Literal or Symbolic?...

[Sufjon]

Hi Heuchler: Thank you for the kind response. I’m not sure I fully understand everything you said, so I’d like to get some clarification if I could:

So, essentially, Christ held up the bread and said that this is my body. So, it is only when it is bread that it is his body.

So, does this mean rather than of the Eucharist being the Body of Christ, it is instead the Body of Christ and bread at the same time?

Once the substance is digested and is technically no longer the Eucharist, it isn’t the Eucharist.

So once you eat the Body of Christ and digest it, it is no longer the Body of Christ, and doesn’t become part of you like other food or get expelled like other food? In other words, it sounds like one of the options I was wondering about, for instance, is there a point at which the Jesusness leaves the bread? It sounds like there is. If this is the case, I am wondering what is the benefit or process by which one is saved forever by eating it.

So, the Eucharist only remains for about the 15 or so minutes that it takes to digest what seems to be bread and after that it is no longer Eucharist. So, it doesn’t become a part of you in the sense it goes into your cells, because your cells aren’t bread.

Normally what you eat does get used by your body as fuel, and part of that does get infused with the makeup of your body. Unfortunately that is why a lot of us have antibiotic immunities, because many of us are eating animals who are pumped full of antibiotics. Anyway, it sounds as though you are saying that the stance of the Catholic Church is that the body of Christ does not get metabolized or become part of you like other food, or get expelled like other food. It stays Christ for 15 minutes and then goes back to being bread. Could you explain what the long-term or short term benefits of that are? If it’s leaving you, it’s not staying around to mark you in any way, and if it’s leaving you, it’s not becoming part of you in any way, so that leaves the experience maybe being strictly mystical or spiritual. But I have had it when I was Catholic and never felt anything. When my kids and their friends had it, I asked around here and there over the years if any of them had felt anything and I didn’t meet anyone who did.

So, if you’re not becoming marked forever because it leaves in 15 minutes, or transformed because it leaves in 15 minutes, aren’t feeling anything other than what you normally feel (other than a lot of reverence), then what is the advantage of the idea?
I don’t see this problem if I look at the idea of The Eucharist as an SD (Hindu) would understand it. I only have these questions if I view it as a Catholic.

Thanks again for the reply and the help, and my apologies for having so many questions.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Heuchler]

I think to clear everything up Christ said the bread and wine were his body and blood. So only those things can be transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ. But once the Eucharist is digested it is no longer as the Eucharist and is also no longer the body and blood of Christ. Because the body of Christ is only found under the speciesd bread. Your body may use the Eucharist for nutrients but both your body and your feces are not bread. It is only bread that can be Christ and your body is not bread and feces are not bread meaning that after digestion it is technically gone. But I don’t mean that the Body of Christ is also bread. I mean that only when it appears to be bread it is the body of Christ. Its very hard to explain this without saying bread and other things and is actually very hard theology.
And the Eucharist is not supposed to fill you with great joy or anything of that sort. It is a way for us to come closer to Christ. It is the gift of himself to the world that is to help us grow with him. You know when Christ was physically in the world many did not feel anything really special about him. The people of Nazereth had no idea about him. Our feelings and our senses can definitely fool us into thinknig that its nothing special. But through prayer and faith in Christ, His words, and in his body and blood we can grow closer to him. Besides do you feel anything in baptism. It’s just water pouring over a kids head. How can we tell that original sin is washed away, half the time the kid just sits there and the other half theyre crying. So, while these things may seem like theyre nothing special it really to it, we know that something very powerful and important is happening through our faith.

 

[JonNC]

I think to clear everything up Christ said the bread and wine were his body and blood. So only those things can be transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ. But once the Eucharist is digested it is no longer as the Eucharist and is also no longer the body and blood of Christ. Because the body of Christ is only found under the speciesd bread. Your body may use the Eucharist for nutrients but both your body and your feces are not bread. It is only bread that can be Christ and your body is not bread and feces are not bread meaning that after digestion it is technically gone. But I don’t mean that the Body of Christ is also bread. I mean that only when it appears to be bread it is the body of Christ. **Its very hard to explain this without saying bread and other things and is actually very hard theology. **
And the Eucharist is not supposed to fill you with great joy or anything of that sort. It is a way for us to come closer to Christ. It is the gift of himself to the world that is to help us grow with him. You know when Christ was physically in the world many did not feel anything really special about him. The people of Nazereth had no idea about him. Our feelings and our senses can definitely fool us into thinknig that its nothing special. But through prayer and faith in Christ, His words, and in his body and blood we can grow closer to him. Besides do you feel anything in baptism. It’s just water pouring over a kids head. How can we tell that original sin is washed away, half the time the kid just sits there and the other half theyre crying. So, while these things may seem like theyre nothing special it really to it, we know that something very powerful and important is happening through our faith.

