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

[NotWorthy]

I’ve read all of the above also, I’ve also read Acts and Hebrews. Well the whole Bible several times.

And that’s one of the things that is great about the Catholic Church. It is called a “Democracy of the Dead”, for the dead also have a say in what the Church teaches.

This teaching, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, is one of the most consistent of all Sacred Tradition. It’s simply not negotiable, as far as Catholic Teaching.

BTW, you said that you read all of those - Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus. What were your thoughts on their writings. I mean, Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John and probably asked him at least once during their time together just what John meant when he wrote John 6. Wouldn’t his testimony on the meaning of John 6 be one of the most reliable?

 

[rjcash]

Wow! That is some faulty reasoning there, brother! How in the world do you compare what I said with that?

I never claimed that Galatians had a single thing to do with Galatians.

All I showed you was how the phrase, “eating of my flesh” would be understood by the Jewish Audience, which is who Jesus was talking to. That is EXACTLY how Bible Study is done! You find out first and foremost how Jesus’ audience would hear the message.

I showed you how a Jewish Idiom would be understood by Jews, in order to show you that the figurative rendering of “eat my flesh” would be interpreted to show you that you are out in left field for considering that it was taking figuratively.

Well since it seems you still insist on going down this path, then let’s go.

First of all the book of Galatians was written to the Galatians. Do you know where that is?

It is nowhere near Capharnaum. Jn. 6:60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

Galatia is in Asia Minor , remember Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles, as mentioned in Galatians 2:8 (For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought in me also among the Gentiles.)

So Galatians was not necessarily written for Jews that would understand “Jewish idioms” as you mentioned.

I live in America and can use southern idioms up north and no one has a clue what I am talking about.

These were two different cultures and in fact Paul has to go into a lot of Jewish background in Galatians, just to get them up to speed on the Jewish Law.

You would have to show that one, the idiom you are referring to is a uniquely “Jewish idiom”, understood by all Jews and Gentiles, since Galatia was a gentile city.

And you would have to show that the readers of John in that day and location understood the idiom you are referring to and have certainty that they would apply that idiom as you are trying to.

None of that has been done.

These also are two different authors, even though ultimately the word of God, but God’s retains the author’s styles and “idioms”. Psalms is quite different in style than, say John or Galatians.

So different authors, use different idioms and styles. So you would have to show the one author would be using the other idiom the same way.

You have not done that!

These are all just facts and simple observations. So I do not see any connection at all in these references. Nor have you shown any other than to say they are Jewish idioms.

Since Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles, how do you know this is a Jewish idiom? Paul did use Gentile idioms also, especially when addressing Gentiles. Makes sense doesn’t it.

So you have not even shown this was a “Jewish idiom”!

(Edited)

John 4:32
But he said to them: I have meat to eat, which you know not.

In Jn. John 4:34
Jesus saith to them: My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, that I may perfect his work.

“meat to eat” “My meat” is a reference also to eating and sustenance. Of course sustenance comes by eating. This clearly is figurative speech!!!

So according to your application, NOT MINE, of Galatians to the idea of eating, then as you said, NOT ME, since the reference in Jn. 4:34 is obviously figurative, this would mean according to your principle of interpretation, Jesus, “loathed”, “hated”, “the will of him that sent me”

I don’t really think you want to impugn the character of Christ, but in using this principle of interpretation, you have done so unwittingly.

I strongly urge you to reconsider your principle of interpretation in applying it to the gospel of John, as it would be impugning the character of Christ!!

Now if you want to see a Jewish idiom that is a lot more relevant, then how about this one.

Take another biblical example. In a narrative in the book of Samuel, three brave men put their lives at risk to bring fresh water for their master, David, from a well on the side of the Philistines.

But when David found out about this, he would not drink it. He said, “Far be it from me, O LORD, that I should do this! Is this not the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?” (2 Samuel 23:17). Is not this the blood of the men? He called the water in the vessel “blood,” not because it was transubstantiated, but simply because it represented the danger to the lives of those three men who brought it.

This is meant as an example of figurative speech. I am not saying this of necessity interprets Jn. 6. But it does show how the Bible writers have actually used the same concept of “drinking blood”. This is a clear and unambiguous example of saying something **IS ** blood, when it was NOT!!

