you may (come to) believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name.

Life, accord to John, is not in a peice of bread and a cup of Juice, but in believeing that Jesus is " THE "Messiah.

 

[Nicea325]

He won’t be able to. Like many, there is the assumption that a doctrine began when a council made a statement about it. Of course, this is factually absurd.

The reason that a council was called to begin with was because a doctrine that was already accepted among the universal Christian community was being challenged by another element, usually in the minority. So, the ahistorical individual looks at the Council of Nicea and says “See, no one believed that Christ was fully God, equal with the Father, eternal, and uncreated until 325!” This is the same argument that skeptics and atheists make for the canon of Scripture, or its inspiration.

You are correct Trinue. Problem lies in the complete failure to comprehend docrtrinal development. If people like Shawn and Rev Kevin have no qualms with the canon of Scripture, which also took time to develop over the centuries;then defined and made official by the church due to challenges as you stated. Then why can’t all other orthodox doctrines follow the same path?

 

[rinnie]

I will agree this may be a little presumtious on my part after reviewing the text.

64
But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. 65 “those who would not believe.” Who was he referring to here? those who walked away? and the one who would betray? Judas?

65
And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” this statement, using an old cliche’, seperates the men from the boys here.
66
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
67
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
68
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
70
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?” This verse in it’self does not prove that Judas accepted Jesus as Messiah, but could accept that probability when including verse 69.
71
He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.

My point being is that John considered those who walked away disciples in one sense( for he probably spent much time with them and thought they beleived the way he did) but not acceptors of Jesus Messiah-ship, as he points out in verse 64.

When taking chapter 20 verse 31 into concideration, for one must when understanding Johns intent, Then there is only one conclusion that I can accept, and yours ain’t it. sorry :tiphat:
v.31
But these are written that you may (come to) believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name.

Life, accord to John, is not in a peice of bread and a cup of Juice, but in believeing that Jesus is " THE "Messiah.

I agree it is the bread and wine that becomes the living Christ. Who ever said anything about Juice. Not Jesus, nor the RCC thats for sure.

Here is a little story for you. Do me a favor and think about this all day okay.

The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge they noted our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness.

They wanted to know could Jesus top that?

This is what Jesus told em.

I AM the bread of life. he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believe in me shall never thirst. At this point the JEWS UNDERSTOOD him to be speaking metaphorically.

Jesus then repeated I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever and the bread which I give for the life of the world is MY FLESH. Then the Jews said How can this man give us HIS FLESH to eat.

His listerners were stupefied because they NOW UNDERSTOOD Jesus LITERALLY and correctly.

Then HE SAID IT AGAIN

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. HE WHO EATS MY FLESH AND DRINKS MY BLOOD HAS ETERNAL LIFE. AND I WILL RAISE HIM UP AT THE LAST DAY. 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.

Just for the rest of the day Pray on this scripture and read it, and re-read it. I will pray for you that the Holy Spirit can come to you and let you understand these words of Christ as the Church teaches. I pray that soon you will no longer walk away from it as others did, but you stay this time and accept this bread and blood of Christ and accept eternal life in him.

Praying for you.

 

[shawn38]

For the same reason that the dogma of the “Trinity”, not fully articulated in Scripture, did not become a dogma until later.

Fully articulated? The notion put forth is that there wasn’t any arguement.within the early church as to the nature of the bread and wine If taken literally, though it may not be easy to accept, the concept is very easy to understand. Obviously, “This is my blood” and “This is my flesh” didn’t sit well with the Jews considering the Law.

 

[shawn38]

Actually,it was the Holy Spirit that guided the early Catholic Church to adopt the Canon of the Bible before the 5th Century.

I was speaking of Christians guided by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear.

It was the Catholic Church that determined what is in the Bible - so when it comes to the Bible, you have the Catholic Church to acknowledge for what you mostly hold in your hands.

No. I think we have God to thank for it.

