The Eucharist is NOT the body of Christ

[Rolltide]

We can now proceed to push the date of the doctrine of the Real Presence back even further, using quotes from St. Augustine, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and St. Ambrose:

Augustine

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction”** (ibid., 272).**

Theodore of Mopsuestia

“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

Ambrose of Milan

“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).

These are all mainstream figures in the Catholic Church. Ambrose and Augustine were both important bishops. These statements are clear, and they define the position of the Catholic Church, which is then stated more formally at the Council of Ephesus. As a result, it’s clear that the idea of the Real Presence develops absolutely no later than the late 4th century.

 

[Rolltide]

I should mention that most of these quotes are coming from the Catholic Answers library on the front page of this site. I’m just adding some additional commentary.

In 350 A.D., we have another very important document from Cyril of Jerusalem. He states:

“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Again, we have a clear indication of the doctrine of the Real Presence. Now we begin with some quotes that are slightly less clear, but offer some strong evidence for the Real Presence:
**
Aphraahat the Persian Sage**

“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Now granted, this particular quote could be interpreted as merely symbolic, but given the documentary evidence from other sources and the fact that the Real Presence is clearly believed in 350 A.D., it strongly suggests that this quote is to be taken literally.

Council of Nicaea I

“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters *, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Here we have a reference to the Eucharist in one of the most important of all Church councils, the Council of Nicaea. The important parts of this quote are the reference to the sacrificial, rather than symbolic nature of the Eucharist, and the fact that it is regarded as something special and important enough that only priests and bishops may offer it.

Next, we have Cyprian of Carthage talking about how the Eucharist must be eaten only by those who have confessed of their sins. The sacrifice of the Eucharist may only be consumed by the pure, because it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ. He then proceeds to back up his opinion through Holy Scripture:

Cyprian of Carthage

“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).*

 

[Rolltide]

Here are several more quotes:

Origen

“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Hippolytus

“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper *” **(Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
**
Tertullian

“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

Clement of Alexandria

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Here is what J. N. D. Kelly has to say in his book Early Christian Doctrines about the above quotes. (pgs 211-212):

“Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. (see my last post) Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally”.

Now, out of these last few passages, no single quote would support belief in the Real Presence all by itself. However, taken as a collection, it provides strong evidence that the belief was widespread. In light of even earlier documentary evidence (which I’ll give in my next post) that is far more clear on the doctrine of the Real Presence, these quotes become important as evidence of continuity.*

 

[Rolltide]

And finally, we come to the most important quotes of all:

Irenaeus

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

About this passage, J.N. D. Kelly states:
From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: “Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, **for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” **(ibid., 197–98).

Now this IS significant! We have Iraneus of Lyons, in 189 A.D., writing an entire tract to refute the heresy of the Docetists. Here is what Wikipedia says about the Docetists:

"In Christianity, Docetism (from the Greek δοκέω [dokeō], “to seem”) is the belief that Jesus’ physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die. This belief treats the sentence “the Word was made Flesh” (John 1:14) as merely figurative. Docetism has historically been regarded as heretical by most Christian theologians.

Christology and theological implications

This belief is most commonly attributed to the Gnostics, who believed that matter was evil, and hence that God would not take on a material body. This statement is rooted in the idea that a divine spark is imprisoned within the material body, and that the material body is in itself an obstacle, deliberately created by an evil lesser god (the demiurge) to prevent man from seeing his divine origin.

Docetism could be further explained as the view that, because the human body is temporary and the spirit is eternal, the body of Jesus therefore must have been an illusion and his crucifixion as well. Even so, saying that the human body is temporary has a tendency to undercut the importance of the belief in resurrection of the dead and the goodness of created matter, and is in opposition to this orthodox view. Docetism was rejected by the ecumenical councils and mainstream Christianity, largely dying out during the first millennium A.D. . Other surviving gnostic movements, such as Catharism incorporated docetism into their beliefs, but the movement was destroyed by the Albigensian Crusade (1209-1229)."