So yes the Bible does use the word IS BLOOD to refer to something else!

 

[NotWorthy]

Well since it seems you still insist on going down this path, then let’s go.

First of all the book of Galatians was written to the Galatians. Do you know where that is?

It is nowhere near Capharnaum. Jn. 6:60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

Galatia is in Asia Minor , remember Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles, as mentioned in Galatians 2:8 (For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought in me also among the Gentiles.)

So Galatians was not necessarily written for Jews that would understand “Jewish idioms” as you mentioned.

I live in America and can use southern idioms up north and no one has a clue what I am talking about.

These were two different cultures and in fact Paul has to go into a lot of Jewish background in Galatians, just to get them up to speed on the Jewish Law.

You would have to show that one, the idiom you are referring to is a uniquely “Jewish idiom”, understood by all Jews and Gentiles, since Galatia was a gentile city.

And you would have to show that the readers of John in that day and location understood the idiom you are referring to and have certainty that they would apply that idiom as you are trying to.

None of that has been done.

I don’t have to do any of that. I simply have to prove that ONE individual was a Jew… and that is the author. The one who used the idiom. But again, that is irrelevant.

You seem to have accepted that this is a Jewish idiom. Let me ask you. Who was Jesus talking to in John 6? Wasn’t it Palestinian Jews? Huh? (where is a smiley showing an eyebrow going up and down repeatedly?)

Since Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles, how do you know this is a Jewish idiom? Paul did use Gentile idioms also, especially when addressing Gentiles. Makes sense doesn’t it.

So you have not even shown this was a “Jewish idiom”!

Simple. Read the Psalms that were reference one more time, as well as a few other books, such as Deuteronomy. It’s Jewish!

John 4:32
But he said to them: I have meat to eat, which you know not.

In Jn. John 4:34
Jesus saith to them: My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, that I may perfect his work.

“meat to eat” “My meat” is a reference also to eating and sustenance. Of course sustenance comes by eating. This clearly is figurative speech!!!

So according to your application, NOT MINE, of Galatians to the idea of eating, then as you said, NOT ME, since the reference in Jn. 4:34 is obviously figurative, this would mean according to your principle of interpretation, Jesus, “loathed”, “hated”, “the will of him that sent me”

(Edited) Jesus isn’t speaking of the meat of another person, which is the comparative analysis of Galatians, who were eating and devouring one another. Where does Jesus say, “I have meat of another man to eat”? You see how this simply doesn’t apply.

(Edited)

Now if you want to see a Jewish idiom that is a lot more relevant, then how about this one.

Take another biblical example. In a narrative in the book of Samuel, three brave men put their lives at risk to bring fresh water for their master, David, from a well on the side of the Philistines.

But when David found out about this, he would not drink it. He said, “Far be it from me, O LORD, that I should do this! Is this not the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?” (2 Samuel 23:17). Is not this the blood of the men? He called the water in the vessel “blood,” not because it was transubstantiated, but simply because it represented the danger to the lives of those three men who brought it.

This is meant as an example of figurative speech. I am not saying this of necessity interprets Jn. 6. But it does show how the Bible writers have actually used the same concept of “drinking blood”. This is a clear and unambiguous example of saying something **IS ** blood, when it was NOT!!

So yes the Bible does use the word IS BLOOD to refer to something else!

Yes, but here, the meaning is crystal clear, for even I agree with you on the usage in Samuel.

However, the meaning in John is not crystal clear, even Peter was perplexed, “Lord, whom else would we turn to, for You have the words of everlasting life”.

 

[rjcash]

Are you sure your reasoning is sound there, RJ?

“***so that everyone who believes ***in him might not perish but might have eternal life.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but “believes” is present tense. Does that mean that only those Jews who believed in Jesus at the time that He uttered it are the only ones who have eternal life? That would be a bummer for Christians today.

Yes “believes” is in the present tense which means it IS addressed to them at the present time and means just that, if they believe in the present, since they are the ones being addressed in the present, that their act of faith in the present, since that is when they are alive at the present time (but no guarantees of the future, since they might die tomorrow) and he is speaking to them at the present time, then yes they will have eternal life.

Is is simply meant to show he was addressing people in the present, i.e. there were people who he was actually speaking to “at the present time” and he told them to take action when he was speaking to them “at the present”, since tomorrow they might die!! Yes that IS what present is used for!

