Proving Real Presence

[stevekehl]

No more sensitive than you since you mentioned it first? And who cares if the CC had a million year head start, Protestants have done it too.

 

[po18guy]

Precisely, Lisa. Furthermore Jesus didn’t “offer” the consumption of his body and blood in John 6. He flat out commanded it, as the only way to have eternal life. The Eucharist and the New Covenant are initiated in John 6, just as surely as they are in Matthew 26. The details are different but the words are essentially the same, and in John 6 Jesus says that his words are life and spirit- as in real time, here and now life and spirit.
cf. Scott Hahn’s discussion at ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchc2.htm

John 6:56 is pretty darned clear:

John 6:56
King James Version (KJV)
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

It accords entirely with John 15, in which we are admonished to remain branches of the Vine:

John 15:4
King James Version (KJV)
4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

I use the KJV so as to avoid claims of “Catholic scriptural bias.”

The problem that bible Christians have is that they use only the fragmentary written record known as the bible. They are forced by their own doctrine to reverse engineer the Church using only a tiny part of God’s Word. Error is unavoidable.

 

[stevekehl]

1. According to scriptural accounts, the “Last Supper” was celebrated the night before the Day of Preparation - the day on which the lambs were sacrificially slaughtered in the temples for families to take home and eat. So where was the alleged lamb at the Last Supper sacrificed and acquired? Da Vinci was obviously guided by the beliefs of the early Church in his depictions of the sacred - i.e. no lamb on the table. He didn’t invent scenes to paint in a vacuum.

Are we seriously going to debate Da Vinci’s value as a Biblical reference?

1. You obviously don’t understand Old Testament typology, so you miss the point about the Bread of Life coming down from heaven as well as being produce of the earth - a “grain of wheat” etc…

That’s why I asked what you meant.

1. Wrong. The lambs sacrificed in the temple were taken home and eaten - that was the Passover celebration of the Jews.

Then why does Malachi condemn bringing lame and dead animals to sacrifice? If people get free butchering at the temple and then take the animal home to eat why not bring the best of the flock?

1. How conveniently you’ve skirted the actual verse I quoted (Mal 1:11) in favor the preceding verses where God rages against imperfect sacrifices!

It’s better understood out of context?

In Mal 1:11 God prophecies the PERPETUAL offering to Him (“from the rising of the sun even unto its setting”) of a “CLEAN oblation” (or “PURE offering” in some translations) - the ONLY sacrifice acceptable to Him in atonement for mankind’s sins. We say that that is none other than Christ - the only pure, unblemished Lamb of God.

I agree, but the body was sacrificed once. Christ’s body does not need to be broken and His blood shed over and over and over. And I didn’t skirt your assertion.Malachi 1 is about how Jewish worship had become corrupt, that one day people would worship in purity because of the ultimate scarifice.

You suggest that YOU are the clean “living sacrifice”, the sufficient sacrifice, instead of Christ. Are YOU really clean, holy and pleasing to God

Isn’t that what Christ’s sacrifices does, cleanse us from sin? Not just me, everyone who believes

• as St Paul exhorts us to be? Are we perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect - as Christ urges us to be? If we are, then why on earth did Christ need to be sacrificed?

See what happens when you apply literalism to Scripture that is clearly symbolic? We don’t literally offer ourselves to be killed for sins. Offering our lives to God, to live out the fruits of the Holy Spirit is worship.

If we’re not, where is the “clean oblation” that is being offered to God “from the rising of the sun to its setting” and “in every place”? Granted Christ was sacrificed “once and for all” but how do you propose that that sacrifice is not eternal (time transcending) if Christ is indeed our real and eternal High Priest? An eternal High Priest without an eternal sacrifice?

The sacrifice is eternal, just as powerful to save today as it was in the first century. It was powerful enough to only be needed once, it doesn’t wear out and need to be repeated. One eternal High Priest, one eternal sacrifice, not a repetition of that sacrifice.

Oh, wait, I get it! Don’t bother replying. Christ is our “symbolic” High Priest, with a “symbolic” sacrifice, on a “symbolic” altar, in a “symbolic” heaven, before a “symbolic” God. Bah, humbug.

No, those things are clearly spelled out in Scripture. Unlike transubstantiation.

 

[po18guy]

I agree, but the body was sacrificed once. Christ’s body does not need to be broken and His blood shed over and over and over. And I didn’t skirt your assertion.Malachi 1 is about how Jewish worship had become corrupt, that one day people would worship in purity because of the ultimate scarifice.

Steve! Please listen: It has been made very plain too all, in plain English, numerous times, that Christ is not and cannot be re-sacrificed, yet you continue to repeat this falsehood.

