The Eucharist is NOT the body of Christ

[EphelDuath]

Now, does the eucharist have power that can be demonstrated?
Can it perform miracles for example?
Can it verbally communicate with you?

If you’re asking if we believe Jesus was kidding, then the answer is no.

There’s no possible way we’re getting this wrong. St. Paul believed in the Real Presence. All of the Apostolic Fathers believed in it. The scriptural evidence is undeniable.

Your only wall holding back your faith is the inability to conceive of such a miracle. My friend, taste and see.

 

[porthos11]

Since Jesus is the God-man we believe He was God because of what He did i.e. miracles. He also had intelligence and power.
When a person spoke to Him, He responded.

Now, does the eucharist have power that can be demonstrated?
Can it perform miracles for example?
Can it verbally communicate with you?

Not ordinarily, because it does not have the accidents needed. Jesus gave us the Eucharist as divine food (take, eat: this is my body), not to talk back at you.

Nevertheless, there have indeed been miracles in the past because of the Eucharist. If you try to use it as some kind of charm, it won’t work, and you would probably be guilty of the same crime Paul warned about.

We who have faith do not need such extraordinary signs. Jesus’ words in Scripture are sufficient for us. He said that it is his body. Our response: Yes, sir. Or more formally: Amen.

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3102394]The words that He was speaking to us were the words of the commandment to receive Him in the Eucharist.

If this were the case in John 6 then why doesn’t Jesus make any reference to it that it would come later at the last supper?

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.)

You are reading into the text what is not there. Jesus never mentions the supper here.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Since Jesus is the God-man we believe He was God because of what He did i.e. miracles. He also had intelligence and power.
When a person spoke to Him, He responded.

Now, does the eucharist have power that can be demonstrated?
Can it perform miracles for example?
Can it verbally communicate with you?

I would seriously question your thinking of Jesus as God as written in your first sentence - it just doesn’t smell right (arian, nestorian, I just can’t place my finger on it) - but that is fodder for another thread.

Now, does the eucharist have power that can be demonstrated?

Yes, it does. It has the power to fortify the soul in an indescribable manner. It has the power to bestow eternal life. It also has the power to completely destroy a soul if received unworthily (e.g., in a state of mortal sin).

Can it perform miracles for example?

Yes, there are numerous miracles associated with the Eucharist.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm

Can it verbally communicate with you?

You mean like out loud oral communication? What does that have to do with anything?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

If this were the case in John 6 then why doesn’t Jesus make any reference to it that it would come later at the last supper?

Huh???

 

[jmcrae]

Can it perform miracles for example?

It has been known to do so. Never “on command” though - just like Jesus!!

Can it verbally communicate with you?

Ever been to Adoration? You should go …

 

[porthos11]

If this were the case in John 6 then why doesn’t Jesus make any reference to it that it would come later at the last supper?

So? Why did he have to? The fact is that he did fulfill it eventually at the Last Super, and is related in three Gospels and a Pauline epistle, the last one accompanied with severe warnings with regards to it.

So what if John 6 didn’t mention it?

You are reading into the text what is not there. Jesus never mentions the supper here.

Again, why do you need to bring up additional, arbitrary criteria instead of believing the words of Scripture?

 

[HeWillProvide]

Wasn’t too long after that that I felt I couldn’t in good conscience be a Catholic anymore, so I left.

This is a very telling statement that we all struggle with. When we feel uncomfortable with something or question something or have doubts, immediately we assume the thing that is making us feel uncomfortable is WRONG. We never assume it is US that is the one that is wrong. We always look outward and assume everything is wrong, wrong if we have a doubt or two. Perhaps we are wrong at times??

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

This is a very telling statement that we all struggle with. When we feel uncomfortable with something or question something or have doubts, immediately we assume the thing that is making us feel uncomfortable is WRONG. We never assume it is US that is the one that is wrong. We always look outward and assume everything is wrong, wrong if we have a doubt or two. Perhaps we are wrong at times??

No, not US. Surely WE are infallible and perfect, I mean it’s US. It must be THEM that is wrong - but surely not US!

 

[porthos11]

Hello,

No, not US. Surely WE are infallible and perfect, I mean it’s US. It must be THEM that is wrong - but surely not US!

Right. I don’t care who you are, but I’M right, and YOU’RE wrong. Even if I’m wrong, I’m still right, because it’s me, not you. So there.

