R
RyanL
Guest
jsussvsus,
Do you realize who you’re paraphrasing here?
Just thought you might want to know you sound just like the errant disciples…
Praying you won’t follow them,
RyanL
- Status
Do you realize who you’re paraphrasing here?
Praying you won’t follow them,
RyanL
S
Scalia
Guest
martino:
Hi All
Hope not offend anyone, this is just my opinion.
Except ye eat the flesh … - He did not mean that this should be understood literally, for it was never done, and it is absurd to suppose that it was intended to be so understood. Nothing can possibly be more absurd than to suppose that when he instituted the Supper, and gave the bread and wine to his disciples, they literally ate his flesh and drank his blood. Who can believe this? There he stood, a living man - his body yet alive, his blood flowing in his veins; and how can it be believed that this body was eaten and this blood drunk? Yet this absurdity must be held by those who hold that the bread and wine at the communion are “changed into the body, blood, and divinity of our Lord.” So it is taught in the decrees of the Council of Trent; and to such absurdities are men driven when they depart from the simple meaning of the Scriptures and from common sense. It may be added that if the bread and wine used in the Lord’s Supper were not changed into his literal body and blood when it was first instituted, they have never been since.
The Lord Jesus would institute it just as he meant it should be observed, and there is nothing now in that ordinance which there was not when the Saviour first appointed it. His body was offered on the cross, and was raised up from the dead and received into heaven. Besides, there is no evidence that he had any reference in this passage to the Lord’s Supper. That was not yet instituted, and in that there was no literal eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood. The plain meaning of the passage is, that by his bloody death - his body and his blood offered in sacrifice for sin - he would procure pardon and life for man; that they who partook of that, or had an interest in that, should obtain eternal life. He uses the figure of eating and drinking because that was the subject of discourse; because the Jews prided themselves much on the fact that their fathers had eaten manna; and because, as he had said that he was the bread of life, it was natural and easy, especially in the language which he used, to carry out the figure, and say that bread must be eaten in order to be of any avail in supporting and saving men. To eat and to drink, among the Jews, was also expressive of sharing in or partaking of the privileges of friendship. The happiness of heaven and all spiritual blessings are often represented under this image, Mat_8:11; Mat_26:29; Luk_14:15, etc.
thanks.
I can’t help but to distill this post down to this: “John 6 must mean something other than what it says four times”. The early Church saw this as a mystery in order to avoid being in league with the ex-followers who left the room.
M
martino
Guest
"The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “**How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” **
'Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"
Obviously you are not the first person to feel the way you do!
Jesus addressed His doubter thus: “…there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him."
Although I appreciate the explanation you gave for your disbelief, it did not exactly answer my question which was: What truth did Jesus reveal that they (those who left) did not believe?
G
GaryB
Guest
Along these same lines, I have received an answer to the belief of Real Presence from a Protestant that I couldn’t believe was ever even thought about. He said they had talked about this in their Sunday School class. His question was, “If it really is the body and blood of Jesus, are you saying that His body and blood gets flushed down the toilet after it makes its way through your body?” I was totally caught off guard. The only thing I could think of was to say that what we excrete is waste. Jesus is not waste. Our body uses what it needs and excretes only waste. Was there something better I could have said? What really bothers me is that Protestants really talk about things like that in Sunday School.
M
martino
Guest
Jesus comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine and He is truly present for as long as the appearances of bread and wine remain…which would be well before anything gets flushed down the toilet!
J
javelin
Guest
martino:
Nothing can possibly be more absurd than to suppose that when he instituted the Supper, and gave the bread and wine to his disciples, they literally ate his flesh and drank his blood. Who can believe this? There he stood, a living man - his body yet alive, his blood flowing in his veins; and how can it be believed that this body was eaten and this blood drunk?
jsussvsus,
I think God knew that this same argument would come about, and He used John’s writing to give us an example of how it can be.
At the Last Supper, Jesus took the bread, blessed it and broke it before distributing it to the Apostles. Where else in Sacred Scripture does He do the exact same thing?
Look at the beginning of John 6. The multiplication of the loaves and feeding of the Five Thousand. This miracle prefigures the miracle of the Eucharistic table, where Jesus’ Body and Blood, having been blessed and broken on the cross for our salvation, are miraculously multiplied to feed the hungry souls at His table. John knew it; Paul knew it; the early Christians knew it; the Catholic Church of today knows it and proclaims it.
