The Eucharist is NOT the body of Christ

[PatienceAndLove]

Maybe there wasn’t then, I don’t really know. But his death was enough to save us from all sin and redeem us, resurrection or not.

I can die for you, as any person here can. When a Secret Service Agent signs on, he vows to die for the President. Does that make that Agent the President’s Savior?

What can Jesus do that the rest of us can’t? Oh yes… Rise from the Dead.
By His Life, Death AND Resurrection, we are saved from Damnation.

 

[teachccd]

Again I ask if it’s eternal, why the need to do it again? It’s already done and over with, again it was finished.

Eternal does not mean done and over with or else Jesus ceased to exist…

 

[porthos11]

1Co 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen again.
1Co 15:14 And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain: and your faith is also vain.
1Co 15:15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God: because we have given testimony against God, that he hath raised up Christ, whom he hath not raised up, if the dead rise not again.
1Co 15:16 For if the dead rise not again, neither is Christ risen again.
1Co 15:17 And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain: for you are yet in your sins.

This should make the OP realize that if he got this sorely wrong, how right can be possibly be about the Catholic Church’s teachings? This passage reflects a core belief of Christianity, and he missed it.

So far, all his actions have been based on lies and misconceptions.

 

[teachccd]

Maybe there wasn’t then, I don’t really know. But his death was enough to save us from all sin and redeem us, resurrection or not.

The resurrection is the central celebration of the Christian faith. To deny the resurrection is to lose hope in all that we are. You are absolutely right…You don’t really know. Your honesty here may open your eyes to the Eucharist and the Mass…Please talk to a pastor or anyone who holds orthodox Christian teachings. To say that the resurrection was not needed shows your lack of understanding and dire need of guidance…God Bless teachccd

 

[valient_Lucy]

But why the need to do it again? Christ said it was finished, so it should be no?

It doesn’t happen again. In the Mass, we enter into an eternal reality. You’re looking at the Mass in the viewpoint of time, which is natural, since humans are bound by time. But God is not bound by time. To God, there is no past, present, or future. It is WE, not God, that views the Crucifixion as something in the long ago past.

Christ’s part in the Sacrifice is finished, and he cannot die again. But we can offer the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross to God in the Mass. It is the means by which God brings the benefits of the Sacrifice of the Mass to us.

 

[TDiGaetano]

Some Bible passages that I found while reading my bible that confirm the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the Sacrifice at mass.

*Malachi 1:11
For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts. *

Sacrifice at the mass

*Mathew 26:26-29
26. And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take ye and eat. This is my body. 27. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. *

Since Jesus is in Heaven now we can share this drink with him and be one in him and him in us.(John:56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.) Anti-eucharist people will try to use John 6 trying to say Jesus ment he’s body figurativly. Problem is these same people don’t completly understand John’s writtings.

We see the last supper in
Luke 22:15-20
15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.” 17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Again we see that once Jesus goes to heaven he will share himself with us again. Jesus is in heaven right?

Mark 14:22-25
22While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”
23Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.
24"This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them. 25"I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God."

Mark confirms what Jesus promised us and why we celebrate the Eucharist with Jesus.

1 Corinthians 11:27
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

If it was symbolic why would it be a sin against the body and blood of the Lord?

*Mark 10:38-39
38 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” 39 “We can,” they answered. Jesus said to them, "**You will drink the cup I drink **and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, *

The cup of the New and Ever lasting Covenant the Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Perhaps an analogy would be helpful. Let us say that we have put a lamp in a house with many windows. As we pass by the windows, we see the light. As we pass by the walls, we do not see the light, but it is continually burning. Therefore, we do not relight the lamp each time we pass by a window; the lamp is burning independently of our passing by.

To translate: the Sacrifice of Calvary is the lamp, it is an eternal, timeless reality. When we attend the Holy Mass, we are passing by a window to Calvary–that is, the light of Christ’s sacrifice shines down through the ages and is made present every time the Mass is said. No matter how many windows we pass by, there is still one light continually shining, just as every Mass is truly one sharing in that continually merit-bearing sacrifice.

Admittedly, this analogy is imperfect, as Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross does not just bear us merit when we attend Mass–indeed, it touches every part of our lives. But it is when we are at Mass that we are placed at the foot of the Cross. As Archbishop Fulton Sheen of blessed memory said in the introduction to the book “This Is the Mass:”

So to sum up, the Mass is not a re-sacrificing of Christ anymore than walking past our analogy house’s windows is a re-lighting of the lamp therein. We cannot re-sacrifice Christ, as he offered his sacrifice once and for all. But we can still share in the salvific merit of that sacrifice every time we go to Mass.