At mass, the eternal sacrifice of Christ is made present to us, and us to it.

Can you please stop repeating this error?

Please?

 

[stevekehl]

Clearly not! But, you do seem awfully convinced that your personal take on this is infallible. If the Pope cannot be infallible, how can stevekehl be?

Nice. That’s the kind of question that challenges. I think a better adjective would be stubborn but I get your point. This is my understanding of papal infallibility. The pope decrees that the Virgin Mary was translated directly to heaven so all Catholics must believe this. On top of that, all Catholics who have lived before automatically believed this even though it was not official church doctrine. Now, no one can question the pope about that, accept it or risk your state of grace. So I’ll try to explain how my position is different.
Peter says to always be ready to give an answer for your faith and I try to be, but my answers must come from Scripture. Then the answers have to be borne out in other Scriptures( I forget the latin, but the CC says something like there is a happy agreement among Scriptures). Our church takes communion weekly and I used to think churches that offered it less often were Unscriptural. But , I was directed to read the Gospels carefully and saw that Jesus didn’t put communion on a schedule. Likewise, I can see why someone would believe in transubstantiation, if someone wants to believe in it that’s ok with me. That’s how I’m different from the pope. My faith is based on Scriptural study (not saying the pope’s faith isn’t) and if someone’s faith differs in the details that’s ok. You believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity, ok, but it makes no difference to me; you believe in infant baptism, fine, I don’t; you believe Jesus isn’t God, that’s not a detail and it’s time to have a serious discussion in which I will not budge. So when people start telling me because I don’t believe in transubstantiation I’m going to hell, not a real Christian, have no faith in Jesus, have never really been in communion with Jesus; that stuff ticks me off. Well, I’m going to bed. Anyone who reads this don’t think I’m “not answering” I’ve got a test for my nursing license next week so I’ll be studying alot. Good night.

 

[po18guy]

Nice. That’s the kind of question that challenges. I think a better adjective would be stubborn but I get your point. This is my understanding of papal infallibility. The pope-] /-] (declares in union with the entire Church council, a la Acts 15) that the Virgin Mary was translated directly to heaven so all Catholics must believe this (must give intellectual assent, if lacking understanding). On top of that, all Catholics who have lived before automatically believed this even though it was not official church doctrine. (Beliefs don’t change and have not changed - some have developed - they have only been set in concrete in response to heresy - think Trent) Now, no one can question the pope about that, accept it or risk your state of grace.(there’s more to this, too)

Someone has not been truthful with you about Catholicism. More on which later…

So I’ll try to explain how my position is different.
Peter says to always be ready to give an answer for your faith (There was no NT scripture when Peter wrote this!) and I try to be, but my answers must come from Scripture. (Why? Neither Peter nor Scripture say so!)) Then the answers have to be borne out in other Scriptures( I forget the latin, but the CC says something like there is a happy agreement among Scriptures). (Water to wine is only written in scripture once - is it false?) Our church takes communion weekly and I used to think churches that offered it less often were Unscriptural. (they are) But , I was directed to read the Gospels carefully and saw that Jesus didn’t put communion on a schedule. (Yes, He did: “As often as you do it” - the Apostles met each and every Lord’s day) Likewise, I can see why someone would believe in transubstantiation, if someone wants to believe in it that’s ok with me. (Good! Your Lutheran, Anglican, Episcopalian and Methodist brothers thank you!) That’s how I’m different from the pope (and from your protestant brothers). (do you object to Peter’s authority in scripture? ) My faith is based on Scriptural study (not saying the pope’s faith isn’t) and if someone’s faith differs in the details that’s ok.(the bible admonishes us to meet together “with one accord” - total agreement - Acts 1:14, 2:1, 2:46, 4:24, 5:12, 8:6, 15:25, Romans 15:5, Philippians 2:2) You believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity, ok, but it makes no difference to me; you believe in infant baptism, fine, I don’t; (Calvinists do) you believe Jesus isn’t God,(WHAT??? :bigyikes: He absolutely is GOD!) that’s not a detail and it’s time to have a serious discussion in which I will not budge. (Please do not!) So when people start telling me because I don’t believe in transubstantiation I’m going to hell, not a real Christian, have no faith in Jesus, have never really been in communion with Jesus; that stuff ticks me off. (You are held responsible for God’s revealed truth - others don;t judge you) Well, I’m going to bed. Anyone who reads this don’t think I’m “not answering” I’ve got a test for my nursing license next week so I’ll be studying alot. Good night.

