The Eucharist is NOT the body of Christ

[PatienceAndLove]

Hello,
There, there - you’re o.k. in my book. :hug3:

Don’t worry Patience and Love, I think you’re special.

Danke!

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Maybe I can send JA4 your way. I’m going to lie down now. I’m ill (severe sinus infection). And I’d like to get well before Christmas.

So JA4, maybe you can answer some of PatienceAndLove’s posts now.

Which ones? I would hope all of them, cause they are GOLD! Even my Protestant raised Agnostic husband is impressed.

 

[guanophore]

"Muslims (like Protestants and Jews) can convert, yes - even on their death-bed. They can become saved. They are not saved yet in their current condition, but they are not without hope. They, too, can some day become Catholics, and become saved. There are no non-Catholics in Heaven, but there will be Catholics who used to be something else, including Muslim, Protestant, etc.

The rest is off-topic - we have many topics on the possibility of salvation for the Muslims, or at least we used to. Do a search and you will most likely find them.

That is complete bull****! "There are no non-catholics in heaven? You have a sad misunderstanding of Christianity and salvation if you honestly think that being a “catholic” will get anyone to heaven. I know, catholicism is the “fullness of truth” etc. Such statements are as bad as those made on the CARM boards. The only Truth that exists is that someone’s relationship with Christ will save them. period

There is only one Church. Jesus did not establish “churches”. There is only one Body. Everyone who is “in Christ” is a member of the One Body.

Also, three different people posted three different answers regarding whether the Eucharist is actually God, so there appears to be as much division within Catholicism as exists in Protestantism; the only difference being catholics have the Pope to “unify” them.

No,not the only difference . The Teaching of the Church is what unifies. Individual posters may misunderstand, misrepresent, or misarticulate that Teaching, but the Teaching does not change. There is no division in the Teaching. Those that do not accept it are not Catholic!

 

[guanophore]

Its not that He had to but the catholic church is making a powerful claim and we need to see what is the basis for it. John 6 is not that basis for the eucharist.

I don’t believe you will be able to “see” this, ja4, since you reject the Teaching of Jesus Christ that came to us from the Apostles. The basis for the claim is Jesus Himself, and he explained this to His Apostles, who faithfully handed on what they had learned. Since you reject all this, it is not likely that you will be able to “see” the basis.

Nothing about John 6 was fulfilled at the supper. We know this becasue not even the NT letters make such claims.

Perhaps the royal “we” used here applies to “us Sola Scripturas”? Those belonging to the Apostolic faiths know this because this is what the people that wrote the passages taught. Since we are not limited to what is written in the pages, but also have the teachings of the authors, we can see the fulfillment.

The problem is understanding correctly what the scriptures teach.

It is a problem. It is a gift if one accepts the context in which they are written, but when one rejects that context, then it becomes a problem. Anyway, the scriptures don’t “teach” by themselves. They are documents. People “teach”, and your understanding of what the scriptures mean is based, at least in part, upon what you were taught. your teachers apparently reject the teachers ordained by Christ, so that will affect how you interpret what they wrote.

What helps tremendously is to see if other writings shed some light on this. Only Paul mentions the last supper and he says nothing in support of the catholic posiiton.

I think that you must not see the Eucharist in many places where it is written about, including Hebrews, and Revelation. There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

 

[guanophore]

Where in the last supper accounts did Jesus ever mention anything about eating the supper would lead to eternal life?

He was in the midst of it. He was celebrating the Passover. This is the pre-figurement of his own sacrificial death. The Jews with whom he shared the last supper clearly understood the meaning of the ceremonial meal, and the blood of the lamb. The blood over the lintels saved the lives of the families in the houses.

He had already taught them that they must eat His Body and drink His Blood so that they could live forever. Now he shows them how this is to be done.

If the eucharist is God then we should expect it to have this capacity. If not, then you have another serious problem that i would hate to bring up.

