Protestants: Do you believe that Christ is truly present in the communion elements of bread and wine?

[Cinette]

The Church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity
You call it as you see it; I call it an obvious oversight and a ridiculous and arrogant statements I have seen all over this place concerning “where the Bible” came from.

I wish I could put the words of truth in your mouths

Calling the kettle black are you?

Christ established no such institution.

Here you go again showing your arrogance toward Scripture; you just can’t seem to help yourselves since the defense is lame.

Is this mumbo-jumbo or hocus-pocus? I have great concern for the souls of the Catholics; my heart bleeds and mourns over all of you.

I have great respect and affection for many Protestants. As I have always said they keep us on our toes and they make the most wonderful converts.

Now NonCatholic here is the antithesis of the above and a classic example of bigotry, childishness (nha, nha, nha, nha, nha - you sing the tune!), facetiousness, the lot. Certainly unworthy of himself! or what he claims to be (I suspect he is sincere and that is the sad part).

• He denies History
• He doesn’t pause to THINK
• He can write but he can’t read!
• He makes silly little remarks to prove his “point”

What a pity. This thread is so rich in truth and he is too blind to see. NC, I am sorry that you are not willing to read the many postings on this thread - you see, your argument never advances because you go back to the beginning all the time.

Will you pray for you NC

 

[joe370]

We should probably cut non catholic some slack; He is being inundated with information! I would definitely be a little overwhelmed, if I were in his shoes.

NonCatholic, I really want to understand your rationale. However, I’m just not getting it. I was a Lutheran for a time, and I didn’t get it then, either, when my fellow Christians delineated in the same manner as you do. If Jesus didn’t mean what He said when He said, you must eat my flesh --drink my blood, why did He say it? He could have worded it or re-worded it differently, to keep His staunch followers up to that point, from walking away; why didn’t He do that; I’m confused.

If those words aren’t referring to the Eucharist, to what or whom are they referring? Our English word Eucharist is a transliteration, not a translation, of the Greek word. It was simply brought over, unchanged into English. It is in the bible; Paul says, “when Jesus had given thanks and broken the bread….” The words “had given thanks” translate the verb form of the word Eucharist. Eucharisteo means to give thanks. Eucharist means thankfulness or thanksgiving. We thank Jesus for His Sacrifice on Calvary --at the Mass. The Eucharist is the Essence of the Mass; It’s all about remembering what Jesus did for ALL, 2000 years ago, and as Cinette said, meditation and prayer is crucial to grasping this ineffable Mystery.

God sent Christ to die and deliver us from our sins. (Romans 5.8.) Before His death, He commanded His disciples to partake of the supper in His
remembrance. (Matthew 26.26-28; Mark 14.22-25; Luke 22.14-19.) “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ And He took the cup, and gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink ye all of it; for this is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matthew 26.26-28.) Note: All the four gospels give the same account, and in Luke 22.19, Jesus said, “This do in remembrance of me.” Also, the apostle Paul wrote to the church at Corinth concerning the Lord’s Supper, when he heard they were partaking of it improperly. (1 Corinthians 11.20-34.) In verse 23 it reads: “For I have received from the Lord, that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus Christ the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He brake it and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body which was broken for you. This do in remembrance of Me.”

**John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

Even though you see; yet you do not believe.**

I know our flesh profits nothing, but does Jesus’ Flesh profit nothing as well? Jesus’ flesh is our ticket home; wouldn’t you agree?

The words Jesus was speaking were/are spirit, not carnal. --yuk! The words --If we eat His Mystical Body and drink His Mystical Blood are the words that yield eternal life) –

This passage:

“Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood, abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father so whoever eats me will live because of me.”
This passage

“Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing.”

=

Eating and drinking Jesus’ Mystical Flesh and Mystical Blood, not carnal flesh and blood (gross) --at Mass --which is a public celebration of the Eucharist, [just as they did in the O.T. with ineffectual animals sacrifice, which were nothing more than a type (see typology) of the only sacrifice that can truly SAVE us] -------allows ALL, if they chose --to Mystically abide in (Him) as He abides in us.

