Responding to a Protestant Claim about the Eucharist

[po18guy]

My my my. So much discussion and discourse and no one is convinced.

sunsanlo, benhur, and skeptical Catholics, a dare: Call your local Catholic parish and find out when they offer adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. Then go, and sit in the presence of what appears to the eyes to be bread. Tell the Lord that you simply cannot believe that He is there. Ask - beg - the Holy Spirit to reveal to you *whether or not *Christ is present in the Eucharist. Be as patient with the Lord as He has been with you. Remember that we are speaking of divinely revealed truth regarding Him whom you claim as your Savior.

When you are aware that He is there, you will be changed. Endless disputation serves only to dig the heels in. Humble, open-hearted submission to the Spirit enlightens and frees.

 

[rcwitness]

They understood and didn’t accept Him.

After His disciples left, Jesus turned to His apostles and said, are you going to leave me to? Peter said, where would we go, you have the words of everlasting life. Peter got it.

I am careful not to say that Peter (and the others who remained with Jesus) “understood” and “got it”.

They definitely had belief and faith that He was not lying, and that He was speaking from God, and that He would show them more and more understanding.

What they did not know and understand, is that Jesus was going to take bread and wine and turn them into His body and blood which He was about to provide as the eternal sacrifice of a New Covenant between God and man!

When Jesus began telling His disciples that He was going to die and rise again, they were not understanding and accepting. But when He finally said it very clearly, and Peter understood, Peter tried to prevent Him. That is not getting it. What Jesus was talking about in the bread of life discourse has two elements going on. First, Jesus was incarnate of the heavenly Father (Word made flesh) and so speaks the Word that saves, feeds, and nourishes for eternal life. Secondly, He was revealing that He is the suffering servant who must become the sacrifice of God, and pour out His flesh and blood on the Altar of God, for the life of the world.

Peter and the others who stayed with Him, we’re being drawn by the Father to come to Jesus to receive salvation. And Jesus commanded that they were to eat His body and blood at the Last Supper. If they did not do that, they were to have no part in Him. That’s why He said “if you do not eat the flesh and blood of me, you will have no life in you.” It’s the same thing as when He told Peter, “if I do not wash your feet, you will have no part in me”. And Jesus told him at that point, “you do not understand what I am doing, but later you will.”

That’s what Peter was staying with Him for. Because later, he believed he would understand. At the moment, he believed and followed.

 

[Wannano]

I am careful not to say that Peter (and the others who remained with Jesus) “understood” and “got it”.

They definitely had belief and faith that He was not lying, and that He was speaking from God, and that He would show them more and more understanding.

What they did not know and understand, is that Jesus was going to take bread and wine and turn them into His body and blood which He was about to provide as the eternal sacrifice of a New Covenant between God and man!

When Jesus began telling His disciples that He was going to die and rise again, they were not understanding and accepting. But when He finally said it very clearly, and Peter understood, Peter tried to prevent Him. That is not getting it. What Jesus was talking about in the bread of life discourse has two elements going on. First, Jesus was incarnate of the heavenly Father (Word made flesh) and so speaks the Word that saves, feeds, and nourishes for eternal life. Secondly, He was revealing that He is the suffering servant who must become the sacrifice of God, and pour out His flesh and blood on the Altar of God, for the life of the world.

Peter and the others who stayed with Him, we’re being drawn by the Father to come to Jesus to receive salvation. And Jesus commanded that they were to eat His body and blood at the Last Supper. If they did not do that, they were to have no part in Him. That’s why He said “if you do not eat the flesh and blood of me, you will have no life in you.” It’s the same thing as when He told Peter, “if I do not wash your feet, you will have no part in me”. And Jesus told him at that point, “you do not understand what I am doing, but later you will.”

That’s what Peter was staying with Him for. Because later, he believed he would understand. At the moment, he believed and followed.

When did Peter’s moment of understanding occur?

 

[rcwitness]

When did Peter’s moment of understanding occur?

Understanding what?

 

[Wannano]

Understanding what?

Understanding all that Jesus said he would understand later.

 

[rcwitness]

Understanding all that Jesus said he would understand later.

after His ascension, at the earliest. Probably Pentacost at the latest. I don’t know.

But he, and the others were being Taught by God all through His ministry

 

[steve_b]

I am careful not to say that Peter (and the others who remained with Jesus) “understood” and “got it”.