 

[shawn38]

What part of it do you not understand? ITs seems to be quite clear:shrug:

Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then, as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, let us be filled with every grace and blessing. [Through Christ our Lord. Amen.]

Rinnie,

1. If I take it literally, why does an angel need to take it to heaven?
2. After taken to heaven, what happens to it?

I suppose it descends down by the same means as it ascended up, by God’s angel.

1. Now bread and wine do not have a spirit. So by what nature does this angel take the species to the alter.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Rinnie,

1. If I take it literally, why does an angel need to take it to heaven?
2. After taken to heaven, what happens to it?

I suppose it descends down by the same means as it ascended up, by God’s angel.

1. Now bread and wine do not have a spirit. So by what nature does this angel take the species to the alter.

St. Thomas answers (SummaTheologica, III, 83, 4, reply to obj 9):

The priest does not pray that the sacramental species may be borne up to heaven; nor that Christ’s true body may be borne thither, for it does not cease to be there; but he offers this prayer for Christ’s mystical body, which is signified in this sacrament, that the angel standing by at the Divine mysteries may present to God the prayers of both priest and people, according to Apocalypse 8:4: “And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God, from the hand of the angel.” But God’s “altar on high” means either the Church triumphant, unto which we pray to be translated, or else God Himself, in Whom we ask to share; because it is said of this altar (Exodus 20:26): “Thou shalt not go up by steps unto My altar, i.e. thou shalt make no steps towards the Trinity.” Or else by the angel we are to understand Christ Himself, Who is the “Angel of great counsel” (Isaiah 9:6: Septuagint), Who unites His mystical body with God the Father and the Church triumphant.

And from this the mass derives its name [missa; because the priest sends [mittit] his prayers up to God through the angel, as the people do through the priest. or else because Christ is the victim sent [missa] to us: accordingly the deacon on festival days “dismisses” the people at the end of the mass, by saying: “Ite, missa est,” that is, the victim has been sent [missa est] to God through the angel, so that it may be accepted by God.

Does that help at all, shawn?

God bless,
VC

 

[shawn38]

Kevin how about telling something new and not the same boring Protestant distortions? The doctrine of the Eucharist was APPROVED in the 16th century and first used in the 12th century? Okay Kevin,if you say so. Have you been bought out by Protestant distortions? Kevin care to show me which Apostle used the term Trinity and explained all three distinct persons?

As for Augustine believing the Eucharist was symbolic? Keep wishing the rest of your life he believed your novelty. Augustine a Protestant? :whacky:

It’s mentioned in the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 under Canons 20 and 21. Neither one of those specify a doctrine as related to the eucharist.

1. Chrism and the Eucharist to be kept under lock and key

We decree that the chrism and the eucharist are to be kept locked away in a safe place in all churches, so that no audacious hand can reach them to do anything horrible or impious. If he who is responsible for their safe-keeping leaves them around carelessly, let him be suspended from office for three months; if anything unspeakable happens on account of his carelessness, let him be subject to graver punishment.

1. On yearly confession to one’s own priest, yearly communion, the confessional seal

All the faithful of either sex, after they have reached the age of discernment, should individually confess all their sins in a faithful manner to their own priest at least once a year, and let them take care to do what they can to perform the penance imposed on them. Let them reverently receive the sacrament of the eucharist at least at Easter unless they think, for a good reason and on the advice of their own priest, that they should abstain from receiving it for a time. Otherwise they shall be barred from entering a church during their lifetime and they shall be denied a christian burial at death.

 

[shawn38]

St. Thomas answers (SummaTheologica, III, 83, 4, reply to obj 9):

Does that help at all, shawn?

God bless,
VC

Correct me if I’m wrong, the sacrifice here referenced are “prayers” of the faithful?

Council of Florence
“The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament. A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For, in virtue of those words, the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ and the substance of wine into his blood”

If the priest, speaking in the person of Christ, consecrates the bread and wine, why is his prayers being lifted up to God by an angel. Christ always prayed to the Father.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

shawn,

Perhaps you ought to start a new thread on the Sacrifice of the Mass? It seems that you have not a few questions about what is going on.