Well, go ahead! that is the purpose of the thread. God is able to communicate in an audible voice, or in the still small voice of the heart. he is able to communicate through the mouth of a donkey. Why do you keep telling us “you have a serious problem”? I think this is a projection. You are actuallly talking about yourself!

The problem is the way the catholic church interprets these scriptures to support its doctrines. A careful exergesis of the passages just don’t support the catholic position.

This is only a problem for people who are interpreting the text in a vaccum, devoid of it’s context. You see, the NT was written by the Catholic Church, and therefore, reflects completely what the Church teaches. A non-catholic exegesis is erroneous because it is done out of the context of the Catholic Church which produced the scripture.

Depends what you mean by “interpreting literally”. There are a number of interpretative guidelines that must be adhered to if we are truly to understand the scriptures. Sometimes a strict literalism is required sometime metaphorical. It depends on the context and what is being discussed.

Indeed! Our context is taken from the teachings of those who wrote the books. They know what they meant when they were writing, and therefore, are the most qualified to explain it.

 

[edward_george]

Since justasking didn’t see this the first time, here it is again:

That is complete bull**! "There are no non-catholics in heaven? You have a sad misunderstanding of Christianity and salvation if you honestly think that being a “catholic” will get anyone to heaven. I know, catholicism is the “fullness of truth” etc. Such statements are as bad as those made on the CARM boards. The only Truth that exists is that someone’s relationship with Christ will save them. period

Also, three different people posted three different answers regarding whether the Eucharist is actually God, so there appears to be as much division within Catholicism as exists in Protestantism; the only difference being catholics have the Pope to “unify” them. **

Christ’s Bride is the Church. To be in the Church is to be in a relationship with Christ. Ergo, you’re right–it’s all about relationship with Christ. Of course, Christ only founded one Church; it wouldn’t make sense to say that he had a harem of competing brides who all believe different things.

As for your claim that there is disunity among Catholics about the Eucharist, please cite examples of this division as you’ve seen here–from what I’ve seen, they’re all saying the same thing.

-ACEGC

 

[guanophore]

When Jesus spoke these words did the wine actually turn into His blood?

Well, let’s see. When He said “let there be light”, there was, so I can take Him at HIs word.

Did the bread literally turn into His body as He sat there?

When He said “let us make man in our image, and in the image of God, created He them”, it was so. I think I can take HIm at His word here too.

Did the apostles understand that the Jesus they knew in the flesh was now also to be known as a piece of bread and wine to?

It is hard to know what the Apostles understood at the time. They still did not understand that He was about to be crucified for them. Their lack of understanding, though, did not make them disobedient as it does yourself. They accepted what He told them, whether they “got” it right then, or not.

The answer to these questions will prove which interpretation is correct.

This is a very interesting “proof” to set up for yourself, since none of these answers can be scientifically verified. That leaves you to impose any meaning you like!

 

[revelations]

When did denial of the real presence take hold as the fundamental tenet of a system of beliefs? Was it after the protestant reformation?

What i’m interested to know is the motivation behind it. Like, did people TRULY question the validity of this teaching and wish to know the background, or did they just shame it because that’s what the church taught and the church was the enemy at the time?

 

[rrainer]

Stop bickering!
God created everything-even time! Why is it so hard to believe then, that God, existing outside of time, can sacrifice his human body at one point in time and then sacrifice it again an infinite # of times in an unbloody way as a reminder of his sacrifice and gift to help us become one with him as we are all created and destined to do. Recall Jesus words “Do this in memory of me”. We are also called to be in union with each other. In that spirit, lets pray for those who don’t believe.

 

[porthos11]

When Jesus spoke these words did the wine actually turn into His blood?

Yes. Under the appearance of wine.

Did the bread literally turn into His body as He sat there?

Yes, under the appearance of bread.

Did the apostles understand that the Jesus they knew in the flesh was now also to be known as a piece of bread and wine to?

Yes, and this is especially confirmed in the Emmaus journey. After Jesus rose, he broke bread with two disciples, after which their eyes were opened. And Luke tells us that their eyes were opened in the breaking of the bread. They recognized him, but he vanished.