They definitely had belief and faith that He was not lying, and that He was speaking from God, and that He would show them more and more understanding.

What they did not know and understand, is that Jesus was going to take bread and wine and turn them into His body and blood which He was about to provide as the eternal sacrifice of a New Covenant between God and man!

Don’t forget, Jesus took Peter, James and John up to the top of Mt Tabor and they

• saw Jesus transfigured,
• they saw and heard Moses and Elijah such that Peter was wanting to make 3 tabernacles for Jesus Moses and Elijah.
• And Jesus told His 3 apostles, not to say anything to anyone about what they saw until He resurrected.

So I have no problem saying Peter got it, and I would add James and John as well.
r:

When Jesus began telling His disciples that He was going to die and rise again, they were not understanding and accepting. But when He finally said it very clearly, and Peter understood, Peter tried to prevent Him.

That was at Ceserea Philippi. Peter didn’t want to hear that from Jesus and Jesus set him straight.

We’re past that point in the example I’m using
r:

That is not getting it. What Jesus was talking about in the bread of life discourse has two elements going on. First, Jesus was incarnate of the heavenly Father (Word made flesh) and so speaks the Word that saves, feeds, and nourishes for eternal life. Secondly, He was revealing that He is the suffering servant who must become the sacrifice of God, and pour out His flesh and blood on the Altar of God, for the life of the world.

John’s account has more on the washing of feet at the last supper. Here at the bread of life discourse however, John recounts the details Jesus uses in describing the Eucharist that is coming. Really and truly eating His flesh and drinking His blood if one wants eternal life with Him.
r:

Peter and the others who stayed with Him, we’re being drawn by the Father to come to Jesus to receive salvation. And Jesus commanded that they were to eat His body and blood at the Last Supper. If they did not do that, they were to have no part in Him.

There is no salvation for them or anyone else outside of Jesus… NOR if they didn’t take the Eucharist.
r:

That’s why He said “if you do not eat the flesh and blood of me, you will have no life in you.” It’s the same thing as when He told Peter, “if I do not wash your feet, you will have no part in me”. And Jesus told him at that point, “you do not understand what I am doing, but later you will.”

That’s NOT the point Jesus makes in the Eucharist. If one has no life in them, (life of grace in their soul) because of NOT taking the Eucharist, then they will not be joining Jesus in heaven.

 

[rcwitness]

Don’t forget, Jesus took Peter, James and John up to the top of Mt Tabor and they

• saw Jesus transfigured,
• they saw and heard Moses and Elijah such that Peter was wanting to make 3 tabernacles for Jesus Moses and Elijah.
• And Jesus told His 3 apostles, not to say anything to anyone about what they saw until He resurrected.

So I have no problem saying Peter got it, and I would add James and John as well.

That was at Ceserea Philippi. Peter didn’t want to hear that from Jesus and Jesus set him straight.

We’re past that point in the example I’m using

John’s account has more on the washing of feet at the last supper. Here at the bread of life discourse however, John recounts the details Jesus uses in describing the Eucharist that is coming. Really and truly eating His flesh and drinking His blood if one wants eternal life with Him.

There is no salvation for them or anyone else outside of Jesus… NOR if they didn’t take the Eucharist.

That’s NOT the point Jesus makes in the Eucharist. If one has no life in them, (life of grace in their soul) because of NOT taking the Eucharist, then they will not be joining Jesus in heaven.

I believe that no one understood Jesus fully until after His ascension.

Luke 24
Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise.” And they remembered his words, and returning from the tomb they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest.

Then he said to them, “These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead

If you don’t understand that the Christ had to suffer death and rise again for the life of the world, then you can’t understand the Eucharist.

 

[PJM]

Hi C,

Then why has the Lord’s words “evolved”, changed, to a consecration fitting a bloody old testament sacrifice ?

“Pray brethren that our sacrifice may be acceptable to the Father…May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands…”

“We ask you to accept and bless these gifts we offer you in sacrifice”

The attitude of these consecrations is of an us, thru a priest, to God offering, instead of a God to us offering, and us together a thanksgiving offering back. Christ is not the sacrifice we offer to God, but our obedience, praise, and thanksgiving for Christ, and Calvary is.