-ACEGC

That is beautiful. Well said! :clapping:

 

[valient_Lucy]

This should make the OP realize that if he got this sorely wrong, how right can be possibly be about the Catholic Church’s teachings? This passage reflects a core belief of Christianity, and he missed it.

So far, all his actions have been based on lies and misconceptions.

We can hope. Left on his own, he came up with a theological idea that is completely contrary to the Bible, and a VERY dangerous one at that.

 

[valient_Lucy]

I don’t think any one church has the answer or answers. The answers aren’t there, they are in the Bible, not a church.

“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” 1 Timothy 3:15.

BTW, how did the Church exist during the time of the Apostles, when the New Testament didn’t exist yet? Did the Church of the Apostles not have the truth, since they didn’t have the New Testament? Did they have imperfect truth, since they only had the Old Testament? Or is the New Testament optional and the Old Testament is all we need for our faith?

 

[Ignatius2000]

I just stumbled upon this gem of a thread and feel compelled to reply to a couple items.

Again I ask if it’s eternal, why the need to do it again? It’s already done and over with, again it was finished.

I don’t really understand how a person can REFUSE to turn to the dictionary when they know it will increase their grasp of a concept.

e·ter·nal /ɪˈtɜrnl/
–adjective

1. without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal): eternal life.
2. perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter.
3. enduring; immutable: eternal principles.
4. Metaphysics. existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.

Now think about the “Eternal Sacrifice” and how we, as mere mortals can join with that perpetual sacrifice. How, then, do we become present at this Sacrifice that, according to the definition of “eternal”, is still occurring? How can the Crucifixion still be happening? Spiritually, of course. The Mass is how we lift the veil of the word and bring ourselves to the ongoing sacrifice. Thousands of times every hour the Mass is celebrated throughout the world. Without the Mass, the descriptor “eternal” could not be affixed to the Crucifixion.

ajk19:

That makes no sense, it’s either one or the other, it can’t be both.
&
Well as far as physical things go, anything Jesus did was obvious, why should the eucharist be any different?. Like when he turned water into wine, it didn’t look like water and taste like water yet claim to be wine, it actually did become wine.

I always liked this one. It is important to note that what we call the “accidents” of the Eucharist (the actual bread and wine, including alcohol) serve as a way to perpetuate the mystery of our faith through the use of a “veil.” You will find MANY such veils in the Church, but one of the most important is the “accidents” of the Eucharist. Metaphysically speaking, there is no more bread and wine for it is replaced by the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. However, because our perception is human it is prone to error. Human perceptions can be manipulated many, many ways. I can stimulate a portion of your brain and you’d smell bread baking, I could paralyze the muscles around your eyes and you’d see nothing but a gray field. We still visually and tactilely perceive bread and wine where there IS actually Christ. Why is this?

Well, we won’t fully know until we are made privy to His plan, but we are free to speculate in the interim. As you are aware, the followers of Christ were persecuted, especially in pagan Rome. They were forced to celebrate the Mass (an early variant) in their homes and underground. Occasionally they would be found by soldiers who were sent to disrupt the Christians from practicing their religion. Upon entering the place where the Mass is celebrated, particularly the Eucharistic Liturgy, a Roman soldier would find nothing more than bread and wine. What two items would be more plentiful in ancient Rome? Well, water and marble I suppose, but you get the idea. Could not, then, part of the ultimate plan for us Christians have included these accidents of the Eucharist as a way to veil ourselves and give us to escape persecution during our early years?

Again, this is just healthy speculation on my part as I do not claim to understand the Almighty sufficiently enough to question His motives.

Pax tecum

 

[agangbern]

I saw lightning and heard thunder while typing this. What do you think did I see or hear? Did I see the negative and positive energies meet? From the instant the negative and positive energies meet, how long did it take for the lightning or the sound of thunder to reach me?

Now, Jesus was crucified long time ago in calvary. That sacrifice, though finished there, its manifestation continues into all times and places wherever and whenever the Holy Mass is celebrated. It is not therefore a re-sacrifice of Christ.

The command of Christ to eat his flesh and drink his blood culminates the prohibition in the old testament to eat blood.The life sustaining blood is now to be drank.

I hope I understood the wonders of ajk19 correctly.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Well wait a minute now, so then it’s not the literal body and blood of Christ. You did say spiritually he’s present right?

You’re saying that spiritually means metaphorically.

A: Spiritually means it’s a metaphor.
B God is described as a Spirit.

Therefore, God is a metaphor.

 

[HailMary]

BORING!

AJK19, please, if you have enough courage, answer my post below!

John 6:67
After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him

Christ gave them no explanation. He did not say, “wait, you mis-understood me, I was only speaking figuratively”. They knew, along with everyone else, exactly what He was saying?

If this were figurative, why is it written?

61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it.

