How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[tqualey]

Hi, Ismael,



God bless

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

Read what the Cathechis says for example:

and adds:

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

 

[Nicea325]

So, your argument after all this discussion of scripture is, simply, “God can do anything”?

It is not an argument over what God CAN do, but over what the scripture describes.

You’re a good dancer, I can tell by all the side-stepping you display. Ah no, it is what Christ SAID,not what you want it to say.

I’ll ask you again,why is not possible for Christ who is GOD to have given us His Body and Blood in two outward appearances in the form of bread and wine?

Explain to me why you a mere creature limit Him?

 

[larkin31]

You’re a good dancer, I can tell by all the side-stepping you display. Ah no, it is what Christ SAID,not what you want it to say.

I’ll ask you again,why is not possible for Christ who is GOD to have given us His Body and Blood in two outward appearances in the form of bread and wine?

Explain to me why you a mere creature limit Him?

What does limiting God have to do with it? I am not dancing AT ALL. No one has claimed here that transubstantiation would be impossible for an omnipotent God. In fact, I have not ever heard anyone claim this. It is a strange point.

 

[Nicea325]

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.

Then that is where you great confusion lies. By the way, your claim that many early church fathers believed a ‘symbolic’ is the MOST ABSURD thng I have ever heard. You are proof-texting and perverting their words. How can they REJECT a literal interpretation of the Eucharist,but accept and believe other Catholic doctrines? Sorry,they were not Protestants who constantly pick and choose and the thousands of different Protestant churches/sects is living proof.

Protestants will say ANYTHING to always make the early church fathers appear “Protestant” in nature. How could ANY early church father entertain ‘novel’ beliefs (Protestanism) if they were ALL Catholics? Nice try,but that is always a desperate attempt by Protestants to justify the chaos and confusion which defines Protestanism

 

[Nicea325]

What does limiting God have to do with it? I am not dancing AT ALL. No one has claimed here that transubstantiation would be impossible for an omnipotent God. In fact, I have not ever heard anyone claim this. It is a strange point.

Because that is EXACTLY what Protestants do with the exception of Anglicans,Lutherans and some Episcopilians. Again,NOTHING you say or believe will re-write history,because as I said,NO ONE taught the Eucharist was only symolic. More important, many Protestants will twist and pervert the words of the early church fathers to make them appear Protestant which is absurd. Not one church father was even Protestant because it was not even around.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Because that is EXACTLY what Protestants do with the exception of Anglicans,Lutherans and some Episcopilians. Again,NOTHING you say or believe will re-write history,because as I said,NO ONE taught the Eucharist was only symolic. More important, many Protestants will twist and pervert the words of the early church fathers to make them appear Protestant which is absurd. Not one church father was even Protestant because it was not even around.

Which is precisely why Luther could, in his debates with Zwingli, reference hundreds of early church writings in support of the real presence, and Calvin could not cite one church father in support of his position on the eucharist in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. Seriously, there isn’t one.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
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? This was in response to “and God said let there be light, so it was.” I see what you are doing and you won’t get me caught up in this trap.

Apparently you do not grasp transubstantiation. I cannot believe how much you have been bought by such novel beliefs. I have a grasp of transubstantiation, but I believe it was meant as a symbol of his body and blood. I see no evidence to say different.

Christ’s own words at the Last Supper. He did not say, “This bread is my body,” but simply, “This is my body.” Those words indicated a complete change of the entire substance of bread into the entire substance of Christ. The word “this” indicated the whole of what Christ held in his hand. His words were so phrased as to indicate that the subject of the sentence, “this,” and the predicate, “my body,” are identical.
This is my body the bread is a symbol of his body and I have not seen any evidence to state otherwise. If I take a some clay and form it into a human shape hold it up and say this is my body, is it my real body or a symbol of my body? A symbol of course, Just like Jesus held up the bread and said this is my body, it was a symbol.