GREAT question, but you nor rightly understanding what IS taking place here

CHRIST IS THE PRIMARY AND ESSENTIAL SACRIFICE THAT WE DO OFFER BACK TO THE FATHER

“OUR SACRIFICE” here means ALL that we have; we OFFER back to God in UNION with Christ Sacrifice. It is in effect returning to GOD all that GOD has granted us for HIS use. Notably led by our “FREE-WILLS” being offered BACK to God: “THY WIll noy MY will be done” AMEN!

It is not called the New Passover, but Thanksgiving (or Eucharist from the Greek)
Not Levitical priesthood function, but for sure part of the Royal priesthood. Not optional or necessary but a fact , a fruit, of one who is in Christ.

Blessings

It is at times termed the “New Passover” in NAME but not in effect.

Even Jesus can and DID die only One Time for us; hence the Eucharist as indicated is correctly understood as “A” [not “thee”\ RE-Presentation; NOT a mere “represenatation”

**Part of the mystery; this miracle is that it is the VERY one and the very SAME Sacrifice Offered Originally by Jesus that IS made [RE] Preset [AGAIN] time and time again until the “End Times” is every Mass throughout the entire WORLD:thumbsup:

God can do ANY “good thing” Because this IS GOD; Really, Truly and Substantially {all of Jesus}; it IS the GREATEST of all possible “good-things”: Literally GOD IN OUR MIDST here on earth

May THAT very GOD bless you!
Patrick

 

[steve_b]

I believe that no one understood Jesus fully until after His ascension.

I didn’t say understood fully.as if there is nothing more to understand.
I said they had faith. They got it. Those disciples who left Jesus had no faith. So THEY didn’t get it.

When God the Father said, at the transfiguration of Jesus, “this is my son listen to Him.”

Any questions who Jesus is with any of them present?

Those present were supposed to hear and see that.

• Moses who represents the law of the OT, heard the Father say that.
• Elijah, who represented the prophets of the OT, heard the Father say that.
• Peter , who Jesus will give the keys of His kingdom, making Peter head of Our Lord’s Church, the Catholic Church, heard the Father say that.
• James and John heard the Father say that. as well.

r:

Luke 24.” Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead

If you don’t understand that the Christ had to suffer death and rise again for the life of the world, then you can’t understand the Eucharist.

Jesus said, those who walked away never to follow Him again, had no faith. It wouldn’t matter WHAT was taught, if one has no faith they won’t get ANYTHING that is said or taught even if it is God Himself in the flesh doing the teaching. They won’t get it because they don’t believe.

Those who got it, had faith.

 

[Vico]

I didn’t say understood fully.as if there is nothing more to understand.
I said they had faith. They got it. Those disciples who left Jesus had no faith. So THEY didn’t get it.

When God the Father said, at the transfiguration of Jesus, “this is my son listen to Him.”

Any questions who Jesus is with any of them present?

Those present were supposed to hear and see that.

• Moses who represents the law of the OT, heard the Father say that.
• Elijah, who represented the prophets of the OT, heard the Father say that.
• Peter , who Jesus will give the keys of His kingdom, making Peter head of Our Lord’s Church, the Catholic Church, heard the Father say that.
• James and John heard the Father say that. as well.

Jesus said, those who walked away never to follow Him again, had no faith. It wouldn’t matter WHAT was taught, if one has no faith they won’t get ANYTHING that is said or taught even if it is God Himself in the flesh doing the teaching. They won’t get it because they don’t believe.

Those who got it, had faith.

Also Matthew 16
15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? 16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

 

[rcwitness]

I didn’t say understood fully.as if there is nothing more to understand.
I said they had faith. They got it. Those disciples who left Jesus had no faith. So THEY didn’t get it.

When God the Father said, at the transfiguration of Jesus, “this is my son listen to Him.”

Any questions who Jesus is with any of them present?

Those present were supposed to hear and see that.

• Moses who represents the law of the OT, heard the Father say that.
• Elijah, who represented the prophets of the OT, heard the Father say that.
• Peter , who Jesus will give the keys of His kingdom, making Peter head of Our Lord’s Church, the Catholic Church, heard the Father say that.
• James and John heard the Father say that. as well.

Jesus said, those who walked away never to follow Him again, had no faith. It wouldn’t matter WHAT was taught, if one has no faith they won’t get ANYTHING that is said or taught even if it is God Himself in the flesh doing the teaching. They won’t get it because they don’t believe.

Those who got it, had faith.