It is hard to explain. So, perhaps we all would do well to heed the words of John of Damascus:
“… if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the Holy Mother of God through the Spirit”

Jon

 

[Radical]

But once the Eucharist is digested it is no longer as the Eucharist and is also no longer the body and blood of Christ…Your body may use the Eucharist for nutrients but both your body and your feces are not bread.

Well now that we know about organic molecules and the like, aren’t you forced to say that the “bread” molecules are part of the “bread” accidents and that your body still digests the bread, and incorporates the accidents/molecules of bread into your body and utilizes the energy in those molecules etc (even though the substance is gone)…and that the body of Christ (flesh molecules, bone and hair molecules) are never digested?

 

[Heuchler]

Well now that we know about organic molecules and the like, aren’t you forced to say that the “bread” molecules are part of the “bread” accidents and that your body still digests the bread, and incorporates the accidents/molecules of bread into your body and utilizes the energy in those molecules etc (even though the substance is gone)…and that the body of Christ (flesh molecules, bone and hair molecules) are never digested?

nope only there when it is as the bread was before the consecration. After it is seperated down to the nutrients you can’t call it bread. Do you say that the gluten is bread? No glueten is gluten and protons are protons. Neither of those are the Body of Christ unless it is because they make up bread. Molecules on their own are not bread so molecules on their own can not be the Body of Christ.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I think to clear everything up Christ said the bread and wine were his body and blood. So only those things can be transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ. But once the Eucharist is digested it is no longer as the Eucharist and is also no longer the body and blood of Christ. Because the body of Christ is only found under the speciesd bread. Your body may use the Eucharist for nutrients but both your body and your feces are not bread. It is only bread that can be Christ and your body is not bread and feces are not bread meaning that after digestion it is technically gone. But I don’t mean that the Body of Christ is also bread. I mean that only when it appears to be bread it is the body of Christ. Its very hard to explain this without saying bread and other things and is actually very hard theology.
And the Eucharist is not supposed to fill you with great joy or anything of that sort. It is a way for us to come closer to Christ. It is the gift of himself to the world that is to help us grow with him. You know when Christ was physically in the world many did not feel anything really special about him. The people of Nazereth had no idea about him. Our feelings and our senses can definitely fool us into thinknig that its nothing special. But through prayer and faith in Christ, His words, and in his body and blood we can grow closer to him. Besides do you feel anything in baptism. It’s just water pouring over a kids head. How can we tell that original sin is washed away, half the time the kid just sits there and the other half theyre crying. So, while these things may seem like theyre nothing special it really to it, we know that something very powerful and important is happening through our faith.

This is what I find so funny about the various subjective rationalizations of protestants. They always make such hay about the power of God and the Holy Spirit working when it comes to them, yet when it comes to the Eucharist and we insist that it is from the power of God and must be spiritually understood their tendencies towards gnosticism-their incredulousness that God recapitulated ALL of the material universe in Christ to Himself- and their contempt that Christ would use simple material things to transmit spiritual realities and graces to His people. That Christ would put such important things into the hands of imperfect “men” such as Bishops and priests.

Their reasoning comes not from interpretation of the Bible but from their prejudice and hatred for what they THINK is the Church. As their avoidance of my questions demonstrates. They hide behind these rationalizations because the alternative to them is just too abhorrable to their sensibilities.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It is hard to explain. So, perhaps we all would do well to heed the words of John of Damascus:
“… if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the Holy Mother of God through the Spirit”

Jon

Just as John of Damascus believes in the True presence of the Eucharist, that when this happens through the Holy Spirit, would it be correct to “bend the knee” before Jesus, to worship God in His true presence in “Adoration”?

When “this happens” does not John of Damascus worships God in Spirit and Truth in the presence of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity while in the “Present time”?

