The Eucharist is NOT the body of Christ

[justasking4]

PatienceAndLove;3101656]I hold the same beliefs as any other Bible-believing Catholic- that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Think about what you are claiming here. The bread and wine that is on the alter is God. Is this correct?

John 6 does it for me, as well as the numerous other passages that people have posted.

Have you read the entire chapter? The context doesn’t fit the Lord’s supper for one. Secondly Jesus is speaking metaphorically and not literally in this passage. Thirdly there is no reference to the supper here either.

Most specifically the First Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Corinthians 11: 23-29
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 2But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

If the Eucharist was not the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord, why would we bring judgment upon ourselves if we eat and drink unworthily?

We bring judgement on ourselves when we hold onto sin and do not acknowledge what Christ has done for us.

Footnote in my Bible:
27 “Guilty of the body”… not discerning the body. This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, even to the unworthy communicant; who otherwise could not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemned for not discerning the Lord’s body.

 

[EphelDuath]

Have read I Corinthians 15:1-8? In this passage Paul gives some excellent eyewitness accounts from different people and times that attest to the resurrection. He was not just asking people to believe because he said so but he gives eyewitness accounts for support that Christ did indeed rise from the dead. This kind eyewitness account accounts would hold up well in a court of law.

The same eyewitness accounts say that the Eucharist is literally Jesus.

Think about what you are claiming here. The bread and wine that is on the alter is God. Is this correct?

I trust what Jesus tells me. He says, “this is my body.” The words he uses means “this literally is my body.”

The context doesn’t fit the Lord’s supper for one.

Taking communion of the body and blood of Christ doesn’t sound like the Eucharist?

Secondly Jesus is speaking metaphorically and not literally in this passage.

Is not.

Thirdly there is no reference to the supper here either.

“For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.”

Sounds like Holy Communion to me. You said there’s no reference to the consecration in this passage, and that confuses me because Paul says literally a sentence before this that “And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me,” which is a quotation straight out of the Last Supper.

 

[guanophore]

This Sacred Tradition that you refer to is it also inspired and inerrant?

Welcome back, ja4! I was just wondering whatever became of you.

Warning to thread participants… ja4 is not asking about sacred traditions because he genuinely wants to know. He has already made up His mind that there are no such things. If you want to read extensive threads with him on these topics, search for all his posts by clicking on name, but please don’t encourage him to derail this thread with the same old drivel.

This passage you quote says nothing about confessing sins to a priest and being forgiven.

This thread is on the Eucharist, ja4. This is twice now you have tried to derail it by changing the subject. If you want to have a debate about confession, or other sacraments, you should start a new thread. Let me know where it is, because I am anxious to find out how the Apostles were going to forgive sins when they did not know about them first.

 

[elvisman]

Did those who were present when Christ performed His miracles have physical evidence?

Have read I Corinthians 15:1-8? In this passage Paul gives some excellent eyewitness accounts from different people and times that attest to the resurrection. He was not just asking people to believe because he said so but he gives eyewitness accounts for support that Christ did indeed rise from the dead. This kind eyewitness account accounts would hold up well in a court of law.

Is THAT how you base your belief in Christ, justasking4?

John 20:29 -
*Jesus said to him (Thomas), “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.” *

Sorry, pal - I’ll use Jesus’ measuring stick for faith!!

 

[jmcrae]

Where in the Scriptures do we find Jesus saying that He would be phyically present with the church through the eucharist?

In John 6, in I Corinthians 11 (where St. Paul quotes the words of the Mass, which are in turn a quotation from Christ) and in the “Last Supper” episodes in the Synoptic Gospels.

It’s also heavily implied in all of the passages that refer to Christ as a “sacrifice,” since in order for it to be a sacrifice rather than just a murder/killing, the priests and the people have to eat it.

 

[Armyof1Faith]

I don’t think that’s what it means when Christ says this.

and there you go. It’s your personal interpretation. Not the belief that was handed down for over 2000 years. Why would he even mention that it was his body and blood if it hadn’t mattered? and if you believe in solo scriptura, the bible is basically you’re everything, why would something unimportant be written?

 

[snowfly]

I don’t think that’s what it means when Christ says this. It basically means anything we do on this earth, really won’t mean much after the fact. Once we’re gone, we’re either in Heaven or Hell regardless of anything we have done here, how much money we’ve made, how big a collection we got of something, etc. None of that can come with us, in the end we leave as we came in, with ourselves, our souls and nothing else.

Matt 25:35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.

41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me.

Seems like Jesus doesn’t agree with you.

Put it this way, eating a wafer and drinking some wine is not going to save us, and will do us no good in the end, thereby not profiting us anything God’s Word is sufficient nourishment, “food” if you will, and can and does profit us.

So why did Jesus ask them to eat and drink what He offered, surely if it was a meal everyone would stretch and get their own ?

Was it do you think customary for one person to pass around what He was eating and drinking ?

Gods word indeed, and Jesus was the “Word” become flesh, was He not ?

 

[Church_Militant]

and there you go. It’s your

personal interpretation. Not the belief that was handed down for over 2000 years. Why would he even mention that it was his body and blood if it hadn’t mattered? and if you believe in solo scriptura, the bible is basically you’re everything, why would something unimportant be written?A very good point. The fact is that the New Testament teaches the Eucharistic Real Presence and Christianity has taught that for 2,000 years. I have a theory as to why the reformers and their modern step-children deny this. Even the pagan Romans knew this was a Catholic belief during their persecutions because there is a story that one pagan described the beliefs of the early church as follows.