Steve: An offer. If you will actually read it, I will send you a copy of Catholicism for Dummies (you’re definitely not one!) so that you may know, straight form the horses mouth, what it is that we believe and why. You have without doubt heard much that is simply not true about the Catholic faith. That needs to be set straight, and I am putting my money where my mouth is. You can PM me with a mailing address if you are interested.

 

[Faithdancer]

Steve! Please listen: It has been made very plain too all, in plain English, numerous times, that Christ is not and cannot be re-sacrificed, yet you continue to repeat this falsehood.

At mass, the eternal sacrifice of Christ is made present to us, and us to it.

Can you please stop repeating this error?

Please?

And I thought only “atheists” played the straw man game

 

[Faithdancer]

Someone has not been truthful with you about Catholicism. More on which later…
Steve: An offer. If you will actually read it, I will send you a copy of Catholicism for Dummies (you’re definitely not one!) so that you may know, straight form the horses mouth, what it is that we believe and why. You have without doubt heard much that is simply not true about the Catholic faith. That needs to be set straight, and I am putting my money where my mouth is. You can PM me with a mailing address if you are interested.

But what fun would that be? To be truly informed, instead of just regurgitating what is said by some cult-of-personality evangelical preacher. Well, I do sincerely pray that Steve takes you up on it.

I think it was Peter Kreeft who said, quoting someone else, that most Protestants who claim to hate the Catholic Church actually hate what they think the Catholic Church is, not knowing what the profoundly deep theological/philosophical base of the Church really is. Fortunately, some of the Catholic Church’s greatest apologists are former Protestants- namely Peter Kreeft and Scott Hahn!

 

[po18guy]

I think it was Peter Kreeft who said, quoting someone else, that most Protestants who claim to hate the Catholic Church actually hate what they think the Catholic Church is, not knowing what the profoundly deep theological/philosophical base of the Church really is. Fortunately, some of the Catholic Church’s greatest apologists are former Protestants- namely Peter Kreeft and Scott Hahn!

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen: “There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church. …As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.”

 

[fxcc]

1. Are we seriously going to debate Da Vinci’s value as a Biblical reference?
2. That’s why I asked what you meant.
3. Then why does Malachi condemn bringing lame and dead animals to sacrifice? If people get free butchering at the temple and then take the animal home to eat why not bring the best of the flock?
4. It’s better understood out of context?
5. … one day people would worship in purity because of the ultimate scarifice.
6. … Offering our lives to God, to live out the fruits of the Holy Spirit is worship.
7. No, those things are clearly spelled out in Scripture. Unlike transubstantiation.

1. I wasn’t offering Da Vinci as a doctrinal reference - and you welll know that. I was simply commenting that his painting would quite logically have been in line with the thinking/knowledge among Christians of the time about the details of Christ’s Passover meal.
2. What I meant was Jesus was also "what earth has given’ - it’s finest produce, if you will, in flesh and blood, the first fruit of creation. In His incarnation Jesus was as fully man as He was God. He Himself was the “grain of wheat” which had to be crushed (and “fall to the ground” - be crucified and buried) to produce a rich harvest. The Passover sacrifice of the Lamb of God didn’t merely involve the imparting of His spirit or His words or His teaching - it involved His actual flesh and blood, which were really and truly “given for many” (to EAT and DRINK, as is customary and OBLIGATORY in ANY Passover sacrifice).
3. You’d have to ask them. Besides, who says a lamb with a blemish (although not properly qualifying for sacrifice) cannot be sacrificed and eaten? Are the lambs and cows we eat today all unblemished? The Passover Sacrifice rites of the Israelites are so explicitly spelled out in scripture, I’m not sure what the point is that you’re trying to make. Are you suggesting that any Passover celebration could be validly completed without the the third and final step - i.e. without the feasting on the flesh of the victim?

I recommend that you engage in some study of the distinctively sacrificial aspects of Judaism - because the final, redeeming Passover which Jesus had “longed to eat” with His disciples was squarely in line with that tradition - and fulfilled it perfectly. Here are some pointers to get you started: The Passover ALWAYS comprised of THREE essential elements/functions - it was a sacrifice (lest we died), it was a feast (lest we hungered) and it was a memorial (lest we forgot). This is why the Passover celebration of the New Covenant (being the Eucharist, instituted by Jesus Himself) is a Sacrifice-Sacrament, a Communion-Sacrament (“Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed … let us therefore keep the FEAST…”) and a Presence-Sacrament.

