How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[Nicea325]

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?

Well if you do not care,then why do you continue? Okay so you did him a favor? Did I ask you to finish his work? If it makes your boat float, go for it!

 

[Cinette]

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.

*Since when is the truth rhetoric?? When you hit the truth what else is there?

God bless you cruisin
Cinette *

 

[Verbum_Caro]

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?

rev_kevin,

I’m not sure if you are directing this question to me or not, but I was the one who mentioned Our Lord putting (or not putting) His hand on a door. I’ll clarify that no, I didn’t mean that physically touching a door or the bread had anything to do with what I was getting at. What I was attempting to indicate was that there is a divergence between “This is my body” as it referred to actual bread, and “I am the door”, since there was no actual door to refer to.

My point was that the two events seem markedly different. I don’t think you can analogize them linguistically.

VC

 

[rev_kevin]

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!

There we go the whole 2000 year thing again. Getting real old. I don’t care if anything will change what the early church believes or taught. That don’t mean I have to accept it. Besides they could be wrong, just because they have been around for 2000 years don’t mean they know everything. And I’m not saying I know everything because I don’t. See as time goes on and on and on things get translated incorrectly, things are added to make something sound better or the way they want you to see it. 2000 years there could be some misinterperation or embellishing. After all 2000 years is a pretty long time. Have you ever told someone something and they tell someone else and add something that wasn’t said to make it sound better. Don’t you think, of course you don’t, that something like that could have happened. Couldn’t the bread changing into the body of Jesus be something someone said to make it sound better or more holy then what Jesus actually meant it to mean. See you are told that that is what it is but have no proof that it is true, only This is my body and what someone wrote and said it was true and then say you have to have faith that thats what it means.

 

[rev_kevin]

Well if you do not care,then why do you continue? Okay so you did him a favor? Did I ask you to finish his work? If it makes your boat float, go for it!

You have a bad outlook on things especially those who are not Catholic. :tsktsk: No you did not ask me to finish his work, since when did I need your permission to finish something for someone else. You like to argue with people and use snide comments. I asked you to continue with what the thread is about, but you can’t seem to do that. So once again can we continue with what the thread is about? Do I have your premission :bowdown: to continue with the topic of the thread.
I’m here not trying to change anything that you or the Catholic church teaches, taught or believes. I’m here to give my side and my beliefs on subjects. I know I can’t change the CC’s teachings or doctrine or dogma’s and would never try to. Its what you and the CC believes then believe it. I don’t put you down for it like you do us for our beliefs. I think a little less of the snide remarks and a little more Christianity on your part would be helpful to you. There is no need for remarks like the ones you are giving.

 

[rev_kevin]

rev_kevin,

I’m not sure if you are directing this question to me or not, but I was the one who mentioned Our Lord putting (or not putting) His hand on a door. I’ll clarify that no, I didn’t mean that physically touching a door or the bread had anything to do with what I was getting at. What I was attempting to indicate was that there is a divergence between “This is my body” as it referred to actual bread, and “I am the door”, since there was no actual door to refer to.

My point was that the two events seem markedly different. I don’t think you can analogize them linguistically.

VC

I mean this is my body does not mean his real body just like him saying I am the door does not make the door him or his body. Both are not meant literally but figuratively.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I mean this is my body does not mean his real body just like him saying I am the door does not make the door him or his body. Both are not meant literally but figuratively.

rev_kevin,

I understand that you mean to say that they are the same because you believe both statements are figurative. But you also seemed to want use the example of “I am the door” as the reason why “This is my Body” ought to be taken as figurative. What I am pointing out is that linguistically these two statements are not the same. This can be seen, for instance, when you said

He did not mean the door was literally being transformed into him

You had to posit “the door”. But there was no door. Hence, there was no question about a door being converted into Him.

But, in the case of “This is my Body” there was a “this”, right there, and Our Lord made a one-to-one correspondence between “this” and His Body.

