The Eucharist is NOT the body of Christ

[guanophore]

Why would God say one thing, and yet have his Son teach something that goes against it?

As for priests forgiving them, short answer: They can’t.

Sorry, you are wrong, they teach the exact opposite of this.

You make a perfect point, ajk. God does not go against anything He has taught. Jesus is the fulfillment of all the types and figures that came before. He Himself is the Passover Lamb that was eaten yearly by the Jews. It is by His shed blood that the angel of death passes over us.

God forgives sins. Jesus demonstrated that He has the authority on earth to forgive sins. He gave this authority to His Apostles. They forgive sins in HIs name.

Yesterday I read a post of yours that said you were taking back your position on the resurrection. I was reallly proud of you for that, since it demonstrated that you are willing to change your mind when presented with evidence. Please continue to examine the evidence, and dont’ allow the prejudices of what misinformation you have been given interfere. It makes you look foolish when you adamantly assert what the church teaches, and you are in error. At least allow for the possibility that you understanding of what the Church teaches may be in error.

So then the priest is a God basically then, or is in His form?

Jesus delegated authority and power to His Apostles and Disciples. It does not change the fact that they are human. Is that what you think He meant when He told them:

Luke 10:16

16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Do you think, because He empowered them to represent HIm, that makes them into “God”?

Does the ambassador “become” the President when delivering a message, or acting in the person of the President? Does the ambassador doing what he is sent to do take away from the one who sent him?

2 Cor 5:19-21
20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

The ministry of reconciliation (mediation) belongs to Christ, and those whom He empowers to share it.

 

[guanophore]

God doesn’t need an “interceder” just the same as he doesn’t need a mediator. God has plenty of ability in Himself to forgive our sins and listen to our confessions for us. He doesn’t need a sinful man to do it for Him.

No, He did not “need” Mary, He did not “need” John the Baptist, or for that matter, Moses, Elijah, or any of the Prophets. He CHOSE to use all these people, and they agreed to be used. You are right, God is so full of plentious ability that he has more than enough ability to allow us to participate in His work here on earth. He chooses to use sinful men to communicate His love to the world.

He wouldn’t need to, and again as I keep saying why would he institute it when it goes completely against the idea that Jesus is the only mediator?

I think it only seems that way to you because you are looking through that “either/or” framework. Catholics know that God sharing his love and grace with humans does not subtract from his essence. We also know that He gave us treasure in earthen vessels, and that He wants to transform us by His power into vessels fit for His Kingdom. The sacraments bring about this transformation, because they channel His grace.

I still have not read what you think Jesus meant when he told the Apostles “whose sins you forgive are forgiven, whose sins you retain are retained”. What circumstances, I wonder, should sins not be forgiven?

 

[guanophore]

 Why would He have to do that under the guise of a mere mortal though? It's absurd.

Indeed, sheer folly! 1 Cor 1:25
25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

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. **

Why did God act so absurdly? To show His power:

2 Cor 4:7

7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us.

The evidence has been in my reasons, for which I have already stated.

You did not provide evidence. You provided prejudice. You stated your erroneous perception of what the Church teaches, and did not read the responses.

 

[zerocrossing]

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

They even argue over whether or not we’re doomed! And then there are some Anglo-Catholics who aren’t even sure we’re wrong!

BTW, my (Protestant) husband laughed at your comment. Touché! Oh, and he’s on the “not doomed” side of that argument!

 

[zerocrossing]

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!

Exactly. They don’t receive the Real Presence, so they assume we don’t either.

 

[lak611]

Exactly. They don’t receive the Real Presence, so they assume we don’t either.

I never have arguments about the Real Presence with my Protestant family members or friends because none of them are from the Reformed Protestant traditions. All of them are Lutheran or Methodist, who do believe in the Real Presence, albeit in a different way than Catholics do.

 

[Cling2Cross]

So you don’t believe that the flesh of Christ, the flesh of which he said “the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh,” profits us?

Only a non-Christian could believe this.

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…

The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (John 6:52 KJV)

This is why what he was saying was hard…but they must be looking at these words from a spiritual standpoint.

Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? (John 6:60-61 KJV)

Therefore, verse 63 was designed to direct them to a spiritual meaning of his words which have to do with the nature of faith…

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. (John 6:47 NAS95)

The word flesh in verse 63 cannot be ascribed to the “flesh” of Christ. I have even seen it explained this way on EWTN. This is a twisting of the scriptures.

