Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

[Luvtosew]

St. Cyril understood the literal interpretation and understood it as such. Take his words within the context of the whole, don’t just look at one paragrpah. “…Not understanding is a spiritual way…”, taken into the contect of the whole quote on that website, it is easy to see that he doesn’t see Eucharist as a spiritual symbol. He is saying that they could only see teh literal interpretation as cannibalism because they did not have the spiritual insight to understand the literal eating of Jesus’ Flesh. Cyril does not say it is a spiritual symbol (see his words again, ALL of them together), he says in effect, that those who had no understanding of spiritual things were unable to grasp the fact that we can literally eat Christ’s Flesh and literally drink His Blood without being cannibals. (to my understanding)

Here is a better quote…to take in the context of Cyril’s message:

…Therefore, it is with complete assurance that we receive the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. His body is given to us under the symbol of bread, and his blood is given to us under the symbol of wine, in order **to make us **by receiving them one body and blood with him. Having his body and blood in our members, we become bearers of Christ and sharers, as Saint Peter says, in the divine nature.

Once, when speaking to the Jews, Christ said: Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall have no life in you. This horrified them and they left him. Not understanding his words in a spiritual way, they thought the Savior wished them to practice cannibalism.

Under the old covenant there was showbread, but it came to an end with the old dispensation to which it belonged. Under the new covenant there is bread from heaven and the cup of salvation. These sanctify both soul and body, the bread being adapted to the sanctification of the body, the Word, to the sanctification of the soul.

Do not, then, regard the eucharistic elements as ordinary bread and wine: they are in fact the body and blood of the Lord, as he himself has declared. Whatever your senses may tell you, be strong in faith.

You have been taught and you are firmly convinced that what looks and tastes like bread and wine is not bread and wine but the body and the blood of Christ. You know also how David referred to this long ago when he sang: Bread gives strength to man’s heart and makes his face shine with the oil of gladness. Strengthen your heart, then, by receiving this bread as spiritual bread, and bring joy to the face of your soul… (emphais mine)

Don’t take Cyril’s message out of context by omitting everything but 1 paragrpah. Take in all the words as one message and then try to figure out what he meant by “spiritual”. He did not mean that Eucharist is only a spiritual symbol, which is quite obvious when you read the rest of the text.

Strengthen your heart, then, by receiving this bread as spiritual bread

 

[ahs]

Not Worthy,

Here is another aticle taken from a Catholic site, be sure to read it in its entirety.
justforcatholics.org/a181.htm

I think we all wants to do whatever is right in honor and respect for our blessed saviour Jesus Christ, as we owe him our life, and when one engages in the Last Supper sacrament it needs to be done in great reverance, God Bess.

justforcatholics.org/

A website geared toward “saving” Catholics is hardly the first place I’d look for accurate history. The acceptance of the literal interpretation is well documented in the earliest writings of the Early Fathers. The fact that the word “transubstatiantion” did not come around some time later is irrelevant to the teaching itself, which has existed since the very beginning. Further, the author evalutes only 3 paragrpahs taken from volumes of writings adn twists their meaning to fit his preconcieved notions. If you want to rely on those 3 quotes from the Church Fathers, you must read their whole works, understand their audience, and understand the style of writing at the time.

This work has been done and can be evaluated here:

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

 

[ahs]

Strengthen your heart, then, by receiving this bread as spiritual bread

Right, “spiritual bread” in the context of what St. Cyril understood “spiritual” to be, not as what luvtosew understands it as. You have to take it into the context of his meaning…which he states just before the portion you quoted, where he says, “Do not, then, regard the eucharistic elements as ordinary bread and wine: they are in fact the body and blood of the Lord, as he himself has declared. Whatever your senses may tell you, be strong in faith.”

To understand it better, go here where all the explainaing has already been done for you:
newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

 

[Luvtosew]

Right, “spiritual bread” in the context of what St. Cyril understood “spiritual” to be, not as what luvtosew understands it as. You have to take it into the context of his meaning…which he states just before the portion you quoted, where he says, “Do not, then, regard the eucharistic elements as ordinary bread and wine: they are in fact the body and blood of the Lord, as he himself has declared. Whatever your senses may tell you, be strong in faith.”

