John 6 and Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mikeledes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
mikeledes:
I have another related question regarding the Eucharist. How can the Bread and Wine at the Last Supper be the body and blood of Christ when Christ Himself was physically present? Also, if the Mass is the representation of the Sacrifice at Calvary, than was the Last Supper a represenation of the Sacrifice at Calvary, particularly since Christ had not died on the Cross yet?

God Bless
Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper will answer these questions brilliantly.

For the less brilliant answer, The passover meal, which is what the last supper was, has 4 cups that must be drunk. Only 3 are recorded in Scripture. On the cross, Jesus was given wine with vinegar, the last cup. Then He said “It is finished”. what was finished? The passover meal. Truly, I recommend that book, or also available on video. It is great!

God Bless,
Maria
 
40.png
mikeledes:
I have another related question regarding the Eucharist. How can the Bread and Wine at the Last Supper be the body and blood of Christ when Christ Himself was physically present? Also, if the Mass is the representation of the Sacrifice at Calvary, than was the Last Supper a represenation of the Sacrifice at Calvary, particularly since Christ had not died on the Cross yet?

God Bless
Addressing the second half of your question first, the Last Supper was PART of the Sacrifice of Calvary: it was the beginning of the Passover event in which Jesus himself IS the Lamb. the lamb on the table is the prefigurement of Christ, who finishes the Sacrifice on the Cross as athe unspotted Lamb “slain from the foundation of the world.”

It has been the understanding of the Church since ancient times that Jesus “held himself in his own hands” at the Passover supper.
 
Anybody got time for a quick Bible Study?

The bread and wine fit the Passover meal, but its Jesus words that make explicit the meaning of the meal, which puts new wine in the old Passover wineskins. The breaking of the bread symbolized the imminent breaking of Jesus’ body on the Cross. The cup, which is “poured out”, prophetically signifies the shedding of His blood on the Cross. In the history of the Passover, the bloody sacrifice was supposed to be a lamb. Luke reminds us that on that day “the passover lamb had to be sacrificed” (Lk. 22:7), but there is no mention of a lamb in any of the four gospels. The absence of a lamb is deliberate. Jesus is the lamb, and it is His blood that saves. The blood of Jesus is later identified with the Passover lamb by Peter in his first epistle: “You know that you were ransomed… with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Pet. 18-19). But notice that in each Passover, the lamb had to be eaten. In the first Passover in Egypt, if you didn’t eat the lamb, you would wake up the next morning to find out that your firstborn son would be dead. Now, in this Passover, Jesus as he prophesied in the breaking of the bread and the wine, will die a sacrificial death on the Cross. And just like the Passover lamb, the sacrfice must be eaten as well. Jesus gives us His body and blood so that we can share in His atoning death and in His divine life.

The significance of Jesus’ “new covenant in my blood” could not be overstated. Ancient covenants had to be sealed with blood, which was shared between the two parties to signify their new kinship relationship. Since blood meant kinship, its sharing signified the extension of family ties. At Mount Sinai, when he sealed the covenant with Israel, Moses poured half the blood of the sacrifices out upon the altar for Yahweh, and half upon the people, making Israel and Yahweh a family. According to Jewish law, “You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off” (Lev. 17:14). Life was identified with blood; to partake of an animal’s blood was to share in its life. Eating meat was allowed, because in sharing the animal’s death, you would die to your animal nature.

Jesus’ giving of His own blood for the disciples to drink seemed to fly in the face of Jewish practice. How could Jesus offer His blood to be drunk? Whereas partaking in the blood of animals was demeaning, for you took on the nature of that animal, partaking of the blood of Jesus was to share in the life of the God-man, to be elevated to share in the divine nature. God did not want man to sink to the level of the beasts, but rather He “earnestly desired” (Lk. 22:15) that men “become partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4). In previous covenants, animals were sacrificed and their blood poured out as a token sign of shared kinship, but Jesus goes beyond this in giving a sign (sacrament) that effects reality. He actually gives us a share in His blood so that we can truly become children of God.
Code:
Jesus' discussion of blood in the context of the Passover meal also recalls the covenant made at the climax of the first exodus, the covenant mediated by Moses at Sinai. Jesus, however, does not simply recall the covenant; He reconstitutes it. For a Jew to speak of a "new" covenant would be as radical as for an American to speak of a "new" constitution. Not only did the adjective "new" imply a fundamental change in the covenant constitution of Israel, it evoked a powerful prophecy. The prophet Jeremiah claimed that God would make a covenant with Israel, and that this new covenant would come about when Israel was redeemed from exile and pardoned from all her sin: "***Behold the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord"*** (Jer. 21:31-32).

