John 6 and Eucharist?

[bene7]

ncgolf:

Oh my … just because you cannot sense it … it cannot be. I sense it. I feel it. Thomas did not believe until he put his fingers in His side even though all the disciples said we have seen the Lord.

Actually, nc, you’re arguing for my case. You’re digging a deeper hole.

JOHN 20:27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing.”

The greatest miracle ever was visibly displayed before man. They could see Him and touch Him. Miracles are for the benefit of men and therefore must connect with the senses.

You are way wrong on this. I do not understand how if you cannot sense something it cannot be.

Then try to understand that if you cannot sense it in some capacity, it’s probably NOT a miracle from God. He doesn’t work that way.

The question you should have is why can’t I sense this.

So, nc, when the host is placed on your tongue or in your hand, you’re saying you can feel the change? You can taste His flesh, His blood? I doubt it.

The real questioin is why do you believe a “miracle” has taken place when ALL your senses signify it hasn’t.

The other question is, where in John six or in the upper room does Jesus command saying, “Believe that this bread is changed into My body and this wine into My blood?” He doesn’t, does He? That’s not a command from Jesus, but from Rome.

When one is baptized we see no outward change in the appearance.

That’s because nothing does happen when one is baptized, only when one "believes

."[No where in the Bible does it say we must sense every miracle.

Yet every miracle performed by God in the Bible actually was - to His glory.

Blessings,
Bene
[/quote]

 

[ThomasMore1535]

Wow, Bene. You are sounding like a complete and total materialist, rationalist, atheist. What did Our Lord say to St. Thomas? “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet who have believed.” You are not blessed, because you refuse to believe unless you see.

God has, on occasion, helped the unbelief of the faithful through Eucharistic miracles. The bread has started to bleed, among other things. But that isn’t the point. You are demanding that God conform to your rationalist conceptions of things.

Could we see Jesus’s divinity? Could we see it on the Cross? I ask you that. No, of course we could not. Outside of the Transfiguration, which was only witnessed by two people, when did Our Lord ever manifest His Divinity to us? Never. He worked miracles, which is proof of His Divinity, but this is no different from the fact that the Eucharist works miracles in us Catholics. Catholics have been physically healed by the Eucharist. If you looked into it, you would see this. When did he ever ACTUALLY SHOW HIS DIVINITY TO ANYONE? Never.

Furthermore, why is it that you will say that transubstantiation is contrary to reason, yet Our Lord’s conception was not? How can that be explained through reason, exactly? Or His dividing five loaves of bread to feed five thousand? Care to explain that one by reason?

You know who you sound like?

“If he really is the Messiah, let him descend from the cross, SO THAT WE MAY SEE AND BELIEVE.” Unless you can see it with your own eyes, you will not believe. This is the most un-Christian comment I have ever heard of in my entire life.

Furthermore, transubstantiation is not contrary to reason. It is BEYOND our ability to comprehend it. Just like we are unable to comprehend the Trinity through reason. Would you like to explain to me, using only your facilities of reason, how God can be three persons, all fully God? You can’t. You rely on faith. It is not contrary to reason, but reason cannot explain it. It is BEYOND reason.

You are just like Our Lord’s disciples who left Him: “This is a hard saying. Who can accept it?”

I pray for you. Your rationale for rejecting the Eucharist are no different from the rationale utilized by atheists to reject Christianity altogether.

 

[ThomasMore1535]

bene7:

The point is, Mercy, Ignatius used strong, figurative language and you readily recognized it. John chapter six,starting with verse 48, is no different.

Blessing,
Bene

Now you are deliberately lying, or remaining intentionally stubborn. No serious person who reads Ignatius’s writings can come to such conclusions. ALL MAJOR PROTESTANT SCHOLARS WHO HAVE READ IGNATIUS HAVE CONCEEDED THIS POINT.

You actually undermine your own arguments further by saying tha St. Ignatius used “strong” figurative language. Oh, really? “Strong”? More like, actual, literal language?

I’m trying to be charitable with you, Bene, but I’m beginning to doubt your sincerity. First, when confronted with St. Ignatius’s writings, you dismiss them as mere “works of men,” insisting that we stick to what the Bible “plainly says,” but once you realized that you couldn’t win on that argument, that you can’t ignore St. Ignatius’s writings, you then suddenly start claiming, against all major scholarship, both Catholic and Protestant, that Ignatius was speaking figuratively. This is not Christian of you. You are either deliberately lying or knowingly resisting the Truth.

I pray for you.