Irenaeus is arguing against Docetism because it denies the sacrifice of Jesus. If God could never take true human form because it was evil, then Jesus’ death was simply an illusion with no real value. Irenaeus HAD to emphasize the Real Presence as part of his argument to prove that Jesus actually DID become flesh. How could someone reject the Real Presence as possible if it didn’t already exist?! The document by Irenaeus is long, but clear, and combined with the other quotes above, helps to push the date for the Real Presence all the way back to the late 2nd century. Keep in mind that Irenaeus was born a mere 25-30 years after the death of the Apostle John, so we are now getting VERY close to the New Testament era

 

[Rolltide]

Justin Martyr

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Here, we have Justin Martyr writing an Apology (a defense of the Christian faith) to the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius to try and defend the practices of the Christians and thus end the illegality and persecution of the Church. As such, it had to be very accurate as to the current beliefs of the Catholic Church, as it would be read by high officials, and possibly Antoninus Pius himself. As a classically trained philosopher, he was well-versed in the debating methods of the time, as well as the arguments of the Romans themselves. The First Apology was written in 151 A.D., so the Real Presence is now clearly a Catholic doctrine just a mere 121 years after the death of Christ, and about 50 years after the death of John, the last surviving apostle.

Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

And finally, we have the most important quote of all. Our existing evidence suggests that Ignatius was trained by none other than the Apostle John himself, and that he was personally ordained a bishop by the Apostle Peter. This is a man who intimately knew and conversed with the Apostles, and even HE is professing belief in the Real Presence. He is doing this in his letters to his congregations, and we have written records of it as early as 110 AD. The Didache, written about 70 AD (not by Ignatius, but by an unknown author), is the oldest non-Biblical surviving document that we have about Christianity, and it too emphasizes the sacrificial nature of the Mass.

So what’s the bottom line? If the Real Presence of the Eucharist is a false teaching, then the Apostles themselves incorrectly trained and appointed a bishop with false beliefs, and are responsible for the perversion of the Catholic Church. It is very clear that this would not be likely. There are other documents that also support this opinion, but I’ve only listed the most important and significant ones. I should also point out some relevant Bible passages:

1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71

It would also do you well to read “The Lamb’s Supper” by Scott Hahn. It describes in detail how the Catholic Church has always taught that the Book of Revelation by John is in fact an analogy describing the Sacrifice of the Mass. Most of the images used are direct symbolic representations of the various parts of the Catholic Mass. His interpretation is not new (nor is it the only acceptable one), but it does demonstrate how the Mass IS highly Biblical, as is the Real Presence and its sacrificial nature.

I now give you some time to digest all of this… *

 

[Rolltide]

I should also note that the vast majority of Christian denominations believe in the Real Presence. By numbers:

Those that believe in the Real Presence
Catholics - 1,120,000,000
Eastern Orthodox - 225,000,000
Oriental Orthodox - 72,000,000

Total - 1,417,000,000

Anglicanism - 77,000,000 (Some believe in the Real Presence, some do not)

**
Those that reject the Real Presence**
Protestantism (mainline) - 590,000,000
Pentacostalism - 105,000,000
Non-Trinitarian - 28,500,000
Restorationaism - 18,000,000

Total - 741,500,000

Total number of Christians - 2,235,500,000
Percentage of those that believe in the Real Presence - 63.38%
Percentage of those that reject the Real Presence - 33.17%
Percentage of Anglicans - 3.44%

Now, of course, I realize that this says nothing about whether the belief is actually true or not, but is a powerful indication of what the MAJORITY of Christians believe.