As soon as the sentence was complete, the substance of the bread was no longer present. Christ’s body was present under the outward appearances of bread. The words of institution at the Last Supper were at the same time the words of transubstantiation. If Christ had wished the bread to be a kind of sacramental receptacle of his body, he would surely have used other words, for example, “This bread is my body” or “This contains my body.”

**What evidence do you have of this? **

Trap? The only trap you have been trapped is by following a church founded BY HUMANS centuries later. The symbolic Eucharist is NOVEL whether you care to admit or not!

What evidence do I have? It is called early church history.Read it sometime Rev and stop being like the majority of Protestants who cannot stand it because it conflicts with all of their novel beliefs.

And what other evidence do you have for the last 2,000 years it was always taught as being symbolic? NONE! Nothing but your private interpretation of scripture,which in no shape or form is going to rebuke what the early church taught and believed.

Go ahead turn blue in the face,nothing you say will disprove what history has recorded.Consuming a symbol-eh?

 

[Nicea325]

Which is precisely why Luther could, in his debates with Zwingli, reference hundreds of early church writings in support of the real presence, and Calvin could not cite one church father in support of his position on the eucharist in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. Seriously, there isn’t one.

You are 100% correct Triune. But try explaining that to many Baptists and Fundamentalists. What I cannot understand is the constant denial of the early church writings? I mean is pride deep one cannot bring themselves down to admit they have been taught wrong?

BTW: I have never considered Lutherans/Anglicans as “Protestant” per se.

As a Catholic I can admit the church during Luther’s time was in need of much reform. It was a wake up call for the RCC.

 

[TriuneUnity]

You are 100% correct Triune. But try explaining that to many Baptists and Fundamentalists. What I cannot understand is the constant denial of the early church writings? I mean is pride deep one cannot bring themselves down to admit they have been taught wrong?

They are, ultimately, as bound to their tradition over and above the text of Scripture as they accuse Catholics of being. What is worse, they refuse to see it.

While we disagree with the particulars of, say, transubstantiation, there is one major difference. Catholics and Orthodox have the body and blood of Christ in their churches. The Reformed and anabaptists do not. It should never be taken as prideful on our part. It is tragic that there has been a separation between otherwise faithful Christians and their receiving the body and blood that was shed for them.

BTW: I have never considered Lutherans/Anglicans as “Protestant” per se.

At least, not as it has become to be known in the modern world, anyway.

 

[Roy5]

Christ spoke in symbolic language all of the time. “I am the door.” “I am the gate.” Etc. My own experience is that few Catholics I know really believe in the substantive change in the Eucharistic elements. The idea that a certain prayer by a priest turns bread into flesh and wine into blood is simply too far out of sinc with modern thinking and knowledge to be acceptable.

What is acceptable, by both Catholics and Protestants, is that the Eucharist helps us focus upon the real presence of Christ among us. "I am with you always...." This is an essential underpinning of the faith. It is the real presence, which does not require transubstantiation. And does it make any difference how Christ is present? Is his spiritual presence somehow inferior to his 'physical' presence? 

 This doctrine - forgive me, heresy about to be stated - may have made sense in medieval times when people also believed in ghosts and witches (Luther, as I recall, threw an inkwell at the devil), while it conflicts with modern science and what many would call common sense. But does it really make that much difference? I'm one of those contemporary souls who needs a reasonable religion and have become skeptical over the years of a variety of traditional beliefs. Did Jesus really cast demons into pigs and send them rushing to their death over a cliff? Hm! Did Jesus really feed 5000+ people with a few loaves and fishes? I see such miracles more as symbols of God's power than anctual events in the earthly life of Jesus. Sorry to be so thick-headed. Some will surely say that I am not humble enough to accept the teachings of the magisterium. Again, sorry, but I have to be honest.  

 I am also troubled that in some of those mystery religions, competitive with early Christianity, consuming the body and blood of some deity was commonplace. Was this an influence upon developing Christianity? The notion was that by consuming god in this fashion the consumer would gain special strength et al. Many cannibals had the same idea. 