 

[Sufjon]

This is what I find so funny about the various subjective rationalizations of protestants. They always make such hay about the power of God and the Holy Spirit working when it comes to them, yet when it comes to the Eucharist and we insist that it is from the power of God and must be spiritually understood their tendencies towards gnosticism-their incredulousness that God recapitulated ALL of the material universe in Christ to Himself- and their contempt that Christ would use simple material things to transmit spiritual realities and graces to His people. That Christ would put such important things into the hands of imperfect “men” such as Bishops and priests.

Their reasoning comes not from interpretation of the Bible but from their prejudice and hatred for what they THINK is the Church. As their avoidance of my questions demonstrates. They hide behind these rationalizations because the alternative to them is just too abhorrable to their sensibilities.

Once again, I am not a Protestant or anyone looking to pick a side, but accepting that the Eucharist is truly what it is said to be, let’s accept that as the outcome of the discussion. I am really seriously interested in seeing where we take it from there. Does it physically become part of you, and if it does, is it temporary, and does it act like anything else that becomes a part of you, and exit your body as lost particles and cells or more immediately in other ways, and while it’s there, what does it do? What are the long-term benefits, and if those benefits include everlasting life, how does that work? What is the process by which the Eucharist accomplishes this? We are defining it as a physical reality on a physical level, so there must be physical processes and outcomes involved, and I honestly would like to know what those are. I have seen some very kind and thoughtful attempts at answers to that on this thread and I appreciate it, but I really haven’t seen anything all that compelling as to what value is in the outcome and the processes by which the value is manifest. I’m looking for something concrete like, if you die with some of it in you and you aren’t cremated, and your body somehow stays in tact in it’s grave until the Last Day, do those particles hear some sort of dog whistle that other particles won’t react to, and cause the host body in the grave to reanimate? Something like that? Is that what we’re talking about, and if not, what are we talking about? What is the point? Is it that you got near Jesus for a few minutes each week? If that’s the case, you know we’re seeing Him every day, so why not pay more attention to Him when you see Him live in the flesh every day? This is what I honestly want to know. You have very particular and finite ways of looking at things, so I’m hoping you can explain it in such a way.

Your friend,
Sufjon

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[lyrikal]

Hi Heuchler: Thank you for the kind response. I’m not sure I fully understand everything you said, so I’d like to get some clarification if I could:

So, does this mean rather than of the Eucharist being the Body of Christ, it is instead the Body of Christ and bread at the same time?

So once you eat the Body of Christ and digest it, it is no longer the Body of Christ, and doesn’t become part of you like other food or get expelled like other food? In other words, it sounds like one of the options I was wondering about, for instance, is there a point at which the Jesusness leaves the bread? It sounds like there is. If this is the case, I am wondering what is the benefit or process by which one is saved forever by eating it.

Normally what you eat does get used by your body as fuel, and part of that does get infused with the makeup of your body. Unfortunately that is why a lot of us have antibiotic immunities, because many of us are eating animals who are pumped full of antibiotics. Anyway, it sounds as though you are saying that the stance of the Catholic Church is that the body of Christ does not get metabolized or become part of you like other food, or get expelled like other food. It stays Christ for 15 minutes and then goes back to being bread. Could you explain what the long-term or short term benefits of that are? If it’s leaving you, it’s not staying around to mark you in any way, and if it’s leaving you, it’s not becoming part of you in any way, so that leaves the experience maybe being strictly mystical or spiritual. But I have had it when I was Catholic and never felt anything. When my kids and their friends had it, I asked around here and there over the years if any of them had felt anything and I didn’t meet anyone who did.

So, if you’re not becoming marked forever because it leaves in 15 minutes, or transformed because it leaves in 15 minutes, aren’t feeling anything other than what you normally feel (other than a lot of reverence), then what is the advantage of the idea?
I don’t see this problem if I look at the idea of The Eucharist as an SD (Hindu) would understand it. I only have these questions if I view it as a Catholic.

Thanks again for the reply and the help, and my apologies for having so many questions.

Your friend
Sufjon

Hi Sufjon,

To reply to the bolded part of your post, I would direct your attention to a husband and a wife. When they come together in the act (making love), they are not physically together forever; however, although they are not physically together forever, the 2 still become 1 even after the act is completed.

