The Eucharist is NOT the body of Christ

[Dauphin]

The problem is the way the catholic church interprets these scriptures to support its doctrines.

This is where you’re confused. The Catholic Church isn’t just another protestant denomination which went rifling through the Bible one day to pick out obscure passages that seem to support a bunch of curious positions. It didn’t just invent these things on a whim.

The Catholic faith has existed from the beginning as one organic whole with the fullness of divine revelation as received through Sacred Oral Tradition (remember, early Christians didn’t have the Bible) and Sacred Scripture. We see perfect correlation between Catholic doctrine and Scripture, but Catholic doctrine is not based in a book; it is based entirely in that faith which Christ handed down to the apostles and is preserved forever in His one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

 

[pete_29]

You believe all kinds of things without any “physical evidence”. You should believe Jesus is God because that is exactly what the NT teaches. Jesus did only what God do.

There are a number of characteristics you should look for. A quick list would be:
1- a desire to serve Christ
2- a greater sensititivty to sin and a desire to stop
3- a desire for the Scriptures to know Christ
4- fellowship
5- a thankful attitude for all that God has done.
These are just some of things to look for.

Do you have any “physical evidence” that God exists. If not, then why do you believe:shrug:

 

[NonDenom]

Wrong. Think about it a little more. Christ is really and truly present in the Sacrifice of the Mass, and he is not re-sacrificed. Put the pieces together.

I guess I don’t understand this. If there is a “Sacrifice of the mass”, but Christ is not being Sacrificed then who is being Sacrificed? or what is the Sacrifice?. You say to put the pieces together, but you are saying two different things.

 

[Dauphin]

I guess I don’t understand this. If there is a “Sacrifice of the mass”, but Christ is not being Sacrificed then who is being Sacrificed? or what is the Sacrifice?. You say to put the pieces together, but you are saying two different things.

At the Mass, we are made present at the Sacrifice of Calvary through Sacramental means. It is the same Sacrifice, not a new one; It is simply presented for us in an unbloodly manner.

 

[mercygate]

Hello,

This may be a good time to mention that the Eucharist is a Mystery of God. I know that jimmy has already mentioned it on this thread - but the Eucharist truly is a Mystery of God, like that of the Trinity. We shall never fully penetrate the infinite depths of this Mystery in this life.

We may tend to think of a “mystery” as something so far beyond our understanding that we can dismiss the whole idea of trying to understand. But my priest last weekend gave a different definition of “mystery.” He said that a mystery is an unending invitation to deeper understanding. So when we approach the mystery of the Eucharist, we can be like Mary who asks, “How can this be?” In faith, we will be drawn towards a deeper understanding.

I think the anti-real-presence crew needs to look again at the old adage: Credo ut intelligam. I believe that I might understand.

 

[mercygate]

I did find it interesting that you were posting from Strongs. But I was reading it on my phone at the time (I’m sick - mostly lying down) and was running too low on phone battery to comment. Someone earlier gave a real intricate reading of the passage with these words - from the original Greek. But finding verification in a Protestant source is a real coup.

BTW, I wasn’t knocking Protestants. I was commenting on literal interpreters who decide that this is the one passage that can’t be taken literally. That has always perplexed me. Even when I was a Protestant it perplexed me.

Strong is in Heaven having Bible study with St. Jerome. They’re best buds.

 

[AliciaCL]

How about this as a way of understanding the Eucharist at the Mass? Yes, Christ’s actual sacrifice historically happened once. However, his sacrifice was for all time, all generations and he asked us to “do this,” memorialize it in his memory. We re-offer, re-memorialize the perpetual sacrifice of Christ at Mass. Christ isn’t killed over and over. But by the power of the priest, standing in the stead of Christ himself, priest king and victim, Christ re-enters the Eucharist to give us spriritual food. His body and blood are the supreme Lamb sacrifice which we consume just as the ancient Jews ate the sacrificed lambs to complete their offering in Genesis, at Passover. At Mass, we join ourselves to the eternal sacrifice and re-offer it to God on a weekly or daily basis. Then we receive our manna from heaven. Christ actually comes into the bread and wine to join with us in the offering to the Father. The Mass is a unification of ourselves to Christ’s offering. He allows himself to come to us, to inspire us to continue on our path toward heaven. Christ’s eternal one-time sarifice is not over with at the time of his death. Christ explained at least 4 times that people should eat his flesh and blood, the ultimate sacrificial lamb to come into the kingdom. I would assume that God would accept spiritual joinings, as those who are Protestant at a Catholic Mass. They can receive spiritually but why not understand the real presence and consume it as Christ instructed and asked?

 

[rstegeman]

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

But Jesus himself was both fully human and fully God…at the same time.

Sorry if this has already been covered…I’m trying to catch up on this thread, but I’m only at page 19 or so

 

[ralphinal]

SOmehow, I’ve read this monstrasity of a thred. I am physically exhausted, even though I did it in short bursts.

