John 6 and Eucharist?

[Aaron_I]

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.

The eucharist is a zikkaron event. This comes to us from the Jews. For example, the passover was a zikkaron event in that a past event was made present. It makes a lot of sense that the eucharist would also be a zikkaron event in that it is the fulfillment of the passover feast.

Bene, I know you’re having to deal with a lot of posts, but please explain the words of St. Paul in the following verse: “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29).

Two other important issues: the true presence was universally accepted among church fathers and the fact that Christ allowed people to leave because of what you suppose to be a simple misunderstanding.

 

[bene7]

NotWorthy:

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.

You put a spin on His words. He specifically says, “Whoever believes in the Son HAS eternal life.” The “whoever” who disobey the Son are different than the whoever who believe IN the Son and HAVE eternal life, since they will not see life and the wrath of God abides on them. In the context of John six Jesus says: “Truly, truly, I say to you, He who believes HAS eternal life.” In both places there are no added conditions, but only to believe in the Son.

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.

The question is, is what you believe and do truly a “mystery,” or actually an absurdity, an implausibility based on an erroneous interpretation?

Do you really believe ALL that Jesus said? When I ask Catholics if they know, without a doubt, that they HAVE eternal life now, they reply in the negative, stating that no one can know for sure in this lifetime. Yet Jesus states emphatically in John 6:54: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood HAS eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day.” And again in verse 58: “he who eats this bread shall LIVE FOREVER.” That’s awfully clear. You partake in the Eucharist, do you not? How is it you still can’t say with all certainty that you HAVE eternal life? And I mean “eternal,” which means you can’t lose it. Eternal means everlasting.

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?

I do believe in those mysteries. However, that Jesus can be both God and Man at the same time does not seem at all absurd to me. That Jesus can be omnipresent, bodily, exist in His crucified body and glorified body at the same time, be at the same time both bodily dead and bodily alive (eternally, Heb. 7:14), even glorified, meaining never to die again, does seem implausible to me. It actually defies the whole meaning of the resurrection.

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).

“Real Presence” did not necessarily mean “transubstantiation” by those early writers. Most Catholics read that definition, that fully developed doctrine, into the phrase without proof that that is what they actually meant. It’s true the eucharistic (thank-offering) celebration took on a mystical sense early in Church history, but you cannot attach the full-blown doctrine of “transubstantiation” to that whole, early Church belief system. Not even Augustine taught “transubstantiation,” but held on to an element of symbolism in his belief. Bottom line, however, is not what men believed down through the centuries, but what God’s Word actually communicates. We are commanded to believe His Word.

God Bless,
Bene

 

[bene7]

epr1993:

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

Catholicism teaches that the Eucharist is a re-presentation of the actual sin-sacrifice of Christ, it (the Eucharist) is His actual body that was then sacrificed and His actual blood that was then shed, according to Christ’s literal words. On the cross His body was offered up as God’s Lamb, and our sins poured upon it; His blood was shed, and He died as a Substitute, in our stead. It’s not the resurrected Christ that Catholicism says is “transubstantiated.” Otherwise it could not be considered a “sacrifice.”

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.

But in the Gospel accounts He was still only in one place at one time, whether in a locked room or on His way up to Heaven. Can you show me anywhere in the Biblical accounts where it is recorded that He was in more than one place at a time, bodily?

“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

I agree! But does God actually reveal to us in John six that the host actually becomes Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity? I don’t see it.

God Bless,
Bene

 

[NotWorthy]

bene7:

You put a spin on His words. He specifically says, “Whoever believes in the Son HAS eternal life.” The “whoever” who disobey the Son are different than the whoever who believe IN the Son and HAVE eternal life, since they will not see life and the wrath of God abides on them. In the context of John six Jesus says: “Truly, truly, I say to you, He who believes HAS eternal life.” In both places there are no added conditions, but only to believe in the Son.The question is, is what you believe and do truly a “mystery,” or actually an absurdity, an implausibility based on an erroneous interpretation?