The breaking of His body and the outpouring of His blood on the Cross are the sacrifice of the definitive Passover lamb. The purpose behind the pouring out of Jesus' blood is twofold. First, His blood stands for the Passover lamb, which is a sacrifice that atones for sins and brings about redemption. Second, Jesus' blood seals the New Covenant. So the precious blood of Christ washes away our identity as sinners in order to grant us the New Covenant identity as sons and daughters of the Father; blood-brethren with Christ. We are saved from sin for sonship.
Notworthy
 
40.png
mikeledes:
I have another related question regarding the Eucharist. How can the Bread and Wine at the Last Supper be the body and blood of Christ when Christ Himself was physically present? Also, if the Mass is the representation of the Sacrifice at Calvary, than was the Last Supper a represenation of the Sacrifice at Calvary, particularly since Christ had not died on the Cross yet?

God Bless
How could it be so? I don’t know, but I’m also not God. He said “This is my Body” so either it is or it isn’t. Same thing on the Last Supper and the Sacrifice of Calvary. It’s either the same Sacrifice or it isn’t. I wish that I had a better answer but some things we have to take on faith.
 
40.png
mikeledes:
I have another related question regarding the Eucharist. How can the Bread and Wine at the Last Supper be the body and blood of Christ when Christ Himself was physically present? Also, if the Mass is the representation of the Sacrifice at Calvary, than was the Last Supper a represenation of the Sacrifice at Calvary, particularly since Christ had not died on the Cross yet?

God Bless
Hi Mike!
Stop and think about what you are saying for second and WHO is saying “This is my body…this is my blood”…didn’t He also speak the universe into existence from nothing at all?

My point is that if Jesus Christ tells you something is so, you don’t have to understand the how of it for it to be be a reality. Non-Catholics lack the simple faith to take Jesus at His word and that is what messes them up on all this.

So far as the sacrifice of the Mass is concerned and the last supper…again, what did Jesus say? “This is my body…blood that will be given up for you and for all that sins might be forgiven.” Tied to the cross…you betcha!

I strongly advise you to get the FREE Catholic study “We Worship…” on the Mass from The Catholic Home Study Service . You can’t go wrong with it!
Pax tecum,
 
40.png
epr1993:
How could it be so? I don’t know, but I’m also not God. He said “This is my Body” so either it is or it isn’t. Same thing on the Last Supper and the Sacrifice of Calvary. It’s either the same Sacrifice or it isn’t. I wish that I had a better answer but some things we have to take on faith.
Then do you also take on faith that He’s rectangular in shape, and attached to His side are hinges? He did say “I am the door.” Don’t mean to be sarcastic, but it is obvious that some things Jesus said were figurative, and it seems obvious to me that this was the case with the bread ad wine as well. He didn’t say, “these have become My body and blood.” And where does He say He gave them the power to miracuously transform the two elements into Himself? And since He was raised with the SAME body with which He was crucified, how could it be His crucified body that is now present in the Eucharist?

Too much makes no sense.

God Bless,
Bene
 
40.png
bene7:
Then do you also take on faith that He’s rectangular in shape, and attached to His side are hinges? He did say “I am the door.”
We do not know everything that God is capable of, but we do know what humans are capable of. Jesus said “I am the door of the sheep.” Are we actual sheep? Of course not. That alone shows that Jesus was speaking figuratively in this case.

OTOH, when speaking of the need to eat His flesh and drink His blood, He was as explicit as He could be. “My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.” He said “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” It takes a real act of will to determine that those words are figurative.
 