Are you going to be a disciple that disbelieves the Word of God and His miraculous Power, or are you going to be like the Apostles and believe in faith even though you do not fully understand?
Peace,
javelin
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
martino:
Hi All
Hope not offend anyone, this is just my opinion.
Except ye eat the flesh … - He did not mean that this should be understood literally, for it was never done, and it is absurd to suppose that it was intended to be so understood. Nothing can possibly be more absurd than to suppose that when he instituted the Supper, and gave the bread and wine to his disciples, they literally ate his flesh and drank his blood. Who can believe this? There he stood, a living man - his body yet alive, his blood flowing in his veins; and how can it be believed that this body was eaten and this blood drunk? Yet this absurdity must be held by those who hold that the bread and wine at the communion are “changed into the body, blood, and divinity of our Lord.” So it is taught in the decrees of the Council of Trent; and to such absurdities are men driven when they depart from the simple meaning of the Scriptures and from common sense. It may be added that if the bread and wine used in the Lord’s Supper were not changed into his literal body and blood when it was first instituted, they have never been since.
The Lord Jesus would institute it just as he meant it should be observed, and there is nothing now in that ordinance which there was not when the Saviour first appointed it. His body was offered on the cross, and was raised up from the dead and received into heaven. Besides, there is no evidence that he had any reference in this passage to the Lord’s Supper. That was not yet instituted, and in that there was no literal eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood. The plain meaning of the passage is, that by his bloody death - his body and his blood offered in sacrifice for sin - he would procure pardon and life for man; that they who partook of that, or had an interest in that, should obtain eternal life. He uses the figure of eating and drinking because that was the subject of discourse; because the Jews prided themselves much on the fact that their fathers had eaten manna; and because, as he had said that he was the bread of life, it was natural and easy, especially in the language which he used, to carry out the figure, and say that bread must be eaten in order to be of any avail in supporting and saving men. To eat and to drink, among the Jews, was also expressive of sharing in or partaking of the privileges of friendship. The happiness of heaven and all spiritual blessings are often represented under this image, Mat_8:11; Mat_26:29; Luk_14:15, etc.
thanks.
jsussvsus, I was struck by your post because the wording sounded. . .a bit archaic? I wondered if you were quoting someone and inadvertently forgot to cite the original author. I did some searching and discovered that the substance of your post is from Barnes New Testament Notes, by Albert Barnes, a Presbyterian minister who lived during the 19th century.
For the notes (including the note on the relevant passage of the gospel of St. John) see ccel.org/b/barnes/ntnotes/cache/ntnotes.txt. For some info on Albert Barnes see explore-biography.com/philosophers/A/Albert_Barnes.html.
I point this out because it occurs to me that perhaps those who do not believe in the Real Presence do not believe because it is THEIR TRADITION handed down to them through various teachers. While those of us that do believe in the Real Presence do so because of OUR CATHOLIC TRADITION handed down to us from the Apostles.
Our Tradition (and our experience!) tells us that Christ is present, body, blood, soul and divinity. Your (much more modern) tradition tells you that this is absurd.
What do the rest of you folks (Catholic as well as our separated brethren on this forum) think about this? Do the various Christian demoninations believe or disbelieve in the Real Presence due to TRADITION?
If I were going to side with one tradition I would chose St. Peter’s and the Apostles (even though Ablert Barnes was born in Rome (New York)
J
jsussvsus
Guest
Hi All
Just another point I thought of, in Mathew it says
Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
If Catholics believes in the real presence of Christ during the
eucharist, then where is he during the rest of the service? I believe in the real presence of the Lord WHENEVER we as Christians meet together. Just a thought.
Thanks
Just another point I thought of, in Mathew it says
Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
If Catholics believes in the real presence of Christ during the
eucharist, then where is he during the rest of the service? I believe in the real presence of the Lord WHENEVER we as Christians meet together. Just a thought.
Thanks
S
Shiann
Guest
What makes you think we don’t believe he is in the rest of the service too, or whenever christians meet for that matter?
S
Scalia
Guest
Protestants often confuse spiritual and symbolic. The terms are mutually exclusive. Here, the spiritual graces infused in the Eucharist are not evident to human eyes but only to the eyes of faith.
Moreover, taking this child’s crass assessment one step further, you could say the the physical body of our Lord, Jesus Christ was excreted during his natural life. Does that mean he wasn’t our Saviour and the Second Figure of the Trinity?