To understand it better, go here where all the explainaing has already been done for you:
newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

not as what luvtosew understands it as

Your getting personal now, and that is not what I want to do. I wanted to leave this alone, as well many early members of the Church and right to this very day take it to mean what I also take it to mean. Its fine we agree to disagree, but this thought is in no way my own, many people from the past and the present and in between have had this same view.

 

[NotWorthy]

Justin Martyr was excommunicated from the RCC right. All Jesus did in John was talk about spirtual food, the flesh profits nothing. All the way through John that is what he talked about, spiritual food.

Also in Matt, Mark and Luke, Jesus say he will not drink of the fruit of the vine till he drinks it again with them in his Fathers kingdom.

Justin Martyr was NOT excommunicated. You may be thinking of Tertullian.

And Jesus did not speak of spiritual food. Two things.

1. My Flesh is Real Flesh… repeated several times.
2. The phrase, "The Flesh profits nothing is misleading. Jesus isn’t speaking of “My Flesh”, as in “My Flesh profits nothing”, but you and I agree that Jesus Flesh profited EVERYTHING. The term “The Flesh” is used often by Jesus and by St. Paul… and every time, “The Flesh” means “Those who think of this world and not the next” or some variation.

 

[ahs]

not as what luvtosew understands it as

Your getting personal now, and that is not what I want to do. I wanted to leave this alone, as well many early members of the Church and right to this very day take it to mean what I also take it to mean. Its fine we agree to disagree, but this thought is in no way my own, many people from the past and the present and in between have had this same view.

I did not mean for it to be a personal comment, and I’m sorry. Please allow me to re-word it:

The writings of the Early Fathers of Christianity show strongly that they accepted Christ’s words literally in this particular teaching, from the very beginning. Even in the example of St. Cyril, he clearly states the literal meaning in the same article as he says “spiritual”. This tells us that his understanding and use of the word “spiritual” does not conflict with the literal interpretation. If your, or my, or anyone else’s, understanding of “spiritual” conflicts with the literal interpretation of Christ’s words (for this teaching on Eucharist) then our understanding of “spiritual” is different than St. Cyril’s…because he has clearly shown us that his use of “spiritual” fits into the literal interpretaiton.

This is not hard to imiagine, that there would be a difference in understanding and usage of a word between those days and the present. That is why it is so important to take into account the time he wrote, his audience, his style of writing, etc…and that is why I posted the link to you above from the Catholic Encyclopedia. All this work to explain these things has been done for us already. Someone has explained to us the style, the audience, the times, the culture, etc…that factor into the writings. If you read that article I posted (lengthy though it may be), you will better understand the writings of the Early Fathers.

 

[Luvtosew]

I did not mean for it to be a personal comment, and I’m sorry. Please allow me to re-word it:

The writings of the Early Fathers of Christianity show strongly that they accepted Christ’s words literally in this particular teaching, from the very beginning. Even in the example of St. Cyril, he clearly states the literal meaning in the same article as he says “spiritual”. This tells us that his understanding and use of the word “spiritual” does not conflict with the literal interpretation. If your, or my, or anyone else’s, understanding of “spiritual” conflicts with the literal interpretation of Christ’s words (for this teaching on Eucharist) then our understanding of “spiritual” is different than St. Cyril’s…because he has clearly shown us that his use of “spiritual” fits into the literal interpretaiton.

This is not hard to imiagine, that there would be a difference in understanding and usage of a word between those days and the present. That is why it is so important to take into account the time he wrote, his audience, his style of writing, etc…and that is why I posted the link to you above from the Catholic Encyclopedia. All this work to explain these things has been done for us already. Someone has explained to us the style, the audience, the times, the culture, etc…that factor into the writings. If you read that article I posted (lengthy though it may be), you will better understand the writings of the Early Fathers.

ahs,

I have already read the advent article. I have read many writings, and the early church fathers.