I’m sorry, but John 3:36, lists two type of people. Those that have eternal life, and those who don’t. It paints the picture that to believe is to obey. If you believe, you obey. If you disobey, it’s because you don’t believe. Belief begets obedience, for how can you believe in Jesus if you don’t follow his Teachings.

Originally Posted by NotWorthy
*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.

Notworthy
*

 

[NotWorthy]

bene7:

Do you really believe ALL that Jesus said? When I ask Catholics if they know, without a doubt, that they HAVE eternal life now, they reply in the negative, stating that no one can know for sure in this lifetime. Yet Jesus states emphatically in John 6:54: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood HAS eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day.” And again in verse 58: “he who eats this bread shall LIVE FOREVER.” That’s awfully clear. You partake in the Eucharist, do you not? How is it you still can’t say with all certainty that you HAVE eternal life? And I mean “eternal,” which means you can’t lose it. Eternal means everlasting.

Do I believe in the Literal words of everything Jesus said? No. But when He states something 6 times, each time making it more graphic… when He begins a statement with “Truly, truly, I say to you” or “Amen, Amen, I say to you…” I take it at face value.

One other thing, for Catholics, Salvation is a process. We can gain it, at Baptism, and lose it, by sinning, and re-gain it, by the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Only when we die in this state of Grace do we obtain Eternal Salvation. That’s where your beliefs and ours parts ways, I think.

Notworthy

 

[mercygate]

bene7:

Catholicism teaches that the Eucharist is a re-presentation of the actual sin-sacrifice of Christ, it (the Eucharist) is His actual body that was then sacrificed and His actual blood that was then shed, according to Christ’s literal words. On the cross His body was offered up as God’s Lamb, and our sins poured upon it; His blood was shed, and He died as a Substitute, in our stead. It’s not the resurrected Christ that Catholicism says is “transubstantiated.” Otherwise it could not be considered a "sacrifice.

bene7, I have never heard that the glorified, resurrected Body of Christ is not present in the Eucharist. Can you point me to the source of this statement?

Yes: we believe the Eucharist is the actual flesh and blood of Christ, but to the best of my understanding, this is not distinct from the body of the Resurrection.

 

[NotWorthy]

“Real Presence” did not necessarily mean “transubstantiation” by those early writers. Most Catholics read that definition, that fully developed doctrine, into the phrase without proof that that is what they actually meant. It’s true the eucharistic (thank-offering) celebration took on a mystical sense early in Church history, but you cannot attach the full-blown doctrine of “transubstantiation” to that whole, early Church belief system. Not even Augustine taught “transubstantiation,” but held on to an element of symbolism in his belief. Bottom line, however, is not what men believed down through the centuries, but what God’s Word actually communicates. We are commanded to believe His Word.

God Bless,
Bene

It’s true neither one of us can read in transubstantiation or take it out of the early Church’s belief. But they did believe in the Parousia every time they received the Eucharist. They felt that Jesus was truly present in the Eucharist. How can you read Paul’s Epistle any other way?

Regarding St. Augustine, you’ll have to provide a little more information on what he wrote before we can continue on that point.

Take care, and God Bless!

Notworthy

 

[mercygate]

bene7:

Catholicism teaches that the Eucharist is a re-presentation of the actual sin-sacrifice of Christ, it (the Eucharist) is His actual body that was then sacrificed and His actual blood that was then shed, according to Christ’s literal words. On the cross His body was offered up as God’s Lamb, and our sins poured upon it; His blood was shed, and He died as a Substitute, in our stead. It’s not the resurrected Christ that Catholicism says is “transubstantiated.” Otherwise it could not be considered a "sacrifice.

bene7, I have never heard that the glorified, resurrected Body of Christ is not present in the Eucharist. Can you point me to the source of this statement?

Yes: we believe the Eucharist is the actual flesh and blood of Christ, but to the best of my understanding, this is not distinct from the body of the Resurrection.