You originally asked, in essence, how can an angel take the species up to heaven because the species don’t have a “spirit”. St. Thomas addressed that question – no one is taking the appearances of bread and wine, nor the substance of Christ anywhere.

If you start a new thread on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass I think you will get a much greater response, and be able to track down what you need to track down. Here it just keeps shifting the conversation back and forth.

Anyway – back to the Eucharist. I’m still curious about your literal interpretation of “until I drink it”?

Thanks,
VC

 

[Nicea325]

Fully articulated? The notion put forth is that there wasn’t any arguement.within the early church as to the nature of the bread and wine If taken literally, though it may not be easy to accept, the concept is very easy to understand. Obviously, “This is my blood” and “This is my flesh” didn’t sit well with the Jews considering the Law.

Yes fully articulated.What is hard to comprehend? In case you did not know,doctrines are defined and made official,when the common belief or orthodoxy has been violated or constantly misunderstood. Was the Incarnation and Trinity already fully articulated the first 100 years? Nope! Was it an orthodox belief? Yep! Was it still challengedl? Yep! Even after Nicaea in 325? Yep! But did not matter,it was defined and made official.

No different than the canon of scripture. Their was a common consensus as to what was considered ‘sacred’ scripture,but it was not set in stone until the 5th century.

It is called doctrinal development Shawn.

 

[Nicea325]

It’s mentioned in the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 under Canons 20 and 21. Neither one of those specify a doctrine as related to the eucharist.

**20. Chrism and the Eucharist to be kept under lock and key

We decree that the chrism and the eucharist are to be kept locked away in a safe place in all churches, so that no audacious hand can reach them to do anything horrible or impious. If he who is responsible for their safe-keeping leaves them around carelessly, let him be suspended from office for three months; if anything unspeakable happens on account of his carelessness, let him be subject to graver punishment.

1. On yearly confession to one’s own priest, yearly communion, the confessional seal

All the faithful of either sex, after they have reached the age of discernment, should individually confess all their sins in a faithful manner to their own priest at least once a year, and let them take care to do what they can to perform the penance imposed on them. Let them reverently receive the sacrament of the eucharist at least at Easter unless they think, for a good reason and on the advice of their own priest, that they should abstain from receiving it for a time. Otherwise they shall be barred from entering a church during their lifetime and they shall be denied a christian burial at death.**

Shawn,

You are merely chopping and dicing specific canons. You have to read the entire thing,not just pick and choose what looks useful for your agenda.

 

[Nicea325]

I was speaking of Christians guided by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear.

No. I think we have God to thank for it.

This is where your profound misunderstanding lies. Shawn, it is not a question if God was involved in the canon of scripture;moreover, it is not a question of WHO,but HOW he did it. And how? Through CATHOLIC BISHOPS…a fact of history Shawn.

Did not God use humans as His instruments to write scripture? Did he not inspire them? Now explain to me why why he cannot do same for the canon of scripture?

 

[rev_kevin]

Kevin how about telling something new and not the same boring Protestant distortions? The doctrine of the Eucharist was APPROVED in the 16th century and first used in the 12th century? Okay Kevin,if you say so. Have you been bought out by Protestant distortions? Kevin care to show me which Apostle used the term Trinity and explained all three distinct persons?

As for Augustine believing the Eucharist was symbolic? Keep wishing the rest of your life he believed your novelty. Augustine a Protestant? :whacky:

I got these answers from different Catholic sites that I have searched through even from the Catholic Answers.

No I have not been brought out by Protestant distortions. I don’t see things the way the CC sees them.

Try telling something new yourself and not the same old boring WE HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR 2000 YEARS AND YOUR RELIGION HAS ONLY BEEN AROUND FOR 1500 YEARS. WE ARE THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE CHURCH FOUNDED BY THE CHRIST HIMSELF. Broken records.

None of the Apostiles used the word triniity that I know of and the word is not in the Bible. So what is your point about the trinity?