 My final point. The Church should be broad enough to accept those who wish to follow Christ (love God and love one another) without all the accoutements of traditional Christianity. I'm confident that God examines our hearts and not our church affiliation or our doctrines.

 God bless all of our sisters and brothers, of every creed, color and country. May religion stop being a barrier and serve as a bridge instead.

 

[Nicea325]

**Christ spoke in symbolic language all of the time. “I am the door.” “I am the gate.” Etc. My own experience is that few Catholics I know really believe in the substantive change in the Eucharistic elements. The idea that a certain prayer by a priest turns bread into flesh and wine into blood is simply too far out of sinc with modern thinking and knowledge to be acceptable. **

Yes no is denying Christ spoke symbolic all the time,but what is truly amazing is how so many claim the Bible is literal,except John 6? I call that a conflict of personal interest.Second, and those Catholics who do not believe lack faith and are ignorant of what Christ said and taught,plain and simple. I call it PRIDE: If I do not see it or comprehend it, then it is false."

**What is acceptable, by both Catholics and Protestants, is that the Eucharist helps us focus upon the real presence of Christ among us. “I am with you always…” This is an essential underpinning of the faith. It is the real presence, which does not require transubstantiation. And does it make any difference how Christ is present? Is his spiritual presence somehow inferior to his ‘physical’ presence? **

I disagree with you. The RCC does not teach or make the claim His physical Presence is superior to His Spirituality. One cannot separate His Divinity,Soul and Body into inferiority or superiority. Problem I have with believers of a symbolic Eucharist is the fact they fail to comprehend history. I have yet to find ONE single early church father or lay person teaching a symbolic Eucharist. The notion of ‘symbolic’ Eucharist is novel and that is a fact.

**This doctrine - forgive me, heresy about to be stated - may have made sense in medieval times when people also believed in ghosts and witches (Luther, as I recall, threw an inkwell at the devil), while it conflicts with modern science and what many would call common sense. But does it really make that much difference? I’m one of those contemporary souls who needs a reasonable religion and have become skeptical over the years of a variety of traditional beliefs. Did Jesus really cast demons into pigs and send them rushing to their death over a cliff? Hm! Did Jesus really feed 5000+ people with a few loaves and fishes? I see such miracles more as symbols of God’s power than anctual events in the earthly life of Jesus. Sorry to be so thick-headed. Some will surely say that I am not humble enough to accept the teachings of the magisterium. Again, sorry, but I have to be honest. **

I respect your honesty,but with God NOTHING is impossible. I do not hear anyone here trying to say the Incarnation of God was IMPOSSIBLE. How about the Resurrection? But the Real Presence in two simple elements (bread & wine) is NOT possible?

**I am also troubled that in some of those mystery religions, competitive with early Christianity, consuming the body and blood of some deity was commonplace. Was this an influence upon developing Christianity? The notion was that by consuming god in this fashion the consumer would gain special strength et al. Many cannibals had the same idea. **

Precisely why those disciples of Jessus’ walked away and never followed Him again. The thought of having to CONSUME God was beyond human comprehension. Again,God can do whatever He chooses and no lack of faith or comprehension will change His decisions or mission.

My final point. The Church should be broad enough to accept those who wish to follow Christ (love God and love one another) without all the accoutements of traditional Christianity. I’m confident that God examines our hearts and not our church affiliation or our doctrines.

Depends on what you mean by ‘traditional’ Christianity.

God bless all of our sisters and brothers, of every creed, color and country. May religion stop being a barrier and serve as a bridge instead.

 

[PRmerger]

The idea that a certain prayer by a priest turns bread into flesh and wine into blood is simply too far out of sinc with modern thinking and knowledge to be acceptable.

How peculiar that a Christian could believe in the Creation of the world yet not believe that bread and wine can be turned into flesh and blood.

What is acceptable, by both Catholics and Protestants, is that the Eucharist helps us focus upon the real presence of Christ among us.

That speaks volumes about the modern mindset regarding Christ’s teachings. One must find it “acceptable”.

