The Eucharist is NOT the body of Christ

[edward_george]

GandalfTheWhite

Because you came to that conclusion after studying the original texts and considering the way the Early Christian saw it. justasking4
I have come to my conclusions by looking at the scripture texts and comparing them to what the catholic church teaches.

This sounds like you hold it as a foregone conclusion that the Catholic Church is wrong, and that you use that assumption as your measuring stick for gauging the veracity of doctrines.

-ACEGC

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3105200]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The question of how a person knows if they have the correct interpretation is absolutely important. It won’t do to claim that a given church has the correct interpretation on their say so.

So, what makes your interpretation valid, other than your say-so? Is a random individual more trustworthy than Christ’s Church?
Where can i find the infallible interpretation of the scriptures by the catholic church? If you or anyone else disagrees with my interpretation then that must be there is a correct one. Where can i find it and study it and to see if it truly is the truth?
The catechism won’t do since that is not its purpose. I’m looking for the primary source from the magesturim since they alone in the catholic church can interpret the scriptures infallibly. Do you know if they have done so?

Quote:justasking4
What is required is what we do in other fields to determine the truthfulness of something. What we need to look at are the reasons given, support for those reasons, context of the passage, word meanings and what do other passages say. All these are important in applying.

jmcrae
People have been doing that for you throughout this entire thread, but you are ignoring them.

People have been producing all kinds of passages as if that alone is enough. I wish it were. When i have asked for specifics in the passages to support various claims, i don’t see it. For example someone said that the eucharists gives eternal life. Now we can read all the passages on the last supper and its never mentioned. This is alot of what i reading here.

 

[edward_george]

I’m still not understanding you. If a real phyiscal change has taken place then there must be evidence for it that can be discerned with your senses. Without this you really don’t have anything going on.

That’s because what we’re dealing with here isn’t accurately captured by the language of “real physical change.” The Aristotelean language of Substance/Accidents is what we use to describe this. The substance is the underlying reality of something that supports and sustains its existence, and indeed sustains the accidents. When transubstantiation occurs, the substance of the bread and wine (that is, the underlying reality) is no longer that of bread and wine, but of Christ. In this way, it may be said that while the Sacred Species still appear to be bread and wine, they are only outwardly so–only perceptibly so. We cannot perceive an ontological change such as transubstantiation, hence it is primarily a matter of faith.

The primary reason i do so is to see if the Scriptures truly teach what is being claimed. In matters of doctrine and practice the starting point and the foundations should always be the Scriptures since they alone are inspired-inerrant. Without them you are then having to build on the ideas of men who can be wrong and have been.

Yes, but how do you know the Scriptures are inspired and inerrant? Because they tell you so? The Qur’an makes the same claim about itself, as well as the religious texts of multitudinous other religions. A phone book could say it was the inspired word of God, but if it really wasn’t, that point would be moot. Who is the arbiter of what is inspired and what is not? Why don’t you ask the Catholic Bishops in the 4th century at Hippo and Carthage and later in the 16th century at Trent who determined what belonged in the Canon of Scripture. There were hundreds of manuscripts out there, and only a select few made it into the Canon of inspired Scripture–and not because there was some amazing table of contents in one of the books, either–because the Bishops, acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, compiled the Sacred texts into what we know as the Bible.

i don’t think that the role of the Holy Spirit is to “interpret” the Scriptures. I can’t think of any passages that would support that. Rather it takes hard and diligent study to understand the scriptures. That was Paul’ advice to Timothy in I Timothy 4:14-16.

**I Corinthians 2 is a start. And why should we care that you don’t think the role of the Holy Spirit is to interpret the Scriptures? The Fathers of the Church–especially the ones at the councils that determined the canon of Scripture–would disagree with you, and I’d take their word over yours.

catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp**
catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp
catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp
catholic.com/library/What_Your_Authority.asp

To do what you say here a person would have to assume the catholic church has always interpreted correctly the scriptures. There are to many problems with this approach. That does not mean we can’t learn from the past on how the church believed things. Somethings they got right some they didn’t.

So, conversely, it’s okay to assume that the Catholic Church hasn’t always interpreted the Scriptures correctly? Also, why does Scripture get so much authority? Again, you’re taking the “owner’s manual” approach to Scripture. It is to be a guide, and to enlighten us, but not to be our leader. Christ is the head of the Church, and Paul will say as much.

 

[mercygate]

I’m still not understanding you. If a real phyiscal change has taken place then there must be evidence for it** that can be discerned with your senses**. Without this you really don’t have anything going on.

The Church has never claimed that the Real Presence requires sensory discernment. In fact, much mystical theology goes to the point that it can be discerned only by faith. The Change is not a “physical” change but a “metaphysical” change.

