The Eucharist is NOT the body of Christ

[zerocrossing]

You completely missed my point. How many billion Catholics are there in the world? How many people in the past claimed to have it right? Would seem to be quite a wide road to me. Besides that remember what happened to those denounced Catholicism back in the day, death.

And what happened to people who practiced Catholicism in Protestant countries? Death.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Would this do?

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:14

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1

Suffice it to say, this would prove the spiritualness of what Jesus said, it is his Word that gives life.

Are you saying that the Incarnation is just a metaphorical symbol? That God the Son never really became a man? Or are you saying that the Bible is superior to Jesus?

 

[lak611]

Sorry to say, but the Catholic Church was and is wrong. God never started a physical Church, but rather the Church he created exists wherever there is a believer in Him and follows his commands. That’s his true Church, His people.

So if you’re rejecting the Real Presence, how did the Apostles fail in their teaching? How did ALL of the leaders of Christianity just ONE GENERATION after the Apostles get it wrong? How would the Romans have come up with such a rumor (about cannibalism) if not from misunderstanding the Real Presence? If you are correct, Christians, from around 100 AD onward, were practicing a lie, that wasn’t corrected for at least 1400 years!

It is absolutely the truth that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Now I need to know how to interpret it. Who am I going to regard more highly, your interpretation, or the interpretation of those that knew the Apostles and were trained by them. They are ALL in agreement. You are the dissenting voice. Why should I choose you?

How is it possible that the same men who wrote the New Testament by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit could have failed to properly teach their followers what they wrote? If the Holy Spirit left the Apostles, then Jesus was a liar. After all, He said:

Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

AJK19-
Read this post

BTW:
2 Thess 3: 6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

1 Cor 11:1-2 Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thess 2:14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Simply because of the size of the Church, that would indicate a wide road, with all the billions that attest to it.

So… it is the number of people that determines the width of the road to Salvation? How does that make sense?

 

[PatienceAndLove]

In a lot of things, confession, Mary, etc. None of that is really of the Bible. It is simply false doctrine.

Have you read any Scott Hahn? Have you picked up the Catechism? I am guessing not.
Again- read the post that I linked to a few posts above.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

I am going to go back to these now:

Matthew 18: 15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16: But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

Then and only then does he say:
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Note the first thing man is told to do, go to the transgressor by himself/herself, not go into a confessional. In fact going to the church or “confessional” is the last thing.

One cannot confess the sin until one receives forgiveness from the offended party. And if one hasn’t sought forgiveness from the forgiven party, the priest encourages one to do so.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

I’m not really sure I have an answer for that to be quite honest. I’m a little bit irked really, I feel and have felt very overwhelmed here at times, like I’m just being eaten alive.

That happens on here sometimes. Remember, we log off and then come back to respond to threads. So, we may all provide 8 or 9 posts, but that is because we are responding as we read.
Addtionally, it is almost 12-to-1 in this conversation, and that is never fun.
But I am looking for something from one of my classes about the interpretation of John 1:1. Once I find it, I will post it.

 

[Church_Militant]

If, “The Eucharist is NOT the body of Christ” then explain to me what St. Paul is saying here in 1st Corinthians 11:27 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. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.
How can anyone become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if that body and blood are not really there? Now if I make a symbol of Karl Keating like this symbol here: and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol…like say this: http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/blowup1.gif I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol of the goodman Karl Keating, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question…of course not! Why? BECAUSE KARL KEATING IS NOT REALLY PRESENT IN THAT SYMBOL is he?

 

[agangbern]

Our OP has been amazingly quiet today.

He is probably meditating and trying to absorb which is which. I wish him A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A WONDERFUL NEW YEAR!

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Would this do?

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:14

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1

Suffice it to say, this would prove the spiritualness of what Jesus said, it is his Word that gives life.

No, I asked for where does it refer to eating flesh and drinking blood symbolically.

You might try Psalm 27:2

When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell.

Or Ezechial 39:18

Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth

but it is hard to fit them into the context that Jesus uses.

On the other hand the Passover requires that all eat of the literal sacrifice Exodus 12:43-47

And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the ordinance of the passover: no foreigner shall eat of it; 44 but every slave that is bought for money may eat of it after you have circumcised him. 45 No sojourner or hired servant may eat of it. 46* In one house shall it be eaten; you shall not carry forth any of the flesh outside the house; and you shall not break a bone of it. 47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it.

If one failed to eat of the literal sacrifice one was to be excluded from the community.

Note that this was to be celebrated forever. It was not abolished by the destruction of the Temple, but was transformed into the sacrifice of the Lamb of God.

 

[mercygate]

In some ways I am going through rough times, and trying to get my life together, which has proven difficult for me.

I think the Holy Spirit is poking you and restoring your hunger for the Eucharist. Sounds to me like He is leading you back to Christ: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Your objections to the Sacrament are too weak to be convincing – even to yourself.