That is creating a god in one’s own image. That is NOT conforming one’s mind to the Truth.

And does it make any difference how Christ is present? Is his spiritual presence somehow inferior to his ‘physical’ presence?

My father passed away in 1991. His presence is with me always. His stethoscope is a symbol of him to me. I keep a photo of him hanging on my wall.

However, that “presence” and the symbols are NOTHING compared to the actual physical presence he shared with me from 1964 to 1991.

And anyone who prefers “I feel my dad’s presence with me at all times” to “my dad is alive and hugging me right now” is :whacky:

 

[Roy5]

Re the Church Fathers. Naturally, the Church Fathers that have been labeled so by the Church are going to agree with the Church. Otherwise, they have been excluded from the approved list of Church Fathers.

I’ve read most of them at sometime along the way, even ‘heretics’ like Tertullian and Origen and some of those newly-emphasized scriptures that are not included in the canon but have emerged more-or-less recently. The Church Fathers were quite brilliant for their time, but without microscopes and adequate telescopes much of what they wrote sounds primitive in today’s world. They still believed in the three-tier universe - heaven above, hell beneath, earth in between. They had no concept of maybe a billion gallaxies that some astronomers today suggest may exist.

 I'm one of those who need plenty of 'thinking space' - e. g., freedom to let my mind wander without worrying whether I'm following the magisterium or not. I presume it comes down to a question of authority. Some Protestants put their faith totally in the Bible. Catholics view the Church as infallible. I guess I look to the Bible and to the Church, but I also add reason, science, overall credibility, and common sense, Some folks will dismiss all this as pride as their way of dismissing it.. I regard it as using my God-given brain to explore the vast mysteries of this marvelous creation without fear of falling into error. I treasure this freedom, and I firmly believe that God provides and honors it, also.

 God bless all humankind - no exceptions.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Re the Church Fathers. Naturally, the Church Fathers that have been labeled so by the Church are going to agree with the Church. Otherwise, they have been excluded from the approved list of Church Fathers.

I’ve read most of them at sometime along the way, even ‘heretics’ like Tertullian and Origen and some of those newly-emphasized scriptures that are not included in the canon but have emerged more-or-less recently.

You argue firstly that the church fathers are labeled that way by the Church because they agree with the teachings of the Church. Then you mention heretics like Tertullian and Origen. Why would the Church refer to these men in their writings on the Eucharist if they only accept the writings of legitimate church fathers? The fact that they do means the Church doesn’t only refer to an “approved” list of church fathers. Regardless of their personal standing, their writings clearly affirm that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ was a universal catholic teaching up until the 1500s.

The Church Fathers were quite brilliant for their time, but without microscopes and adequate telescopes much of what they wrote sounds primitive in today’s world. They still believed in the three-tier universe - heaven above, hell beneath, earth in between. They had no concept of maybe a billion gallaxies that some astronomers today suggest may exist.

True…but it has nothing to do with exegesis of the biblical text.

I’m one of those who need plenty of ‘thinking space’ - e. g., freedom to let my mind wander without worrying whether I’m following the magisterium or not. I presume it comes down to a question of authority. Some Protestants put their faith totally in the Bible. Catholics view the Church as infallible. I guess I look to the Bible and to the Church, but I also add reason, science, overall credibility, and common sense, Some folks will dismiss all this as pride as their way of dismissing it… I regard it as using my God-given brain to explore the vast mysteries of this marvelous creation without fear of falling into error. I treasure this freedom, and I firmly believe that God provides and honors it, also.

Your reason is free to explore the natural world that God has created. When reading His revelation to man kind, however, your reason must serve a ministerial not a magisterial role over the word of God. He doesn’t communicate Himself in ways that your reason must fully comprehend. In an earlier post you questioned the feeding of the 5000 and the demons entering the pigs - this is indicative of how reason explaining away Christ’s presence in the meal leads to all sorts of other errors. What do you even base your professed faith in Christ on? If the real presence and the feeding of the 5000 is unreasonable, isn’t it also that Christ is God in human flesh, paid for your sins on the cross, and rose from the dead?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

but I also add reason, science, overall credibility, and common sense,

I can say without reservation, and without a doubt, that the Catholic Church is the single greatest champion of reason, science, and common sense, that this planet has ever known.

