Please follow the only simple rule:

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_Pick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
Bill, I believe every word of it, as you know.
I also believe the next part, where Christ says, “Drink from it, all of you”.
Now, I understand concomitance, but I don’t understand the necessity of not fulfilling His command to “Eat **and **drink”. So, my question is why did, and in some cases still, not offer the cup to the laity. It seems in direct contradiction to, “drink from it, all of you”.

Jon
Click to expand...
This is my Body,This is my Blood. Jon thats plain to me unless I <m missing some thing.
 
Bill_Pick said:
This is my Body,This is my Blood. Jon thats plain to me unless I <m missing some thing.
Click to expand...
Bill,
My question is poorly phrased. Sorry. :o

Why does the Catholic Church, in some places, still only give the Eucharist under one species, the body, and not the cup, when Christ clearly instructs us to take the cup, as well?
Jon
 
Jon,I believe Jesus is present in both "This is my Body, This is My blood…
 
Radical said:
Hi, onenow1 Not at all…do you? Do you think that God cannot grant eternal life w/o being “ingested”? It is not about any limit in his power, it is about what he meant and what he did. The Real Presence crowd crow as if theirs is the only possible coherent understanding of John 6 and the Lord’s Supper accounts (as if the millions of believers that hold to a symbolic understanding must all be too dense to require any coherence for their interpretation). The Real Presence crowd crow as if they somehow are more faithful by taking Jesus’s words literally (when they actually pick and choose what it is that they take literally). The Real Presence crowd crow about how their understanding is “straight from the Mouth of God” (yet, when Jesus still refers to the wine as “fruit of the vine” after it has been supposedly transformed into his actual blood, straightness is suddenly abandoned). If you or the others holding to a RP view want a coherent explanation of the symbolic view or a discussion about the problems with an RP view, I’ll gladly participate…but if all that is desired is shallow crowing, I’ll gladly step aside and avoid the cacophony. Peace.
Click to expand...
Quote= onenow1 Hi, Rad Eternal life is a given one way or the other Rad, it’s about obeying God’s Commands. There is nothing I see in John 6 in His Bread of life discourse that is symbolic. This has been the Church’s teaching for 2000yrs. Matt. 26: 26-29.
  1. The Israelite community grumbled against Moses that they might die
    of famine. Exodus 16:1-3
  2. GOD provided ‘manna’ from Heaven to feed their bodies. Exodus 16:4-18
  3. This prefigures the Holy Eucharist.
  4. Jesus Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist when He said, “This is
    My Body and this is My Blood.” This ‘Last Supper’ was the first Mass.
    Matthew 26:26-28
  5. Jesus Christ said that He was the Bread come down from Heaven.
  6. He said, “The Bread that I will give is My flesh.” John 6:51.
  7. Jesus repeated Himself over and over that we must eat His flesh and
    drink His Blood in John 6:51,53,54,55,56. Why did He repeat Himself?
  8. Name another area in the Bible where Jesus repeated Himself anywhere
    near that number of times? Why does anyone repeat himself? To drive
    home a point, that’s why. This ‘Bread’ is His Body and this ‘Cup’ is His
    Blood.
Peace, onenow1
 
QUOTE=Radical Not at all…do you? Do you think that God cannot grant eternal life w/o being “ingested”?

Hmmm… what are you going to do with the part where it says."Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood there is no life in you???:rolleyes:
 
onenow1 said:
Quote= onenow1 Hi, Rad Eternal life is a given one way or the other Rad, it’s about obeying God’s Commands. There is nothing I see in John 6 in His Bread of life discourse that is symbolic.
Click to expand...
fortunately truth does not depend on what you see…Christ repeatedly says that he is bread in John 6 ( and not that bread becomes his flesh as proposed by transubstantiation). So is Christ actually bread? Is it that he only retained that accidents of skin and that the substance of his outer layer had truly become crust?
This has been the Church’s teaching for 2000yrs.
Click to expand...
if this is truly the teaching of the church for 2000 years, then show me this express teaching in the Didache, in Clement (either epistle), in the Shepherd of Hermas, Polycarp, Tertullian, Origen or Clement of Alexandria.
  1. The Israelite community grumbled against Moses that they might die
    of famine. Exodus 16:1-3
  2. GOD provided ‘manna’ from Heaven to feed their bodies. Exodus 16:4-18
  3. The crowd at John 6 wanted manna from Jesus (the same way their forefathers received it from God)
  4. Jesus used their demand for manna to teach about his vital importance in obtaining eternal life. In so doing, he hints at the sacrifice that he will make on the cross.
  5. Jesus Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper as a symbol for his sacrifice on the cross when He said, “This is My Body and this is My Blood.” Matthew 26:26-28
  6. Jesus Christ said that He was the Bread come down from Heaven. (but he isn’t really bread)
  7. He said, “The Bread that I will give is My flesh.” John 6:51…and he offered that flesh as a sacrifice on the cross.
  8. Jesus repeated himself over and over that he is bread (although he is not actually bread) in John 6:33, 35,41, 48, 50, 51 and 58. Likewise, Jesus repeated Himself over and over that we must eat His flesh and drink His Blood (although no one actually eats his flesh) in John 6:51,53,54,55,56.
  1. Name another area in the Bible where Jesus repeated Himself anywhere
    near that number of times?
Click to expand...
a) John 15 and the idea of remaining in Christ, the true vine shows up at 15: 2, 4(x2),5,6and 7.
b) Throughout the Gospel of John the idea of believing in Christ for eternal life shows up many times and interestingly in John 6: 35,40, 47, 63-4…I’ll let you count the many other instances throughout the rest of the gospel
c) the idea that Jesus lays down his life for us is repeated in John 10: 11,14,17, and 18 (x2)
d) the idea that we are Christ’s sheep is repeated in John 10: 3, 4, 7,9,11,14, 16 and 27.