Even if you believe Jesus was speaking in metaphor, you should still eat the bread and drink the cup; in doing so, you do something that is inherently natural; you remember His sacrifice by doing what He commanded:

This is my body… This is my blood… Each time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming the death of the Lord Jesus. 1 Cor 11:23-26

When I belonged to one of the Lutheran churches, this was never done; recalling these words was almost never done; occasionally they would offer bread and wine, but it seemed so hollow, almost as if it was insignificant. If Jesus gives a command, e.g. baptize in the name of the father…or eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming the death of the Lord Jesus, we should probably obey Him; don’t you think?

God bless NonCatholic and let us all pray for all the Non-Christians, e.g. atheists and agnostics!

 

[benedictus2]

John 6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him

No argument with that verse.

As I said and you have confirmed; you cannot believe. John 6 has nothing to do with the Lord’s Supper; unless you take it out of context to fit some agenda.

Actually it is you who are trying to fit it into you own agenda. That is why you chop off huge chunks of John 6 - the meatier parts (pun intended ) As I have explained to you before, the John 6 discourse occured the passover before the last supper. If you take the synoptics, their account of the Last Supper does not make sense unless you read it in conjunction with John 6.

Here is Christ eating the passover with them and from out of the blue he goes “Take and Eat, This is my body”. No one said “Say what???!!!”

If you know the order of the Passover meal, you will realize how totally out of whack this is. Yet no one complained. Because they have the memory of John 6 to go by.

**Even when the Lords Supper was instituted, the was no cannibalization of Jesus. **

Correct!!! The Lord Supper is not about cannibalization of Jesus.

And we are not cannibalizing Jesus. It is only your twisted understanding that thinks we are. I am mean TWISTED.

You need to ask yourself that question; it is very clear. Mine is consistent with the whole Scripture;

Nope. Only Sola Ego makes you bold enough to make that claim. Very very far from being consistent with Scripture. How can it be consistent when you excise a huge chunk of John 6 from your exegesis.

whereas you are consistent with the teaching of the Mass.

.the difference is night and day, cooked and uncooked, right and wrong etc etc

That is correct. Your exegeis is half baked. But that is nothing more than would be expect from traditions of man.

 

[Cinette]

*John 6:56-57

“Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood, abide* in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father so whoever eats me will live because of me.”

John 15:4-5

“Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing.”

These are the words of Jesus and there is meaning here and the two passages are connected and a wonderful teaching.

Did you miss that NC? Did you miss that Protestant?

 

[benedictus2]

John 6:56-57

“Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood, abide in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father so whoever eats me will live because of me.”

John 15:4-5

“Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing.”

Very good point.

But you are presuming here that abiding with Chrrist matter to them.

If they are willing to overlook and disobey his words, I think abiding with Him would not matter either.

 

[benedictus2]

If Jesus didn’t mean what He said when He said, you must eat my flesh --drink my blood, why did He say it? He could have worded it or re-worded it differently, to keep His staunch followers up to that point, from walking away; why didn’t He do that; I’m confused.

Precisely. He had a chance to change his words the first time there were mumblings, but instead he goes on and on about it. No softening. No letting up.

As NonCatholic himself said, that is totally forbidden in the OT. And yet, Jesus a devout jew, not only said it once but several times.

 

[mystagogia]

I’m an ex-Baptist, of the fundamentalist flavor. I always believed that Christ was really present at Communion, even though we had grape juice instead of wine because we were Baptist. I wasn’t alone, because Christ said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood”. If you’re a fundamentalist, what’s the problem? That’s as plain as day.

Even so most people in the church insisted as seeing the whole thing as symbolic. I assumed that they just wanted to stay in their comfort zone of rationality in the face of a radical proposition from Our Lord. “This is a hard saying, who can hear it?”

 

[benedictus2]

Even so most people in the church insisted as seeing the whole thing as symbolic. **I assumed that they just wanted to stay in their comfort zone of rationality in the face of a radical proposition from Our Lord. “This is a hard saying, who can hear it?” **

VERY WELL SAID:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[guanophore]

Jn 6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him

Yet, when He confronts His disciples about the literal body and blood, they cannot say they believe what He has just told them, as it defies reason, all they can say is “to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life”. They trust that it will come to make some kind of sense.