1. No, the context is useful and even necessary, but the context doesn’t constitute the actual point of that verse. The point of the verse is that - confirmed by the background of imperfect/unacceptable sacrifice - God would arrange for “a” “pure offering” (of His own Son) as a perpetual and acceptable sacrifice for/by His people. He Himself would “provide the lamb” - as He had promised to Abraham all those years ago. WE are not the lamb(s), WE are not perfect sacrifice (“pure offering”, “clean oblation”). We cannot be. We are all blemished. Our offering of ourselves becomes acceptable to the Father ONLY IN Christ - when we offer ourselves IN Him, WITH Him and THROUGH HIm. This is why the priest adds a drop of water to the chalice of wine at Mass. We are the humble drop. Our PRINCIPAL offering, the “pure offering”, the “clean oblation”, that truly pleases God, is Christ Himself.
2. “People would one day worship in purity…” This is one of those profound phrases that I hear from Protestants, but I never hear from them HOW this pure worship is actually achieved. I claim that it is achieved ONLY by uniting our offering of ourselves with the oblation of Christ - via the Eucharist, to be precise. This is why, in the Catholic view, the Mass is the ONLY perfect (“pure”/“clean”) form of worship. I know you’ll come back to me quoting Paul about God not despising a contrite heart, etc… But - let’s be quite blunt and honest about this - how often is our contrition perfect? And who is to say when it is and isn’t? Also, did none of the People of God before Christ have contrite hearts? Indeed, did not some of those holy men of God have a cleaner heart than even you or I? So why did their worship/sacrifice not suffice to atone for their sins? Why did the sacrifice of Christ become necessary? And since when has it stopped BEING necessary, to appease the Father’s wrath against the CONTINUING sins of mankind? Have we stopped sinning? Or has something of equally atoning value replaced the sacrifice of Christ? What is that? The sacrifice of Jesus, is, of NECESSITY, eternal. Sure it is once and for all and does not need to be repeated (nor has the Church EVER taught that it is repeated) but it has to be EVER PRESENT before the Father (the “slain lamb standing” before the throne of God in Revelation). It has ALSO to be PRESENT here on earth, so that you and I, in 2012 AD, can PARTAKE (“eat” and “drink”) of the atoning sacrifice. No partaking = no sacrifice. No perfect sacrifice = no perfect worship. No redemption, in fact! Hopefully someday you’ll start to get that clear and simple logic. Without partaking of the sacrifice we are excommunicated (“karet”), cut-off, not in Holy Communion with God. NO unilateral offering of our blemished/sinful selves will ever achieve that.
3. “Offering our lives to God…” Same answer as in preceding paragraph.
4. Transubstantiation not spelled out in scripture? Huh? THIS IS my BODY! THIS is MY BLOOD! I don’t know how much more clearly God could spell out anything in and through His Word (made FLESH, for the life of the world)!!!

 

[fxcc]

1. I wasn’t offering Da Vinci as a doctrinal reference - and you welll know that. I was simply commenting that his painting would quite logically have been in line with the thinking/knowledge among Christians of the time about the details of Christ’s Passover meal.
2. What I meant was Jesus was also "what earth has given’ - it’s finest produce, if you will, in flesh and blood, the first fruit of creation. In His incarnation Jesus was as fully man as He was God. He Himself was the “grain of wheat” which had to be crushed (and “fall to the ground” - be crucified and buried) to produce a rich harvest. The Passover sacrifice of the Lamb of God didn’t merely involve the imparting of His spirit or His words or His teaching - it involved His actual flesh and blood, which were really and truly “given for many” (to EAT and DRINK, as is customary and OBLIGATORY in ANY Passover sacrifice).
3. You’d have to ask them. Besides, who says a lamb with a blemish (although not properly qualifying for sacrifice) cannot be sacrificed and eaten? Are the lambs and cows we eat today all unblemished? The Passover Sacrifice rites of the Israelites are so explicitly spelled out in scripture, I’m not sure what the point is that you’re trying to make. Are you suggesting that any Passover celebration could be validly completed without the the third and final step - i.e. without the feasting on the flesh of the victim?

I recommend that you engage in some study of the distinctively sacrificial aspects of Judaism - because the final, redeeming Passover which Jesus had “longed to eat” with His disciples was squarely in line with that tradition - and fulfilled it perfectly. Here are some pointers to get you started: The Passover ALWAYS comprised of THREE essential elements/functions - it was a sacrifice (lest we died), it was a feast (lest we hungered) and it was a memorial (lest we forgot). This is why the Passover celebration of the New Covenant - being the Eucharist, instituted by Jesus Himself - is a Sacrifice-Sacrament, a Communion-Sacrament and a Presence-Sacrament. “Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed - let us therefore keep the feast.” That is still what we celebrate today, in an unbloody way, as our perfect worship.