I think we all believe we are receiving the Real Presence in Holy communion, just we think different about it, I think of it as a spirtual receiving and yous feel more like its a physical (carnal) receiving. I do beleive we all have read all the articles on it and we just have to repect each other to disagree on this aspect. I’m going to bow out of this conversation once again, as I don’t want to offend anyone, and nor am I out to try and change anyones opinions, nor am I saying anything against the CC, but were just on the opposite side of the coin on this. Peace and God Bless.

 

[Lochias]

not as what luvtosew understands it as

Your getting personal now, and that is not what I want to do. I wanted to leave this alone, as well many early members of the Church and right to this very day take it to mean what I also take it to mean. Its fine we agree to disagree, but this thought is in no way my own, many people from the past and the present and in between have had this same view.

Many people may think many things, but it does not change the truth. Many people thought Jesus was a fraud. Many people think God does not exist. Many people used to think that the world was flat, and some still do.

The thought not being your own does not make it a true and logical thought. The truth is the truth, no matter how much you may or may not want it to be otherwise.

 

[rjcash]

I did not mean for it to be a personal comment, and I’m sorry. Please allow me to re-word it:

The writings of the Early Fathers of Christianity show strongly that they accepted Christ’s words literally in this particular teaching, from the very beginning. Even in the example of St. Cyril, he clearly states the literal meaning in the same article as he says “spiritual”. This tells us that his understanding and use of the word “spiritual” does not conflict with the literal interpretation. If your, or my, or anyone else’s, understanding of “spiritual” conflicts with the literal interpretation of Christ’s words (for this teaching on Eucharist) then our understanding of “spiritual” is different than St. Cyril’s…because he has clearly shown us that his use of “spiritual” fits into the literal interpretaiton.

This is not hard to imiagine, that there would be a difference in understanding and usage of a word between those days and the present. That is why it is so important to take into account the time he wrote, his audience, his style of writing, etc…and that is why I posted the link to you above from the Catholic Encyclopedia. All this work to explain these things has been done for us already. Someone has explained to us the style, the audience, the times, the culture, etc…that factor into the writings. If you read that article I posted (lengthy though it may be), you will better understand the writings of the Early Fathers.

I have never understood why anyone even tries to establish a doctrinal truth by what someone else thought it meant. Even the first church had errant beliefs, should we go by those? Of course not! All truth is judged by the scriptures first and foremost! Even the RCC teaches there is NO new revelation after the scripture!

Does it matter if St. whoever thought this or that, other than being nice history? Even in the first church there were three separate centers of the believers, there was never a one central church. And the early church had very different practices as the churches do today. One of the quotes I read even said the “president” presided over the communion. What “president”?

Any early church history does not prove any doctrinal truth! Never! It only proves there was just as much division as there is today!

Please don’t go off on a tangent on this and go astray with another post. Maybe the church history one can go on another NEW post.

I have only responded to Jn. 6, since everyone keeps bringing it up, even though I have asked them not to!

I orginally said, if you are going to use Jn. 6, then show me where it says it’s the Lord’s supper, since it is obviously addressed to unbelievers (yes there were believers present as there always is). But the people were unbelievers, that Jesus told to eat his flesh, since Jesus himself said so and as so many of you have noted, they walked away. Sure sounds like they thought it was addressed to them, since THEY are the ones doing the “walking away”. And no one has shown me different yet. So yes they were unbelievers Jesus told to “eat” his flesh and “drink” his blood!

 

[rjcash]

100% fact ? :doh2: It isn’t even a coherent sentence " … no physical bread and physical wine is present to transub." (BTW* transub *isn’t a word either.)

If the poster is trying to say that there is no physical bread and physical wine present once the priest has said the words of consecration when he celebrates the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, that isn’t correct either; it’s not what the Holy Cathoic Church teaches.

I don’t see how people can claim to disagree with what we say, while they themselves remain incapable of even understanding what we say .The definitions were given earlier :

Maybe you could check out this little primer on the Aristotelian concepts of substance and accident to become acquainted with some of the philosophy behind the theology of the Holy Eucharist . It would also be commendable if, in the meantime, you might be able to find a way to stop misrepresenting the Catholic Church so badly.

