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

[Realcatholicgk]

Protestant101:

Hi Protestant,

Before the current Pope was Pope, he was known as a hardliner; and in this he has not changed, despite some of his lofty sentiments.

**
The Catholic church has not changed its teachings about false religions why should the Pope?**

This alone proves that the so called unity he is duping the world with is really about submission to the Catholic Pope. Period.

**He allows the truth to be told, that Protestant groups aren’t really part of the church . The CC cannot betray Jesus’ teachings. We didn’t do it 500 years ago when Satan first took real believers under his wings and had them establish counterfeit denominations and corrupt the scriptures. Why would we do it now? The unity can only be obtained by the Protestants turning from their path to condemnation and accepting Jesus’ teachings as true and becoming submissive to His church lead by His earthly representative, the Pope. That is what Jesus said would happen, and that is what must happen. There is no other way. Period.

God Bless

**

Protestant101:

… No. I don’t get “angry” when you mention that I am a Seventh-day Adventist; in fact I am proud of it. And I openly proclaim it here on your Catholic Forum.

**
So proud that you hide behind the false screen name Protestant? instead of SDA101 or Seventh-day Aventist101 or some more honest name? OK: **

The concept of literally eating the literal flesh of Jesus is heretical falsehood. The Lord’s Supper is not falsehood; only this whacky part of the cultic doctrines of Catholicism where we call a piece of bread “Jesus.”

**The concept of literally eating the literal flesh of jesis is exactly what Jesus taught. Now who are you to call My lord and savior a heretic? He made the teachings of the Catholic church!
Heretics do not follow the true teachings of the Catholic church. You can, in the SDA tradition, attempt to twist and distort the truth but even the Protestants are laughing at your foolishness. **

**Main Entry: cult Pronunciation: \ˈkəlt\ Function: noun
Usage: often attributive Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate — more at wheel **

~ any religious group which accepts most but not all of the key historical Christian doctrines (e.g. the divinity of Jesus, virgin birth, the Trinity, salvation by faith, not works, etc.). The implication is that the cult’s theology is invalid; they teach heresy.

~ a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious ; also : its body of adherents ** We are the Orthodox, and first church!**

~ a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator ** Like SDA!**

~ a great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book) ; especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b: the object of such devotion c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

**
Remember that for over 2,000 years the Catholic church has taught and refuses to compromise the truth. Unlike your cult and the counterfeit churches, only the Catholic sects remain faithful to all of Jesus’ teachings. We reach out in fellowship to help save the souls of those that may be condemned to eternal damnation!These good people are being taught lies through no fault of their own and deserve mercy!

God Bless**

 

[Cinette]

Hi Bill. RealCatholicgk has actually made his own sick joke here by calling himself a “real catholic.”

No. I don’t get “angry” when you mention that I am a Seventh-day Adventist; in fact I am proud of it. And I openly proclaim it here on your Catholic Forum.

The concept of literally eating the literal flesh of Jesus is heretical falsehood. The Lord’s Supper is not falsehood; only this whacky part of the cultic doctrines of Catholicism where we call a piece of bread “Jesus.”

Jesus had repeated himself several times and reinforced that “Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me…” John 6:57

60"When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” 61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, "Does this offend you? John 6:60-61. Jesus turned to the Apostles “Do you also wish to go away?”

In John 6 Jesus reinforced and repeated himself several times that 54"Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me and I in them."

Protestant101 - This teaching of Jesus is difficult to understand. We believe it through Faith and because we love and trust Jesus.

Had I been there among the other Disciples at the time I would probably have turned away myself but we have the benefit of 2000 years of witness. We have also the many Eucharistic miracles which testify to the truth and the authenticity of the Eucharist.

Faith is believing without doubting whatever God has revealed.

So Protestant101 if you call Jesus’ teaching “whacky”, you are calling Jesus whacky and that is a grave heresay! No doubt about that.

You say these things because it is what your church teaches and obviously you are not entirely to blame.

God bless you
Cinette

 

[Protestant101]

So Protestant101 if you call Jesus’ teaching “whacky”, you are calling Jesus whacky and that is a grave heresay! No doubt about that.

You say these things because it is what your church teaches and obviously you are not entirely to blame.

God bless you
Cinette

Hi. I like the two icons in your signature. And thanks for wishing me God’s blessings. I appreciate that.

If you look closer at my posts; you will see that I am calling the Catholic “interpretation” of Jesus’ teachings “whacky.” :tiphat:

 

[Cinette]

Hi. I like the two icons in your signature. And thanks for wishing me God’s blessings. I appreciate that.