And therefore how were they to eat, IN THE PRESENT TENSE, his flesh at that time? No one has answered this yet!!! Or was he not being serious with them? If it is meant for us to take it literally, then surely it was meant for them to take it literally “to eat his flesh” at the time he was speaking it to them! Amen!!

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes “believes” is in the present tense which means it IS addressed to them at the present time and means just that, if they believe in the present, since they are the ones being addressed in the present, that their act of faith in the present, since that is when they are alive at the present time (but no guarantees of the future, since they might die tomorrow) and he is speaking to them at the present time, then yes they will have eternal life.

Is is simply meant to show he was addressing people in the present, i.e. there were people who he was actually speaking to “at the present time” and he told them to take action when he was speaking to them “at the present”, since tomorrow they might die!! Yes that IS what present is used for!

And therefore how were they to eat, IN THE PRESENT TENSE, his flesh at that time? No one has answered this yet!!! Or was he not being serious with them? If it is meant for us to take it literally, then surely it was meant for them to take it literally “to eat his flesh” at the time he was speaking it to them! Amen!!

But He only said it to Nicodemus, not any crowds.

And yet you believe that John 3:16 applies to you as well. Why can’t John 6 apply to me? And to the Jews present in John 6, but in the future when the New Covenant would arrive… roughly 1 year in their future.

 

[rjcash]

But He only said it to Nicodemus, not any crowds.

And yet you believe that John 3:16 applies to you as well. Why can’t John 6 apply to me? And to the Jews present in John 6, but in the future when the New Covenant would arrive… roughly 1 year in their future.

Sorry Noteworthy, but I have no idea what you are talking about in your above posts and this one, since you don’t really seem to deal directly with what I am saying.

Since this is on the internet and people from anywhere can get on this forum, is English your first language? I have just assumed that it was, but have never asked. So just curious, were you born and raised here? Please bear with me, but this might help explain how to understand your responses.

I am just very perplexed at your responses, since they seem so far removed from what I am saying?

Like in this response of yours, “But He only said it to Nicodemus, not any crowds.” I never mentioned Nicodemus and you did not either in any of your posts, so no idea what this is about. This is just one example of many responses I do not understand of yours. I am faily well educated, have a degree in Theology with Greek. I am accustomed and disciplined in dechipering ancient texts and the written and spoken word, but still have a hard time following where your responses are coming from.

I think you might be thinking of something, but not putting what you are thinking onto the page. So it seems there are some gaps. It might make sense to you, but I have not the foggiest?

So I can only answer piecemeal,

“And yet you believe that John 3:16 applies to you as well” - Yes I do, since it says whosoever in the text.

Why can’t John 6 apply to me? - Never said it didn’t, but did say if it applies to you literally then it applies to them literally, which then would mean it literally applies to unbelieving Jews. The RCC says unbelievers are forbidden from taking communion, so this obviously is not about commuion.

My main obsevation about the text is that it is adderessed to “unbelievers”.
The same observations Jesus himself made.

In your original post you did not make the distinction about “human flesh”, you only talked about “devouring” and “biting” each other as mentioned in Galatians and somehow wanted to apply that to Jn. 6. Saying is eating is figurative speech, then he is sayig to “loathe” and “hate” him. So I showed you that Jesus himself talked about eating “meat” figuratively and who’s to say it was NOT human flesh, since that seems acceptable to you. It never says it was NOT human flesh, since “human flesh” is clearly on the table for you.

So let’s just deal with ONE point, since this is getting so far off topic. I expressed in FACT 1 that this is addressed to unbelieving Jews, as it states in v. 53, the Jesus later confirms, “65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe”.

So concerning FACT 1, were unbelivers addressed at any time, in any way, shape or form in v. 41-60?

And as you noted they WERE told to eat his flesh LITERALLY!! Just as you believe we are to. You did say that!! I mean if they were not told to, then how can we be told to?

 

[rjcash]

You did not answer my question. I promised you I would answer yours if you could answer mine, without interpretation…a direct answer for a direct answer.

-Again, which verse in John 6:41-60 states that He was speaking ONLY to unbelievers?

(You showed me where there were some unbelievers present and that Jesus knew who among them were unbelievers, but this does not equate to ALL being such.)