As I said and you have confirmed; you cannot believe. John 6 has nothing to do with the Lord’s Supper; unless you take it out of context to fit some agenda.

I have heard evangelicals say this before. It boggles the mind. The "agenda’ is the Apostolic Teaching. It was written by those who believed it literally, for those who accepted the Apostles’ teaching. How do we know that is what they meant? their disciples received their teaching, and passed it on to us.

If it is not meant to be literal, then you will have to find some way to dismiss this faith of the Church, which was held by all (except heretics) for 1600 years. You will have to explain how Jesus, who said He would send His spirit to guide them into all Truth, was unable to do so. After He was crucified, his head hurt too much? He just could not summon the wherewithal to keep them from going astray? His teaching skills got left in the grave?

Even when the Lords Supper was instituted, the was no cannibalization of Jesus. Furthermore, Jesus would be violating the levical teaching on eating of flesh and drinking of blood; a common pagan practice that was strictly forbidden by the Jews…do you think Jesus would violate and encourage other to do so?

No, the mystery of how His presence passes into the elements defies human comprehension. This is why He says “the flesh is of no avail”. One cannot understand mysteries with logic. however, this is the fulfillment of all of His teaching about blood, and the life being in the blood.

 You need to ask yourself that question; it is very clear.  Mine is consistent with the whole Scripture; whereas you are consistent with the teaching of the Mass..the difference is night and day, cooked and uncooked, right and wrong etc etc

I am sure it seems to fit according to your system of theology. However, it is not consistent with the Apostolic Teaching. This is an example of what types of errors occur when the scripture is separated from the Apostolic Faith tha produced it. All sorts of errors arise.

All those who did not believe that the bread and wine became the body and blood were considered heretics.

 

[Cinette]

**
Hi Ben,

Hold on! This thread is running out of control.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ - CS Lewis

Lets pray that God’s will be done, not Non’s! **

*Great Point! *

 

[guanophore]

The Church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity

The difference is that gravity existed prior to Newton describing and explaining it. The canon did not. There were 400+ documents floating around, claiming to be inspired. The church sifted these, and selected 27 books to include in the NT. Prior to that, the NT did not exist. Granted, the scripture was inspired as soon as it was written, but the discernment of which documents were inspired and which were not Jesus worked through the CHurch.

 You call it as you see it; I call it an obvious oversight and a ridiculous and arrogant statements I have seen all over this place concerning "where the Bible" came from.

Do you think it fell out of the sky?

I wish I could put the words of truth in your mouths

Is this your statement? What does it mean?

Christ established no such institution.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?
What if He did? How would that change your beliefs?

 Here you go again showing your arrogance toward Scripture; you just can't seem to help yourselves since the defense is lame.

It is not arrogance, NC. The working of the HS through humans is not a cause for boasting. It is just a statement of fact.

Is this mumbo-jumbo or hocus-pocus? I have great concern for the souls of the Catholics; my heart bleeds and mourns over all of you.

That is kind of you, NC. The more compassion we can have for one another the more likely we are to achieve the unity that Christ desired for us.

 

[benedictus2]

Realcatholicgk:

**so a torn curtain told your guys 1,500 years later to stop using an altar? OK **

TOUCHE! :clapping:

Hi Realcatholicgk,

Here is a little request. Can you please try to work out the quoting system.

It is hard to respond to your post when you embed your responses in the post you are replying.

Here is how you do it.

If you want to select sections of a post you type “”

at the beginning of the paragraph or phrase then you close it with a.

'"

Then you type your reply after that. There must be a space before you type “” or it will not work.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

We should probably cut non catholic some slack; He is being inundated with information! I would definitely be a little overwhelmed, if I were in his shoes.

NonCatholic, I really want to understand your rationale. However, I’m just not getting it. I was a Lutheran for a time, and I didn’t get it then, either, when my fellow Christians delineated in the same manner as you do. If Jesus didn’t mean what He said when He said, you must eat my flesh --drink my blood, why did He say it? He could have worded it or re-worded it differently, to keep His staunch followers up to that point, from walking away; why didn’t He do that; I’m confused.