I am simply trying to point out, and show why, I don’t think your example can accomplish what you want it to.

VC

 

[Cinette]

*Hello Rev Kevin!
There we go the whole 2000 year thing again. *
The Church IS 2000 years old!Getting real old.??? I don’t care if anything will change what the early church believes or taught. *I am not sure I understand you.*That don’t mean I have to accept it. That is the beauty of it Rev - the Lord gave us free will - we can accept the truth or reject it.Besides they could be wrong, just because they have been around for 2000 years don’t mean they know everything.Oh dear! Jesus founded His Church, made Peter his representative “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church…” - Jesus said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it - He told the Apostles to spread the good news and he said the H Spirit would guide them into all truth. The Church has battled heresies for centuries but always they overcame because they had the support of the Holy Spirit. Jesus KEPT HIS PROMISE. So just because 2000 years have passed does not mean it is old fashioned and invalid and that you must now invent something new!! No ways!! And I’m not saying I know everything because I don’t. See as time goes on and on and on things get translated incorrectly,Not those who are guided by the Holy Spirit - He does not make mistakes. Despite many in the Church who have sinned, many in authority, the Church goes on, the truth reigns. things are added to make something sound better or the way they want you to see it.Sure, like Luther who added and subtracted which gave rise to many splits, many denominations. 2000 years there could be some misinterperation or embellishing. I agree - for those who take their eyes off the Lord and do their own thing this is exactly what happens!! After all 2000 years is a pretty long time. Have you ever told someone something and they tell someone else and add something that wasn’t said to make it sound better.Absolutely, that’s you and that’s me you are talking about, but NOT God’s Church! Don’t you think, of course you don’t, that something like that could have happened. *It has and it does! All the time and we see the “fruits”…*Couldn’t the bread changing into the body of Jesus be something someone said to make it sound better or more holy then what Jesus actually meant it to mean.Ouch! You are playing with Jesus’ words there! See you are told that that is what it is but have no proof that it is true, only This is my body *Jesus’ words are enough proof for us who believe in Him.*and what someone wrote and said it was true and then say you have to have faith that thats what it means.*I agree Luther did a lot of damage but God is turning it around. As I said previously we in the Catholic Church are privileged to welcome many wonderful, holy, dedicated Protestants who are now glorious Catholics doing great work for the Church Jesus founded. And they keep coming - Praise the Lord!

God bless you Rev
Cinette*

 

[brkn1]

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

That door would be the symbolic door of the Shepherd’s sheepgate; the door obviously representing Christ Himself.
The “I AM” makes the use of “this” unnecessary in the symbolism using a door.

“I AM” proclaims Christ’s Deity and the symbols used are everyday symbols that even a child could understand.

I AM: “the Bread of Life”, “the Light of the world”, “the Door”, “the good Shepherd”, “the Resurrection and the Life”, “the Way , the Truth, and the Life”, “the true Vine”…

All that symbolism is necessary to help our finite minds get some grasp of the infinite God.
The Bread of Life somehow turns from a symbolic description to a literal one for some vague reasoning that “Jesus wanted to leave behind a physical presence for His bride” etc.

Unbelievers mistakenly took Jesus literally and they were justified in rejecting what such a literal interpretation meant. The Law had properly conditioned them to reject cannibalism and the drinking of any manner of blood. They were obeying the Law if a literal interpretation was meant. God does not trick people that way. God does not indoctrinate people to obey a law and then suddenly reverse that law.
Such contradictions only happen when a wrong interpretaion of Scripture is held out as “truth”.

 

[cruisin]

QUOTE=Nicea325;6635052]And what question are you referring to that Catholics supposedly cannot answer? The whole issue of a symbolic Eucharist being a novelty?

No… I asked specific questions and made specific comments in the following posts

maybe your knowledgeable enough to actually answer the questions directly, instead of going to the standard talking points.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6632678&postcount=533

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6633021&postcount=541

Direct and knowledgable responses to my questions, would be enough to convince me, If prosylitizing me your goal.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hello brkn1,

That door would be the symbolic door

Yes, because there was no door, so the door referred to was a symbolic door. The phrase “I am the symbolic door” is what you end up with.