If you look closer at my posts; you will see that I am calling the Catholic “interpretation” of Jesus’ teachings “whacky.” :tiphat:

You will notice that when the disciples did the same as you by turning their backs on Jesus and leaving Him he did not say, “Hey! wait a minute that is not what I meant!” and try to explain himself. No he reinforced what he said. :yup: You are saying that Jesus didn’t mean what He said. You are saying he meant something else!:yup:

There is no need to interpret what Jesus said - what he said was very clear indeed. In fact I am going to go to John 6 and count how many times Jesus repeated what he said because Jesus left no doubt as to what he meant.

I am not saying that this is easy to understand. Why do we need faith if we understood everything in the bible?

Tell me, honestly, do you understand the Trinity? do you understand the Incarnation? do you understand God’s love?

We are born with an inbuilt desire to seek God - everybody. Some people make themselves into gods, some people spend the energy they have for self-glorification. St Augustine said “Our hearts were made for you O Lord and will not rest until they rest in You”. Our desire to know and love God will never be spent, will never be exhausted on this earth. And so, our Faith sustains us and brings us closer to the Lord.

Please Protestant, you can criticise our be beliefs but leave the Eucharist alone. You may be familiar with 1 Cor:11:27-34 about partaking of the Supper unworthily. If the Eucharist was just a symbol or something “spiritual” and not the Real Presence then why would partaking unworthily “eat and drink judgement against themselves”? Why is this so important that by not respecting it one is so strongly condemned?

I think you should pray about this and reflect deeply. Go and read John 6 and then 1 Cor 11.

What you are saying is a huge heresay.

Cinette

 

[Protestant101]

Please Protestant, you can criticise our be beliefs but leave the Eucharist alone. You may be familiar with 1 Cor:11:27-34 about partaking of the Supper unworthily. If the Eucharist was just a symbol or something “spiritual” and not the Real Presence then why would partaking unworthily “eat and drink judgement against themselves”?

That “judgment” is coming, I am sure.

I have grown to love this passage in John 6 regarding the Lord’s Supper:

“`Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day’” (John 6:53,54).

Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood is symbolic language for the assimilation of the Word of God, through which believers maintain communion with heaven and are enabled to have spiritual life. He says, “The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life'" (John 6:63). "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God’” (Matt. 4:4).

Believers feed on Christ, the bread of life, through partaking of the Word of life–the Bible. The Bible is the Christian’s “food.” With that Word comes Christ’s life-giving power. In the Communion service also we partake of Christ by assimilating His Word through the Holy Spirit. For this reason the preaching of the Word accompanies each Lord’s Supper.

Since we appropriate the benefits of Christ’s atoning sacrifice by faith, the Lord’s Supper is much more than a mere memorial meal. Participation in the Communion service means a revitalization of our life through Christ’s sustaining power, providing us with life and joy. In short the symbolism shows and declares that "we are as dependent on Christ; and His Word for spiritual life as we are on food and drink for physical life.

During the Communion service we “bless” the cup (1 Cor. 10:16). This means that as Christ “gave thanks” for the cup (Matt. 26:27), so we express gratitude for the blood of Jesus. We do not go around changing little pieces of bread into a bunch of little Jesus’

The Saviour Himself explains how to understand His use of the idea of “eating His flesh.” His “flesh” is “life” as He says it in John 6; and to explain the intended symbolism, Jesus says: “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63)

In The Lord’s Supper, the “flesh and blood” are symbolic of God’s Word, and the Christian who feeds on it daily will have the “life” spoken of in Jo.6: 63

Let us examine for a moment some Bible examples of Eating The Word:

Jeremiah said: “Thy words were found and I did eat them…” (Jer.15:6). Ezekiel also talked about “eating the roll” and how “it was in my mouth as honey, for sweetness.” (Ez. 3:1-3). In Revelation 10, the prophet John (Rev.10: 9-10), like others in the Old Testament; “took the book and ate it up.”

Rev 10:9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.
Rev 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.

The word of God must be interwoven with the living character of those who believe it. The only vital faith is that faith which receives and assimilates the truth till it is a part of the being and the motive power of the life and action. The Word “live” in Mat.4:4 means the same “life” as is alluded to in Jo.6

Man does not live by bread alone; but by what??? Tic Tock Tic Tock Tic Tock…

 

[ufamtobie]

That “judgment” is coming, I am sure.