 

[Rolltide]

I’d also like to present the following Biblical argument, spelled out expertly in The Lamb’s Supper by Dr. Scott Hahn. Perhaps you would like to re-read Revelation in light of the following idea. Compare the imagery of Revelation to the parts of the Catholic Mass:

Sunday worship 1:10
a high priest 1:13
an altar 8:3-4; 11:1; 14:18
priests (presybteroi) 4:4; 11:15; 14:3; 19:4
vestments 1:13; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9; 15:6; 19:13-14
consecrated celibacy 14:4
lamp stands, or Menorah 1:12, 2:5
penitence ch. 2 and 3
incense 5:8; 8:3-5
the book, or scroll 5:1
the Eucharistic Host 2:17
chalices 15:7; ch. 16; 21:9
the Sign of the Cross (the tau) 7:3; 14:1; 22:4
the Gloria 15:3-4
the Alleluia 19:1, 3, 4, 6
Lift up your hearts 11:12
the “Holy, Holy, Holy” 4:8
the Amen 19:4; 22:21
the “Lamb of God” 5:6 and throughout
the prominence of the Virgin Mary 12:1-6; 13-17
intercession of angels and saints 5:8; 6:0-10; 8:3-4
(You will want to pay attention to these three in particular. Jesus is referred to as the “Lamb of God” in Revelation (and almost exclusively in Revelation) to emphasize his ongoing sacrifice. He becomes the one perfect sacrifice for all, and replaces eternally all other sacrifice. His sacrifice, which continues for all time in the Catholic Mass, is a foreshadowing of the worship we will have for God in Heaven.)
devotion to St. Michael, archangel 12:7
antiphonal chant 4:8-11; 5:9-14; 7:10-12; 18:1-8
readings from Scripture ch 2-3; 5; 8:2-11
(again, note the strong importance of Scripture with regard to the Mass)
the priesthood of the faithful 1:6; 20:6
catholicity, or universality 7:9
silent contemplation 8:1
the marriage supper of the Lamb 19:9, 17

I could go into much greater detail, but Dr. Hahn does it much better than I.

 

[VociMike]

Why should it go against the facts of the Miracles Jesus performed. Everyone saw them, and knew of them. The eucharist does not fit in with that.

You’re confusing those things that God did and how God appeared to us. In fact, there was no way to “see” that the man Jesus was God. That had to be taken on faith. It is exactly the same with the Eucharist.

 

[VociMike]

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

That’s correct. The problem is, left to our own devices, we cannot know which is which. The flesh profits us nothing in this matter. It is only by divine revelation and divine guidance in protecting that revelation that we can know with certainty. And the fullness of this revelation and this guidance is given to mankind through the Church alone.

 

[VociMike]

Would like to know your thoughts on this:

usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-08-20-communion-denied_x.htm

If it was the body of Christ, why would this girl be unable to take it at all?

The risen Jesus Christ is whole and perfect. His blood is united with his body which is united with his soul and divinity. Thus he is entirely present in both the “bread” and in the “wine”. He is no longer rendered asunder as he was upon the cross.

 

[VociMike]

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

We don’t “do it again,” but we do make his one sacrifice present again, because he commands us to do so.

You say that it was finished. So then how does it reach forward and offer salvation to people today? Somehow, even though it is finished, it is also forever present, is it not? Otherwise only those people alive at the time of the crucifixion would have a chance at salvation.

Besides, do you even know what Christ was referring to when he said “it is finished”? Note that he wasn’t dead when he spoke those words, much less resurrected.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Again I think I know what the Church teaches (or claims to teach), having been a Catholic 6 years just about before leaving it.

Really? Six years?

I was Catholic for over thirty years, and I thought I knew what the Church taught – as it turns out, not only had I barely scratched the surface, but there was also a great deal that I thought I knew that was in fact wrong. Praise Jesus, I was led to the truth, and I realize humbly that there is yet more that I must learn.

If you refuse to learn the truth about that which you wish to attack, you will do little more than embarass yourself, brother. In the interest of authentic debate, you owe it to yourself (and the dignity of those you wish to “instruct”) to know what it is we actually believe.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Randy_Carson]

We all know about the last supper, and it may be true that the Bible says…

“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” John 6: 51

“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink” John 6:55

However, this is not meant literally, and here is why:

“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

That scripture alone proves that the food and drink Christ spoke of was not meant to mean his body and blood, but rather HIS WORD. It is HIS WORD that gives us life and sustains us, not a little bread wafer and wine.