Do you see what is missing? Philosophy. We talk about essence and accidents and such and they do not understand. The mind is limited by the constraints of humanity. As Catholics, we learn to go beyond our own limits to ponder the eternal. If you have no basis in philosophy, you will not see it. John’s Gospel is a great example. Look at the beginning. All that about the Word and how the Word was with God and was God. Does that make sense in the human way? No. I have been told by a Protestant that John’s Gospel should have been left out because it is too metaphysical.

You want proof that Jesus is the Eucharist, i can give you none. IN order to satisfy human limits, the guise is the same. I can not even prove that I am Ralph. I claim to be. But, what is Ralph? How is Ralph defined? What makes Ralph Ralph? Empirically, Ralph is no different from other humans. IN essence, however, only Ralph is Ralph. “Only can the heart in ernest see where human senses fail.”

 

[PatienceAndLove]

It’s because you’re making a dangerous amount of sense.

Really? Wow… cause I want to get my Masters in Theology… that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

 

[Cobbfmly]

I don’t think so, as I have said I feel like I am in the right here, and nothing that anyone says is going to change my mind.

These links address all your issues with the Eucharist. There is no need to go around and around on a topic where there are excellent explanations available.

catholic.com/library/Institution_of_the_Mass.asp
catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

 

[PatienceAndLove]

I guess I don’t understand this. If there is a “Sacrifice of the mass”, but Christ is not being Sacrificed then who is being Sacrificed? or what is the Sacrifice?. You say to put the pieces together, but you are saying two different things.

The Mass a True Sacrifice.
Since the first century of her existence, the Church has considered the Mass a sacrifice. The earliest manual of the liturgy (before 90 A.D.) has this directive for the attendance of Sunday Mass.

“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks. But first confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 14).”

Why is the Mass a true sacrifice? Because in the Mass the same Jesus Christ who offered Himself on Calvary now offers Himself on the altar. The Priest is the same, the Victim is the same, and the end or purpose is the same.

The Priest is the same Jesus Christ whose sacred person the ordained priest represents and in whose Name he offers the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

The Victim is the same, namely the Savior in His human nature, with His true Body and Blood, and His human free will. Only the manner of offering is different. On the Cross, the sacrifice was bloody; in the Mass it is unbloody because Christ is now in His glorified state. But the heart of sacrifice is the voluntary, total offering of oneself to God. Christ makes this voluntary offering in every Mass, signified by the separate consecration of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of the Redeemer.

The end or purpose is the same, namely to give glory to God, to thank Him, to obtain His mercy, and to ask Him for our needs. But, as we have seen, whereas on Calvary Christ merited our salvation, it is mainly through the Mass that He now dispenses the riches of His saving grace.

Why is the Mass the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross?

The Mass is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross because in the Mass the victim is the same, and the principal priest is the same, Jesus Christ.

(a) Christ, though invisible, is the principal minister, offering Himself in the Mass. The priest is the visible and secondary minister, offering Christ in the Mass.

(b) The most important part of the Mass is the Consecration. In the Consecration bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ who then is really present on the altar. Through the priest He offers Himself to God in commemoration of His death on the cross.

(c) The other most important parts of the Mass are the Offertory and the Communion. In the Offertory the priest offers to God the bread and wine that will be changed into the body and blood of Christ. In the Communion the priest and the people receive the body and blood of Our Lord under the appearances of bread and wine.

Some other interesting articles:
Sacrifice of the Mass
The Sacrifice of the Mass
Questions on the Sacrifice of the Mass
Sacrifice

 

[mangy_dog]

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

Aj, Aj, Aj…you poor, mis-guided soul.

After you read John 6: 1 thru 66 and 1 Cor 12: 22 thru 27 , it would be wise of you to meditate on these passages before making the mistake of implying that the Bible contradicts itself or worse that Christ contradicts Himself.

These passages are important! To imply that Christ meant it as a symbol would be to call Him a deceiver and a liar.

Why would Jesus let so many good disciples walk away on a “mis-understanding”?
Why would He turn to His apostles and not explain to them, if in fact, He was referring to a symbol?

Why? Be careful…you are a thought away from calling Jesus a liar.

 

[revelations]

The only way we can settle all of this is how I did it. I am on week 7 or 8 now of walking the path. I took things slow, and one day i decided i had to find out for myself: Is Jesus Christ truly present Body Blood Soul and Divinity, so, instead of reading it in the book (which it’s pretty clear about), i decided to go to a church.

So there i am in front of the blessed sacrament, and I read all the scripture about it, and then I just asked him: “Almighty God, is the Son truly and substantially present in this sacrament?”

That was about 6 weeks ago. 5 weeks ago I went to my first RCIA class. Now i visit the sacrament every day.

You guys guess what the answer was…

I recommend the same for anyone else who has doubts.

 

[justasking4]

porthos11;3102960]Sez you. God never imposed this criteria on the Eucharist. He said it’s his body. That and with the warnings of Paul and the theology of John 6, that’s good enough for us.