 

[Aaron_I]

bene7:

You put a spin on His words. He specifically says, “Whoever believes in the Son HAS eternal life.” The “whoever” who disobey the Son are different than the whoever who believe IN the Son and HAVE eternal life, since they will not see life and the wrath of God abides on them. In the context of John six Jesus says: “Truly, truly, I say to you, He who believes HAS eternal life.” In both places there are no added conditions, but only to believe in the Son.The question is, is what you believe and do truly a “mystery,” or actually an absurdity, an implausibility based on an erroneous interpretation?

James 2:20-26
20 Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.”
24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25 And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?
26 For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

The words I bolded should be sufficient to show you that faith is not suficient for salvation, only necessary. How do we justify these verses with “He who believes has eternal life”? By looking at the text I underlined. Faith is completed by works. Clearly then, if someone does not have works, his faith is incomplete.

The sheep/goat verse should be looked at again. Is it the lack of faith that makes the goats what they are? The Bible puts them together because of their actions, not their lack of faith. If anything, their lack of faith is demonstrated by their lack of works.

bene7:

Do you really believe ALL that Jesus said? When I ask Catholics if they know, without a doubt, that they HAVE eternal life now, they reply in the negative, stating that no one can know for sure in this lifetime. Yet Jesus states emphatically in John 6:54: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood HAS eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day.” And again in verse 58: “he who eats this bread shall LIVE FOREVER.” That’s awfully clear. You partake in the Eucharist, do you not? How is it you still can’t say with all certainty that you HAVE eternal life? And I mean “eternal,” which means you can’t lose it. Eternal means everlasting.

As Catholics we can have certainty of salvation at the present moment. We do not, however, adhere to the unbiblical notion of “once saved, always saved”.

bene7:

I do believe in those mysteries. However, that Jesus can be both God and Man at the same time does not seem at all absurd to me. That Jesus can be omnipresent, bodily, exist in His crucified body and glorified body at the same time, be at the same time both bodily dead and bodily alive (eternally, Heb. 7:14), even glorified, meaining never to die again, does seem implausible to me. It actually defies the whole meaning of the resurrection.

Again, it is a zikkaron event. The past is made present. The Jews would have understood this perfectly.

“Real Presence” did not necessarily mean “transubstantiation” by those early writers. Most Catholics read that definition, that fully developed doctrine, into the phrase without proof that that is what they actually meant. It’s true the eucharistic (thank-offering) celebration took on a mystical sense early in Church history, but you cannot attach the full-blown doctrine of “transubstantiation” to that whole, early Church belief system. Not even Augustine taught “transubstantiation,” but held on to an element of symbolism in his belief. Bottom line, however, is not what men believed down through the centuries, but what God’s Word actually communicates. We are commanded to believe His Word.

Again, adress Corinthians, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). This promotes the Real Presence while at the same time going against “once saved, always saved” because they drink judgement on themselves.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi Bene7,

Welcome to the forums!

I just wanted to point out that, aside from what other objections you may have to the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist, at least two of your objections seem to stem from some fundamental misunderstandings.

In the interest of helping you understand that actual Catholic doctrine, I’ll attempt to clarify it.

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. . . . How then, as a Man in bodily form, can Jesus possibly be both dead and alive (crucified and resurrected) at the same time? . . .I say this only as an illustration of the absurdity.

It is not Catholic teaching that the Eucharist is the dead body of Christ. It has always been the teaching of the church that we receive Christ as he is now: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, fully God and fully Man, alive and seated at the right hand of the Father.

So, there is no question of Christ being both dead and alive under the Eucharistic species.

bene7:

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.

You are correct in that Christ is bodily in heaven. However, you may be misunderstanding (it is, admittedly not an easy study to undertake) the Church’s teaching. In the Eucharist, Christ is present in a sacramental way. We would be unable to develop the whole of sacramental theology, especially regarding Christ’s Real Presence, because that would take quite a bit of time. Location is an accidental property, so is extension in space. Those two accidents (among the others) of the bread and wine remain, although the substance of the bread and wine are transubstatiated into the substance of Christ. Christ is present, really and substantially, in a sacramental way not in the mode you are used to (as I would be present to you).