Bene7,
Please read all of Chapter 6 of John. At first it may seem very figurative, similar to your “I am the door” or even “I am the vine” dissertations. But when Jesus starts saying, “Amen, Amen, I say to you…”, he is cutting to the chase. If Jesus lets His disciples leavee because they didn’t realize He was using figurative speech, He may not have been talking figuratively.

“Do this in Remembrance of Me” was sure understood by the Apostles, because they immediately started doing it after the Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended upon them and guided them.

Thanks for your patience,

Notworthy
 
40.png
bene7:
Then do you also take on faith that He’s rectangular in shape, and attached to His side are hinges? He did say “I am the door.”
Merely Figurative?

They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.
Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 (“I am the door”) and John 15:1 (“I am the true vine”). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, “I am the bread of life.” “I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).

He continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor.

**Catholic Answers
**
 
Mickey said:
Merely Figurative?

They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains,** “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation.** To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.
Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 (“I am the door”) and John 15:1 (“I am the true vine”). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, “I am the bread of life.” “I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).

He continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor.

Catholic Answers

This bears repeating. To take those words eat my flesh and drink my blood figuratively means doing serious injury. It would have been completely obvious to those with Christ that He was NOT speaking figuratively.
 
I happened to be watching CrossTV the other night and the Baptist preacher was giving his “Biblical” explanation on the Eucharist. Needless to say, he blamed that entire Roman Catholic (never mind the other Catholic churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome) misunderstanding on … St. Thomas Aquinas!
 
I was thinking on this yesterday as I was driving. Truly God has given so many reinforcements to this.

Where was Christ placed when born?

A manger.

What is a manger?

An eating trough.

The passover meal, a lamb must be eaten, not figuratively, but actually eaten or the sacrifice is not complete.

Who is the Lamb of God?

Christ. We must eat the lamb for the sacrifice to be valid.

And then of course there are the words of Jesus Himself, that if you take the words figuratively, you need to harm Christ.

And I know it is not “from the Bible” but the new 1st century Christians would defend the belief of the Real Presence even unto death.
Justin Martyr From CA library The Real Presence

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (*First Apology **66 [A.D. 151]).

Truly, this is a hard teaching and many leave over it. But God put so many different signs from Christ’s birth to His death and even Christ’s own words. Don’t walk away from Him. Please.

God Bless,
Maria
 
40.png
MariaG:
I was thinking on this yesterday as I was driving. Truly God has given so many reinforcements to this.

Where was Christ placed when born?

A manger.

What is a manger?

An eating trough.

The passover meal, a lamb must be eaten, not figuratively, but actually eaten or the sacrifice is not complete.

Who is the Lamb of God?

Christ. We must eat the lamb for the sacrifice to be valid.

And then of course there are the words of Jesus Himself, that if you take the words figuratively, you need to harm Christ.

And I know it is not “from the Bible” but the new 1st century Christians would defend the belief of the Real Presence even unto death.

Truly, this is a hard teaching and many leave over it. But God put so many different signs from Christ’s birth to His death and even Christ’s own words. Don’t walk away from Him. Please.
And if I’m not mistaken, the French translation for “Bethlehem”, means “city of bread”. 🙂
 
40.png
bene7:
Originally Posted by epr1993
*
40.png
epr1993:
How could it be so? I don’t know, but I’m also not God. He said “This is my Body” so either it is or it isn’t. Same thing on the Last Supper and the Sacrifice of Calvary. It’s either the same Sacrifice or it isn’t. I wish that I had a better answer but some things we have to take on faith.
Then do you also take on faith that He’s rectangular in shape, and attached to His side are hinges? He did say “I am the door.” Don’t mean to be sarcastic, but it is obvious that some things Jesus said were figurative, and it seems obvious to me that this was the case with the bread ad wine as well. He didn’t say, “these have become My body and blood.” And where does He say He gave them the power to miracuously transform the two elements into Himself? And since He was raised with the SAME body with which He was crucified, how could it be His crucified body that is now present in the Eucharist?

Too much makes no sense.

God Bless,
Bene
Bene, the questions you bring are the standard fare for John 6 discussions. The answers you are getting back are substantial,
Scriptural, historical, and Spiritual.