VC

 

[PRmerger]

I’m one of those who need plenty of ‘thinking space’ - e. g., freedom to let my mind wander…

Well, yes, of course.

But Truth should fit in there somewhere, yes? That’s where the Magisterium comes in.

Here’s a rather jejune example:

One can let his mind wander about how much a 1st class postage stamp costs. But if you decide you’re going to go to the Post Office and try to mail a letter for 3 cents, you’re not going to get very far.

Or one can let his mind wander about what would happen if he walks off a 300 foot cliff–but gravity’s going to pull him down rather quickly.

 

[KathleenGee]

I am a Christian as well.

Shawn,
As we sin without intending to most of the time, we have the Mass to go to for absolution of such common daily sins. Jesus is our ongoing atonement as we live each day.

You also are drawing on a number of issues in your sharings. I am in and out now with increasing work, but do appreciate very much the other Catholic posters here…great help.

You cannot prove anything using the Bible without its believers, without church history…and you have to know the context as well in the quotes that attract you.

.

 

[Nicea325]

Re the Church Fathers. Naturally, the Church Fathers that have been labeled so by the Church are going to agree with the Church. Otherwise, they have been excluded from the approved list of Church Fathers.

This sounds like a cop-out to me and poor excuse to reject the church fathers. That is like saying I reject the founding fathers of the U.S. because they agree with the U.S. government.

I’ve read most of them at sometime along the way, even ‘heretics’ like Tertullian and Origen and some of those newly-emphasized scriptures that are not included in the canon but have emerged more-or-less recently. The Church Fathers were quite brilliant for their time, but without microscopes and adequate telescopes much of what they wrote sounds primitive in today’s world. They still believed in the three-tier universe - heaven above, hell beneath, earth in between. They had no concept of maybe a billion gallaxies that some astronomers today suggest may exist.

Well of course one today will look at them as being primitive,but that is passing judgment.And why? Because who are we to judge people who lived centuries ago? I am sure 1,000 or 2,000 years from today, people might consider us primitive.

** I'm one of those who need plenty of 'thinking space' - e. g., freedom to let my mind wander without worrying whether I'm following the magisterium or not. I presume it comes down to a question of authority. Some Protestants put their faith totally in the Bible. Catholics view the Church as infallible. I guess I look to the Bible and to the Church, but I also add reason, science, overall credibility, and common sense, Some folks will dismiss all this as pride as their way of dismissing it.. I regard it as using my God-given brain to explore the vast mysteries of this marvelous creation without fear of falling into error. I treasure this freedom, and I firmly believe that God provides and honors it, also.**

Interesting philosophy.

 God bless all humankind - no exceptions.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Roy5,

I thought I could do this in one post … but, I just got too wordy… So, this is 1 of 2

Two items up front:

1- Christ ceertainly did speak frequently in symbolic language. The problem is John 6 is not symbolic … really. Was it recorded that anyone ever walked out on Christ because He compared Himself to a door, a vine, a sower of seed? No.

2- This is not a problem for the modern mind at all! The first century Jews had the same problem - maybe even moreso - and they walked out on Christ after asking (but, not waiting for a reply) “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Notice, they did not walk out and say, “How can this man use such a metaphor?”

There are some major differences here - and your first paragraph really needs to re-assessed with these items in mind.

Christ spoke in symbolic language all of the time. “I am the door.” “I am the gate.” Etc. My own experience is that few Catholics I know really believe in the substantive change in the Eucharistic elements. The idea that a certain prayer by a priest turns bread into flesh and wine into blood is simply too far out of sinc with modern thinking and knowledge to be acceptable.