You said, "You did not answer my question. I promised you I would answer yours if you could answer mine, without interpretation…a direct answer for a direct answer.

-Again, which verse in John 6:41-60 states that He was speaking ONLY to unbelievers?

(You showed me where there were some unbelievers present and that Jesus knew who among them were unbelievers, but this does not equate to ALL being such.) "

So yes FACT 1 - This is addressed to “unbelievers” has been acknowledged by you and others that it IS true. It is obivious, since Jesus himself said so!

FACT 2 - Is obviously true also, since it is a clear teaching of RCC, that UNBELIVERS are forbidden from taking communion.

FACT 3 - Therefore this is **absolutely **obvious that Jn. 6:41-60 is NOT about commuion!!

Since no one can show that he was not talking to UNBELIVERS (since Jesus said he was), please never use this passage v. 41-60 again to say it is talking about communion. If you do so, you do so in spite of the fact that Jesus himself, said it was to unbelievers!!!

No interpretation required, just one simple observation, Jesus himself said he was addressing “UNBLIEVERS”!! And that he knew “it from the beginning”!! Amen and amen.

Now we can get back to the original post that Jesus himself also said it was “fruit of the vine” in the cup. No NO it would seem rather obvious there is no blood in the cup if it is as the Lord himself said “fruit of the vine” in the very same sentence that he told them to take and drink as “the blood of the new covenant”, represented as “fruit of the vine”, IN THE SAME SENTENCE!!

 

[NeedImprovement]

…And remember the fact that no physical bread and physical wine is present to transub. No interpretation there, just plain statement of 100% fact…

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 :

**TRANSUBSTANTIATION. **
The complete change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood by a validly ordained priest during the consecration at Mass, so that only the accidents of bread and wine remain. While the faith behind the term was already believed in apostolic times, the term itself was a later development. With the Eastern Fathers before the sixth century, the favored expression was meta-ousiosis “change of being”; the Latin tradition coined the word transubstantiatio, “change of substance,” which was incorporated into the creed of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The Council of Trent, in defining the “wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and the whole substance of the wine into the blood” of Christ, added “which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation” (Denzinger 1652). After transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe; they are sustained in existence by divine power. (Etym. Latin trans-, so as to change + substantia, substance: transubstantiatio, change of substance.)
Quote:

ACCIDENTS.
Things whose essence naturally requires that they exist in another being. **Accidents are **also called the appearances, species, or properties of a thing. These may be either physical, such as quantity, or modal, such as size or shape. Supernaturally, accidents can exist, in the absence of their natural substance, as happens with the physical properties of bread and wine after Eucharistic consecration.

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.

 

[NotWorthy]

Sorry Noteworthy, but I have no idea what you are talking about in your above posts and this one, since you don’t really seem to deal directly with what I am saying.

Since this is on the internet and people from anywhere can get on this forum, is English your first language? I have just assumed that it was, but have never asked. So just curious, were you born and raised here? Please bear with me, but this might help explain how to understand your responses.

I am just very perplexed at your responses, since they seem so far removed from what I am saying?

Like in this response of yours, “But He only said it to Nicodemus, not any crowds.” I never mentioned Nicodemus and you did not either in any of your posts, so no idea what this is about. This is just one example of many responses I do not understand of yours. I am faily well educated, have a degree in Theology with Greek. I am accustomed and disciplined in dechipering ancient texts and the written and spoken word, but still have a hard time following where your responses are coming from.

I think you might be thinking of something, but not putting what you are thinking onto the page. So it seems there are some gaps. It might make sense to you, but I have not the foggiest?

So I can only answer piecemeal,

“And yet you believe that John 3:16 applies to you as well” - Yes I do, since it says whosoever in the text.

Why can’t John 6 apply to me? - Never said it didn’t, but did say if it applies to you literally then it applies to them literally, which then would mean it literally applies to unbelieving Jews. The RCC says unbelievers are forbidden from taking communion, so this obviously is not about commuion.

My main obsevation about the text is that it is adderessed to “unbelievers”.
The same observations Jesus himself made.