I trust that’ll do. Now tell me, why did Jesus call the wine “fruit of the vine” if it was no longer wine and had become blood? …and do you actually chew and grind Christ’s fleshly tissue, or are you turning your back on a literal interpretation of verse 54?
 
Radical said:
fortunately truth does not depend on what you see…Christ repeatedly says that he is bread in John 6 ( and not that bread becomes his flesh as proposed by transubstantiation). So is Christ actually bread? Is it that he only retained that accidents of skin and that the substance of his outer layer had truly become crust?

if this is truly the teaching of the church for 2000 years, then show me this express teaching in the Didache, in Clement (either epistle), in the Shepherd of Hermas, Polycarp, Tertullian, Origen or Clement of Alexandria.
  1. The Israelite community grumbled against Moses that they might die
    of famine. Exodus 16:1-3
  2. GOD provided ‘manna’ from Heaven to feed their bodies. Exodus 16:4-18
  3. The crowd at John 6 wanted manna from Jesus (the same way their forefathers received it from God)
  4. Jesus used their demand for manna to teach about his vital importance in obtaining eternal life. In so doing, he hints at the sacrifice that he will make on the cross.
  5. Jesus Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper as a symbol for his sacrifice on the cross when He said, “This is My Body and this is My Blood.” Matthew 26:26-28
  6. Jesus Christ said that He was the Bread come down from Heaven. (but he isn’t really bread)
  7. He said, “The Bread that I will give is My flesh.” John 6:51…and he offered that flesh as a sacrifice on the cross.
  8. Jesus repeated himself over and over that he is bread (although he is not actually bread) in John 6:33, 35,41, 48, 50, 51 and 58. Likewise, Jesus repeated Himself over and over that we must eat His flesh and drink His Blood (although no one actually eats his flesh) in John 6:51,53,54,55,56.
a) John 15 and the idea of remaining in Christ, the true vine shows up at 15: 2, 4(x2),5,6and 7.
b) Throughout the Gospel of John the idea of believing in Christ for eternal life shows up many times and interestingly in John 6: 35,40, 47, 63-4…I’ll let you count the many other instances throughout the rest of the gospel
c) the idea that Jesus lays down his life for us is repeated in John 10: 11,14,17, and 18 (x2)
d) the idea that we are Christ’s sheep is repeated in John 10: 3, 4, 7,9,11,14, 16 and 27.

I trust that’ll do. Now tell me, why did Jesus call the wine “fruit of the vine” if it was no longer wine and had become blood? …and do you actually chew and grind Christ’s fleshly tissue, or are you turning your back on a literal interpretation of verse 54?
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this did nothing but show that the Eucharist IS Christ, that it is his flesh we eat. The composition of His flesh is bread.
 
Qoheleth said:
Hmmm… what are you going to do with the part where it says."Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood there is no life in you???:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
hmmm…I guess I’ll interpret it in a figurative fashion as per Augustine’s example. He wrote (in On Christian Doctrine BK III): “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

(Tis amazing how you all keep asking questions whilst you avoid giving a straight answer to any questions that I ask.) Two of those questions were: Why did Jesus call the wine “fruit of the vine” if it was no longer wine and had become blood? …and do you actually chew and grind Christ’s fleshly tissue, or do you turn your back on a literal interpretation of verse 54?
 