I have grown to love this passage in John 6 regarding the Lord’s Supper:

"`Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life

 

[Cinette]

That “judgment” is coming, I am sure.

I have grown to love this passage in John 6 regarding the Lord’s Supper:

“`Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day’” (John 6:53,54).

…

Jeremiah said: “Thy words were found and I did eat them…” (Jer.15:6). Ezekiel also talked about “eating the roll” and how “it was in my mouth as honey, for sweetness.” (Ez. 3:1-3). In Revelation 10, the prophet John (Rev.10: 9-10), like others in the Old Testament; “took the book and ate it up.”

Rev 10:9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.
Rev 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.

The word of God must be interwoven with the living character of those who believe it. The only vital faith is that faith which receives and assimilates the truth till it is a part of the being and the motive power of the life and action. The Word “live” in Mat.4:4 means the same “life” as is alluded to in Jo.6

Man does not live by bread alone; but by what??? Tic Tock Tic Tock Tic Tock…

*John 6:52 “The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day, 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 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. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate and they died………”
*
The Eucharist is the mystery of the body and Blood of the Lord, that is of the life and death of the Lord. Jesus offered his life and death to mankind.

When Jesus had pronounced the words, “Take……this is my body; take……this is my blood", he didn’t allow much time to pass before doing what he had promised: a few hours later he gave his life and blood on the Cross.

The disciples didn’t reject because Jesus was offering them a symbol – no they rejected because Jesus was offering his body and blood – *“for my flesh is food indeed and my blood is food indeed”. *

You interpret body and blood as the Word of God. “The Word was made Flesh” John 1. I understand the body and blood to be the whole of Jesus: body, blood, soul and divinity.

At that time the Word was all of Jesus’ teaching which in those days was oral – the Word is part of the whole of Jesus – he fed us in many ways.

Again I say that Jesus meant what he said when he said *54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day, 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.” * If it were something else he would not have let the disciples walk away, he would have called them back to explain.

If Jesus didn’t mean what he said then it was not very charitable of him to see the disciples turn their backs without calling them to explain. That would not have been like him.

No he meant what he said:thumbsup: :yup: :yup:

 

[Cinette]

Hi Protestant101 -

One more thing, I saw a very good programme on EWTN about an exhibition on “Miracles of the Eucharist” which is being shown in several Catholic Parishes around the United States.

There are physical, spiritual and healing miracles and in all 125 Miracles are being displayed at the exhibition. Naturaly, they cannot bring the physical evidence but have done so with photographs and text and replicated them so that they can be seen at several Parishes simultaneously. It might be interesting for you to enquire if the exhibition is coming to a Parish in your city or town and visit it. Even if you do not believe you are sure to find it fascinating.

One miracle which I found fascinating was a Atheist Communist (I think he started the Communist Party in France). He had made an arrangement to meet someone in front of a church early one morning and it was cold so he went inside and immediately he felt a presence - it took no more than a couple of minutes - and he was changed forever. I don’t have the details sorry. Maybe someone on this thread knows.

The Catholic Church takes miracles very seriously (too seriously sometimes because they may take 20 years before they authenticate them). Evidence is presented to scientists of different denominations and only once all the evidence and conclusions have been colated do they make a pronouncement.

One very interesting miracle is the Lanciano Miracle. I am sure you could Google it.

 

[Protestant101]

Jesus offered his life and death to mankind.

When Jesus had pronounced the words, “Take……this is my body; take……this is my blood", he didn’t allow much time to pass before doing what he had promised: a few hours later he gave his life and blood on the Cross.

Proving that this first Lord’s supper, and Jesus’ use of terms referring to His “Flesh” and His “Blood,” had to have been symbolic, for the Real Sacrifice had not yet even ocurred.

John 10:9 Jesus calls Himself “The Door,” He refers to Himself in the Bible, by many similar symbolisms.

Of “eating His flesh” and “drinking His Blood;” Jesus says: “Do this IN REMEMBRANCE of Me;” (1 Cor.11:24) also showing the symbolic nature of His terminology here.

The Scriptures tell us in Exodus 12:3-8 how the Passover lamb’s blood applied to the lintel and doorposts protected the inhabitants thereof from certain death; while the flesh that was eaten here, gave them the strength to escape from Egypt.

And so too, today, Christ’s Sacrifice, “once for all” (on Calvary) brings us liberation from death; believers are saved through partaking of both His “body” and His “blood.” (Jo.6:54). This is our guarantee of salvation, forgiveness, peace, and the assurance of eternal life.