I AM: “the Bread of Life”, “the Light of the world”, “the Door”, “the good Shepherd”, “the Resurrection and the Life”, “the Way , the Truth, and the Life”, “the true Vine”…

Some of those phrases are pointing to symbolic concrete items, such as “the door”, “the vine”, and others are self-descriptions.

But linguistically, each case above is distinguished from “This is my body”. First, the “this” isn’t only a symbolic concrete thing (like “the door”) but a natural and actual concrete thing being directly indicated. Second, the construction isn’t in the form of a description (like “I am the Bread of Life” or “I am the good Shepherd”).

The point is, regardless of what your disagreements are about the way “This is my body” ought to be understood, you simply cannot make an analogy between this phrase and the others you listed. It just doesn’t work. And I don’t think it is helpful to you or to rev_kevin to insist that it does.

On the contrary, it doesn’t hurt yours or rev_kevin’s position to admit that these phrases are linguistically and logically distinct. That is a modest admission. It doesn’t commit you to saying anything else, and it simply acknowledges the truth that they are distinct phrasings. Acknowledging the truth can never harm a disciple of Christ.

VC

 

[PRmerger]

rev_kevin,

I understand that you mean to say that they are the same because you believe both statements are figurative. But you also seemed to want use the example of “I am the door” as the reason why “This is my Body” ought to be taken as figurative. What I am pointing out is that linguistically these two statements are not the same. This can be seen, for instance, when you said

You had to posit “the door”. But there was no door. Hence, there was no question about a door being converted into Him.

But, in the case of “This is my Body” there was a “this”, right there, and Our Lord made a one-to-one correspondence between “this” and His Body.

:clapping:

 

[Esdra]

If Jesus only meant it to be symbolic,then explain to me why Jesus never used the term to ‘symbolic’ or to ‘represent’ His Body? If I am correct, Jesus could have used at least a dozen words to mean ‘symbolic’ or ‘represents’ from Aramaic, but he never does.

Likewise,when Jesus explains something and the people misunderstood,did he explain it in order for them to comprehend Him? Yes or No? Now why would he leave it up to us to determine whether he spoke symbolically or literally? Something so vital for our salvation and leaves us second guessing? I do not think so!

More important,when ever God makes a declaration: Let there be light,etc,etc it HAPPENS and it is what it is. So if Jesus IS God and said: This IS my Body,then it is His Body, not a mere symbol.

I find it amazing how so many Bible-Only folks take the Bible literal,but claim John 6 is merely symbolic? Why? Because it conflicts with their novel traditions?

Finally, sorry to burst your bubble,but early church does not teach it was symbolic. Show me ONE early church writer outside the NT claiming it was ONLY symbolic? History says the opposite.If it were symbolic,then millions upon of millions for centuries would be guilt of worshiping an idol or something false.

Your belief is novel and history has proven it over and over.

Hi,

just wanted to say something about the ‘symbol language’ of Jesus.
Jesus is talking VERY often in symbolic language1 Have a look at his parables. I think everyone knows them who is a Christian and I don’t need to give any verses!

Does Jesus ever say that he is talking in symbolic language? No, as far as I know the NT he doesn’t. Why should he when talking about “eating his flesh and drinking his blood” literally?

Best wishes,
Esdra

 

[PRmerger]

Hi,

just wanted to say something about the ‘symbol language’ of Jesus.
Jesus is talking VERY often in symbolic language1 Have a look at his parables. I think everyone knows them who is a Christian and I don’t need to give any verses!

Does Jesus ever say that he is talking in symbolic language? No, as far as I know the NT he doesn’t. Why should he when talking about “eating his flesh and drinking his blood” literally?

Best wishes,
Esdra

Yes, Jesus often spoke in symbols. But not always. Unless you think that when he said, “I will die and rise” he meant that symbolically also?