In your original post you did not make the distinction about “human flesh”, you only talked about “devouring” and “biting” each other as mentioned in Galatians and somehow wanted to apply that to Jn. 6. Saying is eating is figurative speech, then he is sayig to “loathe” and “hate” him. So I showed you that Jesus himself talked about eating “meat” figuratively and who’s to say it was NOT human flesh, since that seems acceptable to you. It never says it was NOT human flesh, since “human flesh” is clearly on the table for you.

So let’s just deal with ONE point, since this is getting so far off topic. I expressed in FACT 1 that this is addressed to unbelieving Jews, as it states in v. 53, the Jesus later confirms, “65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe”.

So concerning FACT 1, were unbelivers addressed at any time, in any way, shape or form in v. 41-60?

And as you noted they WERE told to eat his flesh LITERALLY!! Just as you believe we are to. You did say that!! I mean if they were not told to, then how can we be told to?

Born in raised in the US, brother. English is first and only Language. When I brought up John 3:16, you acted like Jesus said that to many people. I pointed out that He only said it to one person - Nicodemus.

I see what’s going on. Your mind is so closed, that you can’t accept anything that disagrees with you, and read it as gibberish.

I’ll look at the rest of your post later when I have time.

I gotta admit, you make me laugh.

 

[ahs]

“And yet you believe that John 3:16 applies to you as well” - Yes I do, since it says whosoever in the text.

Why can’t John 6 apply to me? - Never said it didn’t, but did say if it applies to you literally then it applies to them literally, which then would mean it literally applies to unbelieving Jews.

Yes, John 6 applies to everyone, regardless of “time”. The “present tense” you keep referrign to applies to ALL, in ALL time. You are correct in this, and you are correct that Jesus is speaking to ALL, INCLUDING unbelievers. Yes.

Where you are wrong is in what John chapter 6 IS. Recall my attempt to give an explanation:

Again, as has been stated many times over, Jesus first instructs them (and us) what we must believe and what we must do. Then, those who have believed are then invited to partake in the Lord’s Supper, where He actually gives His Body and Blood. Only those who did believe were offered and given the Eucharist. But ALL people, believers and unbelievers alike, are instructed that we must eat His Flesh and drink of His Blood in order to have life within us. We are not actually offered Eucharist until we believe.

John 6 is the instruction…given to ALL. The Lord’s Supper is the invitation to the believers. As badly as you seem to want to only look at John 6 :41-60 to discuss the Church’s Teaching on Eucharist, it cannot be done and still get the full context. You are short-changing yourself by not looking at the whole picture.

You are fixated on only John 6 41-60 to debate the Catholic teaching of teh Eucharist. However, the Catholic Teaching is not focused ONLY on John 6 41-60. The Church takes those verses, as well as the entirety of John 6, and puts them into teh context of the whole of Scripture. THAT is why 1 Cor 11:23-29 matters and is very relevant…as well as Jn 6:35-71, Matt 26:26ff, Mk 14:22ff, Lk 22:17ff, 1 Cor 10:16, Ex 12:8, 46, Jn 1:29, 1 Cor 5:7, 1 Cor 2:14- 3:4, and many others. You can find this teachign explained clearly in teh writings of the very first Christians who taught on this subject in the first and second centuries.

The RCC says unbelievers are forbidden from taking communion…

Yes, and this fits into Scripture perfectly…when Scripture is taken into proper context and not “cherry-picked” until a preferred meaning is extruded.

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.

 

[ahs]

Let me clarify my above post:

Not once in Jn 6:41-60 does Christ say, “Take, eat…this is My Body…drink…this is My Blood…”. No, He says, as you have many times pointed out to us, “Unless you eat” or “Except you eat” (depending on the translation/version of the Bible).

He tells ALL, EVERYONE, beleivers and nonbelievers alike, that we must eat His Body and drink His Blood. In Jn 6 He is teaching us what to do, and how to do it…but He nevers offers it at that teching…He does not, in John 6 41-60 invite them by saying, “Take, Eat…”. He only tells that (“Take, eat…this is My Body…drink…this is My Blood…” ) to BELIEVERS at the Lord’s Supper.

 

[Luvtosew]

And that’s one of the things that is great about the Catholic Church. It is called a “Democracy of the Dead”, for the dead also have a say in what the Church teaches.

This teaching, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, is one of the most consistent of all Sacred Tradition. It’s simply not negotiable, as far as Catholic Teaching.