Jesus used many metaphors of inanimate things to teach different truths about Himself. He said, “I am the door'" (John 10:7), "I am the way’” (John 14:6), “I am the true vine'" (John 15:1), and "I am the bread of life’” (John 6:35). We cannot take any of these expressions literally, for He is not present in every “door,” every “way,” every “bread” or every “vine.” Instead, all these symbols illustrate deeper Truths which are ignored by the Catholic doctrine of eating the literal flesh of our Lord.

There is no “re-presenting” or repeating of the “once for all” Sacrifice of Jesus mandated in the Bible. Jesus offered His body and blood “once” to satisfy the hunger and thirst of our deepest needs and desires for all eternity (John 6:50-54).

To illustrate a little deeper the symbolism intended in John, chapter 6, let us note too that the Passover bread Jesus ate was unleavened, and the fruit of the vine unfermented. Leaven (yeast), which produces fermentation that causes bread to rise, was considered a symbol of sin (1 Cor. 5:7,8), so it was unfit to represent the Lamb “without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:19).

As in many communion services today, only unleavened or unfermented bread could symbolize the sinless body of Christ. Likewise only the unspoiled fruit of the vine–the unfermented wine–appropriately symbolizes the spotless perfection of the cleansing blood of the Saviour. These things were to be fitting symbols of Christ’s Sacrifice, not to become His literal flesh by the incantation of a Priest.

I know that some here at this forum are quite offended at my apparent “attack” on this cardinal doctrine of Catholicism; however, I look at this as something a little different. I have now been told many times on this forum, and elsewhere that I cannot be saved if I am not a Catholic, who practices the Eucharist as taught by your Church.

Public statements by your current “Pope” and other leaders show that this is their true opinion and that they have pronounced me and all Protestants as not being true Churches.

I am convinced by your own Church’s actions that the Priests who deceive the people about allegedly changing little pieces of bread to a bunch of “complete” little Jesus’ are guilty of blasphemy - they presume the prerogative of God alone.

I can only end this post by asking; How could you expect Protestants to not rise up against this pompous falsehood?

 

[benedictus2]

I have grown to love this passage in John 6 regarding the Lord’s Supper:

“`Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day’” (John 6:53,54).

Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood is symbolic language for the assimilation of the Word of God, through which believers maintain communion with heaven and are enabled to have spiritual life. He says, “The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life'" (John 6:63). "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God’” (Matt. 4:4).

Mt 4:4 is not related to John 6. The bread in Mt 4:4 is ordinary bread which does not give eternal life. The Eucharist is JESUS HIMSELF. So totally no comparing the two at all.

John 6 IS NOT IN ANYWAY SYMBOLIC OR FIGURATIVE.

In Hebrew, the phrase “to eat one’s flesh” means to do someone harm especially by calumny. So if you read John 6 in that way, then Jesus is saying “If you injur me or speak of calumny against me, then you will have eternal life. Makes him sound rather stupid don’t you think?

Believers feed on Christ, the bread of life, through partaking of the Word of life–the Bible. The Bible is the Christian’s “food.” With that Word comes Christ’s life-giving power. In the Communion service also we partake of Christ by assimilating His Word through the Holy Spirit. For this reason the preaching of the Word accompanies each Lord’s Supper.

This is not the reason the preaching of the Word accompanies the Lord’s Supper. We are truly nourished by the Word but at the same time we are also truly nourished by His body and Blood because He said so. He said “My flesh is food indeed”.

If communion is really only grape juice and crackers, why would you need to partake in communion if you have already received Christ during the preaching of the Word? How do you assimilate His Word from crackers and grape juice? Is His Word in the crackers? How did it get into the crackers?

Since we appropriate the benefits of Christ’s atoning sacrifice by faith, the Lord’s Supper is much more than a mere memorial meal. Participation in the Communion service means a revitalization of our life through Christ’s sustaining power, providing us with life and joy. In short the symbolism shows and declares that "we are as dependent on Christ; and His Word for spiritual life as we are on food and drink for physical life.

How does appropripriating the benefits of Christ’s atoning sacrifice by faith make teh Lord Supper more than a mere memorial.
Again I ask, why would you need to participate in a communion meal if it is only symbolic. Why practice a symbolic meal when you according to you, the food is the word of God? If Christ is not in the bread and wine, why bother?