Vocimike and I have the same “favorite” verses out of this Chapter, John 6:51. All within 1 verse, Jesus tells us exactly what he means by “bread”. There is no wiggle room here.
40.png
VociMike:
“I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” It takes a real act of will to determine that those words are figurative"
To recognize the physical body of Christ is not to deny or refuse the power of Jesus’ Words, His teachings, or His Spiritual presence among all believers. We don’t choose one over the other. We have both! Not because we “imagined” to have both out of thin air… but rather because Jesus promised us both!

(Gee, if you want a long running thread, just bring up John 6. It works every time!)
God Bless Us All!
 
40.png
bene7:
Then do you also take on faith that He’s rectangular in shape, and attached to His side are hinges? He did say “I am the door.” Don’t mean to be sarcastic, but it is obvious that some things Jesus said were figurative, and it seems obvious to me that this was the case with the bread ad wine as well. He didn’t say, “these have become My body and blood.” And where does He say He gave them the power to miracuously transform the two elements into Himself? And since He was raised with the SAME body with which He was crucified, how could it be His crucified body that is now present in the Eucharist?

Too much makes no sense.

God Bless,
Bene
Most of what I would reply with has already been said so there really is no reason to repeat it. I also didn’t think that you were being sarcastic either…

When I say that we have to take it on faith I refer to exactly *how *Our Lord did these things. My little pea brain can not comprehend the Divine. I don’t have to understand the mechanics, you know?

If Jesus was being figurative, and it was obvious to everyone there, then why did people leave after this teaching? They didn’t when He said “I am the Door”, or “I am the Vine”. Again, why did He go on and on and on explaining Himself to the point of even changing the verb that he used in verse 54?
 
40.png
VociMike:
We do not know everything that God is capable of, but we do know what humans are capable of. Jesus said “I am the door of the sheep.” Are we actual sheep? Of course not. That alone shows that Jesus was speaking figuratively in this case.
Well, you could use the same principle on He being the bread of life. Was He actually saying all Christians are to be ritual cannibals? I say, as you say concerning the “Door” and we being actual sheep, “of course not.”
OTOH, when speaking of the need to eat His flesh and drink His blood, He was as explicit as He could be. “My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.” He said “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
When He says that the bread which He gives for the life of the world He, to me, obviously is making reference to His crucifixion, the subtitutionary sacrifice of Himself for the sins of the world, and all who subsequently believe in Him have eternal life. This is what He came out of Heave to do, it was His work. This is made VERY evident when He says:

For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world." They said therefore to Him, “Lord, evermore give us this bread.” Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me (i.e., by faith) shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst” (John 6:33-35).

As the physical manna sustained life for the Isralelites during their wilderness journey, His sacrificial work on the cross on the world’s behalf, provides ETERNAL life to all who believe in Him (John 3:14-18). Spiritually speaking this is true food and true drink. The spiritual is far greater than the physical. Physically eating manna in the wilderness only sustained their physical lives, but they eventually died (vs. 49). But belief in Christ gives ETERNAL life to those who believes in Him, even if they die physically (see John 5:24-27; 11:25). “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who BELIEVES HAS ETERNAL LIFE” (John 6:47).

Also, none have yet answered my question on how the Eucharist (as it is taught) is the actual crucified body and blood of Jesus. And not just body and blood, but His whole, divine Being (body, blood, soul and divinity) Yet He was raised with the SAME body in which He died. Remember, the tomb was empty, no dead, crucified body was found there. His crucified, dead body was raised in new life, glorified and ascended into Heaven. How then, as a Man in bodily form, can Jesus possibly be both dead and alive (crucified and resurrected) at the same time? The Apostle Paul said that we (believers) are to be bodily resurrected and glorifiedas just as Jesus was. Will we then also be both dead and alive at the same time??? I say this only as an illustration of the absurdity.

Also, how could matter (His body) be omnipresent? In Spirit Jesus can be, and is, omnipresent (He being God), but in His humanity, i.e., in bodily form, He cannot. As a Man He can be in only one place at a time. And now, as a Man, He sits, bodily, at the right hand of the Majesty on High. This was one of the reasons the Spirit was sent after Jesus ascended into Heaven bodily. The Spirit performs His ministry on earth omnipresently. No bodily limitations.

