How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[rev_kevin]

Hi, Rev Kevin,

I am really not sure what it is you are trying to prove with this cut-and-paste approach to scripture.

There obviously are multiple problems with the following:

1- John 6: “My Flesh is real food and My Blood is real drink”

2- Matthew, Mark and Luke: Last Supper Discourse “THIS is My Body”

3- 1Corinthians: Private revelation to Paul: “THIS is My Body”.

According to you, none of these guys got it right! It is all symbolism and can be explained away. Those 1st Century Jews were offended by the mere use of a metaphor in John 6 and walked away from the Person Who fed 5,000 because He did not look like bread or was crazy and wanted them to cannabalize Him. The Early Church Fathers mistakenly recognized that the common bread and wine was changed into the Body, Blood, Human Sould and Divinity of Christ… and for 16 Centuries, this group who claimed to have been following Christ and had the promise of Christ to keep them from error with Guidance from the Holy Spirit - had been misled! Fortunately, your group and those like it… decided to take (and abridge) the Bible given by the Catholic Church - claimed the Bible but not the one that authenticated it - and denied Jesus to be physically hidden under the appearance of bread in the Consecrated Host - set the world straight… Right?

Really, Rev, if one is driving down the road and comes to a sign that says, “Yield” - you can stop, or you can slow down and look for on-coming cars - but, you ignore the clear direction at your own peril. My question to you - and, really, to all of those who chant “symbol” when confronted with the Eucharist is: What part of THIS IS MY BODY isn’t clear? We are NOT ASKED to understand how this happens - we are asked to believe that the One Who can do all things - actually did what He said He did. We believe that Christ: walked on water, cured incurable diseases, drove out devils, fed thousands, raised the dead - and, of course rose Himself … but, He just was joking around when He said, THIS is my body when he handed the Bread to His Apostles. Amazing how He slipped that one in one us!

Now, I understand that this entire issue is a matter of Faith. And, ultimately, I have taken this as far as I can. If your claim that, apparently, Christ revoked the pledge He gave to Peter in giving him the keys and that he had the power to bind and lose on heaven and earth (unless He slipped that one in on us, too…) Then 1600 years later…God then repudiated the Church He founded on Peter, said He did not mean what He said about Bread being His Body and turned this all over to men who have spun out about 20,000+ versions of what He meant. That Christ is physically present in the Bread and Wine after the Words of Consecration was a Divine misunderstanding… or something like that. Right?

But, you know… what I have always found strange is that many protestant groups loudly proclaim that creation took place in six 24-hour days. Why? “Because the Bible tells me so…” This same group loudly proclaims the bread stayse bread becuse - even though clearly written - the claim is ‘symbol’. Obviously a six day creation could never be a symbol - so, either one is literal or one is not… but, I am sure you can explain away this apparent contradiction in convenient literalism…

God bless

Jesus has always called himself the bread of life why? Because bread was a main staple then and everyone ate bread and can identify with it. Bread is food that sustains life so Jesus called himself the bread of life in a spiritual meaning that if you eat of his flesh {bread} meaning accepting him as Lord and Savior your spiritual life will not die but your human body will. John 6:47 I tell you, whoever believes already possesses eternal life. V48 I am the bread that gives life. V50 But here is bread that came down out of heaven and no o ne who eats it will ever die. V51 I am the living bread that has come out of heaven, Whoever eats this bread will live forever, and the breat that I will give for the world’s life is my own flesh.
Jesus is talking about giving his life for our sins his own flesh and that if you believe in him you will have eternal life.

We need to look at the wording here: Luke, this is my body, GIVEN FOR YOU. Do this in REMEMBRANCE of me.
You look only at “this is my body” and don’t look at “given for you” why would Jesus say “given for you?” Because he was about to die on the cross he was giving his body as a sacrifice for our sins.

 

[cruisin]

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.
Juice WIne what the difference. it all came from the same place. you get offended way to easy.
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.