During the Communion service we “bless” the cup (1 Cor. 10:16). This means that as Christ “gave thanks” for the cup (Matt. 26:27), so we express gratitude for the blood of Jesus. We do not go around changing little pieces of bread into a bunch of little Jesus’

And neither do we change the bread into a bunch of little Jesus. The Holy Spirit changes the bread and wine into Jesus Body and Blood. He said so. If you have a problem with that you should really take it up with Him. If scripture is the food he is talking about here, He would have said so.

If you do not believe it, then you do not believe Jesus Himself because they are His words which he repeated over and over so that his hearers will get it. And His disciples understood he was not talking symbolically. That is why they left.

The Saviour Himself explains how to understand His use of the idea of “eating His flesh.” His “flesh” is “life” as He says it in John 6; and to explain the intended symbolism, Jesus says: “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63)

No He did not explain it at all. During his discourse from verse 51 to 56 He says “MY” flesh. But here he says “THE” flesh. He is contrasting here flesh and spirit, that is, natural and spiritual.

If this is how Jesus explain the idea of “eating his flesh” then in effect you have Jesus saying: Eat my flesh and drink my blood (several times) but really that is all pointless. How stupid does that sound.

The more protestants insist on using verse 63 to counter a literal interpretation of verses 51-56, the more they make Jesus sound like He does not know what He is talking about.

In The Lord’s Supper, the “flesh and blood” are symbolic of God’s Word, and the Christian who feeds on it daily will have the “life” spoken of in Jo.6: 63

No it is not. Flesh and blood mean flesh and blood. Re-read John 6 again. Slowly and thoroughly.

 

[benedictus2]

Let us examine for a moment some Bible examples of Eating The Word:

Jeremiah said: “Thy words were found and I did eat them…” (Jer.15:6). Ezekiel also talked about “eating the roll” and how “it was in my mouth as honey, for sweetness.” (Ez. 3:1-3). In Revelation 10, the prophet John (Rev.10: 9-10), like others in the Old Testament; “took the book and ate it up.”

Rev 10:9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.
Rev 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.

Aaaah, but Jesus did not say eat my Word. He did not say “My flesh is the Word”. Rather He said eat me. Feed on Me. Eat my Flesh. I have already shown above how stupid a figurative reading of this phrase is.

You cannot get away from the language Jesus uses here. He does not merely say I am the bread of life that gives life. He actually says “MY FLESH IS FOOD INDEED”. If he wanted a symbolic or figurative reading of this he would have stopped at verse 41 at “I am the bread that comes down from heaven”. At this stage His audience still believed he was talking symbolically. But instead of stopping there he goes on to harder language until his audience were left in no doubt as to what He meant. And when they started to leave He did not say “hey folks, I was only speaking symbolically”.

Also, compare the synoptic gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke to John. John does not have an institution of the Eucharist narrative. But Mark, Matthew and Luke do. Now read the accounts of the last supper in these three gospels. Here they are having the Seder the Passover Meal which has very precise set rules to it. And then in the middle of that meal He just goes “This is my body, this is the cup of my blood” without any explanation at all. The disciples didn’t go “say what?!!!”
This would only have been because of this discourse in John 6 which happened the Passover the year before.

The word of God must be interwoven with the living character of those who believe it. The only vital faith is that faith which receives and assimilates the truth till it is a part of the being and the motive power of the life and action. The Word “live” in Mat.4:4 means the same “life” as is alluded to in Jo.6

Incorrect because in Mt 4:4 the bread being talked about is ordinary bread. The Eucharist is NOT ordinary bread. It is Jesus Christ, God Himself.

Man does not live by bread alone; but by what??? Tic Tock Tic Tock Tic Tock…

Actually, I would say that your exegesis is more like http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon13.gif

 

[benedictus2]

Of “eating His flesh” and “drinking His Blood;” Jesus says: “Do this IN REMEMBRANCE of Me;” (1 Cor.11:24) also showing the symbolic nature of His terminology here.

Since you quote 1 Cor 11. You failed to go as far as verse 27
"Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. "
If this is a mere symbol, why will you have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. Another rendition of this of this verse goes “to be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”. Again, if it is a mere symbol, why would you be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

The Scriptures tell us in Exodus 12:3-8 how the Passover lamb’s blood applied to the lintel and doorposts protected the inhabitants thereof from certain death; while the flesh that was eaten here, gave them the strength to escape from Egypt.

And so too, today, Christ’s Sacrifice, “once for all” (on Calvary) brings us liberation from death; believers are saved through partaking of both His “body” and His “blood.” (Jo.6:54). This is our guarantee of salvation, forgiveness, peace, and the assurance of eternal life.