Bene7:

Catholicism teaches that the Eucharist is a re-presentation of the actual sin-sacrifice of Christ, it (the Eucharist) is His actual body that was then sacrificed and His actual blood that was then shed, according to Christ’s literal words. It’s not the resurrected Christ that Catholicism says is “transubstantiated.” Otherwise it could not be considered a “sacrifice.”

This is again, a misunderstanding of the Church’s teaching. It *is the resurrected Christ that is present substantially in the Eucharist. *The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice as Calvary because it is the same victim (or offering, not “victim” in the sense of being killed), the same priest (Christ, who offers Himself). It is the same sacrfice in an unbloody manner. If you read the Church’s liturgy this is made abundantly clear. Christ cannot die again.

I can understand your difficulties in comprehending the Eucharist. It is an inexhaustible mystery. But I want to point out to you that, in all fairness, and in the interest of Truth, it is reasonable – and if you conduct a serious investigation of the philiosophy and theology of the Eucharist you will find that there is nothing that is a contradiction in terms (such as being both “dead” and “alive” simultaneously) nor anything that is logically contradictory.

Of course, I don’t expect you to take my word for this. But you do owe it to yourself, in order to be intellectually honest, to first investigate what the Church actually teaches, and then see how that stacks up to what you think the Chruch teaches. There are numerous sources: but a good start would be 1) The Catechism of th Catholic Church (searchable – just enter “eucharist” and “real presence”) and if you are really interested in Eucharistic theology/philosophy you can begin the serious undertaking of reading Aquinas’ treatment of the sacrament here (scroll down). I also recommend Fr. James T. O’Connors excellent book "The Hidden Manna" for an overview of the Church’s teaching, as it has developed through history.

Also, you can go before the Lord in any Catholic Church. Perhaps you will find a chapel that has perpetual adoration. But, of course, since Christ is present under the accidents of bread you can’t trust your “fleshy” eyes to see Him there. We know He is there because we believe what He said.

I hope that this helps you on your journey in investigating what the Church teaches.

God Bless you!
VC

 

[MariaG]

bene7:

.“Real Presence” did not necessarily mean “transubstantiation” by those early writers. Most Catholics read that definition, that fully developed doctrine, into the phrase without proof that that is what they actually meant. It’s true the eucharistic (thank-offering) celebration took on a mystical sense early in Church history, but you cannot attach the full-blown doctrine of “transubstantiation” to that whole, early Church belief system. Not even Augustine taught “transubstantiation,” but held on to an element of symbolism in his belief. Bottom line, however, is not what men believed down through the centuries, but what God’s Word actually communicates. We are commanded to believe His Word.

God Bless,
Bene

Thank offering? Look way before Augustine.

From CA Library The Real Presence

Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (*Letter to the Romans *7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110[/color]]).

I see nothing of “thank offering” but a lot of talk of the flesh of Christ.

Justin Martyr

"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]).

Nope, no thank offering here. Nothing symbolic either.

Clement of Alexandria

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (*The Instructor of Children *

1:6:43:3 [A**.D. 191]).

Don’t see thank offering here either. Just some pretty graphic language.

While none of these have a fully articulated doctrine, clearly there is nothing here to even remotely suggest symbolic.

 

[MariaG]

Several questions should be asked at this point: (1) Where else in the Bible is “spirit” ever interpreted as “symbolic”? (The answer: Nowhere.) (2) Since there’s no other instance of “spirit” meaning “symbolic,” by what criteria do Protestants insist on applying that meaning in John 6:63? (3) Since God, human souls, angels, and Satan are spirits, does that mean they too are merely symbolic–and if not, why interpret “spirit” in John 6:63 as meaning “symbolic”?