This can be applied to the Eucharistic idea where the individual receiving Christ becomes one with Christ physically for a time and thus the two (Christ and the individual) become one but when Christ ceases, the 2 are still 1 (the same way they are still 1 in marriage). Of course, this is not to be understood in a sexual way but in a spiritual way.

I hope that helps.

God bless.

 

[cooterhein]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

Since I really got no answer to this question on the other thread I’m going to ask it here:

Did Jesus give His literal flesh or symbolic flesh for the life of the world?

Literal or symbolic?

He gave His literal flesh on the cross and took that flesh with Him when He rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. However, He also left behind a symbolic memorial of what He did and all that it means to us. He introduced this symbolic memorial just prior to when He made Himself a sacrifice on the Cross, in a way that’s awfully similar to (and coincided with) other symbolic memorials pertaining to other significant acts of God in the redemptive history of Judaism. These memorials also had something to do with acts of God that He literally did, and God would usually indicate the ways in which the symbolic memorials of those events should be done. This is nothing new. God has done it this way very consistently and for quite some time. As far as what you should be doing, the first thing is to be sure that you don’t disrespect it. The second thing is to recall just what transubstantiation looks like to most people outside of Catholicism, and with that in mind, bite your tongue when you feel incredulity coming on. The third thing for you to do is realize this is a reasonable position to take, some people will do that, and hopefully you managed to get over it at some point.

 

[lyrikal]

so, I take it that you think that a school teacher is being inconsistent if she marks some answers right and some answers wrong when she grades a student’s test paper?

A school teacher grades a student’s test paper based on the criteria covered in class. So the school teacher is being consistent with how she corrects the paper and does not go outside what she covered in class. I did not see you cover any criteria and teach these scholars anything in order for you to be “grading their test papers”.

BTW it should be “Some of the same people who say that will go further and say that Christianity as a whole is influenced by Greek Philosophy”

Right, I agree. “Some” based on their faith background. A Protestant would not admit the Incarnation to be from Greek Philosophy and an Atheist might disagree.

God bless.

 

[cooterhein]

Once again, I am not a Protestant or anyone looking to pick a side, but accepting that the Eucharist is truly what it is said to be, let’s accept that as the outcome of the discussion. I am really seriously interested in seeing where we take it from there. Does it physically become part of you, and if it does, is it temporary, and does it act like anything else that becomes a part of you, and exit your body as lost particles and cells or more immediately in other ways, and while it’s there, what does it do?

I’m not Catholic (as you know) but I think I can addtess this part of it from the perspective of another non-Catholic trying to understand this. My understanding of the situation is that the change described by the doctrine is non-physical and non-particulate. It’s described as a “substantial” change, or a change in substance, such that the old substance is all gone and the Jesus-substance (body, blood, soul, divinity) is the only substance there. This is confusing, though, because it’s based on an idea of substance very different from what we have now. As of right now, substance is defined as the physical stuff, the particulate stuff, and so forth. But with the more archaic use of the word, it’s strictly non-physical and non-particulate. It requires you to think of non-personal inanimate objects as if they have souls. These non-corporeal soul-like entities are what we’re concerned with here. As an outside example, suppose you have a wooden baseball bat that’s legal for use in major league baseball. This is the kind of miracle that causes the “soul” (or substance) of the bat to be really, truly, and substantially an aluminum bat. But the miracle doesn’t affect anything molecular, atomic, subatomic, or otherwise particulate in the bat. You can look as hard as you want, but you won’t find any aluminum atoms in it. Matter of fact, you won’t find anything metallic in it whatsoever. This is the kind of miraculous change from “wood” to “aluminum” that allows the bat to still be legal for use in major leagie baseball.

That’s what it means for the substance to change. As you can imagine, the non-Catholic onlooker can’t help but think the only real change is the change in what Catholics insist on calling the thing. From our point of view, we can and do definitively know that it’s still a wooden bat- but Catholics “solemnly” and “authoritatively” insist on referring to it as an aluminum bat.

 

[JonNC]

Just as John of Damascus believes in the True presence of the Eucharist, that when this happens through the Holy Spirit, would it be correct to “bend the knee” before Jesus, to worship God in His true presence in “Adoration”?

When “this happens” does not John of Damascus worships God in Spirit and Truth in the presence of Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity while in the “Present time”?

Sure. I always receive on bended knee, in true adoration and thanksgiving.