Radical said:
Tis amazing how you all keep asking questions whilst you avoid giving a straight answer to any questions that I ask.) Two of those questions were: Why did Jesus call the wine “fruit of the vine” if it was no longer wine and had become blood? …and do you actually chew and grind Christ’s fleshly tissue, or do you turn your back on a literal interpretation of verse 54?
Click to expand...
Actually, I answered the second one. 🤷
 
GodIsGracious said:
Sorry, but this did nothing but show that the Eucharist IS Christ, that it is his flesh we eat. The composition of His flesh is bread.
Click to expand...
Nice try…but I think you’re off. I thought that RC teaching held that when the bread and wine are consecrated in the Eucharist, they cease to be bread and wine, and have become the Body and Blood of Christ. So riddle me this, if the bread has ceased to be present, how is it that the “composition of His flesh is bread”? Can you show me any official RC teaching that specifies that the flesh is composed of bread? When Jesus stated (whilst holding bread), “This is my body”…you want to claim that the substance of the bread has been transformed to the substance of flesh (all accidents remaining the same). In contrast, and with considerable inconsistency, when Jesus stated that he is “bread from heaven” you do not want to claim that the substance of his flesh has been transformed to the substance of bread(all accidents remaining the same). (Oh and btw, you seem to disregard entirely that the bread involved came from an earthly kitchen and not from heaven). Your approach is inconsistent from start to finish and maybe not all that Roman Catholic. I am curious as to whether any other RC wants to support you in your claim that his flesh is composed of bread.
 
Radical said:
How? By saying that his flesh is composed of bread? If so, then you are chewing and eating bread, not flesh…which of course is what any test will demostrate. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
How is it that the divine and the flesh became one in Jesus Christ? The Divine is NOT flesh. How is it then that Christ and His flesh cannot then become one in the bread? You limit Christ, who is God, in what He can do. (BTW, I knew you’d come back with that answer. It is Protestants who pick and choose what they believe from the Bible. The Catholic church has the fullness of the faith and the Truth. )
 
Radical said:
Nice try…but I think you’re off. I thought that RC teaching held that when the bread and wine are consecrated in the Eucharist, they cease to be bread and wine, and have become the Body and Blood of Christ. So riddle me this, if the bread has ceased to be present, how is it that the “composition of His flesh is bread”? Can you show me any official RC teaching that specifies that the flesh is composed of bread? When Jesus stated (whilst holding bread), “This is my body”…you want to claim that the substance of the bread has been transformed to the substance of flesh (all accidents remaining the same). In contrast, and with considerable inconsistency, when Jesus stated that he is “bread from heaven” you do not want to claim that the substance of his flesh has been transformed to the substance of bread(all accidents remaining the same). (Oh and btw, you seem to disregard entirely that the bread involved came from an earthly kitchen and not from heaven). Your approach is inconsistent from start to finish and maybe not all that Roman Catholic. I am curious as to whether any other RC wants to support you in your claim that his flesh is composed of bread.
Click to expand...
Ok. Tho’ you seem to be one of those that come here simply to “prove us wrong” without being open to what it is that we teech. 🤷

Admittedly, I do not know any other way to answer question, and I certainly cannot give the answer you want.

Don’t forget, in the same book of John, disciples left over hearing Him say that they must eat of his flesh. They didn’t believe, just as you don’t believe.

BTW, if you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, did you read the Catechism of the Catholic church? Or some tract that a fellow protestant gave you?
 
Radical,

You can find your answer here:


(Thanks for forcing me to go look at the CCC. 🙂 ) You can read it yourself.

Also, if you start from the beginning of this section:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3W.HTM

It also addresses your “fruit of the vine” question.

BTW, you used the word “accidents” of the bread so this tells me you’ve entered into discussions on the Holy Eucharist before and how Catholics believe it to be the real presence of the body and blood. So like I said earlier, I’m not sure you’re here to learn, but to attempt to break down and “prove” us wrong. :rolleyes:

Truth cannot be proved wrong.
 
GodIsGracious said:
Don’t forget, in the same book of John, disciples left over hearing Him say that they must eat of his flesh. They didn’t believe, just as you don’t believe.
Click to expand...
To be precise, they didn’t believe Christ’s teaching (which did not include any explanation of an eating of the substance of flesh under the species of bread) and I don’t believe the thing that Christ failed to include. Don’t equate the two.
BTW, if you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, did you read the Catechism of the Catholic church? Or some tract that a fellow protestant gave you?
Click to expand...
It is my reading of the CCC and my discussions with other RCs that causes me to think you are inaccurate in your description of the RC position…
BTW, you used the word “accidents” of the bread so this tells me you’ve entered into discussions on the Holy Eucharist before and how Catholics believe it to be the real presence of the body and blood. So like I said earlier, I’m not sure you’re here to learn, but to attempt to break down and “prove” us wrong.
Click to expand...
kindly keep in mind that the opening post requested “then show me the symbolism,”…if you don’t want to learn about my answers and objections…then you should avoid threads where your fellow RCs ask to be shown.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top