You, said, “100% fact ? It isn’t even a coherent sentence " … no physical bread and physical wine is present to transub.” (BTW transub isn’t a word either.)"

It’s an abrev., see the little period after the word, that’s what the little period is for.

ab·bre·vi·ate
   [uh-bree-vee-eyt] Show IPA verb, -at·ed, -at·ing.

verb (used with object)
1.
to shorten (a word or phrase) by omitting letters, substituting shorter forms, etc., so that the shortened form can represent the whole word or phrase, as ft. for foot, ab. for about, R.I. for Rhode Island, NW for Northwest, or Xn for Christian.

You, said,
“If the poster is trying to say that there is no physical bread and physical wine present once the priest has said the words of consecration when he celebrates the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, that isn’t correct either; it’s not what the Holy Cathoic Church teaches.”

Exactly my point it is physical bread and physical wine that is transubed.! (See above)
Isn’t it the physical bread and physical wine that transubs.?

“I don’t see how people can claim to disagree with what we say, while they themselves remain incapable of even understanding what we say .The definitions were given earlier :”

Not me, I have taken what the RCC teaches for exactly what they say. But you have indicated, by asking “if the poster is trying to say”. Since what I said was clearly posted, that statement would indicate to me that you did not read all of what I said. So in advising me to understand first, can I ask please, that you do the same? Thanks very much!

My one observation about your Aristotle link, is since he was not a follower of Christ, then if he is what is used as some of the basis for theology, then that does help me understand a lot.

I am curious have you ever read Aristotle? All of Aristotle? And I don’t mean quotes or articles about Aristotle.

 

[Church_Militant]

All truth is judged by the scriptures first and foremost! Even the RCC teaches there is NO new revelation after the scripture!

You’re correct that we believe that there is no new revelation added to the Deposit of Faith, however, you are dead wrong when you say that “All truth is judged by the scriptures first and foremost!”, which, although it is the fundamental doctrine of most n-C communities, is, in fact, not a scriptural doctrine because it is nowhere found in the Bible. Hence, it is not something that Catholics believe, nor should any Christian.

It has been discussed and debated here many times and below are 3 exemplary threads.

• It’s NOT in the Bible, okay?’
• It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? (Part II)
• “If anyone teaches/preaches something that is not in scripture”

 

[NotWorthy]

I have never understood why anyone even tries to establish a doctrinal truth by what someone else thought it meant. Even the first church had errant beliefs, should we go by those? Of course not! All truth is judged by the scriptures first and foremost! Even the RCC teaches there is NO new revelation after the scripture!

The Church had errant views, and those views were rejected! Jesus promised that He would guide His Church (i.e. the Catholic Church) to all Truths. I trust those saints who lived, breathed, and ate with the Apostles… who knew the culture and the language and the traditions first hand, over somebody who believes his private interpretation of Scripture is right.

All that has done is give us 1000’s of churches with 1000’s of deviations in the meanings of Scripture.

Sorry RJ, but the Bible never said that it was the final source in teaching the Truth. The Bible claims it is the Church (What you know as the Catholic Church) that is the teacher of Truth, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Gorgias]

My one observation about your Aristotle link, is since he was not a follower of Christ, then if he is what is used as some of the basis for theology, then that does help me understand a lot.

I am curious have you ever read Aristotle? All of Aristotle? And I don’t mean quotes or articles about Aristotle.

What has Athens to do with Jerusalem, eh? I thought you’d know that this one was refuted long ago…

 

[NotWorthy]

ahs,

I have already read the advent article. I have read many writings, and the early church fathers.

I think we all believe we are receiving the Real Presence in Holy communion, just we think different about it, I think of it as a spirtual receiving and yous feel more like its a physical (carnal) receiving. I do beleive we all have read all the articles on it and we just have to repect each other to disagree on this aspect. I’m going to bow out of this conversation once again, as I don’t want to offend anyone, and nor am I out to try and change anyones opinions, nor am I saying anything against the CC, but were just on the opposite side of the coin on this. Peace and God Bless.

Luvtosew,

I know you’ve stopped posting on this thread, but I believe you will still read up on it… its sort of like a trainwreck, eh? You just can’t look away.