BTW, you said that you read all of those - Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus. What were your thoughts on their writings. I mean, Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John and probably asked him at least once during their time together just what John meant when he wrote John 6. Wouldn’t his testimony on the meaning of John 6 be one of the most reliable?

Without getting into earlier writings, here is a Catholic link for you to read. See I have no problem believeing the Real Presence in the spiritual way, taking it in faith.

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/383/Real_Presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist_in_the_Early_Church__St._Cyril_of_Jerusalem.html

 

[NotWorthy]

Without getting into earlier writings, here is a Catholic link for you to read. See I have no problem believeing the Real Presence in the spiritual way, taking it in faith.

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/383/Real_Presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist_in_the_Early_Church__St._Cyril_of_Jerusalem.html

Dr. D’Ambrosio is very good, indeed! I like his talks.

But please explain to me what you understand as “I have no problem believing the Real Presence in the spiritual way” to mean.

 

[Luvtosew]

Dr. D’Ambrosio is very good, indeed! I like his talks.

But please explain to me what you understand as “I have no problem believing the Real Presence in the spiritual way” to mean.

Did you read the article? It is St Cyril of Jerusalem on the Real Presence, it is spiritual food. It is not D’Ambrosio words. And St. Cyril is Doctor of the Church.

What do I mean in the spiritual sense, that we spirtually receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus, in faith and spiritually, not in a physical body sense.

 

[NotWorthy]

Did you read the article? It is St Cyril of Jerusalem on the Real Presence, it is spiritual food. It is not D’Ambrosio words. And St. Cyril is Doctor of the Church.

What do I mean in the spiritual sense, that we spirtually receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus, in faith and spiritually, not in a physical body sense.

Yes, I read it. And I was wondering if you meant that Jesus is not really there, but only “spiritually”. I don’t think that’s what St. Cyril was saying.

You seem to be concentrating on St. Cyril’s comments on David’s Psalm as the Eucharist being “spiritually there”. But what does Cyril write immediately prior to this?

*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.
*

 

[Luvtosew]

Yes, I read it. And I was wondering if you meant that Jesus is not really there, but only “spiritually”. I don’t think that’s what St. Cyril was saying.

You seem to be concentrating on St. Cyril’s comments on David’s Psalm as the Eucharist being “spiritually there”. But what does Cyril write immediately prior to this?

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.

taken from his writing

"This is taken from St Cyril writing

“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.”

It is apparent he has interpreted the John 6 discourse the same way I do and many others as well, so even without the John 6 recourse, its imp. to have the Lords Supper in Church.
Jesus wanted us to remember what he did for us at the cross, and to receive him spiritually as our Lord and Saviour and to give our lives to him, so we take in faith the words Jesus said. Jesus is the bread of life.

 

[ahs]

…“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.”

It is apparent he has interpreted the John 6 discourse the same way I do and many others as well, so even without the John 6 recourse, its imp. to have the Lords Supper in Church.
Jesus wanted us to remember what he did for us at the cross, and to receive him spiritually as our Lord and Saviour and to give our lives to him, so we take in faith the words Jesus said. Jesus is the bread of life.

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.

 

[NotWorthy]

taken from his writing

"This is taken from St Cyril writing

“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.”

It is apparent he has interpreted the John 6 discourse the same way I do and many others as well, so even without the John 6 recourse, its imp. to have the Lords Supper in Church.
Jesus wanted us to remember what he did for us at the cross, and to receive him spiritually as our Lord and Saviour and to give our lives to him, so we take in faith the words Jesus said. Jesus is the bread of life.

And yet Cyril says in the same writing:
On the night he was betrayed our Lord Jesus Christ took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples and said: “Take, eat: this is my body”. He took the cup, gave thanks and said: “Take, drink: this is my blood”. Since Christ himself has declared the bread to be his body, who can have any further doubt? Since he himself has said quite categorically, This is my blood, who would dare to question it and say that it is not his blood?

Nowhere does He say “Christ himself has declared the bread to be Spiritually his body.”

You see, I think you’ve take one writing that you can interpret to match up with your beliefs, and run with it.

Take, for example, Justin Martyr.

We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving.

BTW, those his words are 1850 years old, St. Justin’s words match the teaching of the Church today.

 

[Luvtosew]

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.

 

[Luvtosew]

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.