On Holy Communion

[FabiusMaximus]

I know you asked Larkin this question but I can cut in and provide two places where The Messiah told his disciples.

Not everyone was meant to understand the truth - at the same time - because not everyone will handle it the same way. Jesus knew some would understand while others were meant to misunderstand and betray him. The following verse coems right after Jesus tells his multitude of disciples that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood (and their subsequent confusion and anger at his message).

[Brackets Mine]

John 6:63 - "It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh [carnal understanding] profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you [the words Jesus just spoke to them about his flesh and blood], they [flesh and blood] are Spirit, and they are life [italics not mine].

In other words, His words were not meant physically, but spiritually.

I know that not everyone was meant to understand. But in those cases, there is either an interpretation of Jesus to the disciples (and thus WE know the meaning), or an author’s note. When Jesus spoke about the sign of Elijah, there was immediately a note clarifying that the sign of Elijah was referring to John the Baptist. Or with regards to the Temple, it immediately clarified saying that the Temple was his body. How more necessary would be clarification for something like this?

 

[SteveVH]

I know you asked Larkin this question but I can cut in and provide two places where The Messiah told his disciples.

Not everyone was meant to understand the truth - at the same time - because not everyone will handle it the same way. Jesus knew some would understand while others were meant to misunderstand and betray him. The following verse comes right after Jesus tells his multitude of disciples that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood (and their subsequent confusion and anger at his message).

[Brackets Mine]

John 6:63 - "It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh [carnal understanding] profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you [the words Jesus just spoke to them about his flesh and blood], they [flesh and blood] are Spirit, and they are life [italics not mine].

In other words, His words were not meant physically, but spiritually.

 

[Joshua27]

I know that not everyone was meant to understand. But in those cases, there is either an interpretation of Jesus to the disciples (and thus WE know the meaning), or an author’s note. When Jesus spoke about the sign of Elijah, there was immediately a note clarifying that the sign of Elijah was referring to John the Baptist. Or with regards to the Temple, it immediately clarified saying that the Temple was his body. How more necessary would be clarification for something like this?

Answering this question with question #1…

But he did clarify, Fabius…this is why 5000 disciples (who were only looking for a new meal) left. He clarified that he was talking about the Spirit, not physical flesh and blood.

John 6 (Beginning)…Jesus feeds the multitude and leaves…people/disciples follow.

Many disciples show up who were only following him because He fed them earlier with the loaves and fishes…and this was the only reason why they were looking to find him again. To be fed.

[Brackets Mine]

24 - When the people…seeking for Jesus.

25 - and when they found him…they said to him, Teacher, when camest thou hither?

26 - Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, you want to be with me because I fed you, not because you understood the miraculous signs.

27 - Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal."

{False Disciples’ Challenge Jesus}

30 - So they said to Him, "What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform?

31 - After all, our ancestors ate manna while they journeyed through the wilderness! The Scriptures say, 'Moses gave them bread from heaven to eat."

{Jesus then Challenges them back}

49 - Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died.

51 - I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and this bread, which I will offer so the world may live, is my flesh."

52 Then the people began arguing with each other about what he meant. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat!?”

53 - Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye **eat the flesh **of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

60 - Many of his disciples said, “This is very hard to understand. How can anyone accept it?”

{Jesus’ then explains what he means}

63 - "It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh [carnal understanding] profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you [about flesh and blood], they are =] Spirit, and they are =] life [italics not mine].

64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe what Jesus just said about the Flesh & Blood meaning Spirit & Life]." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.

65 Then he said, “That is why I said that people can’t come to me unless the Father gives them to me.”

66 - At this point many of his disciples [5000-12 apostles] turned away and deserted him [because they weren’t going to get a meal this time].

2. Ask yourself, why would we need a physical sacrifice when we’re already physically alive?

Prior to The Messiah, we were always physically alive but - since the sin of Adam - spiritually dead.

Jesus was a Spiritual Lamb, wasn’t he? He wasn’t a real - four-legged - sheep, even though we call him a Lamb. Isn’t this label a representation, and not carnal/physical? “Representations” require explanation while “actual things” (carnal things) do not. Can we speak of Messiah as “the Lamb” without explaining what that means? No.

Also, sin is a spiritual problem, not a physical thing, right? Finally, doesn’t Jesus frequently speak against the “flesh”, to mean “carnal/physical understanding”.