Now you’re talking about faith. Ok, I agree. I thought we were talking about getting the Eucharist out of John 6. I would say they did not know He meant that He would die, and His body and blood would become the New Covenant Sacrifice which is received through a “bread and wine” ceramony. This they didn’t even realize at the Last Supper.

So even the “symbolic communion” party would have to acknowledge that they did not know what they were receiving.

 

[steve_b]

Also Matthew 1615 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? 16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

Absolutely

Just like at the Transfiguration as well

 

[rcwitness]

Also Matthew 16
15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? 16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

And right after that, Peter tried to stop Jesus from becoming our sacrifice.

 

[steve_b]

Now you’re talking about faith. Ok, I agree. I thought we were talking about getting the Eucharist out of John 6.

I always talk about faith

As I said, those who walked away from Jesus on His teaching of the Eucharist, had no faith. Not my words but Jesus words. Those who stayed obviously had faith because they got it. they weren’t going to argue with Jesus on what He taught.
r:

I would say they did not know He meant that He would die, and His body and blood would become the New Covenant Sacrifice which is received through a “bread and wine” ceramony. This they didn’t even realize at the Last Supper.

Who at the table argued with Jesus over what Jesus said in instituting the Eucharist? NO ONE!

Jesus went way off script for a Passover meal. This would have been a great time for someone to say something. But nothing was said.

Instead, after the meal, the apostles get into an argument over who is greatest among THEM. Luke doesn’t name who is actually in the argument, only that Jesus settles their argument. #153
r:

So even the “symbolic communion” party would have to acknowledge that they did not know what they were receiving.

the symbolic communion party?

how can one eat and drink condemnation on themselves with a symbol?

 

[steve_b]

And right after that, Peter tried to stop Jesus from becoming our sacrifice.

Really?

• Simon just answered Jesus question correctly on who Jesus is
• Jesus then renamed Simon to Rock.
• Jesus then says He will build His Church on Peter
• Jesus will give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven
• Whatever Peter will bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven
• Peter is the Father’s choice, and Peter loves Jesus enough to protect Him with everything Peter has.
• then Jesus tells the apostles that He will be put to death,
• and Peter, immediately wants to defend his friend.

When Jesus said “get behind me Satan”

Was it Peter who was acting wrongly or was it Satan who doesn’t want Jesus to save His people so he sifts Peter because he just saw who Jesus is giving massive authority to…

If I was there, I would immediately come to the defense of my friend too.

When Peter drew his sword in the garden and cut off Malkus ear for grabbing Jesus arm, I always thought I wouldn’t have had such a terrible aim. I would have given Malkus a split personality.

Just kidding

Jesus in the upper room told the apostles, Satan was allowed to sift them.like wheat #[153 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10914564&postcount=153)

Therefore Satan has been with them the whole way… doing what he can to sift them
And who specifically did Jesus say He would pray for during the sifting? Peter
Who was to strengthen the others through their sifting? Peter
Does Satan ever stop sifting? NO

Therefore, in that dialogue, Jesus says Peter is always necessary in the Church.

 

[rcwitness]

Really?

• Simon just answered Jesus question correctly on who Jesus is
• Jesus then renamed Simon to Rock.
• Jesus then says He will build His Church on Peter
• Jesus will give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven
• Whatever Peter will bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven
• Peter is the Father’s choice, and Peter loves Jesus enough to protect Him with everything Peter has.
• then Jesus tells the apostles that He will be put to death,
• and Peter, immediately wants to defend his friend.

When Jesus said “get behind me Satan”

Was it Peter who was acting wrongly or was it Satan who doesn’t want Jesus to save His people so he sifts Peter because he just saw who Jesus is giving massive authority to…

If I was there, I would immediately come to the defense of my friend too.

When Peter drew his sword in the garden and cut off Malkus ear for grabbing Jesus arm, I always thought I wouldn’t have had such a terrible aim. I would have given Malkus a split personality.

Just kidding

Jesus in the upper room told the apostles, Satan was allowed to sift them.like wheat #[153 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10914564&postcount=153)

Therefore Satan has been with them the whole way… doing what he can to sift them
And who specifically did Jesus say He would pray for during the sifting? Peter
Who was to strengthen the others through their sifting? Peter
Does Satan ever stop sifting? NO

Therefore, in that dialogue, Jesus says Peter is always necessary in the Church.