1. No, the context is useful and even necessary, but the context doesn’t constitute the actual point of that verse. The point of the verse is that - confirmed by the background of imperfect/unacceptable sacrifice - God would arrange for “a” “pure offering” (of His own Son) as a perpetual and acceptable sacrifice for/by His people. He Himself would “provide the lamb” - as He had promised to Abraham all those years ago. WE are not the lamb(s), WE are not perfect sacrifice (“pure offering”, “clean oblation”). We cannot be. We are all blemished. Our offering of ourselves becomes acceptable to the Father ONLY IN Christ - when we offer ourselves IN Him, WITH Him and THROUGH HIm. This is why the priest adds a drop of water to the chalice of wine at Mass. We are the humble drop. Our PRINCIPAL offering, the “pure offering”, the “clean oblation”, that truly pleases God, is Christ Himself.
2. “People would one day worship in purity…” This is one of those profound phrases that I hear from Protestants, but I never hear from them HOW this pure worship is actually achieved. I claim that it is achieved ONLY by uniting our offering of ourselves with the oblation of Christ - via the Eucharist, to be precise. This is why, in the Catholic view, the Mass is the ONLY perfect (“pure”/“clean”) form of worship. I know you’ll come back to me quoting Paul about God not despising a contrite heart, etc… But - let’s be quite blunt and honest about this - how often is our contrition perfect? And who is to say when it is and isn’t? Also, did none of the People of God before Christ have contrite hearts? Indeed, did not some of those holy men of God have a cleaner heart than even you or I? So why did their worship/sacrifice not suffice to atone for their sins? Why did the sacrifice of Christ become necessary? And since when has it stopped BEING necessary, to appease the Father’s wrath against the CONTINUING sins of mankind? Have we stopped sinning? Or has something of equally atoning value replaced the sacrifice of Christ? What is that? The sacrifice of Jesus, is, of NECESSITY, eternal. Sure it is once and for all and does not need to be repeated (nor has the Church EVER taught that it is repeated) but it has to be EVER PRESENT before the Father (the “slain lamb standing” before the throne of God in Revelation). It has ALSO to be PRESENT here on earth, so that you and I, in 2012 AD, can PARTAKE (“eat” and “drink”) of the atoning sacrifice. No partaking = no sacrifice. No perfect sacrifice = no perfect worship. No redemption, in fact! Hopefully someday you’ll start to get that clear and simple logic. Without partaking of the sacrifice we are excommunicated (“karet”), cut-off, not in Holy Communion with God. NO unilateral offering of our blemished/sinful selves will ever achieve that.
3. “Offering our lives to God…” Same answer as in preceding paragraph.
4. Transubstantiation not spelled out in scripture? Huh? THIS IS my BODY! THIS is MY BLOOD! I don’t know how much more clearly God could spell out anything in and through His Word (made FLESH, for the life of the world)!!!

 

[DavidWJackson]

Visiting a Chapel of Adoration may be the best way for some to come and find that the true Christ, body and soul is the Eucharist. The Thanksgiving. God that came down from Heaven and remains with us allways. If an Adoration Chapel isn’t available ask any Catholic Preist where you might sit before the Lord in person and in silence for an hour or so. It’s hard to hear the Lord with a mind full of the days clutter and noise. Christ will be very glad you have come to visit Him personally. One with one. Only true desire and faith opens the vail. As far as I know.

 

[Nicea325]

Alright. I admit I was a little bit angry after reading several people question my love for Jesus and my faith in Him, so I pulled out the burned at the stake card. I tried to edit the post but the time limit expired I emailed the thread administrator and asked that my post be pulled and obviously it wasn’t. So I apologize for being uncharitable. I also apologize for not posting this sooner and being a smart alek in a few posts. I ask your forgiveness if I offended you. I would like to stay on point and not get side tracked.

Steve, I am not offended at all,but rather sad you merely parrot the same ole boring arguments which have been answered long before you and I existed.

As I said, any of those writings would have been destroyed. But may I offer something from the Didache
10:4 Thou, Almighty Master, didst create all things for Thy name’s sake, and didst give food and drink unto men for enjoyment, that they might render thanks to Thee;
10:5 but didst bestow upon us spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Thy Son.
No where does the Didache even alude to transubstatiation, but explicitely mentions spiritual food and drink.

Well your first error is to believe the Didache is a systematic theological book. And no where does the Bible explicitly mention the canon of scripture-does it? Do you also have a problem with the canon?

This is what I talked about above. You want to question my relationship with Christ because we disagree on transubstantiation. Read Romans 14.

Steve, the above really does not answer what I asked you.

Quote:
Protestanism founding root is self-centered,not Christ-centered.

No, it was founded by a monk protesting corruption within the church.