 

[ThomasMore1535]

Furthermore, the Eucharist is a visible sign, Bene. It is a manifestation of God’s power and Glory that He will humble Himself under the appearances of the bread and wine. We literally see, touch and feel God. Literally. The appearances are different. That is all.

How do we know it’s Him? BECAUSE HE SAYS SO. We don’t need to see an actual change IF HE ACTUALLY SAYS THAT IT’S HIS BODY AND BLOOD. FOR THOSE WHO HAVE FAITH, THAT’S GOOD ENOUGH. It is a sign, a visible sign, just not the type of visible sign that you demand of God to provide.

 

[ThomasMore1535]

And, Bene, you said that people “sense” a change when they “accept Christ as their savior.” I can ASSURE you that the Eucharist works sensible changes in those who receive Our Lord’s Body and Blood. I have felt it. I could not obey Him without the Eucharist. Don’t think for a moment that I have not felt the changes in my life because of the Eucharist. I have.

So, your arguments really prove absolutely nothing.

And, besides, you’re discounting all of the Eucharistic miracles that have happened for the last 2000 years. People attempting to receive communion unworthily have had the Host change into stone when it touched their lips. Some hosts, upon the moment of consecration, have turned into human tissue, and have remained incorruptible to this very day. This has all been well documented.

But that’s not the point. You keep insisting for visible proof. Unless you see, you will not believe. Just like the atheists.

 

[mercygate]

We need to give Bene a point on this discussion. Technically, the transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is not a miracle. The word ‘miracle’ is frequently used of the Eucharistic transformation but it is inaccurate. A miracle is, as Bene contends, sense-perceptible.

We should be referring to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as a Mystery. This takes nothing away from the event, of course.

Now, the fact that many of us have had sense-perceptible experiences of Christ in the Eucharist (boy! have we!), cannot be demonstrated or measured by anything other than the fruit it bears in our lives, just as the experience of “getting saved” does in the lives of those who have had the experience of “accepting Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior” (as I have).

When the Church speaks of miracles in the technical sense, she means palpable and “measurable.”

 

[ThomasMore1535]

mercygate:

We need to give Bene a point on this discussion. Technically, the transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is not a miracle. The word ‘miracle’ is frequently used of the Eucharistic transformation but it is inaccurate. A miracle is, as Bene contends, sense-perceptible.

We should be referring to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as a Mystery. This takes nothing away from the event, of course.

Now, the fact that many of us have had sense-perceptible experiences of Christ in the Eucharist (boy! have we!), cannot be demonstrated or measured by anything other than the fruit it bears in our lives, just as the experience of “getting saved” does in the lives of those who have had the experience of "accepting Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior (as I have).

When the Church speaks of miracles in the technical sense, she means palpable and “measurable.”

Good point, and I concur. The Trinity is a “mystery,” but certainly is not a miracle, since it is the essence of God. My apologies to Bene if I failed to understand his point in this matter regarding miracles.

The point is, that God does not give us any direct proof of the Trinity, or any explaination of how it is possible, other than His own word, Christ. We have to accept it as faith. Likewise, we have to accept Christ’s word when He says that the bread is His body, and the wine is His blood.

The primary purpose of the Eucharist is not to manifest evidence of God’s glory to nonbelievers so that they can come to faith in Him. The Eucharist, rather, is for those who have already come to faith in God. It’s primary purpose is to fully unite them with Our Lord, and to give them the grace to continue, as St. Paul says, to “fight the good fight.”

Again, my apologies to Bene for not using the correct terminology, but my point still holds. You refuse to believe that Jesus was speaking literally because you cannot understand it, yet you accept the Trinity, even though you cannot understand that through reason either.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Think about it Kay Cee, it’s quite impossible to conceive of the bread which Jesus broke at the Last Supper as being the *same *body which was handling it. Rome asks us to go against all human senses and believe that what tastes and looks like bread and wine, is really flesh and blood; to believe in the separation of a substance and its properties, and in the presence of a material body in several places (even millions) at the same time, all of which is totally contrary to reason. Faith is not the absence of reason. If it was then God could not judge men according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He cannot condemn a man to Hell for not believing something that is totally unreasonable.

John six is not about believing in changing common bread into Chrit’s body, or common wine into His blood. Nor is it, hermeneutically, even connected to Jesus’ words at the “Last Supper.”

Blessings,
Bene

You’re thinking of this as “either/or” instead of “both/and.” Jesus, being God, is not limited the way we are. He can both be in His body and hold His body–unless you want to claim God is limited by time and space. I don’t find the concept difficult to conceive of at all.

