Protestant Communion

[AlegreFe]

Hi Maria,

Yes, but the eucharist that you receive which the RCC claims to be the actual body of Christ is round, whole, complete, and unbroken, by human hands. Jesus said to DO this in remembrance of me.

He did not specifically say that the “bread” we eat has to be broken. He just did the action and then passed it. What Jesus said to do in memory of Him was to “eat” not to “break” the bread. That is just what He did. He said, “take, eat” not “break, take, eat.”

You are getting too specific about the actions that Jesus performed and not the actual words that he said to us such as “take and eat.” You don’t need to get specific in this case and when you need to get specific and literal you don’t. That just doesn’t make sense to me.

With that said, the Priest actually does “break” the “host” which is actually Jesus now. It does not have to be “broken” when we receive Him.

 

[AlegreFe]

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life

You don’t read any of my posts do you? Please read my post on this issue. I will put part of my post here but please read the whole thing, the link is right there just click the little arrow. I will never understand a cradle Catholic leaving Jesus and His Church.

We also know that just eating the “flesh” of Jesus Christ without the Spirit is merely “dead” flesh and not “real food” as Jesus put it in the Gospel. That is one of the explanations for this following scripture verse. I added my little comment in there also. If you read it just as it is with my comment it might make you understand a little better what He actually meant.

63 It is the spirit that gives life, the (dead)
flesh (alone without the spirit) is of no avail;
the words that I have spoken to you are
spirit and life.

We also interpret this verse in the following way; that our own human understanding without the Holy Spirit & Words of Jesus Christ, is not enough to comprehend what Jesus meant

I should add that it is not enough for us to believe what Jesus meant. We don’t ever have to fully understand everything Jesus taught us as long as we believe.

Please also refer to this other post; click to read the whole thing if you can have an open heart and mind.

Think about it, really. If this was merely a symbol, these disciples would not be this shocked at Jesus saying to eat His flesh. Knowing this about His disciples, Jesus went on saying;
61 …“Do you take offense at this?
62 Then what if you were to see the Son
of man ascending where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh
is of no avail; the words that I have spoken
to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you that do not
believe.”
Jesus told them that He would be ascending so that they know that they weren’t going to be eating “dead” flesh but His flesh with the Holy Spirit making that possible. We know that our flesh is only alive because we have the Holy Spirit. We are body & soul. And we are not to “eat of His flesh” as if we were cannibals. Only cannibals eat “dead” flesh. That would also explain the part where Jesus tells them that “the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail.” The human dead flesh is of no use to us. But only that of Christ’s flesh made possible by the Holy Spirit at the consecration at the Holy Mass. We are partaking of the one Loaf that has the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinty of our Lord Jesus Christ. Dead flesh does not have a Soul and certainly not any Divinity.

 

[AlegreFe]

So… your saying that John 4 has nothing do with the Eucharist? perhaps it does? maybe in an indirect way?

Yes? No? Maybe so?

Jesus said it and I believe it. And that’s good enough for me.

Living Bread = Flesh of Jesus (John 6:51)
Flesh of Jesus = Meat (John 6:55)

We’re supposed to already know that meat is doing the works of God. Jesus explained this earlier in the book so we would understand later.

Meat = “to do the will of God, and to finish His work.” (John 4:34)
Work of God = “believe on Him whom He hath sent.” (John 6:28-29)
Living Bread = NOT AS YOUR FATHERS DID EAT MANNA, AND ARE DEAD (John 6:58)

As far as the Eucharist is concerned in being real food for us, no, the passage from John chapter 4 does not concern this issue.

I do know however, that our food should also be to do the will of the Father.

When you put “living bread” as on your list, the Eucharist that we have is Living Bread. It is not like the manna that the Israelites ate in the desert.

 

[MariaG]

Hi Maria,

Yes, but the eucharist that you receive which the RCC claims to be the actual body of Christ is round, whole, complete, and unbroken, by human hands. Jesus said to DO this in remembrance of me.

Others have responded to this, but I too will.

And what did Christ say to DO? Eat and drink.

I find it odd that you wish to take the actions of Christ and demand that they mean that every time we recieve we must break each piece even though scripture does not specifically say that. In effect, you put a narrow, literal interpretation on the actions.

But you do not do the same for the words of “This is my Body” nor have you made a convincing argument about the figurative meaning of eat my flesh and drink my blood and how to take those words figuratively would make absolutely no sense according to the usage of those words. (I honestly cannot remember you responding to this point at all, but I could easily be mistaken through not seeing a post or just a memory malfunction )

From CA Library Christ in the Eucharist
But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[GKC]

Greetings, AlegreFe,

“I should add that it is not enough for us to believe what Jesus meant. We don’t ever have to fully understand everything Jesus taught us as long as we believe.”

It is as C. S. Lewis said: The command was “Take, eat”, not “Take, understand”.

GKC

 

[AlegreFe]

Greetings, AlegreFe,

“I should add that it is not enough for us to believe what Jesus meant. We don’t ever have to fully understand everything Jesus taught us as long as we believe.”

It is as C. S. Lewis said: The command was “Take, eat”, not “Take, understand”.

GKC

:yup: Yes, I completely agree with C.S. Lewis.

Two smart guys, C.S.Lewis and G.K.Chesteron. Both like initials.

btw, you can call me Sandy.

 

[GKC]

:yup: Yes, I completely agree with C.S. Lewis.

Two smart guys, C.S.Lewis and G.K.Chesteron. Both like initials.

btw, you can call me Sandy.

Hi, Sandy. Nice to meet you.

Lewis is another of my collecting areas. As also Belloc, Tolkien, Dorothy Sayers, Charles Williams, a great and sadly little-known RC apologist named Arnold Lunn, Ronald Knox, and a lot of other stuff. Books everywhere. Lots of books.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Catherine_S]

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life

.
The Bible teaches that Jesus is really, not just symbolically, present in the Eucharist (Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 10:16-17; 1 Cor. 11:23-29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32-71).
Evangelicals and Fundamentalists don’t view these verses as proof that the Eucharist is a biblical doctrine and argue against it by quoting Jesus’ words in John 6:63: “It is the spirit that gives life, while the **flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life."They seize on the word “spirit” and interpret it as"symbolic,”**arguing that Jesus’ use of “spirit” meant he was speaking symbolically, not literally.

Several questions should be asked **at this point: **
**Where else **in the Bible is **“spirit”**ever interpreted as “symbolic”?
The answer **No where. **
Since there’s no other instance of “spirit” meaning **“symbolic,”**by what criteria do Protestants insist on applying that meaning in John 6:63?

Since God, human souls, angels, and Satan are spirits, does that mean they too are merely symbolic and if not, why interpret “spirit” in John 6:63 as meaning"symbolic"?
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9002frs.asp
.