If those words aren’t referring to the Eucharist, to what or whom are they referring? Our English word Eucharist is a transliteration, not a translation, of the Greek word. It was simply brought over, unchanged into English. It is in the bible; Paul says, “when Jesus had given thanks and broken the bread….” The words “had given thanks” translate the verb form of the word Eucharist. Eucharisteo means to give thanks. Eucharist means thankfulness or thanksgiving. We thank Jesus for His Sacrifice on Calvary --at the Mass. The Eucharist is the Essence of the Mass; It’s all about remembering what Jesus did for ALL, 2000 years ago, and as Cinette said, meditation and prayer is crucial to grasping this ineffable Mystery.

God sent Christ to die and deliver us from our sins. (Romans 5.8.) Before His death, He commanded His disciples to partake of the supper in His
remembrance. (Matthew 26.26-28; Mark 14.22-25; Luke 22.14-19.) “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ And He took the cup, and gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink ye all of it; for this is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matthew 26.26-28.) Note: All the four gospels give the same account, and in Luke 22.19, Jesus said, “This do in remembrance of me.” Also, the apostle Paul wrote to the church at Corinth concerning the Lord’s Supper, when he heard they were partaking of it improperly. (1 Corinthians 11.20-34.) In verse 23 it reads: “For I have received from the Lord, that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus Christ the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He brake it and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body which was broken for you. This do in remembrance of Me.”

**John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

Even though you see; yet you do not believe.**

I know our flesh profits nothing, but does Jesus’ Flesh profit nothing as well? Jesus’ flesh is our ticket home; wouldn’t you agree?

The words Jesus was speaking were/are spirit, not carnal. --yuk! The words --If we eat His Mystical Body and drink His Mystical Blood are the words that yield eternal life) –

This passage:

“Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood, abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father so whoever eats me will live because of me.”
This passage

“Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing.”

=

Eating and drinking Jesus’ Mystical Flesh and Mystical Blood, not carnal flesh and blood (gross) --at Mass --which is a public celebration of the Eucharist, [just as they did in the O.T. with ineffectual animals sacrifice, which were nothing more than a type (see typology) of the only sacrifice that can truly SAVE us] -------allows ALL, if they chose --to Mystically abide in (Him) as He abides in us.

Even if you believe Jesus was speaking in metaphor, you should still eat the bread and drink the cup; in doing so, you do something that is inherently natural; you remember His sacrifice by doing what He commanded:

This is my body… This is my blood… Each time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming the death of the Lord Jesus. 1 Cor 11:23-26

When I belonged to one of the Lutheran churches, this was never done; recalling these words was almost never done; occasionally they would offer bread and wine, but it seemed so hollow, almost as if it was insignificant. If Jesus gives a command, e.g. baptize in the name of the father…or eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming the death of the Lord Jesus, we should probably obey Him; don’t you think?

God bless NonCatholic and let us all pray for all the Non-Christians, e.g. atheists and agnostics!

**
Hi Joe,
I have nothing to add, I just thought it needed to be repeated! **

 

[guanophore]

you might want to get your subject matter correct and your time line in order…these two things might, but won’t, help you get the context and thus the interpretation correct.

This is true. This was written by John after he had been celebrating Divine Liturgy for possibly 60 years. He had plenty of time to reflect on the meaning of Jesus’ words. He was also a visionary, and if he did not understand what Jesus meant when He was teaching, it seems that Jesus would have been able to correct any misunderstandings. We read His interactions with Christ and the angels in Revelation, so if he were off center on Eucharist, then don’t you think an angel or Jesus could have straightened him out?

John 6 has nothing to do with the Lords Supper…who told you that?

This is the Apostolic Teaching that has been preserved by the Church from the time it was written until today.

Have you ever wondered if it was cannibalism?

No. In fact, when I first read that on this board by a fundamentalist I was shocked. It has always seemed clear to me that this is an ineffible mystery. I do not confess that I understand with my rational mind how the bread and wine become His Body and Blood, only that, if He said it, I beleive it, and that settles it! (I read this on a bumper sticker once.)

If He can say 'let there be light" and there was light, then why is it so impossible to believe that “this is my Body” can actually mean that?

That was your God-given conscience putting that doubt in there. Did you know the OT prohibits eating of flesh and blood; would Jesus do or say something that was not scriptural? Would something invented by men do that?