If all that was needed was a physical sacrifice (death) any one of us would’ve been enough, correct? “What made Jesus different in death?”, that He was Spirit. It is His spiritual sacrifice which was most important.

3. I can’t speak against Ignatius any more than anyone of today can speak for him. Anyone old enough can claim “oh I dined with X, and this is what they told me…” We can only go by context of scripture as you allude to in your post.

**4. The same way we can conclude that "drinking = believing"

** John 7…continuation - in context - after events from John 6.

37 On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink.

38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him."

39 By this he [Jesus] meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

 

[SteveVH]

It isn’t supposed to taste like it (thanks be to God for that!) I am guessing that you know that already, though?

Indeed, while I myself have moved towards faith in the real body and blood being present (can’t wait to take my first communion), I think that the participation of the believer, coming to the act with an open and believing heart, as you say, is very important.

One important distinction here. The reality of the Eucharist is not dependent upon the beliefs of man. However, the grace that you receive does depend upon your disposition in receiving it. If we approach it as nothing we receive nothing (except judgment upon ourselves). If we approach the Eucharist in an act of mutual self-giving, the graces are infinite. The Eucharist, however, always remains the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ regardless of what we believe.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Answering this question with question #1…

But he did clarify, Fabius…this is why 5000 disciples (who were only looking for a new meal) left. He clarified that he was talking about the Spirit, not physical flesh and blood.

John 6 (Beginning)…Jesus feeds the multitude and leaves…people/disciples follow.

Many disciples show up who were only following him because He fed them earlier with the loaves and fishes…and this was the only reason why they were looking to find him again. To be fed.

It seems to me that the attention of those false disciples had already shifted to Jesus referring to consuming flesh. He had already refuted the concept that he would give bread long before when he said “I am the bread that comes from heaven…” which he goes to clarify is his body that he will (“will” to them “has” to us) sacrifice:
*
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” *(John 6:51)

Why would he go on to say that the bread was his flesh? Then when he allegedly clarifies his words as being figurative, the false disciples leave. Why? They were offended by the literal reference to consuming flesh and blood, which appeared disgusting, not at Jesus not providing them bread. Their leaving was directly responding to the concept of eating flesh.

Why would Jesus’ teaching about flesh and blood being symbolic, and therefore Spirit and life be a difficult teaching to accept?

Also, sin is a spiritual problem, not a physical thing, right? Finally, doesn’t Jesus frequently speak against the “flesh”, to mean “carnal/physical understanding”.

If all that was needed was a physical sacrifice (death) any one of us would’ve been enough, correct? “What made Jesus different in death?”, that He was Spirit. It is His spiritual sacrifice which was most important.

The sacrifice was both physical and spiritual. We are not sufficient because we don’t carry the spiritual qualifications. Neither of us are divine, and neither of us are perfect.

Jesus was divine, but if his sacrifice was purely spiritual, then he did not really die on the cross, which is a Gnostic allegation. But God needed both a spiritual and physical sacrifice to suffice. That’s why Word became flesh, and dwelt among us…So his physical sacrifice could save the world.

And sin also produces physical issues too. The tragedies of this world - people born with sicknesses or severe disorders - those are a result of the sin of Adam which all humanity inherited. Yes, the ultimate result is a spiritual death - eternal separation from God - but is it not also a physical death? Would Adam had physically died had he not taken the fruit? No.

1. I can’t speak against Ignatius any more than anyone of today can speak for him. Anyone old enough can claim “oh I dined with X, and this is what they told me…” We can only go by context of scripture as you allude to in your post.

It isn’t only Ignatius that claims he was with the Apostle John, all the Church Fathers do. There is no reason to believe why he was not a student of John.

Besides, wouldn’t Ignatius, because he spoke to John, know the proper interpretation of that passage for the simple reason that he was his student and therefore learned directly from him? Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who also was a student of John (and also corresponded directly with Ignatius), and also affirmed the real presence.

Am I a better judge of scripture than they? Dare I say ‘well, this says such and such to me, therefore, you’re wrong, Ignatius.’? Oral transmission of knowledge was a common feature of the ancients.

1. The same way we can conclude that “drinking = believing”

John 7…continuation - in context - after events from John 6.

Again, here we see that John clearly explains what “flowing living water” meant - the flow of the Holy Spirit, which had not yet come. I still don’t understand why he wouldn’t say that in John 6 with regards to consuming Christ’s flesh and blood?