 

[mercygate]

ThomasMore1535:

Good point, and I concur. The Trinity is a “mystery,” but certainly is not a miracle, since it is the essence of God. My apologies to Bene if I failed to understand his point in this matter regarding miracles.

The point is, that God does not give us any direct proof of the Trinity, or any explaination of how it is possible, other than His own word, Christ. We have to accept it as faith. Likewise, we have to accept Christ’s word when He says that the bread is His body, and the wine is His blood.

The primary purpose of the Eucharist is not to manifest evidence of God’s glory to nonbelievers so that they can come to faith in Him. The Eucharist, rather, is for those who have already come to faith in God. It’s primary purpose is to fully unite them with Our Lord, and to give them the grace to continue, as St. Paul says, to “fight the good fight.”

Again, my apologies to Bene for not using the correct terminology, but my point still holds. You refuse to believe that Jesus was speaking literally because you cannot understand it, yet you accept the Trinity, even though you cannot understand that through reason either.

To your comment, which I bolded, we might reflect that there is a point at which we must allow those who so strenuously contend against the Mystery to walk away from the table until the Father draws them.

Actually, your point here is the reason that the Church since Apostolic times has so cautiously restricted access to the Sacred Mysteries. I had not measured that important consideration into these discussions. :tiphat:

 

[mercygate]

bene7:

Nowhere is there any historical evidence of a “Eucharistic Mass” being performed by any of the Apostles.

Blessings,
Bene

What would you require as evidence? Would you accept anything outside of Scripture, even if it were offered? You have already dismissed Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch, both of whom wrote within living memory of the Apostles. We have cited scriptures in evidence of the Real Presence. What do you think a “Eucharistic Mass” is that these celebrations were not?

 

[sandusky]

Kay Cee:

Please show me where the Bible says all miracles must be visible.

Where in the Bible does it say that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice, and that the bread and wine are transubstantiated?

 

[sandusky]

ThomasMore1535:

The mass is the exact same sacrifice as the sacrifice Jesus offered up on the Cross Once and For All.

This statement is absurd, and illogical, and, if I am not mistaken, it is not what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[Aaron_I]

sandusky:

This statement is absurd, and illogical, and, if I am not mistaken, it is not what the Catholic Church teaches.

Actually, ThomasMore is correct. If the Church were to teach otherwise, then THAT would be absurd.

 

[sandusky]

ThomasMore1535:

Furthermore, the Eucharist is a visible sign, Bene. It is a manifestation of God’s power and Glory that He will humble Himself under the appearances of the bread and wine. We literally see, touch and feel God. Literally. The appearances are different. That is all.

How do we know it’s Him? BECAUSE HE SAYS SO. We don’t need to see an actual change IF HE ACTUALLY SAYS THAT IT’S HIS BODY AND BLOOD. FOR THOSE WHO HAVE FAITH, THAT’S GOOD ENOUGH. It is a sign, a visible sign, just not the type of visible sign that you demand of God to provide.

Philippians 2:5-8

*5…Christ Jesus, who,…taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men]/b]. Being found in appearance as a man

That is the word of God; That is the form Christ took, He has never taken the form of bread and wine.

In the O.T., God sent plagues on Pharoah. What He said He would do, was visibly manifest. The reason for that was so Pharoah, and God’s people would know that He was God.

Same with the parting of the Red Sea, the manna in wilderness, Joshua at Jericho, the Lord halting the sun’s movement for Joshua, etc.

The miracle of Christ was attested to by the outward, visiblemiracles He performed. That was so people would know that it was from God.

Acts 2:22
22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—

IOW, the visibly seen miracles proved that they were from God.

Compare that with John 3:2:

*2 this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, **we know that You have come from God…for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” ***

Do you understand?

Miracle seen = From God
Miracle unseen = Not from God

That is a gauge that God has given His people, so that they won’t be fooled.

Neither Christ, nor the apostles speak of the bread and wine in terms of a miracle, either at the Last Supper, or at any other time. The only reference made by an apostle to the Lord’s Supper is made by Paul, and he clearly calls it the bread and the cup, not the transubstantiated body and blood.

Therefore, IMHO, if someone, or some church, claims that it is presenting a miracle from God, but the miracle is not observable, God’s people should flee from them.

ThomasMore1535:

You know who you sound like? Some people talking to Our Lord many centuries ago…

“This saying is hard, and who can hear it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: “Doth this scandalize you?”