From CA Library The Eucharist is no Mere Symbol

Yes, stolen from CA, but good questions anyway.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Kurt_G]

bene7:

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.***

Yet God chose to redeem all of His creation, by using the physical realm… don’t forget that, bene. You don’t want to lean too far against the physical. God made it VERY HOLY indeed, when He invaded that realm of His creation by being incarnated in Mary’s womb…

bene7:

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 believe in Him, even if they die physically…

For a Catholic, the manna is an OT type for our Eucharist… Yes, I understand that for you it is all spiritual, nothing physical. The point here is that the Catholic interpretation (both spiritual and physical) matches Holy Scripture very nicely indeed, while your interpretation does not cover it all.

Jesus even taught us “Give us this day our daily bread”. For you this verse has to be all spiritual, for us it is both spiritual and physical.

How did John 6 start, bene? With Jesus miraculously multiplying bread and fish to feed us. How does it end? With Jesus promising to miraculously multiply His body to feed us.

bene7:

…How then, as a Man in bodily form, can Jesus possibly be both dead and alive (crucified and resurrected) at the same time?..

“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
They sound pretty similar to me, bene.

bene7:

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.

bene, you insist on keeping the physical realm confined to physical laws. This is not how God chose to do it. A virgin birth definitely sounds “unreasonable” to one anchored in just the physical world. Yet we both accept the virgin birth, do we not? You seem reluctant to acknowledge that the Spiritual can actually transform the physical. Our Eucharistic prayer includes “Lord, let your Spirit come upon these gifts, that they may become the body and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.”

bene7:

But there is much that is unreasonable (even nonsensical) when told to take (the words of John 6) in their literal sense.

True statement, bene. But your feelings about this look identical to how the many disciples felt, who walked away from Jesus, never to return.

I would pray that we all be like Peter and the apostles, who said effectively
“Lord, you sure threw some weird stuff out there, this is down right embarrassing… We have no idea how you’re going to pull this off. But we’ve come with you this far, you haven’t steered us wrong yet, so please allow us to hang with you”. (the paraphrasing could be better, but that’s my best effort for today)

God Bless bene7 and All the rest of us!

 

[epr1993]

bene7:

Catholicism teaches that the Eucharist is a re-presentation of the actual sin-sacrifice of Christ, it (the Eucharist) is His actual body that was then sacrificed and His actual blood that was then shed, according to Christ’s literal words. On the cross His body was offered up as God’s Lamb, and our sins poured upon it; His blood was shed, and He died as a Substitute, in our stead. It’s not the resurrected Christ that Catholicism says is “transubstantiated.” Otherwise it could not be considered a "sacrifice."But in the Gospel accounts He was still only in one place at one time, whether in a locked room or on His way up to Heaven. Can you show me anywhere in the Biblical accounts where it is recorded that He was in more than one place at a time, bodily?I agree! But does God actually reveal to us in John six that the host actually becomes Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity? I don’t see it.

God Bless,
Bene

Nowhere does the Church say that the Eucharist is the dead body of Christ. Others have already said this.

You’re right about the Biblical accounts, but not everything about Jesus was written down. My point was that just because we don’t understand how something can be doesn’t make it impossible for God.

I would have to say that it does. He said that His flesh is real food that we would have to literally eat, to crunch between our teeth. Jesus, being fully God and fully man, is body, blood, soul, and divinity. At the Last Supper He said “This is my body” then said to “Do this in memory of me.” A=B=C

Have a good weekend!

 

[bene7]

mercygate:

Yes: we believe the Eucharist is the actual flesh and blood of Christ, but to the best of my understanding, this is not distinct from the body of the Resurrection.

That’s the whole point I’m making, Mercy. How can Jesus be, bodily, BOTH crucified and resurrected?. First Peter 3:18 emphatically states that Jesus was put to death ONCE for all, the just for the unjust. It was an historical event in time/space but with infinite results and gracious rewards for those who believe. Never to be repeated again.