“They eat their god and drown their children.” If even they knew that we believed the Real Presence in the Eucharist (which was one reason that catechumens were sent out of Mass before the consecration and communion!) and practiced infant baptism, then how do modern believers manage to miss this?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

So this thread has gone from the Eucharist to incense to intercession of Saints to confession and now back to the Eucharist. Have I missed anything?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

If the eucharist is the body of Christ how do catholics know this to be the case if there is absolutely no phyiscal change in the wafer and wine itself?

What is the evidence for it?

Please provide empirical evidence that the Holy Spirit lives in your soul. Or that your soul changed at the time of your baptism or conversion or when you claim to have become a member of the OSAS club. Or that you even have a soul.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Think about what you are claiming here. The bread and wine that is on the alter is God. Is this correct?

Yes, after the consecration the bread and wine (which is no longer bread and wine - they have ceased to exist) is now the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Eucharist IS God!!!

The Eucharist IS God!!!

 

[mercygate]

I have a theory as to why the reformers and their modern step-children deny this.

Exactly. Denial of the Sacramental economy is a sine qua non of Reformation theology. It’s amazing that the Anglicans held onto the idea at all.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Exactly. Denial of the Sacramental economy is a sine qua non of Reformation theology. It’s amazing that the Anglicans held onto the idea at all.

I can actually understand where a lot of Protestants are coming from in their claims that the Eucharist is just a symbol - because for them, in their communion services, it is just a symbol - at best!

If they only understood the glorious truth of the Sacrament of the Eucharist and would come home!

 

[lak611]

Hello,

I can actually understand where a lot of Protestants are coming from in their claims that the Eucharist is just a symbol - because for them, in their communion services, it is just a symbol - at best!

I wonder if the Protestants who consider the Eucharist to be merely symbolic argue with the Protestants who believe in the Real Presence.

 

[guanophore]

No it doesn’t, if it did people would not be confessing their sins to mere men, but to God. There is no mediator alive on this earth, not you, not I, not a priest, no one but the Son, period.

Now you are derailing your own thread!? If you feel the issue of the Eucharist is settled, then I guess, since it is your thread, we can change the subject.

How can you sit there and say “the Catechism does not say that” when a quote out of it was given to you? Yes, Jesus is the sole mediator between God and man. In his gracious generosity, He allows men to participate in his ministry by sharing it with him.

Jesus shares His authority to forgive sins with His Apostles, and the Apostles ordained successors who do the same. Nothing happens apart from Jesus, and his grace.

Matt 9:5-8
6 But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" - he then said to the paralytic - “Rise, take up your bed and go home.” 7 And he rose and went home. 8 When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men."

Which “men” do you think these are? How were they to exercise this authority?

I’m not saying that part of it is wrong, but was more arguing with the Church as a whole, to say they agree with the Bible and then go against that belief makes no sense.

It is the other way around, ajk. The Bible agrees with the Church. She wrote it, and everything in it is supported by her, and it supports all of her teachings. If there appears to be a contradiction, it is because you are not interpreting it correctly.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I wonder if the Protestants who consider the Eucharist to be merely symbolic argue with the Protestants who believe in the Real Presence.

They argue about every other detail down to the most insignificant trivial matter - so much so as to form new denominations - I doubt that this one is overlooked.

 

[jmcrae]

Think about what you are claiming here. The bread and wine that is on the alter is God. Is this correct?

“Altar.” Yes, it is God. That’s why we (those who can) fall down on our knees and worship it at the moment of the Consecration.

That’s also why we don’t throw away the remainder after Mass; instead, we reserve it in the Tabernacle, and then we genuflect every time we pass the Tabernacle, because it is literally Jesus in there.

Have you read the entire chapter? The context doesn’t fit the Lord’s supper for one. Secondly Jesus is speaking metaphorically and not literally in this passage. Thirdly there is no reference to the supper here either.

He is talking about eating and drinking Him in a spiritual way - not a symbolic way, though; Jesus is really present in the Eucharist - it is not a mere symbol of Him. But, He also didn’t intend that people should attack Him right there and then to kill and eat Him. He was talking about what happens at Mass.

We bring judgement on ourselves when we hold onto sin and do not acknowledge what Christ has done for us.

One of the things He did for us was establish a Church, with Sacraments through which He comes to us in a very personal way.

 

[palmas85]

I wonder if the Protestants who consider the Eucharist to be merely symbolic argue with the Protestants who believe in the Real Presence.

Protestants argue over everything and anything. The only thing they agree on is that we are wrong and probably doomed.

Which Protestants believe in the Real Presence in the Catholic sense?

 

[jmcrae]

Protestants argue over everything and anything. The only thing they agree on is that we are wrong and probably doomed.

Which Protestants believe in the Real Presence in the Catholic sense?

I don’t know of any. Even Anglicans (which are the closest to us) say that “it depends on what you believe” - meaning that it makes itself into Jesus for those who believe it is Jesus, but not for those who don’t. That’s not anything like what we believe.

 

[lak611]

Which Protestants believe in the Real Presence in the Catholic sense?

I do not know if any believe in the Real Presence in the same sense as Catholics; but Lutherans, Methodists and some Anglicans believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist, not merely a symbol.