Jesus is the fulfillment of all the types and symbols found in the Passover. During the Passover, the sacreficial Lamb was literally consumed by those who partook of the rememberance meal. This was given to the Jews as a shadow of what was to come.

Why bother…you believe in cannibalizing Jesus and I don’t. What more needs to be said between you and I on this topic? I am consistent with the teaching of Scripture and you are not.

It is His transformed Body and Blood. I think there is nothing really that can be said. It is an article of faith that defies rational understanding and experience. However, I hope we agree that He gave his actual Body and Blood on the cross, and not “symbolic”. His flesh He gives for the life of the world.

I have a supreme view of Scripture, you put it the same class as your Churches doctrines and traditions, which puts is a lower view of Scripture.

Actually, this is not true. It seems “lower” to you because you devalue the traditions, and have not preserved them according to the Apostolic command. However, we believe that Jesus left us with one deposit of faith. It is found equally in the Apostolic Teachings and the Writings. Both have been preserved and revered with equal dignity.

I believe Christ dies once and for all; you do not.

This is a false statement. Catholics believe that Jesus died, once for all. We commemorate His death and resurrection in the amanesis, the memorial meal, which makes present to us His once for all sacrifice.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

TOUCHE! :clapping:

Hi Realcatholicgk,
** Hi Ben,

:thankyou: **
Here is a little request. Can you please try to work out the quoting system.

** Oh, I know how it works! :coffeeread: In fact, guanophore wanted to “teach” me a couple of months ago. I ignored her also However, she will be the first to say that we aren’t keeping with the OP, which we must do. So ~ : Yes, I believe Christ is truly present in the Eucharist!" **

It is hard to respond to your post when you embed your responses in the post you are replying.

** Harder to respond to but easier to read and follow train of thought! I could give you lesons on how to Cut and paste **

Here is how you do it.

If you want to select sections of a post you type

Then you type your reply after that. There must be a space before you type "

**
Yup, that is how it is done! **

**I think Non, is going to “run” real soon I thing there are 10 or 15 of us repeating the same stuff over and over, he can’t be reading it. I was forced to take a speed reading course for my job years ago, even I have problems keeping up!

God Bless**

 

[guanophore]

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

Even though you see; yet you do not believe.

Now, we know He is not talking about His own flesh, because He gives that for the life of the world. So, what “flesh that profits nothing” is this? It is that of the listeners. They are trying to grasp a spiritual truth with a carnal mind, and it is not working.

Read the actual words of Jesus Himself in Luke 22 and I Corinthians in regards to the Lords Supper, which was not even implemented when Jesus was speaking in John 6, which is what is used out of context to somehow bring into the Lords Supper.

The context of the entire NT is the Catholic Church. Jn.6 was written after many decades of celebrating the Eucharist where these words were repeated at every Divine Liturgy. I am sure it made a lot more sense to the Apostles after Passover.

If you look at John 6:63; Jesus explains very clearly what the context of what He said is.  John 6 is the salvation message and the result of those who do not believe and the remnant that allows understands and follows.  this is consistent with the teaching of God.

Yes.

After Passover, when they understood that He was the Lamb, I am sure it all made much better sense.

So you agree with Pagans…surprising.

It certainly is an instructive commentary on the practices of the early church. It was said of Christains “they eat their God and drown their children”. Even if we did not have the clear teaching of the Apostles on the Real Presence and water baptism of infants, this is an extraordinary testimony from a secular source about early practices.

Then why is there an altar, a Tabernacle, and a Priesthood, which were all done away with on the renting of the Holy of Holies upon Christs death and further explained in Hebrews 7,8 and 9.

They were types and shadows of the real that were to come. We are now under grace.

All saints are a royal priesthood according to God.

Why does anyone call someone dressed up Father, when Jesus told us not to, then said because you have only one spiritual Father in heaven.

Jesus was referring to the various schools that were popular at the time. For example, Paul claimed to be of Gamaliel. Jesus did not support all the factions and schools rampant at the time. If He meant that there were no spiritual fathers, then Paul was disobedient, wasnt’ he? Catholic priests are grafted into the priesthood of Christ. He is the great High Priest.