Ah no, it was founded by a self-centered monk who was more concerned with his own personal doctrines. Read some history.

I guess I didn’t articulate my point clearly. Some heretics gathered a big following and their teachings have survived. But these teachings were radical departures from orthodoxy.I doubt communion was such a hot button topic that masses were willing to oppose the church over it.

EXACTLY Steve! So if the Real Presence is a radical departure from orthodoxy,then kindly show me the writings attacking the Real Presence as heretical or a usurpation of Christ? Are you capable of producing such evidence?

Any priest or bishop opposing church teaching would have been excommunicated if they didn’t recant. Therefore they either recanted or disappeared from history.

So you mean to tell me the NT absolutely makes no mention of removing such people from the community?

Can we apply the same thinking to ECF writings? They instruct people about communion because people didn’t believe in transubstantiation.

Steve what on earth are you talking about? The ECF’s are the very men who defended the orthodox church from false and heretical teachings. I beg your pardon? The people did not believe in transubstantiation? Do you have one writing from one lay person rejecting transubstantiation? I would like to read those non-believers writings since you claim it is a fact of history?

Quote:
I admire your opinions…your opinion Steve. How about actually presenting real primary documents clearly rebuking the Real Presence of the Eucharist Steve? Opinions require little effort Steve, primary sources require time and effort. Any time you can present what I asked,then I’ll truly see if your novelty of symbolic Eucharist is truly orthodox or merely a Protestant invention.

Do you consider Scripture a primary source?

No! There exist no EXTANT manuscripts Steve! So how is it a primary source? Everything we have are copies from other copies.

I consider it THE primary source and I’ve quoted at least a dozen verses showing how the concept of Jesus body being returning to earth to be sacrificed again can’t be supported. I’ve shown Jesus using symbolic language in John 6 as He is talking about the bread of life and real drink. I’ve shown that the two rituals Jesus left us, baptism is not literally burial and resurrection, but symbolic, so drawing a parallel then communion is symbolic as well.

Jesus re-sacrificed again? Steve you really need to stop repeating falsehoods and actually make the effort to actually read a Catholic source to understand what we believe. You repeat same foolish 5th grade anti-Catholic remarks.

Jews were forbidden to consume blood or human flesh I’ve asked why Jesus refers to the wine as the fruit of the vine after it had been consecrated, the answer I got was Jesus doesn’t need to drink His own blood; is there anything Jesus told his apostles to do that He didn’t do? What is the significance of Jesus not drinking wine until He drinks it with us in heaven? Does it mean He will drink His own blood at that time? Does it sound like I didn’t put a lot of thought and effort into this?

Steve…ANIMAL BLOOD! So Jesus is an animal? Jesus is GOD and he can freely choose to give us whatever he chooses regardless of your denial!

Finally, I don’t think I’ll convince you I’m right.

Oh that is right, I forgot,silly me! After 2,000 years Steve the mere finite creature is the only one EVER to be right. Your ego is bigger than the universe.

I want you to understand that I don’t believe this because a minister told me, or that I reject all things catholic. I believe it because I have studied the Scriptures.

Yep! Steve and Steve alone is the only human being to have studied Scripture and he is right and everyone is wrong.

 

[jupiter1]

Visiting a Chapel of Adoration may be the best way for some to come and find that the true Christ, body and soul is the Eucharist. The Thanksgiving. God that came down from Heaven and remains with us allways. If an Adoration Chapel isn’t available ask any Catholic Preist where you might sit before the Lord in person and in silence for an hour or so. It’s hard to hear the Lord with a mind full of the days clutter and noise. Christ will be very glad you have come to visit Him personally. One with one. Only true desire and faith opens the vail. As far as I know.

It may be the only way, David. Having God fully present to me and me being open to it has transformed our relationship.

 

[DavidWJackson]

I’ve come to a temporary conclusion. Only God can prove Real Presence in the Eucharist. Until then, us humans should continue to develope and maintain our faith in Christ and obedience in faith to the teachings of Christ’s Church.

 

[Rafik_Gabriel]

Dear friends in Christ; I wish that you take a look to the following link.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium_en.html

 

[stevekehl]

Steve, I am not offended at all,but rather sad you merely parrot the same ole boring arguments which have been answered long before you and I existed.

Regardless, it was not written in the correct spirit and I am sorry for it. In the interest of keeping this post short I’ll try to answer most of your assertions in a paragraph.
You asked for early church sources, I gave you the Didache. But that’s not theologically instructive enough. I gave you Scripture, but they weren’t original enough. I offer ECF writings about transubstantiation as proof that Christians needed to be corrected in their beliefs. If all Christians believed in it, there was no need to defend it, there was no need for instruction. That’s not clear enough. Short of having a time machine and interviewing every early Christian, preserving every written fragment, and attending every church meeting I don’t think you’ll accept anything.