What is acceptable, by both Catholics and Protestants, is that the Eucharist helps us focus upon the real presence of Christ among us. "I am with you always...." This is an essential underpinning of the faith. It is the real presence, which does not require transubstantiation. And does it make any difference how Christ is present? Is his spiritual presence somehow inferior to his 'physical' presence?

Roy5, this sounds like a good negotiating technique of trying to ‘split the difference’ - and, under a lot of circumstances, such an approach really does help the parties come togethr. Unfortunately, you can not split the difference with Christ - He declared that He would give His Flesh for us to eat - AND - He commanded us to eat it if we are to have life in us. You real can’t negotiate with Christ on this - you either accept the Word of God or you walk like those First Century Jews and Sixteenth Century Protestants (and their followers) did. There really is no middle ground on this one.

 This doctrine - forgive me, heresy about to be stated - may have made sense in medieval times when people also believed in ghosts and witches (Luther, as I recall, threw an inkwell at the devil), while it conflicts with modern science and what many would call common sense.

Wow, Roy5, that was a mouth-full! Let’s see if we can get this into bite-size pieces… Yes, you are right - what you are saying is heresy - glad we are on the same page there. But, your sense of timing is waaaaaaaaaaaay off… Ghosts and the fear of them is well established in the both the Old and New Testaments (recall that Saul saw the ghost of Samuel and the Apostles thought Christ was a ghost walking on the water) So. no need to reference medieval times. And, while Luther, for all his faults, is reported to have thrown an inkwell … Luther also believed in the Real Presence - the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ hidden under the appearance of Bread and Wine. Science - while some would make a god out of it - has nothing to do with this: all of the accidents of bread are … bread! The essence of the Consecrated Bread is Christ.

Part 2 of 2 is on its way…

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Roy5,

So, this is 2 of 2

But does it really make that much difference? I’m one of those contemporary souls who needs a reasonable religion and have become skeptical over the years of a variety of traditional beliefs.

You know, Roy5, there is nothing reasonable about Faith - it is not contrary to reason - it transcends reason. If you make reason the master of your Faith - then, you have no Faith. There many things that we can not get our small minds to grasp - like eternity, for example. The very idea of an unending state has frightened many people - now, the ones who are not in heaven are the ones most frightened of all!!!

Did Jesus really cast demons into pigs and send them rushing to their death over a cliff? Hm! Did Jesus really feed 5000+ people with a few loaves and fishes? I see such miracles more as symbols of God’s power than anctual events in the earthly life of Jesus. Sorry to be so thick-headed. Some will surely say that I am not humble enough to accept the teachings of the magisterium. Again, sorry, but I have to be honest.

Oh, please, do be honest. But, based on your line of reasoning, maybe Christ was a symbol, too. Why would anyone think that Someone could rise from the dead - obvously a gross exaggeration if every there was one, eh Roy5…

 I am also troubled that in some of those mystery religions, competitive with early Christianity, consuming the body and blood of some deity was commonplace. Was this an influence upon developing Christianity? The notion was that by consuming god in this fashion the consumer would gain special strength et al. Many cannibals had the same idea.

Truly an excellent point! If we can find a way to ‘shoe-horn’ all of this religious symbol stuff into a neatly packaged reasoned entity - things would be so much simpler. Why… we would have… just created our own religion. Now, no maks for originality here - this really has been done before! And, you guessed it - it was called the Age of Reason! Here is a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Reason it really was an iteresting time. But, you know, all of these reasoned philosophers and scientists are now dead … and, you may wonder just where they are spending eternigy…

Maybe we really do not need all of this religion stuff - and could simply convert this to a “Lion’s Club” or a “Rotary Club” where people would just get along with one another over lunch. But, of course, that would be being back to making a religion in our own image - and there really is not pleasant eternal future in going that route.

God bless

 My final point. The Church should be broad enough to accept those who wish to follow Christ (love God and love one another) without all the accoutements of traditional Christianity. I'm confident that God examines our hearts and not our church affiliation or our doctrines.

 God bless all of our sisters and brothers, of every creed, color and country. May religion stop being a barrier and serve as a bridge instead.