Please follow the only simple rule:

[Radical]

But why? That is the point. St Paul is telling the Corinthians not to partake unworthily-Why? Because he states emphatically before that, that the bread and wine are the body and blood of our Lord.

To be precise, Paul stated that the Lord’s Supper served as a ** proclamation** of the Lord’s death. Then he said, “Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.” The “therefore” points to the “proclamation”. One is guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord if he participates in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner ** because** the Lord’s Supper is a proclamation of Jesus’s death.

If I seem uncharitable it’s because I get frustrated when Protestants take the one statement to heart, but ignore the other statement that gives the reason for it! I get frustrated because nearly every Protestant I have talked with does this. It’s like they all walk around with blinders on which only allow them to see the scriptures they were taught to see.

I’ve got news for you…there isn’t a person alive that isn’t wearing blinders of one size or another…and often a person will trade one set for another set. You seem very comfortable in your current set of blinders and I am quite comfortable with mine.

 

[greggy53]

To be precise, Paul stated that the Lord’s Supper served as a ** proclamation** of the Lord’s death.

No, this is precise:
Cor I, 10:16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?

I’ve got news for you…there isn’t a person alive that isn’t wearing blinders of one size or another…and often a person will trade one set for another set. You seem very comfortable in your current set of blinders and I am quite comfortable with mine.

Well, as a young man I spent several years going from on Protestant church to another, and to give credit where credit is due I met some wonderful Christians there. That being said I can say that I have had more than one set of “blinders” on and can tell you truthfully that the Catholic Church “blinders” give me a much broader, deeper and more meaning full relationship with God. Believe me the fullness of the Holy Spirit resides with the Catholic faith. Check it out.

 

[authenticity]

It is really not much of a rationalization…its kinda like asking, "Is that a loaf of bread or a human body sitting over there on the grocery shelf?’’…“Hmm, let’s see. It looks like bread, smells like bread, feels like bread and taste like bread. Without any rationalization, I’ll say its bread.” .

There is this long article on trans-substantiation you can read over in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Perhaps I could sum it up for you: the accidents (not mistakes, but characteristics) of the bread and wine do not change, the substance does. The change of substance is done through the consecration. Just as Jesus is a man by all characteristics, including his flesh and blood, He is also God. The accidents of Jesus are the same as you and me, but the substance is not. And that substance is “begotten, not made”. To say that “any bread off the grocery shelf” could be the Body of Christ is the same as saying “any man hanging on a cross” died for your sins.

The implications of the Eucharist is major. It means that God is not only The Living God, but that I can commune with Him through His Son. If the bread and wine are just symbols of that relationship, where does that actual relationship take place? In a history book? In my mind? If it is just a spiritual relationship, this negates the very meaning of Christ’s death and resurrection as the triumph of the Spirit over the physical. The relationship of God and man is between Spirit and body. Take that out and you might as well become a Buddhist.

 

[Liraco]

I think that you are badly mistaken about my beliefs. I completly believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. What did I ever say to make you think otherwise? Or are you like most Catholics and wrongfully believe that all Protestants are the same?

Actually I’m sorry for any confusion. My second response was a post quoted from Radical (but I hand-quoted so his name didn’t appear). I simply quoted you to point out something that sounded funny to me, lame perhaps but I tend to laugh at simple things like that. Certainly never implied that all protestants are the same or that you thought the same as Radical. I’ll be sure to quote WITH names next time, especially when quoting separate posters.

My brief time here in the forums has certainly taught me just how varied beliefs can be. I don’t care for “labels” because I’ve seen plenty of “Catholics” who behave like anything but, and “Protestants” who sound more Catholic than some of us. You can say you’re anything here but your actions will say a lot more.

Glad we agree on the Eucharist.

---

@Radical: verything else aside, I hope you use that good thoughtful head to continue delving into finding the Truth.

 

[Radical]

There is this long article on trans-substantiation you can read over in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Perhaps I could sum it up for you: the accidents (not mistakes, but characteristics) of the bread and wine do not change, the substance does. The change of substance is done through the consecration. Just as Jesus is a man by all characteristics, including his flesh and blood, He is also God. The accidents of Jesus are the same as you and me, but the substance is not. And that substance is “begotten, not made”. To say that “any bread off the grocery shelf” could be the Body of Christ is the same as saying “any man hanging on a cross” died for your sins.