Jesus re-sacrificed again? Steve you really need to stop repeating falsehoods and actually make the effort to actually read a Catholic source to understand what we believe. You repeat same foolish 5th grade anti-Catholic remarks.

You need to read fxcc’s posts then. He keeps telling me that Jesus flesh and blood are sacrificed at each Eucharist as foreshadowed by the Passover sacrifice. He says there must be a sacrifice, a feast and a memorial. What am I to believe?

Steve…ANIMAL BLOOD! So Jesus is an animal? Jesus is GOD and he can freely choose to give us whatever he chooses regardless of your denial!

Soooo…God has blood? I don’t understand. You say Jesus flesh and blood are present at the Eucharist, well only animals have flesh blood. I’m no the one saying flesh and blood are present at communion, so no I’m not saying Jesus is an animal. Jesus IS God, and God is spirit (John 4:24) Also, the “God can do whatever He wants” argument carries no weight. Can God give us square circles? God communicated through men who wrote the Scriptures and told us what He wants us to know. No blood is stated without exception or regard to circumstance.

Oh that is right, I forgot,silly me! After 2,000 years Steve the mere finite creature is the only one EVER to be right. Your ego is bigger than the universe.
Yep! Steve and Steve alone is the only human being to have studied Scripture and he is right and everyone is wrong.

Now who’s offering the same old boring argument; uncharitable too. That’s ok if you mock me, it reminds me of another Scripture I studied.
2 Peter 3:3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing
Nice talking to you. God Bless.

 

[stevekehl]

1. I wasn’t offering Da Vinci as a doctrinal reference - and you welll know that. I was simply commenting that his painting would quite logically have been in line with the thinking/knowledge among Christians of the time about the details of Christ’s Passover meal.
2. What I meant was Jesus was also "what earth has given’ - it’s finest produce, if you will, in flesh and blood, the first fruit of creation.
3. You’d have to ask them. Besides, who says a lamb with a blemish (although not properly qualifying for sacrifice) cannot be sacrificed and eaten?
   This is why the Passover celebration of the New Covenant (being the Eucharist, instituted by Jesus Himself) is a Sacrifice-Sacrament, a Communion-Sacrament (“Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed … let us therefore keep the FEAST…”) and a Presence-Sacrament.
4. No, the context is useful and even necessary, but the context doesn’t constitute the actual point of that verse. The point of the verse is that - confirmed by the background of imperfect/unacceptable sacrifice - God would arrange for “a” “pure offering” (of His own Son) as a perpetual and acceptable sacrifice for/by His people.
5. “People would one day worship in purity…” This is one of those profound phrases that I hear from Protestants, but I never hear from them HOW this pure worship is actually achieved.
6. “Offering our lives to God…” Same answer as in preceding paragraph.
7. Transubstantiation not spelled out in scripture? Huh? THIS IS my BODY! THIS is MY BLOOD! I don’t know how much more clearly God could spell out anything in and through His Word (made FLESH, for the life of the world)!!!

1. Let’s just drop it.
2. So, the grain dying, being buried and producing a harvest symbolizes Jesus sacrifice. That illustration kind of helps me, doesn’t it.
3. You’ve chided me about a lack of knowledge regarding OT sacrifices and you say this? A male sheep, without blemish, that’s God’s order. My point being if people took the slaughtered animal home, why not offer the best? they gave the cast offs because they didn’t care if they lost them.
4. I agree. But that sacrifice is eternal in its effect, not eternal in its re-enactment, and I have quoted Scriptural support in other posts.
5. In the OT the people had to go through the priests to offer sacrifice, only the high priest could enter God’s presence and offer the blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of Israel’s sins, only the high priest could confer the nation’s sins on a goat and then send it into the wilderness. If this system became corrupt, or an ungodly king interfered, or an invader carried the people off, the Israelites were hard pressed to worship. Now, we can worship God any time, any day, at any place. We worship God with how we live our lives, we worship God in how we treat people, we worship God in prayer, we worship God in song, we worship God by growing in faith and knowledge. Some people are uncomfortable with this and prefer to worship God in a structured manner. That’s ok, but it is not the only way to worship God.
6. Same answer as the preceding paragraph.
7. Jesus also called us His bride, His flock, and His children, but we aren’t literally these things. Jesus said let your light shine before men. Jesus taught with parables numerous times (Matt 13:34&35) using symbolism with a spiritual meaning.
   Had Jesus said this will become my body and this will become my blood I wouldn’t be arguing.