Yes, and in the future, many will say, “Lord, Lord…”

That Christ spoke figuratively in the Gospels is truth; and that He worked miracles is truth, and all of His miracles were seen.*

 

[sandusky]

mercygate:

bene, the point I was making – and you know it because I stated it – was that the consciousness of Christ in the Eucharist perfused the spirituality of the subapostolic age.

This is very New Age, Orwellian New Speak, Depak Chopra-like language.

What are you saying, in plain language, please?

 

[sandusky]

mercygate:

We need to give Bene a point on this discussion. Technically, the transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is not a miracle. The word ‘miracle’ is frequently used of the Eucharistic transformation but it is inaccurate. A miracle is, as Bene contends, sense-perceptible.

We should be referring to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as a Mystery. This takes nothing away from the event, of course.

Thank you, Mercygate, you have are finally coming to your senses. It is good to shift the discussion away from the Eucharist as a miracle, because it is an argument you cannot win.

Anyone else ready to concede, and agree with Mercygate that the Eucharist is really better called a Mystery, than a Miracle?

 

[sandusky]

ThomasMore1535:

Good point, and I concur. The Trinity is a “mystery,” but certainly is not a miracle, since it is the essence of God. My apologies to Bene if I failed to understand his point in this matter regarding miracles.

Bravo! ThomasMore.

Perhaps I’m not such a rationalist, materialist blaspheming atheist?

Forget that, little steps, ThomasMore, little steps.

 

[sandusky]

mercygate:

What would you require as evidence? Would you accept anything outside of Scripture, even if it were offered? You have already dismissed Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch, both of whom wrote within living memory of the Apostles. We have cited scriptures in evidence of the Real Presence. What do you think a “Eucharistic Mass” is that these celebrations were not?

I think that Martyr and Ignatius are excluded in the question. They were not apostles, and you cannot show anywhere in the writings of the apostles, which the Catholic church claims to have given us, that they speak about the Eucharist at all, except the description of the Last Supper, and Paul’s admonition concerning partaking unworthily of the bread and the cup.

 

[sandusky]

Aaron I.:

Actually, ThomasMore is correct. If the Church were to teach otherwise, then THAT would be absurd.

Usually Catholics recoil at that when a non-Catholic brings it up, saying that it is a re-presentation. I think that ThomasMore’s statement is in disagreement the RCC.

ThomasMore’s statement is physically and logically impossible, and it is a contradiction. A once-for-all sacrifice is just that. It is, by definition, not repeatable.

 

[sandusky]

AquinasXVI:

Sandusky:

Nice to see you back. I’m wondering, what if you were in the presence of Christ in John 6, what would you have done? Believe in the apparent literal equation that his body must be eaten during passover like the passover lamb or would you have thought it symbolic? Those who left and said “who can accept this?” left what they understood as a literal eating of the Eucharist…the new and everlasting covenant per Christ.

Hello, AquinasXVI, thank you.

I don’t know what I would have done; probably, I would have thought that the Lord was out of His mind, as many did, and not just about this saying.

Peter fought Him all the way to the cross, even though the Lord explained that He must go.

But, if I felt and thought about Him then, the way I think and feel about Him now, I would have followed Him, and if He said I had to eat His flesh, I would have done it, and been relieved to find out that what He had in mind was only bread, and the cup of wine; that is why I believe John gave no explanation: no explanation needed; John is the only one who writes of the “Eat My flesh,” incident; none of the other Gospel writers mention it.

As for the Eucharist being the new covenant, it is not; the covenant is His blood, shed on the cross. The Eucharist is, like the Passover meal, an ordinance, and not a sacrament, or a dispenser of anything, but a calling to mind the saving work of God (Ex 12:14, 17, 24 et al.).

AquinasXVI:

To boot, you have the evidence of 2000 years of continuos faith in this most demanding of all miracle-the transubstantiation.

Respectfully, AquinasXVI, if what you mean by “continuous faith,” is unanimous consent, your statement, IMHO, couldn’t be further from the truth.

AquinasXVI:

Every generation from the first century to date have this article of faith recapitulated in writings. Historical proof of Christians faith in the Holy Eucharist exist while the claim of symbolic eucharist simply does not appear until the reformation.

Aquinas, that is not true. The “Presence” was hotly debated as to whether or not it was “real,” or “symbolic,” and exactly what that meant, long before the reformation.

Transubstantiation was dogmatically declared, on the basis of authority alone, in 1215, 300+ years before the reformation, and its roots go back even further. It has been a long and continuous argument, even before the reformation.