I you bring up the silly talk of "don’t you call your dad “father”…doesn’t fly because he is not my spitiual Father that leads to all truth in spirit.

Priests don’t lead to “all truth in spirit” either. They do began spiritual children though, through preaching and adminstering God’s grace.

 

[joe370]

Read the actual words of Jesus Himself in Luke 22 and I Corinthians in regards to the Lords Supper, which was not even implemented when Jesus was speaking in John 6, which is what is used out of context to somehow bring into the Lords Supper.

NC, do you really think the words spoken by Jesus in John 6 were never mentioned thereafter; Is it impossible to imagine Jesus explicating this very contentious teaching in His 3 year ministry, considering the fact that people were refusing to even listen to, what they considered, cannibalistic? Logically, He would keep driving His point home until they got it, or tell them what you seem to believe! By the time the last supper was instituted, surely the Apostles were beginning to understand; they didn’t question Him when He said:

Take, eat; this is My body.’ And He took the cup, and gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink ye all of it; for this is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matthew 26.26-28.) The four gospels give the same account, and in Luke 22.19, Jesus said, “This do in remembrance of me.”

Jesus said, at the last Supper, that the bread in His Hand was His Body, and they were to eat it --that the wine in the cup was His blood and they were to drink it; if they didn’t already have a firm understanding of what the bread and wine was, certainly they would have wondered what He was talking about; I would have! I would have looked at the others or at Jesus and said, what did You mean when you said Take, eat; this is My body.’ 'Drink ye all of it; for this is My blood?

Forget about John 6 for a moment. Why didn’t they say, how can bread be your body; how can the cup of wine be your blood --don’t you mean a symbol of some sort? Don’t you mean we should partake of the bread and wine in remembrance of you, because it points to your work on the cross, which of course it does; I’m sure were on the same page there? That’s what I would have said. But they didn’t; they simple believed what He was saying when He said:

Take, eat; this is My body.’ …He took the cup, and gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink ye all of it; for this is My blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins. —“This do in remembrance of me.”

Take the words “eat” and “drink” out of the equation, and you would have a point!

However they didn’t ask --Why? Because the end was imminent, and they were well informed on this critical teaching by the time of His last supper with them; Jesus was just hours away from His Horrible agonizing death; His earthly ministry was coming to a close; the next time He would see them --He would be glorified.

Every time a catholic or E.O. receives the Eucharist, they ponder what it must have been like for Jesus during this inscrutably agonizing ordeal, and how exceedingly thankful they are for His Sacrifice --how much He must love us to have absorbed all that pain for our sins —It is the ultimate Selfless Sacrifice; During that period of contemplation, suddenly you realize that you are One with God, in a way that we can never fully grasp, but it is still comforting in an inexplicable way!

Continued…

 

[joe370]

If you look at John 6:63; Jesus explains very clearly what the context of what He said is. John 6 is the salvation message and the result of those who do not believe and the remnant that allows understands and follows. this is consistent with the teaching of God.

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[a] and they are life.

What flesh profits nothing? Jesus’ flesh on the cross profits everyone; that is the very reason He wants ALL to eat His Flesh and drink His blood in a non carnal way. Cannibalism is ruled out when He said:

"Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!

If they see that (and they did) then cannibalism becomes a non-issue!

Immediately following this statement, Jesus says:

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe."

The words spoken to the grumbling followers–eat and drink flesh are to be assuaged, once they realize that these words --eat and drink are spirit and life, not carnal. When Jesus finished His 40 day sojourn with some of the same people that doubted, He probably said something like, (just before His Ascension) do you understand now? The flesh profits nothing; you will all die one day, but if you believe the words I have spoken, and eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will inherit eternal life, which is the spirit – with me in Heaven.

If it is just a general salvation message, then again, why did He use the words “eat” and “drink,” “flesh” and blood?" The only Salvation message here, is a message to eat and drink something, if we want eternal life. If He said, unless you eat olives and drink wine, you will not have eternal life, I don’t think you would have a problem with following His command; today you’d be eating olives and drinking wine; I know I would have been, as a former Lutheran; It’s the flesh and blood part that is holding you up, I think, as it did me for a long time; I get your frustration!