 

[rinnie]

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?

Well sorry to disapoint you Rev Kev but when Jesus comes back and changes his word then it will be changed. Until then you will have to accept like the rest of us the same boring stuff.

Just wondering Rev Kev what is it about the CC being around for over 2000 years and being started by Jesus himself that seems to bother you so much. Personally I can’t hear it enough

As far as the Trinity Rev Kev do you accept the Trinity?

 

[rinnie]

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.

I am so sorry, I always used Captial letter to emphaisze the word. No wonder people always tell me to calm down Its going to be a hard habit to break but I am going to have to try. Again I am so so sorry.

Now what exactly do you want me to answer. I thought I did, but ask again I will do my best.

And no love no proselytizing for me. Not my style at all Because I do not have that power anyway. Not if it is true and God’s will. That comes directly from the Holy Spirit. Its not for me to do or tell God how to do his word. Trust me I tried though But he still does things his way

I will go back and read again what you asked. If I don’t answer ask again I promise to try.

 

[rinnie]

I am not sure what you are asking so if this is it let me know.

Are you asking if everyone that followed Jesus believe that he was truly God.

If that is what you are asking I cannot honestly answer it. Nor can anyone else if you ask me. Only God truly knows the heart and mind of a person.

But I can tell you what I assume from what scripture says.

If you Love me keep my word. Jesus did say that there are many kind of followers.

I know that I can only answer for my self. My mother always told me that was all I had to worry about, she said when I get done confessing my sins I won’t have any time to worry about anyone elses

BUt here is what my Dad told me all my life about faith. You are either hot or cold you cannot be lukewarm.

It took me a year after he died to understand what he meant. And I believe that may be what you are asking me.

The scripture is Revelations. You either accept all of the words of Christ and follow his commandments or you don’t. You must be your best every second of your life. You must have Jesus in your heart every second of you life. You must pray everyday for the Holy Spirit to give you grace. It is with that grace that you can be what God asks you to be.

But it must be consistant not lukewarm. Papa said you must be HOT!! Sorry not yelling

Smoking Hot!!

I know there are many people who believe in God but do not want to obey his commandments. Hey I myself don’t like to obey all the time.

Like yesterday it was the first nice day we had all week. My husband and I wanted so bad to hit the pub on the bike it was wing night and bike night and have a couple beers and unwind.

But Guess what It was a Holy Day too. If I have to be totally honest I would have rather hit the Pub. But I did go to Church because it is a Holy Day and God said. But honestly when I hit the Church, I knew I made the right move!!

So yesterday I was Hot You have to choose God All the time. Its hard, We all know that. If I could just stay hot for one whole week that would be awesome. So maybe could throw a couple prayers my way too. Okay

If that is not you question ask it again, I promise to answer it for ya.

 

[Esdra]

Yes, Jesus often spoke in symbols. But not always. Unless you think that when he said, “I will die and rise” he meant that symbolically also?

No he didn’t. But did I say that he ALWAYS talked in symbolic language?? No I didn’t.

 

[Esdra]

BUt here is what my Dad told me all my life about faith. You are either hot or cold you cannot be lukewarm.

Actually in Revelation 3,16 it says YOU MUSTN’T BE LUKEWARM. Otherwise Jesus will spit you out of His mouth!
I am feeling sorry for ALL Protestants and Catholics, who will be spit out. There will be many… Sadly enough there are a lot of Lutheran Protestants and Catholics who only go to church at the Holy Days like Easter, Pentecost and Christmas because this is Tradition. But the rest of the year they don’t want to have to do anything with our Lord!!
I will pray for them that god may have grace with them!

 

[PRmerger]

No he didn’t. But did I say that he ALWAYS talked in symbolic language?? No I didn’t.

Alright then! One less battle.

So, we are agreed that he didn’t always talk in symbolic language.

Therefore, we can’t assume that his discourse in John 6 was symbolic.