Whats so hard about figuratively seeing Jesus as the Bread of Life? Whats so different about Jesus being the Vine, or the Light, or the Good Shepard? Why didn’t anyone else leave him there? THINK!

WHY IS THIS SAYING HARD? WHAT MAKES IT SO DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER SAYING? BEFORE YOU CAN ASSERT SOMETHING AS HERETICAL AS DENYING THE REAL PRESENCE OF THE EUCHARIST, YOU WOULD NEED TO ANSWER THAT BASIC QUESTION.

 

[agangbern]

Originally Posted by lak611 View Post
In the Consecration, the substance is changed but the accidents remain.

That makes no sense, it’s either one or the other, it can’t be both.

While the Israelites were journeying in the desert, a rock followed them and sustained them in their journey. That rock was Christ. (1 Cor 10:4) Jesus, both a person and a literal rock? How could it be? But it must be true because the scriptures say so.

 

[ajk19]

I would imagine certain things are to be taken literal, certain things metaphorical.

 

[agangbern]

I would imagine certain things are to be taken literal, certain things metaphorical.

Yes, there are words that are metaphor, and there are words that are what they are. Just as Jesus said, “I am the vine”, clearly it was metaphor. But when holding up a bread he said, “This is my body”, oh, clearly it was not metaphor anymore. And this fact that the bread is not simply metaphor is further confirmed by St. Paul in 1 Cor 11:29 .

 

[Mannyfit75]

Yes, there are words that are metaphor, and there are words that are what they are. Just as Jesus said, “I am the vine”, clearly it was metaphor. But when holding up a bread he said, “This is my body”, oh, clearly it was not metaphor anymore. And this fact that the bread is not simply metaphor is further confirmed by St. Paul in 1 Cor 11:29 .

The one thing about 1 Cor 11:26-27, it makes it very clear that the bread and wine is the Body and Blood of the Lord.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 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. 1 Corinthians 11:26-27

If it were symbolic, this would passage would not make sense

 

[agangbern]

The one thing about 1 Cor 11:26-27, it makes it very clear that the bread and wine is the Body and Blood of the Lord.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 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. 1 Corinthians 11:26-27

If it were symbolic, this would passage would not make sense

Yes, that’s true! And in verse 29, "Anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."

 

[Rolltide]

I’ve taken this from a post of mine from a couple of months ago, so I’m sorry if a couple of points have been repeated:

Catholics believe that Jesus is not just symbolically present in Communion, but actually physically present. You may be interested to note that we are not the only denomination that holds to this view. In fact, about 2/3 of ALL Christians believe this to be true, including the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and some Anglicans and Lutherans. In order to prove the Real Presence, I think it’s essential to look at both what the Bible says and what has historically been true. After all, if it is a corruption, it should be fairly easy to track down at what point it entered into Catholic belief. Looking at what people believed in the very early church would be critical to your argument that it is false.

So, I’m going to begin to answer the question from the historical perspective, and then go back and deal with the Biblical issues. I realize that it will be very important to back up the claim with what’s taught in the Bible, since it is an inspired source. BUT, if we want to know how to correctly interpret that source, we need to see what the apostles and the followers of the apostles thought about how it should be interpreted. If it matters, I’m a professional historian at a small private college in the South, although my area of expertise is Latin America, not the Catholic Church or theology. (Just so you know that my research has some credibility.)

 

[Rolltide]

I will try to present some evidence for you in reverse order, starting with dates we can both agree on and then working backward. Keep in mind that despite my profession, I am no liturgical effort, and I’m sure others on here can help me out.

First, a couple of assumptions:

1. I think we can both agree that the idea of the Real Presence in the Eucharist is established by the Reformation, so I will leave any discussion from that era out.
2. Since the Eastern Orthodox Church also believes in the Real Presence in the Eucharist (and the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the legitimacy of the Real Presence in the Orthodox Eucharist), we can assume that the doctrine predates the Great Schism between the Catholics and Orthodox.

(Now, that said, the Orthodox will not use the word “Transubstantiation”. They leave the miracle of the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ as a mystery, but they DO believe in the Real Presence of Christ, and in basically the same way as Catholics.)

Ok, right away I suggest that we can push the date much further back, since the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East BOTH believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and they broke off from the Catholic Church as a result of the Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451. This fact pretty well speaks for itself, so we now have the date pushed back to the early to mid 5th century. Bear in mind that the word “Transubstantiation” did not develop until much later, as a result of challenges to this doctrine. The Catholic Church does not generally define dogmas unless the particular belief is challenged and requires further explicit explanation. You cannot judge when the belief began by the introduction of the word Transubstantiation.

While we’re at it, it’s probably good to look at what the Council of Ephesus had to say on the matter:

Council of Ephesus

“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

As an official pronouncement of the church, the date of the belief is now safely established at least as far back as 431 A.D.