After he had ascended, Acts tells us that they dedicated themselves to prayer and the breaking of the bread.

Paul understood, and you have his extensive treatment in 1st Corinthians to prove it.

The answer to these questions will prove which interpretation is correct.

No. That’s another set of arbitrary criteria you’ve just fished up and does not represent proper exegesis. Only the Catholic position is supported. You said careful exegesis will tell us, but PatienceAndLove has dissected John 6 into its constituent pieces, even going to the Greek and the cultural background. You have presented nothing even approaching “careful” exegesis. Only eisegesis and criteria out of thin air, which is not the way to interpret the Bible.

 

[Gusto]

I have made a few observations about this verse that come from and other sources.

Verse 63
It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.’"

I have a few observations I would like to make about this verse

If it were a figurative explanation then the rest of the text – the words of Jesus, their implication and the responses of the witnesses make no sense in my opinion.

Do we need to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ in order to have eternal life?
If the answer is yes, then can we say that His flesh does indeed profit us?
If the answer is yes, then does verse 63 of John 6 mean that it counts as nothing to eat Jesus’ flesh and to drink His blood?
Does Jesus’ flesh “count for nothing?”

It is interesting that Jesus uses MY flesh during his discourse except where He is making a distinction in V63 by using the words THE flesh. With this in mind, I hope to stay within the Biblical context in order to understand ‘the flesh’.

When Jesus says “the flesh profits nothing” it refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them or put another way the carnal understanding of fallen human flesh is incapable of grasping spiritual realities (Jn 8:15–16 You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.
and in Matt 16:17
And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

I see a parallel here with John 6:63 and Matt 16:17, John 8:15-16 and 1 Cor 2:12-14 with the word flesh (man) and spirit (God) and flesh (man) and Father (God).

When you look at Romans 8:4-6 we see spirit and flesh used in the same context it is used in verse 63 … who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

So the “flesh” being referred to here is the flesh of Adam that we have inherited from him. We are all born of the flesh, because we are all “in” Adam. We need to be born again in order to be “in” Christ, the second Adam. Because, in Adam, all die. In Christ, all are made alive. So, when we are born of the flesh, it is of no avail. It is only when we are born again of the Spirit that it is of avail. The Spirit gives life, the flesh profits nothing. Not Jesus’ flesh, but our flesh.

Jesus is also saying, “It’s the Spirit that gives life,” and so wait until the Spirit is given. When the Spirit comes down at Pentecost, but especially when the spirit of Christ raises the body of Christ from the dead, it will be the Holy Spirit that makes Christ’s flesh and blood holy, glorious and powerful as food for our souls and bodies. Not just the flesh alone. “And the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” What words? That you’ve got to eat my flesh and drink my blood, those words. It’s because of the Holy Spirit that we receive life in that flesh and now it all comes together. There’s no either/or; there’s a both/and. Verse 63 tells me that Christ’s flesh and blood will be so powerful and animating for supernatural life.

Jesus had just mentioned “life” in verse 53 in which he warned that unless one “eats the flesh of the Son of Man…you have no life in you.” Also, verse 57 says, “the one who feeds on me will live.” By the use of the words “life” or “live,” verses 53, 57 and 63 are all talking about the same “life.” What gives the eating of the flesh the power of life? Jesus answers that in the first part of John 6:63 when he says, “the Spirit gives life.” It is not just ordinary bread we are eating. It is bread which is given life by the Spirit. As Jesus says in verse 55, “my flesh is real food.” It’s real because it has real life-giving power by the Spirit. If it were not animated by the Spirit, then, as Jesus says in John 8:63, the “flesh [would] profit nothing.” This fits in perfectly with the objection of the Jews. They thought Jesus was saying that merely eating his natural flesh would give eternal life. Jesus says, no, it is my flesh - - flesh that has the Spirit – which will give you life, not natural flesh.

 

[jmcrae]

Why does JA4 consistently ignore me? I am just not special enough? :crying:

It’s because you’re making a dangerous amount of sense.