…as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16 NAS95)

C2C

 

[zerocrossing]

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?

Nope. That about covers it.

And speaking of incense… I was just reading today about the conception of John the Baptist. Guess where his father was when the angel announced the conception of his son? In the Temple, at the hour of incense, and the angel was on the right side of the altar of incense. (Luke 1:10-11).

 

[guanophore]

Are there any passages in Scripture that shows someone confessing their sins to an apostles and that apostle forgiving those specific sins?

Confession of sins was a Jewish custom. It became linked with Christianity at the Baptism of John:

Matt 3:4-6
5 Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan, 6 and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, **confessing their sins. **

Baptism forgives all sins, original and personal. Converts came forward to receive Baptism “confessing their sins”.

After baptism, individuals called for the “elders” for confession.

James 5:14-16
14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

The Jewish understanding of holding sins inside was that it would make a person sick:

Ps 38:1-11

O LORD, rebuke me not in thy anger,nor chasten me in thy wrath! 2 For thy arrows have sunk into me,and thy hand has come down on me.
3 There is no soundness in my flesh because of thy indignation;there is no health in my bones because of my sin. 4 For my iniquities have gone over my head;they weigh like a burden too heavy for me.
5 My wounds grow foul and fester because of my foolishness, 6 I am utterly bowed down and prostrate;all the day I go about mourning. 7 For my loins are filled with burning,and there is no soundness in my flesh. 8 I am utterly spent and crushed;I groan because of the tumult of my heart. 9 Lord, all my longing is known to thee,my sighing is not hidden from thee. 10 My heart throbs, my strength fails me;and the light of my eyes - it also has gone from me. 11 My friends and companions stand aloof from my plague,and my kinsmen stand afar off.

Where in John 20:22-23 do we see any evidence of a confessional or anything like you have in the catholic church?

What a great mercy we have one! In the olden days, one had to stand in the midst of the assembly!

My second question is: must a catholic confess his-her sins to a priest to be forgiven?

How is this relevant, ja4, since you think this is an erroneous practice anyhow?

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?

There is a lot of evidence, none of which I think would be pursasive for you, since you reject everything of the Sacred Tradition and the Saints and Doctors of the church. However, most fundamentally, we just take Jesus at his word. He said it, we believe it, and that settles it.

 

[jmcrae]

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 words that He was speaking to us were the words of the commandment to receive Him in the Eucharist.

It is to receive Him in the Eucharist that is spirit and life; this is what He is talking about. It is His spirit that quickeneth the Eucharist: in and of itself, it is nothing. (Meaning, it cannot be understood as a mere symbol - it must be enlivened with His Real Presence.)

 

[Cling2Cross]

The words that He was speaking to us were the words of the commandment to receive Him in the Eucharist.

It is to receive Him in the Eucharist that is spirit and life; this is what He is talking about. It is His spirit that quickeneth the Eucharist: in and of itself, it is nothing. (Meaning, it cannot be understood as a mere symbol - it must be enlivened with His Real Presence.)

Verse 63 was not a commandment but a statement to clear up their carnal approach to his words - as if they could eat his flesh and drink his blood.

 

[guanophore]

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

No. It appears to be bread and wine, but it has been changed into the Body and Blood. how do we know this? Because Jesus said so. He held up the bread, and said “this IS my body”, and likewise, He took the cup, and said “this IS my blood”. Not “this represents my body and blood”. When he gave the elements to them to eat and drink, they still had the appearance of bread and wine.

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.

By whose authority do you determine what Jesus meant? Your own? You are rejecting what the Apostles taught. They were there. They understood what Jesus meant.

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

This is absolutely true. One thing he did for us is give us His Body to eat and His Blood to drink. When we fail to acknowledge that, we sin against him, and bring judgement upon ourselves.

 

[lak611]

Verse 63 was not a commandment but a statement to clear up their carnal approach to his words - as if they could eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Then why were some of the disciples offended and walked away? If He did not literally mean to eat His flesh and drink His blood, why did He let them walk away? If it was only symbolic, wouldn’t He had explained it and cleared up any misunderstanding?