All well and good but absolutely has no bearing on the the current discussion.

Jesus used many metaphors of inanimate things to teach different truths about Himself. He said, “I am the door'" (John 10:7), "I am the way’” (John 14:6), “I am the true vine'" (John 15:1), and "I am the bread of life’” (John 6:35). We cannot take any of these expressions literally, for He is not present in every “door,” every “way,” every “bread” or every “vine.” Instead, all these symbols illustrate deeper Truths which are ignored by the Catholic doctrine of eating the literal flesh of our Lord.

And when He used those metaphors everyone understood they were metaphors so the disciples still kept following him. When He started using flesh and blood, everyone understood He was speaking literally that is why they left.

There is no “re-presenting” or repeating of the “once for all” Sacrifice of Jesus mandated in the Bible. Jesus offered His body and blood “once” to satisfy the hunger and thirst of our deepest needs and desires for all eternity (John 6:50-54).

Only in your understanding because you have no idea what the Mass is all about at all.

I know that some here at this forum are quite offended at my apparent “attack” on this cardinal doctrine of Catholicism; however, I look at this as something a little different. I have now been told many times on this forum, and elsewhere that I cannot be saved if I am not a Catholic, who practices the Eucharist as taught by your Church.

Public statements by your current “Pope” and other leaders show that this is their true opinion and that they have pronounced me and all Protestants as not being true Churches.

Answer me this.

Christ founded only 1 Church upon Peter. Now since you do not believe it is Catholic Church, then of the 30,000 or so Protestant Denominations, can you please tell me which one it is. But, you must be able to trace it back historically to Peter.
Eagerly awaiting your reply.

I am convinced by your own Church’s actions that the Priests who deceive the people about allegedly changing little pieces of bread to a bunch of “complete” little Jesus’ are guilty of blasphemy - they presume the prerogative of God alone.

Aah but this is where your ignorance is glaringly painful. It is not the priest that changes the bread and wine into Christ Body and Blood but the Holy Spirit.

I can only end this post by asking; How could you expect Protestants to not rise up against this pompous falsehood?

I have no doubt you are sincere. Ignorant. Painfully ill-informed, but sincere. For that I commend you.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

**
Hi Protestant,

People sure are attempting to tell you the truth! Please listen!

You misunderstand our church! The Priests can’t deceive the people because the words come directly from the scriptures. You quote them, but at the same time ignore what they say! Very interesting. You presume the prerogative of God alone by judging the actions which Jesus instituted on earth as false this is blasphemy .

You need to pray that God lifts the veil of deceit that Satan has placed over your eyes so you can see the truth!

I am on my way to eat supper with My Lord and Savior, I will ask Him to help you see the truth!

God Bless
**

 

[grampben]

Hey RealCatholicgk,

I appreciate your posts, but on this sub-forum we should all be charitable. What if I said to you that satan is hiding you from the truth? Such statements entice anger and make civil conservation almost impossible.

God Bless.

 

[BMSODM]

Protestant101***

You keep refering to the Word(Written) as our Food alone…

1. Show me were your Bible says this?
2. Also show me were when God speaks about the Word of God it only applies to the Written Word?

Thanks,Tic tock…

 

[Protestant101]

Since you quote 1 Cor 11. You failed to go as far as verse 27
"Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. "
If this is a mere symbol, why will you have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. Another rendition of this of this verse goes “to be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”. Again, if it is a mere symbol, why would you be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

I didn’t “fail” to do anything. My only intention was to point out a phrase that you ignore in all your diatribe about The Lord’s Supper. But since you asked; the reason one would have to “answer for the body and the blood of Jesus” is if they partook of it unworthily. It is not just a “mere” symbol you refuse to acknowledge here; you refuse the “food” that God is offering in His Word; you ignore all the scripture references I gave above which show why Jesus used the symbolism of John 6.

I think that when some Catholics do their Mass, they do it “worthily” but that still does not mean that Jesus meant for us to literally eat Him FOR ANY REASON. There is plenty of Bible reason to see it otherwise.

 

[guanophore]

You will notice that when the disciples did the same as you by turning their backs on Jesus and leaving Him he did not say, “Hey! wait a minute that is not what I meant!” and try to explain himself. No he reinforced what he said. :yup: You are saying that Jesus didn’t mean what He said. You are saying he meant something else!:yup:

There is no need to interpret what Jesus said - what he said was very clear indeed. In fact I am going to go to John 6 and count how many times Jesus repeated what he said because Jesus left no doubt as to what he meant.