Thanks for the reference and brief explanation. I was aware of the article. I do not support the philosphy that is necessary to accept that a change in substance can occur in a physical object (such as a loaf of bread) without any change occuring in the accidents of that physical object (even down to its molecules).

The implications of the Eucharist is major. It means that God is not only The Living God, but that I can commune with Him through His Son. If the bread and wine are just symbols of that relationship, where does that actual relationship take place?

Did Mary not have a relationship with Jesus until she participated in a Lord’s Supper? What about David, Adam, Abraham, Moses and Elijah? God, most certainly does not need the consumption of transubstantiated bread in order to form a relationship with his creation.

If it is just a spiritual relationship, this negates the very meaning of Christ’s death and resurrection as the triumph of the Spirit over the physical.

This is too low a view of the meaning of Christ’s death and resurrection. We benefit in Christ’s death through the (present) forgiveness of sins and by a future resurrection of our own. We are joint heirs, children of the Father, brother to the Son and temple to the Holy Spirit. None of this is contingent on a RP in the Eucharist.

The relationship of God and man is between Spirit and body. Take that out and you might as well become a Buddhist.

So the OT patriarchs might as well have been buddhists b/c they didn’t have a Lord’s Supper with a RP?

 

[Radical]

@Radical: verything else aside, I hope you use that good thoughtful head to continue delving into finding the Truth.

Thanks for the kind words…I’ll do the best I can with what little I have. May God bless you too in your pursuit of Truth…I am sure that he will. Peace.

 

[greggy53]

Thanks for the reference and brief explanation. I was aware of the article. I do not support the philosphy that is necessary to accept that a change in substance can occur in a physical object (such as a loaf of bread) without any change occuring in the accidents of that physical object (even down to its molecules). ?

Do you have the same kind of doubts about the Incarnation?, The virgin birth? The mystery of the Trinity?, and of course the Resurrection of our Lord? I don’t understand Transubstantiation any more than I do the Trinity, or the Incarnation, or the Resurrection, or any number of miracles, but I accept them in faith. I think the Protestant problem with Transubstantiation and other things as well has more to do with rebellion against the Church than it does with theology. Indeed I believe that the hatred for the Pope and the Catholic Church with both the real and imagined abuses is what the Reformation was, and is still to this day all about. If Protestants can take the all the other miracles of the Bible in stride, in faith then why not this one??

Did Mary not have a relationship with Jesus until she participated in a Lord’s Supper? What about David, Adam, Abraham, Moses and Elijah? God, most certainly does not need the consumption of transubstantiated bread in order to form a relationship with his creation.

All of the above occured during the life of Christ, or before the word was made flesh. Certainly the Holy Spirit blesses our Protestant brothers, but the fulness of the Gospel, and our Lord is made manifest in the Holy Eucharist.

This is too low a view of the meaning of Christ’s death and resurrection. We benefit in Christ’s death through the (present) forgiveness of sins and by a future resurrection of our own. We are joint heirs, children of the Father, brother to the Son and temple to the Holy Spirit. None of this is contingent on a RP in the Eucharist.

That is all very true of course if you refuse to take Jesus at his word.

So the OT patriarchs might as well have been buddhists b/c they didn’t have a Lord’s Supper with a RP?

Again, they lived before the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. This is no argument.

 

[Sellers1]

Well, honestly speaking, it is because in our experience when we run across a Protestant, said Protestant generally doesn’t believe in the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist

You are stereotyping all Protestants

 

[StrawberryJam]

Dear Radical, you asked

“Did Mary not have a relationship with Jesus until she participated in a Lord’s Supper?”

She had a very special relationship with the Father before she did with Jesus even. I can not think of any other person who had a special relationship with the Father and with Jesus as she did. Can you?

Now, I realize this thread is about the eucharist. But it hit me suddenly when you asked this question if there is some reason why they connect.

I think it is possible there may be a connection here. I just need to explore it myself fully to see if my theory could hold water.

What do you think?

 

[Radical]

Dear Radical, you asked

“Did Mary not have a relationship with Jesus until she participated in a Lord’s Supper?”

She had a very special relationship with the Father before she did with Jesus even. I can not think of any other person who had a special relationship with the Father and with Jesus as she did. Can you?