“Whoever believes in me, as[c] the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” 39By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified." (John 7:38-39)

Do you see how clearly John is explaining what Jesus meant?

 

[Lapey]

It seems to me that the attention of those false disciples had already shifted to Jesus referring to consuming flesh. He had already refuted the concept that he would give bread long before when he said “I am the bread that comes from heaven…” which he goes to clarify is his body that he will (“will” to them “has” to us) sacrifice:
*
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” *(John 6:51)

Why would he go on to say that the bread was his flesh? Then when he allegedly clarifies his words as being figurative, the false disciples leave. Why? They were offended by the literal reference to consuming flesh and blood, which appeared disgusting, not at Jesus not providing them bread. Their leaving was directly responding to the concept of eating flesh.

Why would Jesus’ teaching about flesh and blood being symbolic, and therefore Spirit and life be a difficult teaching to accept?

The sacrifice was both physical and spiritual. We are not sufficient because we don’t carry the spiritual qualifications. Neither of us are divine, and neither of us are perfect.

Jesus was divine, but if his sacrifice was purely spiritual, then he did not really die on the cross, which is a Gnostic allegation. But God needed both a spiritual and physical sacrifice to suffice. That’s why Word became flesh, and dwelt among us…So his physical sacrifice could save the world.

And sin also produces physical issues too. The tragedies of this world - people born with sicknesses or severe disorders - those are a result of the sin of Adam which all humanity inherited. Yes, the ultimate result is a spiritual death - eternal separation from God - but is it not also a physical death? Would Adam had physically died had he not taken the fruit? No.

It isn’t only Ignatius that claims he was with the Apostle John, all the Church Fathers do. There is no reason to believe why he was not a student of John.

Besides, wouldn’t Ignatius, because he spoke to John, know the proper interpretation of that passage for the simple reason that he was his student and therefore learned directly from him? Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who also was a student of John (and also corresponded directly with Ignatius), and also affirmed the real presence.

Am I a better judge of scripture than they? Dare I say ‘well, this says such and such to me, therefore, you’re wrong, Ignatius.’? Oral transmission of knowledge was a common feature of the ancients.

Again, here we see that John clearly explains what “flowing living water” meant - the flow of the Holy Spirit, which had not yet come. I still don’t understand why he wouldn’t say that in John 6 with regards to consuming Christ’s flesh and blood?

“Whoever believes in me, as[c] the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” 39By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified." (John 7:38-39)

Do you see how clearly John is explaining what Jesus meant?

I was going to chime in here, but then I read your post…amen brother, amen!

Wow, you brought a tear to my eye as I read your post. Has anyone invited you to RCIA and to your home in the Catholic Church? All are welcome, but you are ready!

 

[larkin31]

I know you asked Larkin this question but I can cut in and provide two places where The Messiah told his disciples.

Not everyone was meant to understand the truth - at the same time - because not everyone will handle it the same way. Jesus knew some would understand while others were meant to misunderstand and betray him. The following verse comes right after Jesus tells his multitude of disciples that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood (and their subsequent confusion and anger at his message).

[Brackets Mine]

John 6:63 - "It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh [carnal understanding] profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you [the words Jesus just spoke to them about his flesh and blood], they [flesh and blood] are Spirit, and they are life [italics not mine].

In other words, His words were not meant physically, but spiritually.

This is just what I quoted earlier on this thread or on another thread (I lose track):

words=flesh and blood=spirit=life

one metaphorical/symbolic chain

 

[Lapey]

This is just what I quoted earlier on this thread or on another thread (I lose track):

words=flesh and blood=spirit=life

one metaphorical/symbolic chain

There was no metaphor in John 6 untill it was interpreted into it after the reformation. After Luther, he also believed in the real presence. Can’t argue with that, it’s historical fact.

 

[larkin31]

There was no metaphor in John 6 untill it was interpreted into it after the reformation. After Luther, he also believed in the real presence. Can’t argue with that, it’s historical fact.

And the world was thought to be flat, even though the curvature and movements of the heavens were there for all to see…

 

[larkin31]

There was no metaphor in John 6 untill it was interpreted into it after the reformation. After Luther, he also believed in the real presence. Can’t argue with that, it’s historical fact.