Jon

 

[Sufjon]

Hi Sufjon,

To reply to the bolded part of your post, I would direct your attention to a husband and a wife. When they come together in the act (making love), they are not physically together forever; however, although they are not physically together forever, the 2 still become 1 even after the act is completed.

This can be applied to the Eucharistic idea where the individual receiving Christ becomes one with Christ physically for a time and thus the two (Christ and the individual) become one but when Christ ceases, the 2 are still 1 (the same way they are still 1 in marriage). Of course, this is not to be understood in a sexual way but in a spiritual way.

I hope that helps.

God bless.

Hi lyrikal: Thank you for the reply. I do see a difference in the case of two people coming together in a physical act, and it’s covered in the part where I said that I didn’t personally know anyone who felt anything different during the experience at the altar. In fact, it’s sometimes a struggle for people to make it to church. Of course you know it’s hard to find a person who can’t tell you in great detail how good they felt being with another person, and most people show up for sex pretty gladly. Now, I am not saying that there are no people who feel anything at the altar, but I’ve asked a lot of people and haven’t found any, and watched countless thousands of them walking back from the altar and they by and large seem rather in an ordinary disposition, and often somewhat disengaged. I’ve played close attention myself when I was participating.

I have had very close experiences with God, and have felt Him inside of me and all around me. These are mystical experiences, and very easy to notice when they’re happening. I have detailed in this forum a number of times about an incident where I had a close encounter with Mary at the deathbed of a friend. I’m telling you this because I want to be clear that I am not discounting anyone’s beliefs. I am noting that we are having a very specific and exacting discussion on what the Eucharist is or is not, so I’m just trying to follow through with an exacting discussion of the process involved in the benefits of it. Now, if you say that it makes you feel closer to God, then my response is that you need absolutely no other reason, and I think you should do it as often as you can. My questions on this are for the OP, because the OP is drilling down to part and parcel and so I am trying to get into the part and parcel of it. If we are going to be particular about exactly what something is, then we need to be able to be clear and understand the components and processes involved.

Thank you again for your response. I do believe that the Eucharist is indeed what you think it is (Christ). I just think it’s a rather small component or demonstration that illustrates a much larger meaning, but that understanding is another topic altogether.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

I’m not Catholic (as you know) but I think I can addtess this part of it from the perspective of another non-Catholic trying to understand this. My understanding of the situation is that the change described by the doctrine is non-physical and non-particulate. It’s described as a “substantial” change, or a change in substance, such that the old substance is all gone and the Jesus-substance (body, blood, soul, divinity) is the only substance there. This is confusing, though, because it’s based on an idea of substance very different from what we have now. As of right now, substance is defined as the physical stuff, the particulate stuff, and so forth. But with the more archaic use of the word, it’s strictly non-physical and non-particulate. It requires you to think of non-personal inanimate objects as if they have souls. These non-corporeal soul-like entities are what we’re concerned with here. As an outside example, suppose you have a wooden baseball bat that’s legal for use in major league baseball. This is the kind of miracle that causes the “soul” (or substance) of the bat to be really, truly, and substantially an aluminum bat. But the miracle doesn’t affect anything molecular, atomic, subatomic, or otherwise particulate in the bat. You can look as hard as you want, but you won’t find any aluminum atoms in it. Matter of fact, you won’t find anything metallic in it whatsoever. This is the kind of miraculous change from “wood” to “aluminum” that allows the bat to still be legal for use in major leagie baseball.

That’s what it means for the substance to change. As you can imagine, the non-Catholic onlooker can’t help but think the only real change is the change in what Catholics insist on calling the thing. From our point of view, we can and do definitively know that it’s still a wooden bat- but Catholics “solemnly” and “authoritatively” insist on referring to it as an aluminum bat.

Hi Cooterhein: It’s good to hear from you again. I think I understand what you’re saying and it makes sense. I didn’t follow the baseball bat part too well, but that’s my fault - not yours. I don’t know much about team sports. Your understanding may be what was originally meant, but it does seem to me that there are a lot of people who believe in a particulate change. While I would concede that it is indeed the Body of Christ, I don’t think
that a particulate change is needed for this to be so. Being steeped in SD as I have been for most of my life, I was never able to see a change in particle structure as necessary, but my understanding would be another subject. I am most interested in what the benefits are and how the benefits work. I come from a religious culture where benefits aren’t a necessary reason for doing something, but benefits are being alluded to in this thread, and I want to know how they work.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I’ll address the first sentence last because that was the point of the thread.