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
The Catechism of the Catholic Church lists at least 9 different ways in which Christ is present and 1 preeminent way.
D
Dredgemate
Guest
Not only that, but how wonderful is it that he physically leaves with us at the end of Mass!!
jsussvsus, can you answer martino’s original question?
A
andyk
Guest
Verbum Caro:
jsussvsus:
I was struck by your post because the wording sounded. . .a bit archaic? I wondered if you were quoting someone and inadvertently forgot to cite the original author. I did some searching and discovered that the substance of your post is from Barnes New Testament Notes, by Albert Barnes, a Presbyterian minister who lived during the 19th century.
For the notes (including the note on the relevant passage of the gospel of St. John) see ccel.org/b/barnes/ntnotes/cache/ntnotes.txt. For some info on Albert Barnes see explore-biography.com/philosophers/A/Albert_Barnes.html.
I point this out because it occurs to me that perhaps those who do not believe in the Real Presence do not believe because it is THEIR TRADITION handed down to them through various teachers. While those of us that do believe in the Real Presence do so because of OUR CATHOLIC TRADITION handed down to us from the Apostles.
Our Tradition (and our experience!) tells us that Christ is present, body, blood, soul and divinity. Your (much more modern) tradition tells you that this is absurd.
What do the rest of you folks (Catholic as well as our separated brethren on this forum) think about this? Do the various Christian demoninations believe or disbelieve in the Real Presence due to TRADITION?
If I were going to side with one tradition I would chose St. Peter’s and the Apostles (even though Ablert Barnes was born in Rome (New York)
Verbum Caro, brilliant point!
If our separated brethren can so easily quote from the TRADITION of 19th century Christians, why stop there? Why not go back to the 1st and 2nd century Christians?
jsussvsus, please give the early Christian writers a read. I think you’ll find them very interesting.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
This is my opinion on all this and I hope my analogies and logic will help point out that it is not just John 6 that teaches the Eucharist, but there is a total context of scripture to consider in this. To me this is one of the most glow-in-the-dark aspects of Catholicism’s Biblically accurate beliefs.
If there is no real presence in the Eucharist, then how can St.Paul warn us not to take it unworthily lest we become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? That “spiritualization” makes complete nonsense not only of the 6th chapter of John, but of 1st Corinthians 10:16-17 “16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.”
and 11: 23-30
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many inform and weak among you, and many sleep.
Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE? Now if I make a symbol of Karl Keating like this symbol here:
and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol symbol…like say this: http://bestsmileys.com/violent/10.gif I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol of the goodman Karl Keating, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question…of course not! Why? BECAUSE KARL KEATING IS NOT REALLY PRESENT IN THAT SYMBOL is he?
There is the the whole case for why the Eucharist really is the presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ…body and blood, soul and divinity.
Pax vobiscum,
If there is no real presence in the Eucharist, then how can St.Paul warn us not to take it unworthily lest we become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? That “spiritualization” makes complete nonsense not only of the 6th chapter of John, but of 1st Corinthians 10:16-17 “16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.”
and 11: 23-30
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many inform and weak among you, and many sleep.
Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE? Now if I make a symbol of Karl Keating like this symbol here:
and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol symbol…like say this: http://bestsmileys.com/violent/10.gif I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol of the goodman Karl Keating, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question…of course not! Why? BECAUSE KARL KEATING IS NOT REALLY PRESENT IN THAT SYMBOL is he?There is the the whole case for why the Eucharist really is the presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ…body and blood, soul and divinity.
Pax vobiscum,
T
tkdnick
Guest
We believe this as well. We also believe that Jesus becomes present in a special way in the Eucharist.
T
tkdnick
Guest
Church Militant:
Good stuff! There is also the context of Acts where Jesus is made known to the disciples in the breaking of the bread. If the bread is just bread, how would Jesus become known to them through it? In order for Him to become known to them in the breaking of the bread, He must be present in the bread. Also in Acts, it says the disciples devoted themselves to the apostle’s teaching, fellowship, the breaking of the bread, and the prayers (also a good verse for ‘set’ prayers).
S
Shoshana
Guest
Lisa4Catholics said:**Food for thought,make sure you point out what John 6:66 says:nope: Let them reflect on that for a bit:nope: **
Code:
Blessings,
Shoshana
S
Shoshana
Guest
Code:
Hope this doesn’t offend you also…and this is not of my opnion as it is a fact!