Thanks for the prayers rinnie, I can always use it. I’m far from perfect you know.

careful looks like your blood preasure is going up. capital letters means your yelling.

So according to the forum rules is proselytizing allowd. I thought it wasnt. your not trying to convert me are you?

are you able to directly address my points or am I going to have to find someone else?

Why is it that when a non-catholic brings up questions the Catholics are unable to answer they go back to the same old talking points? I’ve heard this stuff lots of times. Just because you say it, doesn’t mean it’s true. Just means that is what you believe is true. I can except that. are you able to accept that fact, there are those who do not accept your position?

convince me of your position, with out all the rhetoric.

 

[Cinette]

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.

^&%$#@:"+&%!!!

Quite frankly I will have to digest and make an effort to grasp your post. At first glance it sounds like something invented by you. But I promise I will sincerely do my best to understand you.

As for ^&%$#@:"+*&%!!! all you have to do is put your tongue out between your lips and blow!!

Cinette

 

[Cinette]

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.

:yup::clapping:

 

[Nicea325]

Thanks for the prayers rinnie, I can always use it. I’m far from perfect you know.

careful looks like your blood preasure is going up. capital letters means your yelling.

So according to the forum rules is proselytizing allowd. I thought it wasnt. your not trying to convert me are you?

are you able to directly address my points or am I going to have to find someone else?

Why is it that when a non-catholic brings up questions the Catholics are unable to answer they go back to the same old talking points? I’ve heard this stuff lots of times. Just because you say it, doesn’t mean it’s true. Just means that is what you believe is true. I can except that. are you able to accept that fact, there are those who do not accept your position?

convince me of your position, with out all the rhetoric.

And what question are you referring to that Catholics supposedly cannot answer? The whole issue of a symbolic Eucharist being a novelty?

 

[Nicea325]

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?

What is the matter Kevin? History not on your Baptist side? Broken records? As oppose to the THOUSANDS of different broken records of the constant divisions,splits,fractions of Protestanism?

And what is your point? The symbolic Eucharist is NOVEL Kevin. Nothing you say or believe will change an iota of history. Dream all you want.I know it might be a source of tension for you and others,but that is a personal issue and internal conflict with historical facts.

 

[Cinette]

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.

…

*Dear Cruisin

I am going to make a confession!

I have often pondered on John 6 and the fact that the disciples shook their heads perhaps and then walked away. I firmly believe that if I had been there I would have done the same. I would not have “bought it”.

However, I have the benefit of 2000 years of history, the development of doctrine, the witness of the Apostles, ECFs and saints throughout the ages and this includes the miracles.

I also receive Him daily at Mass and I can’t tell you what this does to me. I have experienced suffering in my life and events which were devastating and I turned to Him in silent prayer (Adoration) and through this I got a grateful heart, learned to forgive, look outside of myself. Throughout all this I had my husband at my side and was a witness to his conversion - took all of 11 years. My priorities have changed - I have learned to let go.

Now THAT is what the Eucharist has done for me! Ane if you tell me that it is just a symbol…!!

God bless you
Cinette *

 

[rev_kevin]

Nicea325:
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.

Let me finish it for him.
“Let this salutary decree be frequently published in churches, so that nobody may fint the pretence of an excuse in the blindness of ignorance. If any persons wish, for good reasons to confess thisr sins to another priest lit them first ask and obtain the permission of their own priest; for otherwise the other priest will not have the power to adsolve or to bind them. The priest shall be discerning and prudent, so that like a skilled doctor he may pour wine and oil over the wonds of the injured one. Let him be carefully inquire about the circumstances of both the sinner and the sin, so that he may prudently discern what sort of advice he out to give and what remedy to apply, using various means to heal the sick person. Let him take the utmost care, however, not to betray the sinner at all by word or sign or in any other way. If the priest needs wise advice, let him seek it cautiously without any mention of the person concerned. For if anyone presumes to reveal a sin disclosed to him in confession, we decree that he is not only to be deposed from his priestly office but also to be confined to a strict monastery to do perpetual penance.”