And how receptive was the RCC to interpretations of this magnitude that it did not sanction? Are you trying to suggest that this interpretation was NEVER THOUGHT OF, or never DEBATED?

Any squabbles, or dare I say, wars, over the issue?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is just what I quoted earlier on this thread or on another thread (I lose track):

words=flesh and blood=spirit=life

one metaphorical/symbolic chain

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
Joh 6:54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.

There were instances that Jesus speaks symbolically about food, but He explained Himself in each instance.

**Joh 4:31 In the mean time, the disciples prayed him, saying: Rabbi, eat.
Joh 4:32 But he said to them: I have meat to eat which you know not.
Joh 4:33 The disciples therefore said one to another: Hath any man brought him to eat?
Joh 4:34 Jesus saith to them: My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, that I may perfect his work.

Mat 16:5 And when his disciples were come over the water, they had forgotten to take bread.
Mat 16:6 Who said to them: Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Mat 16:7 But they thought within themselves, saying: Because we have taken no bread.
Mat 16:8 And Jesus knowing it, said: Why do you think within yourselves, O ye of little faith, for that you have no bread?
Mat 16:9 Do you not yet understand, neither do you remember the five loaves among five thousand men, and how many baskets you took up?
Mat 16:10 Nor the seven loaves, among four thousand men, and how many baskets you took up?
Mat 16:11 Why do you not understand that it was not concerning bread I said to you: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees?
Mat 16:12 Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees. **

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

**Ignatius of Antioch
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]).
. . . and are now ready to obey your bishop and clergy with undivided minds and to share in the one common breaking of bread – the medicine of immortality, and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ for evermore (Letter to the Ephesians 20 [A.D. 110]).

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]).***

 

[Lapey]

And the world was thought to be flat, even though the curvature and movements of the heavens were there for all to see…

so truth in doctrine is equal to ignorance…

This is no argument it is arogance, do you think truth changes over the centuries?

 

[larkin31]

There were instances that Jesus speaks symbolically about food, but He explained Himself in each instance.

He did not in at least one. There is no reason to think that because he did 5 times, that he would HAVE to also a sixth. Particularly not when he is offering his “body” and “blood” to be eaten and drunk as a ritual of transferral of life giving “Spirit”.

Unless you want the act to appear to be semi-pagan.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12;
St. Paul explains why those of the flesh do not understand or believe in the (True presence of Jesus in Eucharist) those mysteries of the Spirit here; Those who refuse to believe Jesus Words that the Eucharist is his True blood and body remain in the flesh, those who do accept Jesus Words of his True presence in his Eucharist are of the Spirit.

Romans 10:17 Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ:

1Corinthians 2:9… But as it is written; “What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him,” v10… This God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God. 11… no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God. 13 **And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms.14 ****Now the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually. **15 The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone.16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

Joshua 27;
John 6:63 - "It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh [carnal understanding] profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you [the words Jesus just spoke to them about his flesh and blood], they [flesh and blood] are Spirit, and they are life [italics not mine].

In other words, His words were not meant physically, but spiritually.

Gabriel of 12;
The bible no where ever, ever speaks of the Spirit in a symbolic way as you presented here. To misinterpret sacred scripture of a symbolic Spirit comes from a heretical teaching. The Spirit is a real person of the blessed Trinity. The Spirit gives life, a symbolic spirit could never give life. When Jesus attached the Spirit to his Words, Jesus is speaking from eternity of a reality that never ends in his body, blood soul and divinity in his Eucharist. From the consecrated Words of God, “This is my blood, This is my body” it is the Spirit that makes these truly Jesus body, blood soul and divinity, when the flesh which returns to dust does not avail nothing.

Because we are the temple of the Spirit, we are united to the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ (Partakers of his divinity see 2 Peter 1:4) 1Corinthians 3:16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

1Corinthians 6:19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been purchased with a price. Therefore glorify God in your body.

Hebrews 11:1…Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen. (This is the Transubstantiated Eucharist made present when the Spirit gives life and the flesh does not see what the Spirit gives)

1 John
Chapter 4
1
1 Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2
**This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh be longs to God, **3
and **every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus 2 does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world. **4
You belong to God, children, and you have conquered them, for the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
5
They belong to the world; accordingly, their teaching belongs to the world, and the world listens to them.
6
**We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit. **

1Corinthians 15:36 You fool!! What you sow is not brought to life unless it dies. 37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be but a bare kernel of wheat, perhaps, or of some other kind; but God gives it a body as he chooses, and to each of the seeds its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for human beings, another kind of flesh for animals, another kind of flesh for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the brightness of the heavenly is one kind and that of the earthly another.