The problem is only for you, who imposes conditions on God himself.

i’m not trying to impose any limits on God but on the interpretations of the catholic church that are not in sync with Scripture. If we take the view that the catholic church is saying here then this means that Jesus not only is the God-man in His nature but also is bread and wine in nature. This is what follows from the catholic view.

After all, if we are to follow the same logic, Jesus should also not be able to bleed and die, and people should drop dead upon seeing him, after all, he is God. But he took on a form in which these properties of God were not manifest.

Not so. Paul in Philippians 2:6-8 sheds some light on your statement.

The Eucharist is no more ridiculous than the Incarnation itself.

i didn’t say ridiculous but it certainly is not a proper understanding of what the scriptures say if you take a strictly wooden literal view.

 

[justasking4]

He says “For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.” He’s never more clear about a single one of his teachings. As hard as it is for you to believe, he was more specific in the John 6 discourse than he was in any other chapter of the entire Bible.

i do believe what He taught here is the truth. However, He is not speaking literally but figuatively.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

The only way we can settle all of this is how I did it. I am on week 7 or 8 now of walking the path. I took things slow, and one day i decided i had to find out for myself: Is Jesus Christ truly present Body Blood Soul and Divinity, so, instead of reading it in the book (which it’s pretty clear about), i decided to go to a church.

So there i am in front of the blessed sacrament, and I read all the scripture about it, and then I just asked him: “Almighty God, is the Son truly and substantially present in this sacrament?”

That was about 6 weeks ago. 5 weeks ago I went to my first RCIA class. Now i visit the sacrament every day.

You guys guess what the answer was…

I recommend the same for anyone else who has doubts.

What a great and happy story!

 

[justasking4]

JMJ_coder;3102965]
Hello,

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Where in the last supper accounts did Jesus ever mention anything about eating the supper would lead to eternal life?
JMJ_coder
Both from the Apostolic witness in Sacred Tradition and from John 6 (Catholics take the Bible in its proper context, as a whole and not cut up into individual verses as it suits us).

Specifically in the suuper accounts do we see anything promise that eating the bread and wine would lead to eternal life?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Lets put this one on the back burner for now.
JMJ_coder
If you insist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
If the eucharist is God then we should expect it to have this capacity. If not, then you have another serious problem that i would hate to bring up.
JMJ_coder
Why? Who says that God must communicate orally to us?

i don’t know how well you know the OT. One of the warnings about false gods is that they could not speak, smell or hear and yet those that worshipped them believed that they were god.
This is what the claims about the eucharist leads to this kind of thing.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

i’m not trying to impose any limits on God but on the interpretations of the catholic church that are not in sync with Scripture. If we take the view that the catholic church is saying here then this means that Jesus not only is the God-man in His nature but also is bread and wine in nature. This is what follows from the catholic view.

No, you still don’t seem to understand.

Jesus IS God and man. Both at the same time, no less one than the other. He is not God under under the incidence (appearence) of human being.

The Eucharist is Jesus under the incidence (appearance) of bread and wine. After the consecration there is NO bread or wine on the altar. Jesus doesn’t become bread but the bread becomes Jesus and thus siezes being bread.

Do you think God the Son isn’t able to take the appearance of bread and wine? Are you limiting God?

i didn’t say ridiculous but it certainly is not a proper understanding of what the scriptures say if you take a strictly wooden literal view.

Let’s suppose you are correct. Kindly explain why no one in the Early Church ever went to question this heretical belief which lead people to adolatry?

 

[mercygate]

i’m not trying to impose any limits on God but on the interpretations of the catholic church that are not in sync with Scripture. If we take the view that the catholic church is saying here then this means that Jesus not only is the God-man in His nature but also is bread and wine in nature. This is what follows from the catholic view.

Not at all. The bread and wine are ESSENTIALLY and SUBSTANTIALLY transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. What remains is the APPEARANCE of bread and wine. “Essence” and “substance” here are technical terms; for purposes of this discussion, they are not used as they are in ordinary speech.

i didn’t say ridiculous but it certainly is not a proper understanding of what the scriptures say if you take a strictly wooden literal view.

We do take a literal view of Scripture but not a literal-istic view. We certainly do not take a “wooden” view of Scripture, since we believe it to be “God-breathed.”

I believe Catholics would look at some of your come-backs to our attempts to convey our view of the Real Presence (especailly the ones that start with “where in the Bible does it say . . .”) and find your approach to be extremely “wooden”. I don’t mean that as a sniper shot. It just seems that your basic launch point is that Scripture should be like the owner’s manual on your Chevrolet.

The more I engage in discussions like this one, the more I appreciate the phrase “Ex corde Ecclesiae” – “from the heart of the Church.”

Of course, non-Catholics will claim that looking at Scripture from the heart of the Church is somehow defective because the Holy Spirit is supposed to interpret it privately, just for you.

But once you understand that Scripture is God-breathed by the Holy Spirit from within the Church, then accept Scripture in its fuller context, and no longer view it as a stand-alone artifact.