 

[Nicea325]

Let me finish it for him.
“Let this salutary decree be frequently published in churches, so that nobody may fint the pretence of an excuse in the blindness of ignorance. If any persons wish, for good reasons to confess thisr sins to another priest lit them first ask and obtain the permission of their own priest; for otherwise the other priest will not have the power to adsolve or to bind them. The priest shall be discerning and prudent, so that like a skilled doctor he may pour wine and oil over the wonds of the injured one. Let him be carefully inquire about the circumstances of both the sinner and the sin, so that he may prudently discern what sort of advice he out to give and what remedy to apply, using various means to heal the sick person. Let him take the utmost care, however, not to betray the sinner at all by word or sign or in any other way. If the priest needs wise advice, let him seek it cautiously without any mention of the person concerned. For if anyone presumes to reveal a sin disclosed to him in confession, we decree that he is not only to be deposed from his priestly office but also to be confined to a strict monastery to do perpetual penance.”

Okay…and?

 

[rev_kevin]

What is the matter Kevin? History not on your Baptist side? Broken records? As oppose to the THOUSANDS of different broken records of the constant divisions,splits,fractions of Protestanism?

And what is your point? The symbolic Eucharist is NOVEL Kevin. Nothing you say or believe will change an iota of history. Dream all you want.I know it might be a source of tension for you and others,but that is a personal issue and internal conflict with historical facts.

You like the word novel don’t you. You use it alot but call it what you may.
I told you I got it from Catholic sites and all you can say is "What is the mater Kevin?
First its Reverend Kevin or Rev Kevin so please use my proper title when addressing me.

Now lets see Roman Catholic Teaches that Transubstantiantion was OFFICIALLY defined as a dogma by Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D.

Roman Catholicism’s doctrine of “transubstantiation” the bread and wine actually turning into God and therefore “adorable” is based on Jesus’ statement, “This is my body.”

"If any one shall say that Christ the only begotten Son of God is not to be adored in the holy sacraments of the Eucharist even with the open worship of Latria…nor to be solemnly carried about in precessions…and that He is not to be publicly set before the people to de adored and that His adorers are idolaters–let him be accursed. Council of Trent Canon VI.

IF any one shall deny that the body and blood. together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substanctially contained in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist and shall say that He is only in it as a sign or in a figure–let him be accursed! Council of Trent Canon I

However in John 10 Jesus said, “I am the door…” and elsewhere he spoke figuratively I am the light…] in the same way. He did not mean the door was literally being transformed into him/God or that we should worship a door.

 

[rev_kevin]

Okay…and?

You said that he didn’t use the whole thing, He only used what he wanted to fit his agenda.
So I finished it for you. See how nice I am.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Please, can anyone explain what the citations to the Council of Florence are being used to prove?

VC

 

[Nicea325]

You like the word novel don’t you. You use it alot but call it what you may.
I told you I got it from Catholic sites and all you can say is "What is the mater Kevin?
First its Reverend Kevin or Rev Kevin so please use my proper title when addressing me.

Now lets see Roman Catholic Teaches that Transubstantiantion was OFFICIALLY defined as a dogma by Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D.

Roman Catholicism’s doctrine of “transubstantiation” the bread and wine actually turning into God and therefore “adorable” is based on Jesus’ statement, “This is my body.”

"If any one shall say that Christ the only begotten Son of God is not to be adored in the holy sacraments of the Eucharist even with the open worship of Latria…nor to be solemnly carried about in precessions…and that He is not to be publicly set before the people to de adored and that His adorers are idolaters–let him be accursed. Council of Trent Canon VI.