 

[jmcrae]

Verse 63 was not a commandment but a statement to clear up their carnal approach to his words - as if they could eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Obviously, Jesus did not mean that they should attack him, kill him, and eat him right then and there. Perhaps they thought that’s what He meant, and if so, then He would be meaning that we are to do this in the Eucharist, as part of a religious ritual (ie: a spiritual thing) - but He certainly did not mean that the bread and wine is only symbolic. It is still Him, in Person (Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity), that we are taking into our bodies when we receive the Eucharist.

We are still required to eat and drink Jesus’ flesh and blood, just as He commanded. We do this at Mass when we receive the Eucharist.

 

[jmcrae]

Then why were some of the disciples offended and walked away? If He did not literally mean to eat His flesh and drink His blood, why did He let them walk away? If it was only symbolic, wouldn’t He had explained it and cleared up any misunderstanding?

See, this is what I wonder, too.

I don’t see any room for a metaphor in this passage, since He doesn’t mention the bread and wine at all.

If He had intended it as a metaphor, wouldn’t He have said something like, “you will eat bread and wine, and you will pretend that it’s Me that you’re eating. But it won’t really be Me; it’ll just be a symbol. I’m actually going to be gone, and you won’t see Me again until the Second Coming.”

 

[Cling2Cross]

Obviously, Jesus did not mean that they should attack him, kill him, and eat him right then and there. Perhaps they thought that’s what He meant, and if so, then He would be meaning that we are to do this in the Eucharist, as part of a religious ritual (ie: a spiritual thing) - but He certainly did not mean that the bread and wine is only symbolic. It is still Him, in Person (Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity), that we are taking into our bodies when we receive the Eucharist.

We are still required to eat and drink Jesus’ flesh and blood, just as He commanded. We do this at Mass when we receive the Eucharist.

What happens if a person does not?

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. (John 6:53 KJV)

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Then why were some of the disciples offended and walked away? If He did not literally mean to eat His flesh and drink His blood, why did He let them walk away? If it was only symbolic, wouldn’t He had explained it and cleared up any misunderstanding?

As Dr. Scott Hahn said,

"I was delving into John chapter 6. I don’t know how many of you’ve ever studied the Gospel of John. In many ways it’s the richest Gospel of all. But John chapter 6 is my favorite chapter in the fourth Gospel. There I discovered something that I think I read before, but I never noticed. Listen to it. “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink His blood you have no life in you. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day, for my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.’” I read that; I reread that; I looked at it from ten different angles. I bought all these books about it, commentaries on John. I couldn’t understand how to make sense out of it.

I had been trained to interpret that in a figurative sense; Jesus is using a symbol. Flesh and blood really is just a symbol of His body and blood. But the more I studied, the more I realized that that interpretation makes no sense at all. Why? Because as soon as all the Jews hear what Jesus says, they depart. Up until this point, thousands were following him, and then all of a sudden the multitudes just simply are shocked that He says, “My flesh is food indeed, my blood is drink indeed” and they all depart. **Thousands of disciples leave Him. If Jesus had intended that language to only be figurative, He would have been morally obligated as a teacher to say, “Stop, I only mean it figuratively.” But He doesn’t do that; instead, what does he do? **

My research showed me that he turns to the twelve, and he says to them, what? “We better hire a public relations (P.R.) agent; I really blew it guys.” No! He says, “Are you going to leave me too?” He doesn’t say, “Do you understand I only meant it as a symbol?” No! He says that the truth is what sets us free, I have taught the truth. What are you going to do about it?

Peter stands up and speaks out; he says, “To whom shall we go? You alone have the words of eternal life and we’ve come to believe.” Peter’s statement, “To whom shall we go?” implies that, “You know, Jesus, we don’t understand what you mean either, but do you have another Rabbi on the scene you can recommend? You know, to whom shall we go? It’s too late for us; we believe whatever you say even if we don’t understand it fully, and if you say we have to eat your flesh and drink your blood, then somehow you’ll give us the grace we need to accept your
words at face value.” He didn’t mean it figuratively."

 

[jmcrae]

What happens if a person does not?

What did Jesus say?

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. (John 6:53 KJV)

I believe Jesus. That’s why I became a Catholic.

 

[Cling2Cross]

Then why were some of the disciples offended and walked away? If He did not literally mean to eat His flesh and drink His blood, why did He let them walk away? If it was only symbolic, wouldn’t He had explained it and cleared up any misunderstanding?

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

 

[jmcrae]

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

He did not say that it was “only symbolic.” That’s why they walked away. They understood Him perfectly.