Well, Cinette, I have to agree with you here. However, one must keep in mind that those who are separated from the Apostolic Tradition basically try to figure out what He meant by reading and interpretng the scripture on their own (without the pastoral guidance that provides the framework of those who wrote it). As a result, all kinds of errors like this occur, like Jesus gave His “symbolic” flesh for the life of the world, and that baptism has nothing to do with water. One finds oneself mystified how passages of scripture are interpreted literally unless such an interpretation sounds just too “Catholic”.

One point I have brought up repeatedly here in addition to the quandary that a symbolic interpretation would mean He did not give His real flesh and blood is the point you are making. How is it that Jesus was unable to make the Apostles and their immediate successors understand what He meant? How come His powers to reveal Himself were so insufficient that they ALL managed to get it wrong? They all believed that He literallly made the bread and wine into His literal Body and Blood, and He could not correct them! In fact, when early heresies arose, one of them was the same as is rampant here, that the bread and the wine do not literally become the Body and Blood.

Within just a few years of the death of the last apostle, and in fact, a direct disciple of John who wrote the passage on Eucharist we have Ignatius whose teaching was directed against the Gnostics. Writing to the Christians of Smyrna, in about 106, he warned them to “stand aloof from such heretics”, because, among other reasons, “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.”

This continues throughout the Fathers with the only exceptions being classed as “heresy”. Here is an example:

Irenaeus

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

Theodore of Mopsuestia

“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

This was written right around the time the Canon of the Bible was closed. If they “missed it” on this point, how can we be sure they got the Bible right?

In 350 A.D., we have another very important document from Cyril of Jerusalem. He states:

“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).

 

[guanophore]

I am not saying that this is easy to understand. Why do we need faith if we understood everything in the bible?

In fact, Jesus was clear that the “flesh is of no avail”. This simply cannot be apprehended by the carnal mind of man. It is a profound spiritual mystery and it is useless to try to wrap one’s brain around it.

Please Protestant, you can criticise our be beliefs but leave the Eucharist alone. You may be familiar with 1 Cor:11:27-34 about partaking of the Supper unworthily. If the Eucharist was just a symbol or something “spiritual” and not the Real Presence then why would partaking unworthily “eat and drink judgement against themselves”? Why is this so important that by not respecting it one is so strongly condemned?

I think you should pray about this and reflect deeply. Go and read John 6 and then 1 Cor 11.

What you are saying is a huge heresy.

Cinette

I would recommend that Protestant101 be commended to his heresy, Cinette. I say this because, of all the heresies, the one he has embraced is one of the least damaging of all. You can see that he has substituted the Bible for the Eucharist. This is all he really can do, because being separated from the Apostolic Succession, he cannot access the Eucharist. Under the circumstances, this is the next best thing! In reading his post, it is clear that he is totally in love with the word of God, and desires the same type of integration and unity with Scripture that we do with Jesus Himself. He considers the Bible his food,and takes his feeding seriously! Jesus said that the scriptures point to Him, and his devouring them may eventually bring Him to the Real Presence. But, in the meantime, at least he will be feeding on something that is meant to be for his benefit.

 

[guanophore]

*John 6:52 “The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day, 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 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. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate and they died………”
*
The Eucharist is the mystery of the body and Blood of the Lord, that is of the life and death of the Lord. Jesus offered his life and death to mankind.

When Jesus had pronounced the words, “Take……this is my body; take……this is my blood", he didn’t allow much time to pass before doing what he had promised: a few hours later he gave his life and blood on the Cross.

The disciples didn’t reject because Jesus was offering them a symbol – no they rejected because Jesus was offering his body and blood – *“for my flesh is food indeed and my blood is food indeed”. *

You interpret body and blood as the Word of God. “The Word was made Flesh” John 1. I understand the body and blood to be the whole of Jesus: body, blood, soul and divinity.

At that time the Word was all of Jesus’ teaching which in those days was oral – the Word is part of the whole of Jesus – he fed us in many ways.

Again I say that Jesus meant what he said when he said *54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day, 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.” * If it were something else he would not have let the disciples walk away, he would have called them back to explain.

If Jesus didn’t mean what he said then it was not very charitable of him to see the disciples turn their backs without calling them to explain. That would not have been like him.