IF any one shall deny that the body and blood. together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substanctially contained in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist and shall say that He is only in it as a sign or in a figure–let him be accursed! Council of Trent Canon I

However in John 10 Jesus said, “I am the door…” and elsewhere he spoke figuratively I am the light…] in the same way. He did not mean the door was literally being transformed into him/God or that we should worship a door.

Transubstantiantion was OFFICIALLY defined as a dogma by Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D.

Oh I see,so it is novel because it was OFFICIALLY defined in 1215?

Hey Rev Kevin, I got news for you,the Trinity was made OFFICIAL when? 325 A.D.

How about the Incarnation? 325 A.D.

The Nicene Creed: 325/381

Canon of NT: 4th century

What other **doctrinal developments **do you wish to discuss?

 

[Nicea325]

You said that he didn’t use the whole thing, He only used what he wanted to fit his agenda.
So I finished it for you. See how nice I am.

And that is supposed change what? My beliefs? Make me believe you?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

However in John 10 Jesus said, “I am the door…” and elsewhere he spoke figuratively I am the light…] in the same way. He did not mean the door was literally being transformed into him/God or that we should worship a door.

Which door? I think you might have a problem with this analogy since, as far as we know, Our Lord didn’t place his hand upon a door and say “I am this door” or “This door is me”. I understand what you are trying to get at rev_kevin, but I don’t think the example you chose is helpful to your position.

VC

 

[rev_kevin]

Transubstantiantion was OFFICIALLY defined as a dogma by Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D.

Oh I see,so it is novel because it was OFFICIALLY defined in 1215?

Hey Rev Kevin, I got news for you,the Trinity was made OFFICIAL when? 325 A.D.

How about the Incarnation? 325 A.D.

The Nicene Creed: 325/381

Canon of NT: 4th century

What other **doctrinal developments **do you wish to discuss?

Is that all you have to say? What about the rest of what I wrote? I see no comment on that excetp your usual smart allic remarks. Lets continue with what the thread is about, how does that sound to you. And thank you for using my title.

 

[Nicea325]

Which door? I think you might have a problem with this analogy since, as far as we know, Our Lord didn’t place his hand upon a door and say “I am this door” or “This door is me”. I understand what you are trying to get at rev_kevin, but I don’t think the example you chose is helpful to your position.

VC

Exactly! Rev Kevin fails to acknowledge the term eisegesis (eye-si JEE-sis): it means reading into a text something that simply is not there. Usually expresses the interpreters own opinions, bias, etc., rather than the true meaning of what the author had intended.

 

[rev_kevin]

And that is supposed change what? My beliefs? Make me believe you?

Personally I don’t care if you believe me or anyone else. You said he cut what he wanted to fit his agenda so I finished it. What is the problem?

 

[Nicea325]

Is that all you have to say? What about the rest of what I wrote? I see no comment on that excetp your usual smart allic remarks. Lets continue with what the thread is about, how does that sound to you. And thank you for using my title.

By all means, copy and paste until your hands fall off. And do you realize NOTHING you say or post will change what the early church already BELIEVED and TAUGHT? Making it OFFICIAL in 1215 or 325 or 381 or whatever year is not a empirical rebuttal to what already was an orthodox belief. I do recall many,many Christians living long before us,NONE prior to the Reformation believed a symbolic Eucharist.

Are you aware of that historical fact Rev Kevin? And how is that going to change 2,000 YEARS of history Rev Kevin? Enlighten me? Let me see here, everyone had it all wrong up until the “symbolic” believers appeared? Riigghhttt!

 

[rev_kevin]

Exactly! Rev Kevin fails to acknowledge the term eisegesis (eye-si JEE-sis): it means reading into a text something that simply is not there. Usually expresses the interpreters own opinions, bias, etc., rather than the true meaning of what the author had intended.

So now Jesus has to place his hands on something and say something like the bread, Hands placed on it and he says this is my body, what if he didn’t place his hands on the bread would it still be his body?