You were Catholic for SIX years? Which six? One to 6? Six-12? Twelve to 18? Makes a difference. Our Faith is simple enough for a child to grasb but it is too deep to be fully understood even in a long, long lifetime.

God love ya.

 

[mercygate]

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.

This is a VERY good point. Although the Eucharistic presence is “miraculous” in the sense that it is something completely inexplicable in terms of normal physics, it is NOT technically considered a miracle in the sense the Church defines the word as in the miracles of Jesus or as in the miracles required for ratification of a saint’s cause. Those events MUST be physically verifiable and obvious.

So you are correct in noticing the distinction.

Of course, the distinction does not preclude the truly miraculous character of the transformation of the elements. In fact, the Eucharistic presence is, if anything, even more extraordinary than a straightforward physical miracle.

 

[Cardinalsong]

Why do ex-Catholics, who are only ex-Catholics because they never cared to bother to learn what it is the Church actually teaches, have to spend all their time bashing Catholics…and ex-Protestants are only interested in spending their time worshiping God and getting closer to Him?

Could it be because the ex-Catholics turned their back on the Truth, and now cannot feel any sense of happiness unless they are trying to convince themselves they made the right choice? While the ex-Protestants have found the Truth and can now fully worship and glorify God…they have no need to bash their former faith as they are now more Christ like and loving of others? Thats my opinion on things. I mean, where’s all the ex-Protestants(myself included) trying to bash their former beliefs? Why are we so content with our new faith that we have no need to question our former one? Hmmm

You hit the nail on the head my friend…my thoughts exactly!

 

[mercygate]

But what about the flesh not profiting anything? If that’s true, why would eating anything in the physical change this?

I’m only half way through this thread, so someone else might have pointed out that what you are referrling to here hinges on two words: “my” and “the.”

All through the Bread of Life discourse, Jesus refers to “my flesh”. Then he changes the word when he says “THE” flesh profits nothing. “THE” flesh is the carnal mind of the. Paul tells us to "Put off your old nature which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. [Eph 4:22-24]. The Flesh we receive in our “new nature” in the Eucharist is HIS flesh: his resurrected Flesh given “for the life of the world.” When Christ is our life, then “we have the mind of Christ” and by faith receive Him in Truth.

 

[Ignatius]

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.

I’m sorry friend, but your misinterpretation of the scripture is what is leading you astray. It should be obvious that Jesus wasn’t talking about His flesh; afterall it is his flesh , sacraficed on the Cross which is our salvation. Also you are ignoring all of the verses in which Our Lord himself repeats His teaching that “My flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed.”
Additionally, these questions all came up in the early Church. Those who were learned The Faith directly from the Apostles themselves had the same questions and were able to get their answers directly from the Apostles. It has been the constant teaching from the time of the Apostles to this very day that the Eucharist is indeed the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Grace and peace to you.

Your brother in Christ.

 

[ajk19]

You were Catholic for SIX years? Which six? One to 6? Six-12? Twelve to 18? Makes a difference. Our Faith is simple enough for a child to grasb but it is too deep to be fully understood even in a long, long lifetime.

More like 14 to 20.

 

[ncgolf]

Part of the problem with believing what the Eucharist is … is trying to do it purely on your own. It cannot be done by a purely intellectual study. One can say this based on two verses in John 6.

6:63 “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”
6:65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”

The human mind cannot grasp this supernatural event and this cannot happen unless granted by the Father. Belief in the Eucharist is a gift, it is not something earned by study or passing a test or any other human endeavor. Study may be the path for some towards its understanding but it will not, on its own, make you believe.

My grandparents were not well educated, grandfather 4th and grandmother 7th. As you can see they were not well educated but their faith in the Eucharist was something palatable and real to me. As a child I knew in my bones they believed. They knew it and could explain what it was … they knew no Greek, a word like exegesis would have meant nothing to them so what they knew, as I reflect was given to them, it was a gift.

I don’t know how this adds to the discussion but it is a different perspective on what the belief is … a gift.

 

[justasking4]

Learn the faith you are so intent on bashing. Catholicism does not teach that we re-sacrifice Christ. That Church would denounce such a teaching as a terrible heresy.

If the catholic church does not teach that Christ is re-sacrificed in the mass then what am i to make of this from an article on this website that says:
“The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as “Bible Christians” insist.”

 

[Rolltide]

If the catholic church does not teach that Christ is re-sacrificed in the mass then what am i to make of this from an article on this website that says:
“The Eucharist is a true sacrifice, not just a commemorative meal, as “Bible Christians” insist.”

It’s not a re-sacrifice… it’s the SAME sacrifice. At Mass, we are witnessing it AT CALVARY eternally, outside of time, just as God sits outside of time.