As his mother, Mary would have most certainly havd had an absolutely unique and very special human/human (for lack of a better term) relationship with Jesus. That said, in Matthew 12 Christ seems to considerably downplay
that class of relationship and elevate the relationship achieved via discipleship. In that regard, I don’t see that Mary’s relationship of that sort would have been superior to that of Abraham, Moses, David, Elijah, John the baptist or Paul (to name but a few).

Now, I realize this thread is about the eucharist. But it hit me suddenly when you asked this question if there is some reason why they connect.

I think it is possible there may be a connection here. I just need to explore it myself fully to see if my theory could hold water.

A Catholic fellow urged me to read O’Connors “The Hidden Manna” and when I did I was surprised to see that O’Connor saw an important place for Mary in the Eucharist…something I didn’t expect since the Bible makes no such connection and since she wasn’t in attendance at the first Lord’s Supper. If you are curious, you could check out how O’Connor made the connection. No doubt similar views abound on the internet.

Cheers.

 

[Liraco]

Radical:

That said, in Matthew 12 Christ seems to considerably downplay that class of relationship and elevate the relationship achieved via discipleship. In that regard, I don’t see that Mary’s relationship of that sort would have been superior…

And yet when you read a few more lines you see:
“For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

He seems to be downplaying the importance of His mother in the sense of their blood relation. At the same time He praises all who do his Father’s will, and we Catholics believe that no other human being has followed the will of God better than the Blessed Virgin Mary (which is why we call her “blessed” as expressed from her own lips under the Holy Spirit).

StrawberryJam:

She had a very special relationship with the Father before she did with Jesus even. I can not think of any other person who had a special relationship with the Father and with Jesus as she did. Can you?

There’s certainly a relationship she had with the Father though we don’t know any of that except when the angel came to her to announce the birth of the Messiah. We Catholics believe that through a unique grace she was born without original sin and kept from sin (to be the new Arc of the covenant, a vessel made of only the finest things). How? In short: Jesus’ death on the cross being applied to her at the moment of her conception. Remember the crucifixion is an eternal event and God is outside of time, so He can certainly do anything anytime. Being a Jewish girl, she certainly knew of Him even if we don’t know what her relationship with Him was before Jesus. We certainly do think it’s special though.

Radical:

God, most certainly does not need the consumption of transubstantiated bread in order to form a relationship with his creation.

True, just like He doesn’t need us. All He does is out of love, not necessity.

You’re right that He doesn’t need it, but WE do. Why? Because Jesus told us Himself, that we must eat it to “live forever”. You can always pull out the “exceptions” card for those who never have or are unable to consume it but exceptions aren’t the norm. Also, you seem to downplay the importance of the Eucharist, but recall that He promised us something better than the manna. If not the Eucharist, then what? Just some food for thought.

Matthew 12:
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I don’t see that Mary’s relationship of that sort would have been superior to that of Abraham, Moses, David, Elijah, John the baptist or Paul (to name but a few).

Stop right there, friend! Regardless of your beliefs, surely you don’t think Jesus had a stronger relationship with anyone other than His mother? In fact, Jesus loves it when we go to Mary for anything! Mary is our Mother too and I do not appreciate anything negative said about her (and I’m sure many other Catholics would back me up on that).

God Bless!

 

[Liraco]

One thing I forgot to mention is that one has to remember that Jesus was also fully human, so you can’t downplay the Mother/Son relationship they had. What Jesus said of His mother and family was to make a point, not to be disrespectful and making them out to be nothing.

As for the relationship of God and His people, remember that He slowly raised them until they would be ready for the Messiah. It didn’t all happen at once. They didn’t have the Eucharist and they also weren’t allowed into Heaven until Jesus came to open the gates. That doesn’t mean there was no relationship prior to this but that NOW, with the fulfillment of the old law Jesus came to institute a new covenant and the Eucharist is part of it.

 

[Radical]

Hello Liraco,

He seems to be downplaying the importance of His mother in the sense of their blood relation.

Yes, that is what I am saying too

At the same time He praises all who do his Father’s will, and we Catholics believe that no other human being has followed the will of God better than the Blessed Virgin Mary (which is why we call her “blessed” as expressed from her own lips under the Holy Spirit).