However, He also left behind a symbolic memorial of what He did and all that it means to us.

Nowhere is the Bible does Jesus say, “This is the symbol of my Body”…or “what is in the cup is the symbol of my Blood.”

The word “symbol” appears nowhere in the text.

He introduced this symbolic memorial just prior to when He made Himself a sacrifice on the Cross, in a way that’s awfully similar to (and coincided with) other symbolic memorials pertaining to other significant acts of God in the redemptive history of Judaism.

So your argument is that Jesus, knowing that these were His last hours before His death, was given over to useless metaphors that didn’t mean anything? It is a memorial, AND it is Jesus Himself. That what a sacrament is: it is the symbol AND it is that which is symbolized.

These memorials also had something to do with acts of God that He literally did, and God would usually indicate the ways in which the symbolic memorials of those events should be done. This is nothing new. God has done it this way very consistently and for quite some time.

You’re now confusing OT types with NT realities. Types point to that which they are a type of. Noah’s Ark, the parting of the Red Sea, and the parting of the Jordan are “types” that point to the reality of baptism.

As far as what you should be doing, the first thing is to be sure that you don’t disrespect it. The second thing is to recall just what transubstantiation looks like to most people outside of Catholicism, and with that in mind, bite your tongue when you feel incredulity coming on. The third thing for you to do is realize this is a reasonable position to take, some people will do that, and hopefully you managed to get over it at some point.

1. As what I “should” be doing? For someone lecturing me on humility that’s pretty haughty of you. But thank you, I’ll take it under advisement.
2. “Disrespect it”? What is “it”? Nevermind. I don’t want to detract from the point of the thread.
3. It makes no sense to argue from what transubstantiation “looks like” to those outside of the Church because they already reject transubstantiation. I’m arguing from the data that those in the Church and out of the Church have in common: the Bible. I’m asking questions based on Scripture. There should be no disagreement, that is if the questions are answered honestly.

Now:

He gave His literal flesh on the cross and took that flesh with Him when He rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.

So we agree it was His literal flesh. Now if you please answer my follow-up:
Did Jesus say that the bread He would give us to eat, which, if we ate we would live for ever, was the flesh that He would give for the life of the world? Yes or no? (John 6:51)

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Once again, I am not a Protestant or anyone looking to pick a side, but accepting that the Eucharist is truly what it is said to be, let’s accept that as the outcome of the discussion. I am really seriously interested in seeing where we take it from there. Does it physically become part of you,

Not only merely physically.

and if it does, is it temporary,

Let me put it this way, we are vessels. Because we are wounded vessels when filled with God’s grace we leak. The pace of the leak depends on how we allow God’s grace and love to heal us. We will never be perfect on this side of heaven, and some vessels are larger than others. But the bottom line is that on this side of eternity everything is temporary.

…and does it act like anything else that becomes a part of you,

Yes and no. It is fuller nourishment than anything else that we eat because there is spiritual/metaphysical effects as well.

and exit your body as lost particles and cells or more immediately in other ways, and while it’s there, what does it do?

I think I already answered this above.

What are the long-term benefits, and if those benefits include everlasting life, how does that work? What is the process by which the Eucharist accomplishes this?

That we don’t know. Since it is metaphysics is is not something that we can measure. It is beyond such empericism. That is where faith comes in.

We are defining it as a physical reality on a physical level, so there must be physical processes and outcomes involved, and I honestly would like to know what those are.

Nowhere did I say that the Eucharist is anything other than what the Church says it is. There have been impressive miracles that do demonstrate the Church’s claim and that have been independently and scientifically examined and which have been confirmed as having no real scientific explaination.

It is a spiritual reality on a physical level. The process is spiritual/metaphysical. But that would require the assent of faith on your part. I’m not asking you to believe anything. I’m not demanding that you accept the Bible as divinely inspired. I’m merely asking that you see the Bible as a reliable source as to what Jesus said and did, & decide for yourself if Jesus was a good man or not.

I have seen some very kind and thoughtful attempts at answers to that on this thread and I appreciate it, but I really haven’t seen anything all that compelling as to what value is in the outcome and the processes by which the value is manifest. I’m looking for something concrete like, if you die with some of it in you and you aren’t cremated, and your body somehow stays in tact in it’s grave until the Last Day, do those particles hear some sort of dog whistle that other particles won’t react to, and cause the host body in the grave to reanimate? Something like that? Is that what we’re talking about, and if not, what are we talking about?