 

[jmcrae]

If you’re asking if I believe in miracles, then yes I do. It’s part of the package.

He showed how He could do this in the miracle of the loaves and fishes, when He caused the same little lunch to be in at least 5,000 different men at the same time. (Not counting their wives and children, says St. Mark.)

The most important teaching of Christ was the Eucharist. If you’re going to toss that out the window because it’s too difficult for you to grasp, might as well throw out the “dying for our sins” clause as well.

And the “do unto others,” as well.

 

[jmcrae]

Right. I don’t care who you are, but I’M right, and YOU’RE wrong. Even if I’m wrong, I’m still right, because it’s me, not you. So there.

The little voices in my head say it’s so, and that’s that. Anybody contradicts the little voices in my head has got to be wrong.

(Oh, wait. Those little voices are my opinions? I’m not hearing locutions from God? Wait 'til my Mom finds out about this. )

 

[PatienceAndLove]

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.

Yes, I have read the entire chapter. I especially like the part where Jesus asks the disciples if they too will leave and Peter answers “you alone have the words of life”

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

Ok…
But you still have not answered the red bits in my post. Paul refers to the Bread and the Wine as the Body and/or Blood of Christ 4 times in the passage alone. How does that not support the Real Presence?

 

[guanophore]

If this were the case in John 6 then why doesn’t Jesus make any reference to it that it would come later at the last supper?

That would certainly clear up a lot, wouldn’t it? As it is, we have had to rely on those who were present at the time to explain what He meant.

You are reading into the text what is not there. Jesus never mentions the supper here.

No, we are accepting the understanding of the text as it was handed down to us by those that wrote it. Since you reject this as authoritative source, you will not be able to understand this passage in it’s correct context.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

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

63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

Footnotes:
63 “If then you shall see”… Christ by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; and at the same time correct their gross apprehension of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and consequently not suffer it to be as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.

64* “The flesh profiteth nothing”… Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacarament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us.*

64 *“Are spirit and life”… By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain. *

 

[kenmd]

"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

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.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Corinthians 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. {in…: or, for a remembrance}
1Corinthians 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
(KJV)

the conclusion of that passage:
For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 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**. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning** the body of the Lord**.

footnote:
27 *“Guilty of the body”… not discerning the body. This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, even to the unworthy communicant; who otherwise could not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemned for not discerning the Lord’s body. *

 

[justasking4]

porthos11;3102746]
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
If this were the case in John 6 then why doesn’t Jesus make any reference to it that it would come later at the last supper?
porthos11
So? Why did he have to?

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.

The fact is that he did fulfill it eventually at the Last Super, and is related in three Gospels and a Pauline epistle, the last one accompanied with severe warnings with regards to it.

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

So what if John 6 didn’t mention it?

Then that counts against your position.

Quote:justasking4
You are reading into the text what is not there. Jesus never mentions the supper here.
porthos11
Again, why do you need to bring up additional, arbitrary criteria instead of believing the words of Scripture?

The problem is understanding correctly what the scriptures teach. 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.

 

[justasking4]

Yes, I have read the entire chapter. I especially like the part where Jesus asks the disciples if they too will leave and Peter answers “you alone have the words of life”

Ok…
But you still have not answered the red bits in my post. Paul refers to the Bread and the Wine as the Body and/or Blood of Christ 4 times in the passage alone. How does that not support the Real Presence?

Perhaps this would be a good place for you to give me your defintion of what “Real Presence” means? I want to be clear that i understand you.

 

[revelations]

Real presence: The body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ is substantially present in the Eucharistic offering. But it looks like bread? It tastes like bread? We cannot fathom this, as has been proven here, and as has been the case for 2000 years. How often we forget the miraculous healings Jesus performed, walking on water, calming of the storm, etc etc. And the eucharist, his greatest miracle of all.

Jesus himself said he came to bring division. He wasn’t talking about the beatitudes here. This sole issue has been polarizing people for over 1000 years! Even right back to people that were standing before him, who basically said “you’re crazy! we’re out of here!”

They believed in the real presence BEFORE they made the bible. So when they made the bible ensuring that it was clearly portrayed was not important. In fact, I don’t think it was until after the reformation that people started to disbelieve the real presence, solely because it was a catholic dogma!

This was a long long time before the dogma of infallibility was declared, or even fathomed. This has NOTHING to do with dogma or the scriptures.

I say look to history.