This I understand, but I don’t get. I don’t see any indication that she followed God’s will more thoroughly than anyone else. To be the virgin vessel of our Lord’s birth would be an extreme honour and blessing. Most women give birth…giving birth isn’t a unique sacrifice. Giving birth to God’s Son is unique, but it comes with certain benefits. A young woman in an extreme Muslim community who converted to Christianity would be rejected by her family and her community and possibly killed. In contrast, Mary had the support of God’s angels, the support of relatives in the know, and the comfort that with carrying God’s only Son she should be able to expect divine protection. Where does the “best” at following God reputation come from? …No disrespect intended.

True, just like He doesn’t need us. All He does is out of love, not necessity.

Agreed, but IIRC the claim by your fellow Catholic was that no relationship could exist w/o Eucharistic consumption…and that I think is just wrong

One thing I forgot to mention is that one has to remember that Jesus was also fully human, so you can’t downplay the Mother/Son relationship they had.

Agreed, it would have been a most special human/human relationship. I do, however, believe that if we look at Christ’s words we do see an elevation of the spiritual relationship that we have with the divine (through doing God’s will) over and above any “human” style relationship. Mary most certainly holds a most advantageous position in the realm of the human raltionships with Jesus, but I don’t see where it is established (apart from considerably later appearing Catholic and Orthodox traditions) that she enjoyed the best spiritual relationship.

That doesn’t mean there was no relationship prior to this but that NOW, with the fulfillment of the old law Jesus came to institute a new covenant and the Eucharist is part of it.

I agree with this, but note that you understand the Eucharist differently than do I.

 

[Liraco]

No disrespect taken. Happy to see a lot of common ground. I’m actually a bit dumbfounded as this is the first time I’ve actually had someone non-catholic agree with me (not to mention being polite and reasonable). I’m not expecting you to agree with everything but it’s nice to not feel antagonized.

I hope that the following lets you see how we view the subject of Mary:

Radical:

I don’t see any indication that she followed God’s will more thoroughly than anyone else.

The “simplest” answer is that if you accept that Mary was immaculate (sinless) from birth to the end of her life (a singular gift by God’s grace of course), then you can begin to see why we say she’s the best example amongst His creatures. Why? Because sin is choosing to go AGAINST the will of God, so it follows that being sinless means that **every **act must be FOR the will of God.

Her being immaculate ties in to our understanding that she is the “New Eve” alongside the “New Adam” (Jesus). Whereas the first Eve was disobedient, the New Eve would surpass the old by complete obedience.

“The key to understanding all these graces is Mary’s role as the New Eve, which the Fathers proclaimed so forcefully. Because she is the New Eve, she, like the New Adam, was born immaculate, just as the First Adam and Eve were created immaculate. Because she is the New Eve, she is mother of the New Humanity (Christians), just as the first Eve was the mother of humanity. And, because she is the New Eve, she shares the fate of the New Adam. Whereas the First Adam and Eve died and went to dust, the New Adam and Eve were lifted up physically into heaven.” - source

Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

From early on we see the importance of “the woman” (as Jesus referred to His mother out of respect and with the deeper meaning that she was the same woman talked about here).
Because “the Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), the passage can be understood as the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman’s offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ. (Footnotes from the NAB)

---

I can see we don’t see eye to eye on the Eucharist but I’d like to offer the following on its importance:
“based on the intimate relation of body and soul, just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’”

 

[Janet1983]

I think the problem is that Bible literalists say they believe in literal interpretation of scripture, except they pick and choose. The same exact people who believe that God created the earth in 6 days, (24 literal hours times 6), believe Christ couldn’t possibly have told us to eat His flesh.

Verses from the Book of John:

53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56* He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

So continue reading, will you? Seems you skipped a verse here and there… 53,54,55,56,60,61,66

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

 

[greggy53]

Janet1983;:

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”

I have heard folks use this verse before as a reason for negating everything Jesus said prior to that about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. What they want to portray is a scene where Jesus made those statements (eating and drinking his flesh) only to confuse, and confound the Pharisees, and chase off those who were not his true followers. It’s like he’s saying in verse 64:" I didn’t really mean you would eat my flesh, and drink my blood." The reasons I don’t buy into it is because if that is true then Jesus would be guilty of deception here, and we know our Lord would never deceive anyone. And secondly in the very next verse he states “But some of you believeth not.” Believeth not what?-- That we would eat his flesh and drink his blood.
Douay-Rheims Bible
John 6
61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

 

[jpaul1953]

So continue reading, will you? Seems you skipped a verse here and there… 53,54,55,56,60,61,66

Dear Janet1983,

The verses weren’t skipped. As stated by Scott Hahn, you now choose to skip over the verses that tell you what the Church has taught all along but you now refuse to accept.