 

[po18guy]

1. Let’s just drop it.
2. So, the grain dying, being buried and producing a harvest symbolizes Jesus sacrifice. That illustration kind of helps me, doesn’t it.
3. You’ve chided me about a lack of knowledge regarding OT sacrifices and you say this? A male sheep, without blemish, that’s God’s order. My point being if people took the slaughtered animal home, why not offer the best? they gave the cast offs because they didn’t care if they lost them.
4. I agree. But that sacrifice is eternal in its effect, not eternal in its re-enactment, and I have quoted Scriptural support in other posts.
5. In the OT the people had to go through the priests to offer sacrifice, only the high priest could enter God’s presence and offer the blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of Israel’s sins, only the high priest could confer the nation’s sins on a goat and then send it into the wilderness. If this system became corrupt, or an ungodly king interfered, or an invader carried the people off, the Israelites were hard pressed to worship. Now, we can worship God any time, any day, at any place. We worship God with how we live our lives, we worship God in how we treat people, we worship God in prayer, we worship God in song, we worship God by growing in faith and knowledge. Some people are uncomfortable with this and prefer to worship God in a structured manner. That’s ok, but it is not the only way to worship God.
6. Same answer as the preceding paragraph.
7. Jesus also called us His bride, His flock, and His children, but we aren’t literally these things. Jesus said let your light shine before men. Jesus taught with parables numerous times (Matt 13:34&35) using symbolism with a spiritual meaning.
   Had Jesus said this will become my body and this will become my blood I wouldn’t be arguing.

Steve, This Is My Body, a 50 page book by Mark P. Shea, an evangelical convert, might shed some light on those areas where you doubt. It involves interpretation of scripture, but much more so the nearly 2,000 year practice and belief in the Eucharist in both the Eastern and Western rites of the Catholic Church, as well as all of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches.

I would offer you my copy, but I already mailed it to an evangelical CAF member.

 

[Nicea325]

Stevekehl:

Regardless, it was not written in the correct spirit and I am sorry for it. In the interest of keeping this post short I’ll try to answer most of your assertions in a paragraph.
You asked for early church sources, I gave you the Didache. But that’s not theologically instructive enough. I gave you Scripture, but they weren’t original enough. I offer ECF writings about transubstantiation as proof that Christians needed to be corrected in their beliefs. If all Christians believed in it, there was no need to defend it, there was no need for instruction. That’s not clear enough. Short of having a time machine and interviewing every early Christian, preserving every written fragment, and attending every church meeting I don’t think you’ll accept anything.

Ah no…Steve! You are totally misunderstanding me. I am not rejecting Scripture or the ECF’s or the Didache. What I do not accept is HOW you want to present the sources and your profound misunderstanding of those sources. The Didache was not written in a theological-systematic method. You want it to say something it was never intended to say. Can you show me where the Bible mentions the 27 NT canon? In other words, I do not accept your interpretations.

You need to read fxcc’s posts then. He keeps telling me that Jesus flesh and blood are sacrificed at each Eucharist as foreshadowed by the Passover sacrifice. He says there must be a sacrifice, a feast and a memorial. What am I to believe?

Many Catholics are true their faith,but they simply can articulate enough. Again, we do not re-sacrifice Jesus. Look it up in the Catechism of the Church. You repeat the same ole rhetoric.

Quote:
Steve…ANIMAL BLOOD! So Jesus is an animal? Jesus is GOD and he can freely choose to give us whatever he chooses regardless of your denial!

Soooo…God has blood? I don’t understand. You say Jesus flesh and blood are present at the Eucharist, well only animals have flesh blood. I’m no the one saying flesh and blood are present at communion, so no I’m not saying Jesus is an animal. Jesus IS God, and God is spirit (John 4:24) Also, the “God can do whatever He wants” argument carries no weight. Can God give us square circles? God communicated through men who wrote the Scriptures and told us what He wants us to know. No blood is stated without exception or regard to circumstance.

Steve…HELLO…the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity…Jesus…WAS NOT HUMAN? Yes or no? And yes, the argument “God can do whatever He wants” carries more weight than you wish to deny.

Quote:
Oh that is right, I forgot,silly me! After 2,000 years Steve the mere finite creature is the only one EVER to be right. Your ego is bigger than the universe.
Yep! Steve and Steve alone is the only human being to have studied Scripture and he is right and everyone is wrong.

Now who’s offering the same old boring argument; uncharitable too. That’s ok if you mock me, it reminds me of another Scripture I studied.
2 Peter 3:3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing
Nice talking to you. God Bless.

Well I too study Scripture Steve and reminds of this:

Ephesians 4:18:

They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.