Catholicism states that based on Christ’s literal words: “this is My body"…"this cup which is poured out for you is the N.C. in my blood” (Lk. 22:19-20, notice He doesn’t actually say this is My blood), the Eucharist is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice of Christ. Catholicism calls it an actual sacrifice. However, if it is His actual sacrificed body and shed blood, then it stands to reason that it cannot be His actual resurrected, glorified body at the same time. He was not glorified at the same time He was crucified. They’re two different, two separate events. Lk. 22:19-20 (and the other Gospel accounts) says nothing about the bread and wine being His glorified body. It can’t be both. Or do you think that, maybe, once the host enters the stomach it remains there somehow undigested for three days and Jesus then resurrects (of course I’m being facetious to make my point)? Catholicism steps around this conundrum by telling its
people that none of it is based on reason, it must be accepted on unreasonable faith.

God Bless,
Bene

 

[bene7]

Aron I:

The eucharist is a zikkaron event. This comes to us from the Jews. For example, the passover was a zikkaron event in that a past event was made present.

I don’t know from where you get this idea, but it sounds like maybe its from the teachings of mystical Judaism. The Passover observed by the Jews is not mystical in that sense. It was observed annually to remember God redeeming them through the blood of the Passover lamb from the bondage of Egypt. In like manner it is stated to believers that we are to eat the bread and drink the wine in REMEMBRANCE of Him.

It makes a lot of sense that the eucharist would also be a zikkaron event in that it is the fulfillment of the passover feast.

The eucharist is not the fulfillment of the Passover feast. Jesus Christ certainly is the fulfillment of the Passover lamb, but the Passover feast itself was given to the Jews as a “memorial,” and a permanent ordinance (see Ex. 12:14). They observe it today and will observe it as a nation during the future, Millennial Kingdom when Christ rules on this earth.

Similar to the Passover meal Communion was given to the Church to observe as a memorial of the historical, once for all, sacrifice of our Lord, who by His death on the cross redeemed us (believers) from the bondage of our sins (see Col. 1:9-14; note that in verse 13 both “delivered” and “transferred” are in the past tense).

Bene, I know you’re having to deal with a lot of posts, but please explain the words of St. Paul in the following verse: “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29).

Notice Paul does not say “eats His body and drinks His blood,” but “eats the BREAD and drinks the CUP?” He retains the elements. It was done, and should be done, in REMEMBRANCE of that historical event (vs. 24). If done irreverently they are guilty of trivializing the sacrifice of Christ. In respect to what is recorded in 1 Cor. 11 you must keep in mind that this was the beginning of the Church age and they (the believers at Corinth) were responsible for handing down the faith to future generations of believers and the integrity of the faith. And for this reason God executed immediate judgment on some of those among them who participated in an unworthy manner (such as drunkenness, vs. 21). Just as He did to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts chapter five for lying.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[Mickey]

bene7:

In like manner it is stated to believers that we are to eat the bread and drink the wine in REMEMBRANCE of Him.

"For my flesh is food indeed; and my blood is drink indeed".

As we partake of the True body and True blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, we are to REMEMBER the ultimate sacrifice He made for us.

Peace,
Mickey

 

[bene7]

NotWorthy:

I’m sorry, but John 3:36, lists two type of people. Those that have eternal life, and those who don’t. It paints the picture that to believe is to obey. If you believe, you obey. If you disobey, it’s because you don’t believe. Belief begets obedience, for how can you believe in Jesus if you don’t follow his Teachings.

Yes, I’m sorry too because you’re reading and interpreting it with your works oriented blinders on. It is true that if you believe you obey, but the one who has eternal life is the one who believes “in the Son:” “He who believes in the Son HAS eternal life.” One has eternal life because He has believed in the Son. Now, in stark contrast, the one who does not obey (analogous to believing) SHALL NOT SEE LIFE, but instead, “the wrath of God abides on him.” They are two contrasting people. One is a believer, the other is not. The believer HAS eternal life, the other shall not see life.