Jesus and the bible teach (confirm) that the consecrated bread and wine are “Truly the (True presence) body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ”.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

St. Paul explains why those of the flesh do not understand or believe in the (True presence of Jesus in Eucharist) those mysteries of the Spirit here; Those who refuse to believe Jesus Words that the Eucharist is his True blood and body remain in the flesh, those who do accept Jesus Words of his True presence in his Eucharist are of the Spirit.

Romans 10:17 Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ:

1Corinthians 2:9… But as it is written; “What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him,” v10… This God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God. 11… no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God. 13 **And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms.14 ****Now the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually. **15 The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone.16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

[Brackets Mine]

John 6:63 - "It is the Spirit

that gives life; the flesh [carnal understanding] profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you [the words Jesus just spoke to them about his flesh and blood], they [flesh and blood] are Spirit, and they are life [italics not mine].

In other words, His words were not meant physically, but spiritually.

The bible no where ever, ever speaks of the Spirit in a symbolic way as you presented here. To misinterpret sacred scripture of a symbolic Spirit comes from a heretical teaching. The Spirit is a real person of the blessed Trinity. The Spirit gives life, a symbolic spirit could never give life. When Jesus attached the Spirit to his Words, Jesus is speaking from eternity of a reality that never ends in his body, blood soul and divinity in his Eucharist. From the consecrated Words of God, “This is my blood, This is my body” it is the Spirit that makes these truly Jesus body, blood soul and divinity, when the flesh which returns to dust does not avail nothing.

Because we are the temple of the Spirit, we are united to the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ (Partakers of his divinity see 2 Peter 1:4) 1Corinthians 3:16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

1Corinthians 6:19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been purchased with a price. Therefore glorify God in your body.

Hebrews 11:1…Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen. (This is the Transubstantiated Eucharist made present when the Spirit gives life and the flesh does not see what the Spirit gives)

1 John
Chapter 4
1
1 Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2
**This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh **be longs to God, 3
and **every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus 2 does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world. **4
You belong to God, children, and you have conquered them, for the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
5
They belong to the world; accordingly, their teaching belongs to the world, and the world listens to them.
6
**We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit. **

1Corinthians 15:36 You fool!! What you sow is not brought to life unless it dies. 37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be but a bare kernel of wheat, perhaps, or of some other kind; but God gives it a body as he chooses, and to each of the seeds its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for human beings, another kind of flesh for animals, another kind of flesh for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the brightness of the heavenly is one kind and that of the earthly another.

Jesus and the bible teach (confirm) that the consecrated bread and wine are “Truly the (True presence) body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ”.

1Corinthians 6:17 But whoever is joined to the Lord becomes one Spirit with him.

 

[larkin31]

so truth in doctrine is equal to ignorance…

This is no argument it is arogance, do you think truth changes over the centuries?

So, when someone disagrees with transubstantiation, you call them arrogant?

Are you trying to start some namecalling?

 

[Lapey]

He did not in at least one. There is no reason to think that because he did 5 times, that he would HAVE to also a sixth. Particularly not when he is offering his “body” and “blood” to be eaten and drunk as a ritual of transferral of life giving “Spirit”.

Unless you want the act to appear to be semi-pagan.

You have a little frustration stored up in you, don’t you. If I believe in the saving Grace of Christ is contained and flowes through the most august of the sacraments, you say I am semi-pagan?

Do you remember the scripture about the tax collector and the pharasee in the temple? Who was saved? Careful how you accuse me of being pagan, remember to check for the plank in you eye.

 

[larkin31]

Prodigal_Son1:
Indeed. It appears that there has been dispute over the doctrine, and the dissenters “corrected”.

Oops. This is in reply to Prodigal’s quotes from Ignatius.

 

[Lapey]

So, when someone disagrees with transubstantiation, you call them arrogant?

Are you trying to start some namecalling?

No, but when someone uses thier doctrine and tradition from outside of the Church to come here and instruct us inside the Church on how wrong everyone in history has been and then you say that if we believe in the rp of the Eucharist, you say we are as ignorant as those who were ignorant enough to think the world was flat. That my brother is aragance and i will point it out. Sorry if the shoe fits.