There was a priest centuries ago who believed like you did…he was riddled with doubts. Although he confected the Body and Blood of our Lord, he struggled and struggled. He asked the Lord for help and it just so happens that the Host became a section of heart muscle and the wine became His real blood. They were able to scientifically dissect the piece of flesh to realize that it was myocardium tissue…and this, as well with the blood…I think it was AB, but I am not quite sure.
Now this will not be of benefit to you, I suppose, as you would argue the fact that this could’ve have been planted to enhance the faith of the people…but what about the priest? And why is that (and I think it is this instance), the Blood liquefies at a certain date every year? Miracles do occur all the time…
My next point is a little bit more morbid. You realize that satanism exists, as a christian you and I should know that. The cult of serious members do gruesome things and sacrilege anything they can get from the Catholic Church. Especially the Sacred Host. I will not go into details here as it would offend some and it is horrendous…they imitate the Catholic Mass backwards and if they can get their ugly hands on a Host, well, it would be a complete Mass. I will let you use your imagination on this one…
Now why is it that satanic members target the Catholic Church? Now why is it they do not desecrate any protesting church? This is a good question and food for thought.
And to bring this further, I will give you another story. When the Pope was visiting a church somewhere in the US, the security guards needed to bring in their dogs to make sure there was no one in the church so the Pope could spend some time in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament. He needed quality time with Our Lord without the distraction of people gawking at him…or intending to kill him. The guards came in with their dogs and they sniffed and became intense in their sniffing. Closer they got to the front of the church, the more intense they became and the guards couldn’t understand because they were still in wide open spaces. No man could hide anywhere the dogs were sniffing. They got to the front of the church and the dogs stopped right in front of the Blessed Sacrament…eager to jump the Tabernacle. The guards of course stopped them…but the dogs remained intense.
There was a person in the church…Jesus in the Tabernacle. Otherwise the dogs would not have been able to ‘sniff’ just s Spirit. But they can ‘sniff’ the Body and the Blood of our ressurected Lord…
Go figure…
Blessings,
Shoshana
A
AndyF
Guest
A protestant can only obtain a complete understanding of this topic through acceptance of the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and Transsubstantiation.
A good reference can be found at :
this, as well as an explaination of the Mass in the reference library index.
martino:
A sampling from that site concerning this…
This interpretation agrees perfectly with the conduct of the hearers and the attitude of Christ regarding their doubts and objections. Again, the murmuring of the Jews is the clearest evidence that they had understood the preceding words of Jesus literally (John 6:53). Yet far from repudiating this construction as a gross misunderstanding, Christ repeated them in a most solemn manner, in John (6:54 sqq.). In consequence, many of His Disciples were scandalized and said: “This saying is hard, and who can hear it?” (John 6:61); but instead of retracting what He had said, Christ rather reproached them for their want of faith, by alluding to His sublimer origin and His future Ascension into Heaven. And without further ado He allowed these Disciples to go their way (John 6:62 sqq.). Finally He turned to His twelve Apostles with the question: "Will you also go away?
Andy
A good reference can be found at :
Code:
[newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm)Lack of faith.
A sampling from that site concerning this…
This interpretation agrees perfectly with the conduct of the hearers and the attitude of Christ regarding their doubts and objections. Again, the murmuring of the Jews is the clearest evidence that they had understood the preceding words of Jesus literally (John 6:53). Yet far from repudiating this construction as a gross misunderstanding, Christ repeated them in a most solemn manner, in John (6:54 sqq.). In consequence, many of His Disciples were scandalized and said: “This saying is hard, and who can hear it?” (John 6:61); but instead of retracting what He had said, Christ rather reproached them for their want of faith, by alluding to His sublimer origin and His future Ascension into Heaven. And without further ado He allowed these Disciples to go their way (John 6:62 sqq.). Finally He turned to His twelve Apostles with the question: "Will you also go away?
Andy
R
Reformed_Rob
Guest
Ok, I thought I had it, but I guess I lost the jist of your question in the midst of my post. Anyways, I was trying to say that they left because they didn’t believe (there’s the “what”) that unless God drew them, they wouldn’t come. Nevertheless, that’s not what they are mumbling about in the earlier verse that I quoted.
Well no I said that at the bottom of my post, they left because they didn’t believe in God’s sovereign grace. Nonetheless, that causes many people to “leave” today, no?
- Status