We’re to have faith, yes, but faith does not demand that we believe that which is at variance with reason. I find that there is much about the Eucharist, as taught by Catholicism, that defies reason. There’s a big difference between that which is not completely understood because of a lack of knowledge (a mystery), and therefore must be taken on by faith - and that which is just plain unreasonable.

There is nothing “unreasonable” about understanding and accepting the words of Christ in John six in their spiritual sense. In fact, it makes much sense when understood in their context. But there is much that is unreasonable (even nonsensical) when told to take them in their literal sense.

Blessings to you,
Bene
 
40.png
bene7:
. “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who BELIEVES HAS ETERNAL LIFE” (John 6:47).
Brilliant! (Imagine those guys on the Guiness commercial when I type that!)
Now, in case you aren’t sure what Jesus means by “believing”, he spells it out for you in John 3:36: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.” It’s pretty simple - you either believe and obey, or you disobey and don’t believe. There are no third options.

To us Catholics, that’s pretty simple. If Christ says, “This is My Body” and "This is My Blood", and then he tells us that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, then we believe and obey, even if we don’t fully understand the mystery. Do you fully understand the mystery behind the Holy Trinity? Jesus Christ, True God and True Man? But you still have faith in these mysteries, don’t you?
40.png
bene7:
Also, none have yet answered my question on how the Eucharist (as it is taught) is the actual crucified body and blood of Jesus. And not just body and blood, but His whole, divine Being (body, blood, soul and divinity) Yet He was raised with the SAME body in which He died. Remember, the tomb was empty, no dead, crucified body was found there. His crucified, dead body was raised in new life, glorified and ascended into Heaven. How then, as a Man in bodily form, can Jesus possibly be both dead and alive (crucified and resurrected) at the same time? The Apostle Paul said that we (believers) are to be bodily resurrected and glorifiedas just as Jesus was. Will we then also be both dead and alive at the same time??? I say this only as an illustration of the absurdity.

Also, how could matter (His body) be omnipresent? In Spirit Jesus can be, and is, omnipresent (He being God), but in His humanity, i.e., in bodily form, He cannot. As a Man He can be in only one place at a time. And now, as a Man, He sits, bodily, at the right hand of the Majesty on High. This was one of the reasons the Spirit was sent after Jesus ascended into Heaven
bodily. The Spirit performs His ministry on earth omnipresently. No bodily limitations.

Do you fully understand the mystery behind the Holy Trinity? How about Jesus Christ, True God and True Man? But you still have faith in these mysteries, don’t you?

Where does it say that a God, who is also true man, has to exist in one place at one time?

NotWorthy
 
One other thing. The Early Church was already writing about the Real Presence in the first century. This can only mean two things (unless I’m mistaken).
A) They were already in Apostasy.
B) There is truly the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Could the Holy Spirit let the Church go into error that fast?

I mean, from what I’ve heard from other non-catholics, the church didn’t go into apostasy till the 3rd of 4th centuries!:whistle:

Notworthy
 
40.png
bene7:
Also, none have yet answered my question on how the Eucharist (as it is taught) is the actual crucified body and blood of Jesus. And not just body and blood, but His whole, divine Being (body, blood, soul and divinity) Yet He was raised with the SAME body in which He died. Remember, the tomb was empty, no dead, crucified body was found there. His crucified, dead body was raised in new life, glorified and ascended into Heaven. How then, as a Man in bodily form, can Jesus possibly be both dead and alive (crucified and resurrected) at the same time?

Where does the Church teach that the Eucharist is His dead body? Did I misunderstand the question?

Also, how could matter (His body) be omnipresent? In Spirit Jesus can be, and is, omnipresent (He being God), but in His humanity, i.e., in bodily form, He cannot. As a Man He can be in only one place at a time.

How do we know that His glorified body can only be in one place? I’m serious. He walked into a locked room, vanished from sight, ascended into Heaven, and rose from the dead. Even His non-glorfied body was able to walk on water.

We’re to have faith, yes, but faith does not demand that we believe that which is at variance with reason. I find that there is much about the Eucharist, as taught by Catholicism, that defies reason.

“What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe ‘because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.’” CCC156

“This is my body” Jesus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top