When "the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Why didn’t Jesus put them at ease, by telling them what you seem to be telling everyone at this site? If He had just done this, you and I (all Christians, regardless of denomination) would be on the same page vis-a-vis the Eucharist. This is the only question I would hope you would address, if you get the time; Really, am I missing something so glaringly obvious?

Instead He repeats Himself 3 more times…

1. "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
2. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
3. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

Why does He repeat Himself 3 more times after He hears them grumbling?

Well, that is about all I can contribute to this thread; to me it is glaringly obvious what Jesus wants us to do vis-a-vis the most Holy Eucharist, however, we are all unique and different --vulnerable to viewing doctrine, myopically, as I did for almost 20 years; I think that is why He bulit His Church and said, take it to His Church to resolve any unresolvable issues between the brothers and sisters…

Good luck my friend on you journey…

 

[benedictus2]

This is true. This was written by John after he had been celebrating Divine Liturgy for possibly 60 years. He had plenty of time to reflect on the meaning of Jesus’ words. He was also a visionary, and if he did not understand what Jesus meant when He was teaching, it seems that Jesus would have been able to correct any misunderstandings. We read His interactions with Christ and the angels in Revelation, so if he were off center on Eucharist, then don’t you think an angel or Jesus could have straightened him out?

EXCELLENT POINT!

 

[benedictus2]

Read the actual words of Jesus Himself in Luke 22 and I Corinthians in regards to the Lords Supper, which was not even implemented when Jesus was speaking in John 6, which is what is used out of context to somehow bring into the Lords Supper.

NC, do you really think the words spoken by Jesus in John 6 were never mentioned thereafter; Is it impossible to imagine Jesus explicating this very contentious teaching in His 3 year ministry, considering the fact that people were refusing to even listen to, what they considered, cannibalistic? Logically, He would keep driving His point home until they got it, or tell them what you seem to believe! By the time the last supper was instituted, surely the Apostles were beginning to understand; they didn’t question Him when He said:

Take, eat; this is My body.’ And He took the cup, and gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink ye all of it; for this is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matthew 26.26-28.) The four gospels give the same account, and in Luke 22.19, Jesus said, “This do in remembrance of me.”

Jesus said, at the last Supper, that the bread in His Hand was His Body, and they were to eat it --that the wine in the cup was His blood and they were to drink it; if they didn’t already have a firm understanding of what the bread and wine was, certainly they would have wondered what He was talking about; I would have! I would have looked at the others or at Jesus and said, what did You mean when you said Take, eat; this is My body.’ 'Drink ye all of it; for this is My blood?

Forget about John 6 for a moment. Why didn’t they say, how can bread be your body; how can the cup of wine be your blood --don’t you mean a symbol of some sort? Don’t you mean we should partake of the bread and wine in remembrance of you, because it points to your work on the cross, which of course it does; I’m sure were on the same page there? That’s what I would have said. But they didn’t; they simple believed what He was saying when He said:

Take, eat; this is My body.’ …He took the cup, and gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink ye all of it; for this is My blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins. —“This do in remembrance of me.”

Take the words “eat” and “drink” out of the equation, and you would have a point!

However they didn’t ask --Why? Because the end was imminent, and they were well informed on this critical teaching by the time of His last supper with them; Jesus was just hours away from His Horrible agonizing death; His earthly ministry was coming to a close; the next time He would see them --He would be glorified.

Every time a catholic or E.O. receives the Eucharist, they ponder what it must have been like for Jesus during this inscrutably agonizing ordeal, and how exceedingly thankful they are for His Sacrifice --how much He must love us to have absorbed all that pain for our sins —It is the ultimate Selfless Sacrifice; During that period of contemplation, suddenly you realize that you are One with God, in a way that we can never fully grasp, but it is still comforting in an inexplicable way!

Continued…

This is precisely the point that I have made in two posts in this thread. And yet twice NonCath has raised the same argument as if no one has actually addressed his question.

Either he isn’t reading our replies or there is someone else answering for him because going by the posts of Non Catholic today, he seems to have just arrived on the thread today and have not read what has transpired at all.

Why else would he keep posting the same thing over and over again when it has already been debunked.