No he meant what he said:thumbsup: :yup: :yup:

Interpreting Jn 6 as referring to Scripture also would have to mean that Jesus did not give his real flesh and blood on the cross,but the Bible instead. :whacky:

“…stand aloof from such heretics”, because, among other reasons, “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.”(letter of Ignatius to the Smyrneans, AD 107)

 

[guanophore]

Proving that this first Lord’s supper, and Jesus’ use of terms referring to His “Flesh” and His “Blood,” had to have been symbolic, for the Real Sacrifice had not yet even ocurred.

I agree with you that the Apostles did not understand what He was talking about. I am not even sure they understood it when he demonstrated at the last supper. However, they did finally “get it” afterward, as is demonstrated by their practice of the Eucharist in the form of the Last Supper. They also passed on this understanding to their successors, the bishops.

Of “eating His flesh” and “drinking His Blood;” Jesus says: “Do this IN REMEMBRANCE of Me;” (1 Cor.11:24) also showing the symbolic nature of His terminology here.

The rememberance is a specific kind of symbol that contains that which it signifies. He is doing this in the context of the Passover. Note that the Passover lamb is killed, and literally eaten (gnawed). One cannot have this kind of “rememberance” with the scripture.

The Scriptures tell us in Exodus 12:3-8 how the Passover lamb’s blood applied to the lintel and doorposts protected the inhabitants thereof from certain death; while the flesh that was eaten here, gave them the strength to escape from Egypt.

And the amanesis, the rememberance meal recreated the events,and made those of succeeding generations present to the deliverance. This is what happens in Divine Liturgy.

Instead, all these symbols illustrate deeper Truths which are ignored by the Catholic doctrine of eating the literal flesh of our Lord.

What does one have to do with the other? How are these other symbols “ignored” in divine liturgy?

There is no “re-presenting” or repeating of the “once for all” Sacrifice of Jesus mandated in the Bible. Jesus offered His body and blood “once” to satisfy the hunger and thirst of our deepest needs and desires for all eternity (John 6:50-54).

There is not and cannot be for those who are separated from the Apostolic Succession, that is true. However, this is a Passover meal, and in fact, it is a re-presentation of the once for all sacrifice. Just as eating the Passover Lamb made the Jews present under the blood of the lamb, so too does the Divine Liturgy make us present under the blood of the cross.

To illustrate a little deeper the symbolism intended in John, chapter 6, let us note too that the Passover bread Jesus ate was unleavened, and the fruit of the vine unfermented. Leaven (yeast), which produces fermentation that causes bread to rise, was considered a symbol of sin (1 Cor. 5:7,8), so it was unfit to represent the Lamb “without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:19).

I think you have a lot to learn about the actual elements present at the Passover meal. They used real wine, not grape juice.

As in many communion services today, only unleavened or unfermented bread could symbolize the sinless body of Christ. Likewise only the unspoiled fruit of the vine–the unfermented wine–appropriately symbolizes the spotless perfection of the cleansing blood of the Saviour. These things were to be fitting symbols of Christ’s Sacrifice, not to become His literal flesh by the incantation of a Priest.

It is interesting that you call this “incantation of a priest”. In fact the presider repeats the words of Jesus Himself, our great High Priest. If you think it is an “incantation”, then you must believe that it was this way at the Last Supper. What a slap in the face of Jesus! No, only God can perform such miracles,just as only He can deliver the slaves from Egypt by the blood of the Lamb. Why is this miracle so hard to believe?

I know that some here at this forum are quite offended at my apparent “attack” on this cardinal doctrine of Catholicism; however, I look at this as something a little different. I have now been told many times on this forum, and elsewhere that I cannot be saved if I am not a Catholic, who practices the Eucharist as taught by your Church.

That is up to God. We can pray that you have invincible ignorance on the matter. What we are obligated to do is to transmit to you the Apostolic teaching, and that is, if you do not eat and drink you will not have eternal life.

Public statements by your current “Pope” and other leaders show that this is their true opinion and that they have pronounced me and all Protestants as not being true Churches.

Yes, Jesus only founded One Church, and He only has One Body.

I am convinced by your own Church’s actions that the Priests who deceive the people about allegedly changing little pieces of bread to a bunch of “complete” little Jesus’ are guilty of blasphemy - they presume the prerogative of God alone.

I can see your point here, and I agree the miracle of the Bread and the Wine becoming His flesh and Blood is only a perogative of God alone.

I can only end this post by asking; How could you expect Protestants to not rise up against this pompous falsehood?

I expect nothing less! that is the nature of what makes them Protestant. Protesting it right in character.