The Eucharist is not magic, if that is what you’re asking?

What is the point?

The point is consistency. The point is for people to shed the colored glasses of their prejudices and to simply & objectively look at the evidence.

Is it that you got near Jesus for a few minutes each week? If that’s the case, you know we’re seeing Him every day, so why not pay more attention to Him when you see Him live in the flesh every day?

I’m leaving this one alone for the sake of the thread…

This is what I honestly want to know. You have very particular and finite ways of looking at things, so I’m hoping you can explain it in such a way.

I know that some people who adhere to eastern philosophies don’t follow when someone asserts something as being contradictory. You may alreay look at me as being “intolerant” and that why don’t I just “agree to disagree” or “live and let live.”

If we could find common ground on the basics such as that there are things that are true and that must be believed and followed and that there are things that are false which must be avoided, then we could begin from there. But if you take the position that “all things” have their goods and bads and that we must accept them on equal terms and that they are all paths to the divine, then we have a fundamental divide.

If that divide is there then any discussion on particulars of the Christian faith may be fruitless. Christianity is a Faith that makes claims that it says are absolutely true. Not only that it also teaches that there are things that are absolutely false-sinful-and that are be avoided at the cost of one’s immortal soul.

But this is rather a topic for another thread.

God bless you.

 

[Sufjon]

Not only merely physically.

Let me put it this way, we are vessels. Because we are wounded vessels when filled with God’s grace we leak. The pace of the leak depends on how we allow God’s grace and love to heal us. We will never be perfect on this side of heaven, and some vessels are larger than others. But the bottom line is that on this side of eternity everything is temporary.

Yes and no. It is fuller nourishment than anything else that we eat because there is spiritual/metaphysical effects as well.

I think I already answered this above.

That we don’t know. Since it is metaphysics is is not something that we can measure. It is beyond such empericism. That is where faith comes in.

Nowhere did I say that the Eucharist is anything other than what the Church says it is. There have been impressive miracles that do demonstrate the Church’s claim and that have been independently and scientifically examined and which have been confirmed as having no real scientific explaination.

It is a spiritual reality on a physical level. The process is spiritual/metaphysical. But that would require the assent of faith on your part. I’m not asking you to believe anything. I’m not demanding that you accept the Bible as divinely inspired. I’m merely asking that you see the Bible as a reliable source as to what Jesus said and did, & decide for yourself if Jesus was a good man or not.

The Eucharist is not magic, if that is what you’re asking?

The point is consistency. The point is for people to shed the colored glasses of their prejudices and to simply & objectively look at the evidence.

I’m leaving this one alone for the sake of the thread…

I know that some people who adhere to eastern philosophies don’t follow when someone asserts something as being contradictory. You may alreay look at me as being “intolerant” and that why don’t I just “agree to disagree” or “live and let live.”

If we could find common ground on the basics such as that there are things that are true and that must be believed and followed and that there are things that are false which must be avoided, then we could begin from there. But if you take the position that “all things” have their goods and bads and that we must accept them on equal terms and that they are all paths to the divine, then we have a fundamental divide.

If that divide is there then any discussion on particulars of the Christian faith may be fruitless. Christianity is a Faith that makes claims that it says are absolutely true. Not only that it also teaches that there are things that are absolutely false-sinful-and that are be avoided at the cost of one’s immortal soul.

But this is rather a topic for another thread.

God bless you.

Hi Grey Pilgrim: You got my interest when you said it was a spiritual/metaphysical experience, and of course that would be of great interest to me, and gives a good inroad to what I was trying to get at. My understanding is that the main theme of the thread has been that the Eucharist is the physical Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. I was trying to understand what would be the benefits of eating the physical Body and Blood of Christ. When you introduced metaphysical to the mix, it opens up potential benefits that we might be able to succinctly define, because there are very exacting principles involved in the area of metaphysics.
Not wanting to put words in your mouth, I would like to get clarification on the metaphysical side of the Eucharist. We have established that there are certain faiths that believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, and for the sake of this discussion, let’s take that as an agreed fact. In metaphysics, Body and Blood would indicate the Gross Physical body, but from a metaphysical perspective that is only one component of a very complex body system, involving countless energy centers and layers of being. That said, when you mention that it’s metaphysical, do you mean to say in the celebration of the Eucharist, we are also somehow taking in or merging the Subtle and Astral bodies of Christ with our own? The reason I am asking this is because if this is the case, there would indeed be very definable benefits, but the problem is that the benefits would be very observable, or noticeable to participants.
So, could you elaborate a bit on the metaphysical component of the Eucharist? For someone such as myself, this would be the key to understanding the benefits of the Eucharist, because without it, I am unable to see the point in eating the flesh of a Mahavatar (God Incarnate). On the other hand, I can easily envision some real benefits to merging with His Subtle Body.