Bringing this to the chapter in question. In John six the people asked Jesus what they should do that they may work the works of God. He responded, “This is the work of God, that you BELIEVE in whom He has sent” (John 6:29).

One other thing, for Catholics, Salvation is a process. We can gain it, at Baptism, and lose it, by sinning, and re-gain it, by the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Only when we die in this state of Grace do we obtain Eternal Salvation. That’s where your beliefs and ours parts ways, I think.

Yes, yours is a works gospel, mine is a gospel of pure grace through personal belief in Jesus Christ. Mine is based on Biblical revelation which says that salvation is wholly a gift (Eph. 2:8-9) and it (salvation) begins at the time one personally believes the good news message of the cross (John 3:14-18). Unlike your “gospel” He cannot lose it by sinning since God had His judgment Day on all his sins 2000 years ago when His Son, the Lamb of God, took his sins upon Himself, and as Divine judgment died in his stead, and as a substitutionary sin-sacrifice cancelled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against him, taking it out of the way (Col. 2:13-14; Acts 10:43). That through faith in Christ he has been forever reconciled to God because the work of reconciliation was accomplished completely and perfectly by Christ Himself on the cross (2 Cor. 5:18-21).

NotWorthy, since you believe you can lose your salvation by sinning, tell me then of what significance was the cross of Christ and God imputing your sins upon Him? How does the cross, the substitutionary, sin-sacrifice of Christ, play into your faith? Do you just believe it happened historically but it has no real significant bearing on your personal salvation?

Blessings,
Bene

 

[Verbum_Caro]

bene7:

Catholicism calls it an actual sacrifice. However, if it is His actual sacrificed body and shed blood, then it stands to reason that it cannot be His actual resurrected, glorified body at the same time.

Bene,
You seem to be misunderstanding the Catholic teaching on this. It is an actual *unbloody *sacrifice.

Please read my post 129 above.

God Bless!
VC

 

[mercygate]

bene7:

Catholicism calls it an actual sacrifice.

Not quite. Catholicism calls the Eucharist the same Sacrifice. It is not “a” sacrifice in the sense that it is one of many.

However, if it is His actual sacrificed body and shed blood, then it stands to reason that it cannot be His actual resurrected, glorified body at the same time.

I fail to follw this. What other Body can it be than his own, which is his glorified body?

He was not glorified at the same time He was crucified.

The farewell discourse, which initiates the Passion narrative in the Gospel of John, begins, “Now is the son of man glorified.” Crucified/glorifed cannot be separated in the eternal unity of the Godhead. Christ is, after all, the sacrificial lamb “without blemish or spot. . . . destined before the foundation of the world.” I Pet 1:19-20

They’re two different, two separate events. Lk. 22:19-20 (and the other Gospel accounts) says nothing about the bread and wine being His glorified body. It can’t be both.

It isn’t “both” in the sense that two separate things must be separated in order to exist – “both” together are the Sacred Body of Christ.

Or do you think that, maybe, once the host enters the stomach it remains there somehow undigested for three days and Jesus then resurrects (of course I’m being facetious to make my point)?

This comment, aside from being grotesque, does not make your point, because you are thinking like a complete and utter materialist.

Catholicism steps around this conundrum by telling its
people that none of it is based on reason, it must be accepted on unreasonable faith.

Catholicism holds reason in the highest regard. Faith and reason are both seen as ways to understand things as they truly are. For us, faith may go beyond reason but not against it. Many non-Catholics believe that Catholics waste too much time trying to render “unreasonable” matters “reasonable.” I believe you are really trying to say that the Church expects people to be not unreasonable but to be blind in their faith. Nothing could be further from the truth. That said, there is a place where reason must give way to faith, which is, after all, “the conviction of things not seen.” To the extent that faith addresses “things not seen” I suppose you could call it “blind.”

“Lord, increase our faith.”