(I used to ignore Kimberley Hahn for exactly the same reason, back when I was still Protestant. Scott Hahn was fine - he used big words that I didn’t understand, and rambled all over the place, never sticking to the point. I could listen to him all day long, and never convert. But Kimberley - I knew right away that she was dangerous, as soon as she started talking about her kids. I actually said to my husband one time, “Whups, turn that one off - she’s contagious.” )

 

[jmcrae]

Gusto;

Thanks for the above - it’s excellent!!

 

[snowfly]

That is what he did in verse 63!! And, yes they still walked away.

Saying the Eucharistic is symbolic is like saying Christs death was symbolic, but it weren’t, He had a real death and a real Resurrection.

 

[mercygate]

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.

No. Anglicans are not “receptionists.” There is a joint statement on the Eucharist with Rome in which belief in the real presence is affirmed. Anglicans MAY believe that the mechanism is Transubstantiation – and many do. But whatever Anglicans believe about the real presence, they do not teach that Christ is there only IF you believe it.

I am a graduate of an Episcopal seminary.

 

[Dauphin]

That is complete bull****! "There are no non-catholics in heaven? You have a sad misunderstanding of Christianity and salvation if you honestly think that being a “catholic” will get anyone to heaven. I know, catholicism is the “fullness of truth” etc. Such statements are as bad as those made on the CARM boards. The only Truth that exists is that someone’s relationship with Christ will save them. period

There is only one Church. Jesus did not establish “churches”. There is only one Body. Everyone who is “in Christ” is a member of the One Body.

I have to differ with you. There is no salvation outside the church. That is a dogma.

Everyone who is saved is saved through the Catholic church. Therefore, everyone in heaven is Catholic.

 

[mercygate]

People of the Catholic faith almost always look to the word “flesh” in John 6:63 to mean the flesh of Christ. Is there a reason why you are missing the obvious meaning of this word in the verse? Is it because you are trying to protect a doctrine? When you do this sort of thing, you reveal that your case is weak.

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 KJV)

The word flesh is ascribed to the nature of the “words” that he is speaking. He sees the many taking him literally/carnally/fleshly…

If you go back up-thread about 400 posts you will see this point addressed. In the Bread of Life Discourse, Jesus refers to “my flesh.” Later, in verse 63, he speaks of “the” flesh. Catholics believe that Christ is REALLY – though SPIRITUALLY – present in His ESSENCE in the blessed Sacrament. The doctrine of the Real Presence is not about biology. It is about the essential Person of Christ: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. ALL of Him, not just the biological entity.

The “words” of “spirit and life” are Hs commandment to “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood.”

 

[lak611]

When did denial of the real presence take hold as the fundamental tenet of a system of beliefs? Was it after the protestant reformation?

What i’m interested to know is the motivation behind it. Like, did people TRULY question the validity of this teaching and wish to know the background, or did they just shame it because that’s what the church taught and the church was the enemy at the time?

This viewpoint seems to have originated with Huldrych Zwingli. From Wikipedia:

A key doctrinal difference between Zwingli and Luther was their view on the Eucharist. Whereas Luther believed that the body and blood of Christ are really present in the bread and wine of this sacrament (a view often called consubstantiation by non-Lutherans), Zwingli thought the sacrament to be purely symbolic and memorial in character.

 

[mercygate]

If what you say is true this means that when Jesus first spoke these words at the supper He had no longer just a human body that the apostles saw and touched but that He has another body of bread and wine. Are you willing to believe this?

Not the way you oput it. But that is not what Catholics believe.

Augustine comments that Christ held His own Body in His own Hands.

Yes. I am willing to believe this. As a Priest “after the order of Melchizedek” He offers sacrifice to the Father under the form of bread and wine… Yet as the paschal victim He offers His own flesh and blood. They are one Sacrifice.

 

[childofmary1143]

A 50 page thread from a non catholic telling us that the Eucharist is not the Body of Christ according to HIS understanding. Will it never end?