If you are saying what I think you are, then the Eucharist should stop being a five minute thing at the end of the mass. Period. It should be at the start of the, the mass should then last for three hours so that people can properly connect with what they have taken in, and the priests should stop talking so much. Just my opinion.

Thanks for your help,

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[John_2029]

Well, getting back to the OP’s original question…

The issue of whether Christ’s body and blood was truly present on the Cross (or is present in the Eucharist) was raised by the Gnostics toward the end of the 1st century A.D. They held that Christ was not physically present on the Cross, but only appeared to be present - that his presence was an illusion. As a result they also did not accept Christ’s True Presence in the Eucharist. This heresy, which was called Docetism, was quickly addressed by the Church. There is some indication that the Gospel of St. John, and his pastoral letters, which were written around the time this heresy arose, were written in part to refute this heresy. Early Church fathers, such as Ignatius, Irenaeus and Tertullian, also wrote against Docetism.

This is just a good example of there not being any new heresies, just new people coming up with old (and discredited) ideas that will lead them astray.

Yours in Christ,

 

[cooterhein]

I’ll address the first sentence last because that was the point of the thread.

You indicate the sentence where I identify it as a symbolic memorial.

Nowhere is the Bible does Jesus say, “This is the symbol of my Body”…or “what is in the cup is the symbol of my Blood.”

The word “symbol” appears nowhere in the text.

This is a worthless argument that is immediately discarded every time it’s brought up. We’ve all gone here way too many times; why revisit it one more time? Don’t even bother. Stick to complaints that at least have some appearance of legitimacy.

So your argument is that Jesus, knowing that these were His last hours before His death, was given over to useless metaphors that didn’t mean anything?

Triumphalism doesn’t look good on you. This is the kind of disrespect I was talking about. You can’t do this. I expect an apology and a retraction.

You’re now confusing OT types with NT realities.

No, you’re mistaken. Despite not being Catholic, I do know what I’m talking about. You’ll do well to wrap your head around that.

1. As what I “should” be doing? For someone lecturing me on humility that’s pretty haughty of you. But thank you, I’ll take it under advisement.

Yes, you will.

1. “Disrespect it”? What is “it”?

Don’t disrespect ideas and beliefs of non-Catholic Christians, of Jews, or of anyone or anything else that might come up in your explorations. Or your search for an argument, whatever it is you’re doing. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that in your ignorance, you aren’t entirely aware of what you’re doing.

1. It makes no sense to argue from what transubstantiation “looks like” to those outside of the Church because they already reject transubstantiation.

I wasn’t forwarding a reality-based argument against transubstantiation. I was making a point about how you interact with other Christians that happen to be non-Catholic, but I suppose it failed to land.

So we agree it was His literal flesh.

If by “it” you mean “the bread and the cup,” we actually agree that this was not His literal flesh. We do, however, say it was different types of non-literal flesh. I say it was a symbolic memorial, which is different from literal flesh, and you say it was transubstantiated flesh/blood/soul/divinity in substance only but not its accidents, which is also different from literal flesh.

If you’re talking about Jesus’ body that actually hung on the cross, was resurrected, and ascended into heaven, we do have a bit more agreement there. But that’s not what this thread’s really about, is it?

Now if you please answer my follow-up:

I won’t do it until you read through a new list of things I need you to do. First, I need an apology and a retraction of the disrespect and triumphalism you’ve shown to this point. Second, I need you to promise that you’ll make sure it doesn’t happen again- and you know I’ll hold you to that. Third, we need to wrap up the question that you asked and the answer I gave, just to make sure the thing I communicated to you is the thing that you are comprehending.

If all that happens, we can get into John 6.