Grasping at Straws: John 6:63

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and they are life.”(John 6:63)

These words were spoken by Jesus shortly after delivering his teaching on the Eucharist, and some people claim that they indicate that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he commanded us to eat his body and drink his blood. However, this would be a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he said,“the flesh counts for nothing.”

First, notice that whenever Jesus referred to his own body and blood, he said"my flesh"or"the flesh of the Son of Man". Here are the examples:

“This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51)

"Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56)

At this point, the narrative explains that the disciples were on the verge of revolt over this teaching. Jesus tells them that they cannot understand this teaching with their natural minds. Here is the verse in context: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’” (John 6:60-63)

In John 6:63, Jesus uses the phrase “the flesh” instead of “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man” because he is not talking about his own body; he is referring to natural man. Man is a tripartite being composed of Spirit, Soul (or mind) and Body/Flesh. Our flesh is that created, corruptible part of us; the spirit is that which is capable of relating to God and receiving his revelation, and the mind/soul is the union of spirit and body. Here are some scriptures that illustrate this:

“Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit, soul and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thessalonians 5:23)

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being nephesh – soul].” (Genesis 2:7) (dust is the body, breath of life - pneuma - is the spirit, living being is the soul).

Jesus tells the grumbling Jews (who can’t understand how he would give them his flesh to eat) that they cannot grasp it with their natural minds because it is a mystery beyond the ability of “the flesh” to understand. This is the same manner of speaking used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 & 3 when he is distinguishing between fleshly or carnal Christians and those who are discern the things of God with their spirits.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Second, it might be worth noting the obvious fact that Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh “counts for nothing” otherwise his death upon the cross would be meaningless. Instead, we know that his own body, his flesh, was broken and pierced for our sake; no Christian would deny that. Therefore, since HIS flesh does count for something, he must have been referring to “flesh” other than his own in v. 63.

Thus, the one verse that many Protestants cling to as an argument against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not mean what they falsely claim it means. Ironically, their “proof text” points out precisely why they cannot understand the Eucharist: they are using their flesh instead of their spirits to discern the things of God. Unfortunately, their flesh “counts for nothing”.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Texas_Roofer]

To the original poster (OP)

The bottom line is the same, you have rejected the bible, and ignored the fact Jesus did not speak to you directly. Are you aware your bible is a modified bible of the Catholic bible? Are you aware the gospels did not exist during Jesus life on earth? Nor were they penned quickly after his death. No one actually knows who scribed the gospels. Additionally, the gospels were in Greek, and the Old Testament in Hebrew. Yet your American English bible was translated from British English after 1600. The base of your accusations seems extremely light at best. However I would like to remind you the Catholic Church is open to all people, you are welcome to return. You can attend RCIA to receive your confirmation.

 

[JPatton]

We all know about the last supper, and it may be true that the Bible says…

“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” John 6: 51

“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink” John 6:55

However, this is not meant literally, and here is why:

“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

That scripture alone proves that the food and drink Christ spoke of was not meant to mean his body and blood, but rather HIS WORD. It is HIS WORD that gives us life and sustains us, not a little bread wafer and wine.

Then why did his disciples leave him? If it was ment as symbolic why did’nt Jesus stop them. Why did’nt Jesus say this is only ment as symbolic? If it was symbolic why did’nt he correct them as he did other times before? He plainly states TRUE FOOD, TRUE DRINK. If he is implying his flesh (as food) profits nothing then Jesus is contridicting him self. He would be telling us eat my flesh, it is true food but it profits nothing. That does’nt quite add up. The flesh Jesus speaks of John 6:63 is our worldly selves, our worldly ways. This profits nothing but his spirit does!!! This is a hard saying, something that tested the faith of some of Jesus’s disciples. This is a teaching of Jesus that is no parable or metaphor. He clearly says - “For My flesh is TRUE food, and My blood is TRUE drink”. How can one get symbolic out of the word TRUE?

God Bless All,
Jamie

 

[Mannyfit75]

Would like to know your thoughts on this:

usatoday.com/news/nation/…n-denied_x.htm

If it was the body of Christ, why would this girl be unable to take it at all?