Let’s be careful not to talk past each other. I don’t have an issue here. I just don’t believe the Apostles fully understood John 6 in a sacrificial sense. Yes, they had faith. They believed He was from God. But it also had a lot of uncertainty. And how couldn’t it.

I just think it’s important, when discussing it with our Protestant brothers, not to sound like we think Peter and the others understood what Jesus was saying. How could they? He was speaking Sacramentally, but didn’t show them the Sacrament yet.

But yes, they received the “Father’s draw” to remain with Jesus, and believe He would provide the meaning and manner of what He was talking about. And Spiritually, they were nourished by His Words.

 

[benhur]

Understanding all that Jesus said he would understand later.

lol

 

[benhur]

benhur.

Hypothetical: A man gets his Bachelor of Science in accounting, then gets his CPA (Certified Public Accountant).

Then this same man goes on and gets his Ph.D. in Economics and teaches economics at a University.

He is still “an accountant”.

Now he is an “economist” too.

The fact that he now has a greater share of University education, does NOT mean him being “an accountant” vanishes.

Nor is the fact that he is an accountant AND an economist, mean ALL accountants are necessarily “economists”.

Nor would it mean that “accountants” and “economists” are “interchangable” in terminology and/or in function. Even if there is some overlap of training.

You and I would agree with that.

benhur. You said the terms “presbyters” and “bishops” are “interchangable”.

Please offer some evidence that these two Apostolic offices presbyter and bishop, are . . . “interchangable”.

Hi C,

When I say they are interchangeable, I mean they were initially , as found in Writ and the earliest church governance. I do not deny that at some point the terms and even the office evolved , as the church grew and Eucharist views solidified.

“Therefore a presbyter is the same as a bishop is, and before that by the instigation of the devil emulations in respect to religion arose, and people began to say: I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the churches were governed by the common counsel of the presbyters. But, after that each one was accustomed to regard those whom he had baptized as his own disciples and not of Christ, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen from among the presbyters should be placed over the others…Therefore, as presbyters may know that by the custom of the church they are subject to the one who has been placed over them; so also bishops may understand that they are greater than presbyters more by custom than by the veritable ordinance of the Lord.”…Jerome

“We refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles and is preserved by the successions of presbyters in the churches. . . . The faith preached to men comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.” Irenaeus (c. 180)

“Looking to the appointed bishop, . . . John said, “This [youth] I commit to you in all earnestness.” . . . And the *presbyter *took home the youth committed to him. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195)”…chasingalion.com/lion-tracks/1114-are-presbyters-bishops-and-elders-the-same-or-different-roles

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Hi benhur,

In looking at the following offices, in scripture

• apostles
• Priest / presbuteros / elder catholic.com/encyclopedia/priest
• *Bishop / episkopos * catholic.com/encyclopedia/bishop
• *Deacon / *diakonos catholic.com/encyclopedia/deacons

I thought I would show how those in apostolic times, those who were ordained by the apostles, taught on this subject?

Bp Ignatius, of Antioch, was ordained by the apostles and was a direct disciple of John the apostle. Ignatius mentions all the offices AND the name of the Church that Jesus established. He wrote this letter ~107 a.d. on his way to be thrown to the lions. He had been bishop for about 40 years at this writing. Keep in mind, there was no NT at this time. The NT writings hadn’t been identified yet, nor assembled or canonized yet. John had just written Revelations 7 yrs earlier.

Ignatius hit all the subjects in this one chapter

Epistle to the Smyrnæans Chapter 8. (emphasis mine)

Let nothing be done without the bishop

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.”

Ignatius wrote to the Catholic Church in 6 locations

• Epistle to the Ephesians
• Epistle to the Magnesians
• Epistle to the Trallians
• Epistle to the Romans
• Epistle to the Philadelphians
• Epistle to the Smyrnæans

Plus 1 other letter

• Epistle to Polycarp

plus 1 letter written about him

• The Martyrdom of Ignatius

Hi stev,

yes took a quick look but…

The CC says what I fear , the priest/high priest is “as intermediaries between man and the Divinity, ,that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins (now the eucharist)”. and no distancing from this traditional sense is made

Yes thank you for Ignatius quote. The previous post has a site that talks of this.That is , do not deny your view, just that an opposing view existed simultaneously, in early writings.

Blessings