Anyway, about an hour after reading your last post regarding “spiritual bread” I got in my car to drive home. I do some of my best thinking in my car. Well, I had been on the road when it hit me.

It IS Spiritual Bread!!! The Eucharist, where Jesus is REALLY Present, is Bread for the Spirit! Or Bread for the Soul! You see, Bread for the Spirit is Spiritual Bread! That’s what Cyril meant, and you can tell that from the rest of his writings in the source you cited.

I wanted to return to my office and re-post this, but I had a long drive home.

 

[rjcash]

You’re correct that we believe that there is no new revelation added to the Deposit of Faith, however, you are dead wrong when you say that “All truth is judged by the scriptures first and foremost!”, which, although it is the fundamental doctrine of most n-C communities, is, in fact, not a scriptural doctrine because it is nowhere found in the Bible. Hence, it is not something that Catholics believe, nor should any Christian.

It has been discussed and debated here many times and below are 3 exemplary threads.

• It’s NOT in the Bible, okay?’
• It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? (Part II)
• “If anyone teaches/preaches something that is not in scripture”

Does that include taking someone out of context?

Whoa, you are really jumping to conclusions!

I was speaking in context of my post!

Notice in the sentence I said “**first **and foremost”. I never said only!

Also, can you show me in my post where I said it was a, “scriptural doctrine”

(Edited)

Ron

 

[rjcash]

The Church had errant views, and those views were rejected! Jesus promised that He would guide His Church (i.e. the Catholic Church) to all Truths. I trust those saints who lived, breathed, and ate with the Apostles… who knew the culture and the language and the traditions first hand, over somebody who believes his private interpretation of Scripture is right.

All that has done is give us 1000’s of churches with 1000’s of deviations in the meanings of Scripture.

Sorry RJ, but the Bible never said that it was the final source in teaching the Truth. The Bible claims it is the Church (What you know as the Catholic Church) that is the teacher of Truth, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Ah, just one big problem with what you said, I never said the, “Bible never said that it was the final source in teaching the Truth”

I said "first and formost, never did I say only! And I was speaking in context!!

(Edited)

 

[rjcash]

What has Athens to do with Jerusalem, eh? I thought you’d know that this one was refuted long ago…

I am curious have you ever read Aristotle? All of Aristotle? And I don’t mean quotes or articles about Aristotle?

Didn’t answer this one.

And to answer your question, NO.

Just curious, this is a serious question, so please do answer. Is Aristotle considered part of the RCC sacred tradition? Just cuious? Some things need to be clear.

Please answer the questions about reading Aristotle, also.

Please don’t forget this time!!

There are serveral questions, please answer them all.

Thanks!

 

[Lochias]

Ah, just one big problem with what you said, I never said the, “Bible never said that it was the final source in teaching the Truth”

I said "first and formost, never did I say only! And I was speaking in context!!

Do these misqoutes come with apologies??

As I said, don’t go off on tangents, this is not wha the original post is about!!

You’re not subtly throwing red herrings on the trail so much as lobbing them forcefully at passerby while banging with a wooden spoon on the bucket over your head.

What he said was not a tangent, and you didn’t comment on it. Comments?

 

[Gorgias]

I am curious have you ever read Aristotle?

Yes. Not all of his philosophy, but a few of his works.

Just curious, this is a serious question, so please do answer. Is Aristotle considered part of the RCC sacred tradition?

Aristotle isn’t considered ‘tradition’, per se, although some of his reasoning is utilized by Christian thinkers (including Aquinas) in their theological and philosophical thought.

 

[NotWorthy]

Ah, just one big problem with what you said, I never said the, “Bible never said that it was the final source in teaching the Truth”

I said "first and formost, never did I say only! And I was speaking in context!!

Do these misqoutes come with apologies??

As I said, don’t go off on tangents, this is not wha the original post is about!!

But that is the context. The Bible says that the Church is, first and foremost, the way to settle doctrinal disputes as well as determine what is binding, as well as what is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth.

I don’t see where the Bible says it is first and foremost.

BTW, other than the Bible, what is another source of teaching?

Also, I am proud to be from the USA, RJ!