Most people leave the true Church of Christ because those people don’t like what the whole Bible says. It’s too complicated for them. Most Baptists I know believe that everyone who doesn’t see it their way or close are destined to HELL. Like when Jesus says: “I am the truth, the way, and the life. No one gets to the Father except through me.”
So it’s that simple. Christ says to Hell with every one else who doesn’t believe that one verse. How convenient for you. As the epistle of James says actions speak louder than words and Jesus said the same with ‘the Good Samaritan’. And, you know that’s true too in your personal life.

The NT should have started and ended with this one verse. BUT, it doesn’t. it talks about the Salvation of Baptism in John 3. Talks about confession in John 20:19-23. Communion John 6. Marriage in multiple spots. About the problem with divorce, about Holy Orders in Cor, about Annointing the Sick in James 5, about Confirmation (the Laying on of Hands) in Acts. You left the true Church for whatever reason, but most likely because you knew so little about your faith making you an easy convert to a less than complete faith by their negation of the true Church. I’ve heard it all and have spoken for the Church in all cases because I know the drill and how to respond to it

Seek and you shall find. You may have gone from knowing more to accepting less because it makes it easier to be saved. The Church speaks for the whole Bible and the Bible speaks for the whole Church.

Please don’t preach to us practical Catholics about what we don’t know. Just look inside yourself for the real reason your left Christ one and only Church. You will find that you left the whole truth for an easier partial truth that makes you “feel closer to Jesus”.

By the way, Jesus as you know is our final Judge. Everyone must go through Jesus to get to the ‘Father and Heaven’ when they die and go to Judgement. Remember, He said: “No on gets to the Father except through Me.” And that happens to every human being when they die and go to judgement. If Jesus says, go to the Father, then you go to the Father through Jesus. If Jesus says you go to Hell than you go to Hell and not to the Father.

Sorry about being so direct,but I just may be right on target.

jpaul1953

 

[Radical]

Hi Gregory53…I think your reasoning is faulty for a couple of reasons

The reasons I don’t buy into it is because if that is true then Jesus would be guilty of deception here, and we know our Lord would never deceive anyone.

If Christ’s failure to provide clarification amounts to deception then he would have also been guilty of deception with the “I rebuild this temple in 3 days” claim. That claim obviously confused the Jews as it resurfaces in an inaccurate form at Jesus’s trial. Christ did not clarify his meaning on either occasion.

And secondly in the very next verse he states “But some of you believeth not.” Believeth not what?-- That we would eat his flesh and drink his blood.

The gospel of John repeatedly speaks about believing in Jesus and the Bread of Life passage mentions “believing in Jesus” several times. The belief expressed by Peter at the end of that passage is not that “I believe that we must eat your flesh” but rather it is that “I believe that you are the Holy One of God”. Even St Augustine in specific reference to the command to eat Christ’s flesh clarified that the command meant:

“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.”

 

[greggy53]

Hi Gregory53…If Christ’s failure to provide clarification amounts to deception then he would have also been guilty of deception with the “I rebuild this temple in 3 days” claim. That claim obviously confused the Jews as it resurfaces in an inaccurate form at Jesus’ trial. Christ did not clarify his meaning on either occasion.

I think you are trying to muddy the waters here. Jesus clarified himself in John 6 by repeating the command to eat his flesh and drink his blood three times… His words were very disturbing, but not deceptive, and very clear. In retrospect it’s easy for us to see that Jesus was speaking of his own body in his reference to re-building the temple in three days. But I’ll bet if the Pharisees would have torn down the temple he would have done just what he said he could. Just because he didn’t clarify the statement doesn’t mean he was deceptive at all.
Radical;5450819|:

Even St Augustine in specific reference to the command to eat Christ’s flesh clarified that the command meant:

“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.”

I don’t know what passage from St Augustine you are quoting from, but I’ll bet my boots you are taking it out of context.