Well, the priest should have consider other option than given the unleaven bread, like wine for example. I believe the Catholic Church has written a document concerning those who have an adverse reaction to wheat.

In the book Mass Confusion in page 70 it states:

In recent years, the question has arisen as to what provision can be made for the sufferers of celiac sprue disease, which causes the gluten found in regular wheat to irritate the intestinal lining of the sufferers. One traditional solution has been to offer celiac suffers Communion under the species of wine only. However, provision has been made for the use of low gluten alter breads. The most recent regulation were approved by the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith on June 22, 1994, and distributed in a letter by then (Cardinal Ratzinger; now Pope Benedict XVI):

1. Concerning permission to use law gluten altar breads:

A. This may be granted by ordinaries to priests and laypersons affected by celiac disease, after presentation of a medical certificate.

B. Conditions for the validity of matter:

1. Special hosts quibus glutinum ablatum est (from which gluten has been removed) are invalid matter for the celebration of the Eucharist.
2. Low gluten hosts are valid matter, provided that they contain the amount of gluten sufficient to obtain the confection of bread, that there is no addition of foreign materials, and that the procedures for making such hosts is not such as to alter the nature of the substance of the bread…

For more detail, I recommend reading the Book. I would say that the girl was not able to take communion because she has condition that makes it impossible to received the Body and Blood of the Lord.

You have to understand that during the consecration the bread is no longer ordinary bread and wine, but the Body and Blood of the Lord. The appearance remains the same, and the elements that cause the irritation may remain, doesn’t negate the validity of Holy Communion.

It would be no different from a man received a blood transfusion from someone who is a O pos blood type and this blood is given to someone who is B. Of course we know that individuals who have a blood type of O can only received blood that is also O.

 

[Zooey]

Then Christ cannot be present in the Eucharist then as you claim.

So then Christ never left the cross? Is that what you are saying?

Look, yean, I may be only the Friendly Neighborhood Methodist around these parts, but I know you are making no sense here.

Let me ask you a question? Was Jesus’ Body and Blood His Body & Blood before He died on the cross?
Was His Body & Blood His Body & Blood when He arose from the dead?
Is His Body & Blood His Body & Blood still His, now that He has ascended again into Heaven?

You’re saying that Jesus was only a real person when He was dying. Wasn’t He real when He was born? Didn’;t He bleed when He was pricked with a pin, like any other baby?
After He arose, didn’t He eat & drink, & breathe???

If you have decided that you are happy being whatever it is that you are now, that’s OK with me. I just think it would be nice if you had a real reason, based on a genuine difference of opinion with the Catholic Church. Not just http://bestsmileys.com/sad/6.gifdeeply confused over the nature of Christ…
I mean, that’s really sad. To make a decision based on a misunderstanding.

 

[teachccd]

Look, yean, I may be only the Friendly Neighborhood Methodist around these parts, but I know you are making no sense here.

Let me ask you a question? Was Jesus’ Body and Blood His Body & Blood before He died on the cross?
Was His Body & Blood His Body & Blood when He arose from the dead?
Is His Body & Blood His Body & Blood still His, now that He has ascended again into Heaven?

You’re saying that Jesus was only a real person when He was dying. Wasn’t He real when He was born? Didn’;t He bleed when He was pricked with a pin, like any other baby?
After He arose, didn’t He eat & drink, & breathe???

If you have decided that you are happy being whatever it is that you are now, that’s OK with me. I just think it would be nice if you had a real reason, based on a genuine difference of opinion with the Catholic Church. Not just http://bestsmileys.com/sad/6.gifdeeply confused over the nature of Christ…
I mean, that’s really sad. To make a decision based on a misunderstanding.

From one fervent Catholic to one fervent Methodist, very well said. Isn’t it cool how we all join in Christ? God Bless…teachccd

P.S. He’s a very confused Christian albeit Catholic or Protestant.

 

[mommyof4]

I really like our Friendly Neighborhood Methodist!