The primary reason i do so is to see if the Scriptures truly teach what is being claimed. In matters of doctrine and practice the starting point and the foundations should always be the Scriptures since they alone are inspired-inerrant. Without them you are then having to build on the ideas of men who can be wrong and have been.

Catholics understand the Scriptures as the inspired and inerrant WRITTEN word of God. We do not believe they entirely comprehend the word of God. Moreover, Christ’s own promise gives the assurance that the teaching of His Church is “indefectible” from mind of Christ.

i don’t think that the role of the Holy Spirit is to “interpret” the Scriptures. I can’t think of any passages that would support that. Rather it takes hard and diligent study to understand the scriptures. That was Paul’ advice to Timothy in I Timothy 4:14-16.

Some people claim that when Christ promises the Eleven that he will send another paraclete who will “guide you into all the truth” that it means all I have to do is pray to the Holy Spirit and He will reveal the “true” meaning of Scripture to me.

To do what you say here a person would have to assume the catholic church has always interpreted correctly the scriptures.

In this case, the ONLY teaching and interpretation we are discussing is the Real Presence in the Eucharist. With an unbroken line of sacred Tradition on this – a teaching fully upheld in the East, echoed to some extent among many Protestant bodies today, a teaching unchallenged until the middle ages, the real burden lies with those who claim that “scripture does not teach this.” Such an idea is a complete novelty in Christian belief, and unsupported except by fringe heretics until the Reformation.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Hey, Justasking4, could you please also adress posts #766 and #768? I find them extremelly important.

 

[mangy_dog]

jmcrae;3105200]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The question of how a person knows if they have the correct interpretation is absolutely important. It won’t do to claim that a given church has the correct interpretation on their say so.

So, what makes your interpretation valid, other than your say-so? Is a random individual more trustworthy than Christ’s Church?

Where can i find the infallible interpretation of the scriptures by the catholic church? If you or anyone else disagrees with my interpretation then that must be there is a correct one. Where can i find it and study it and to see if it truly is the truth?
The catechism won’t do since that is not its purpose. I’m looking for the primary source from the magesturim since they alone in the catholic church can interpret the scriptures infallibly. Do you know if they have done so?

People have been producing all kinds of passages as if that alone is enough. I wish it were. When i have asked for specifics in the passages to support various claims, i don’t see it. For example someone said that the eucharists gives eternal life. Now we can read all the passages on the last supper and its never mentioned. This is alot of what i reading here.

You should consider changing your name from Justasking to Yeahbut.

Unfortunately you seem to be like the good disciples that walked away from Jesus on that fateful day instead of like the apostles that, even though they didn’t receive any priviliged clarification (there was nothing to clarify) they stayed with Jesus…“Lord you have the words of life, to whom shall we go?”

With that I bid you farewell, …go to Mary Theotokos…she will lead you to Jesus in the Eucharist.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[jmcrae]

Where can i find the infallible interpretation of the scriptures by the catholic church?

If you or anyone else disagrees with my interpretation then that must be there is a correct one.

Yes, in fact there is.

There are seven passages in Scripture that the Church has defined. The remainder, we can interpret as we like, so long as our interpretation doesn’t clash with the official teachings of the Church.

John 3:5 tells us that natural water must be used in the Sacrament of Baptism.

Luke 22:19 and I Corinthians 11:24 tell us that Christ ordained the Apostles to the Catholic priesthood.

John 20:23 tells us that Christ authorized the Apostles and their successors to forgive sins in His name, meaning that we can go to Confession to a priest and receive the forgiveness of our sins.

John 20:22 - Christ conferred His authority on the Apostles and their successors.

Romans 5:12 - The Apostles’ hands were made holy (thus giving them the ability to confer holiness on others, through the Sacraments).

James 5:14 - This refers to the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick.

 

[mercygate]

Yes, in fact there is.

There are seven passages in Scripture that the Church has defined. The remainder, we can interpret as we like, so long as our interpretation doesn’t clash with the official teachings of the Church.

John 3:5 tells us that natural water must be used in the Sacrament of Baptism.

Luke 22:19 and I Corinthians 11:24 tell us that Christ ordained the Apostles to the Catholic priesthood.

John 20:23 tells us that Christ authorized the Apostles and their successors to forgive sins in His name, meaning that we can go to Confession to a priest and receive the forgiveness of our sins.

John 20:22 - Christ conferred His authority on the Apostles and their successors.

Romans 5:12 - The Apostles’ hands were made holy (thus giving them the ability to confer holiness on others, through the Sacraments).

James 5:14 - This refers to the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick.

At least one more. Mt. 16:18-19 must be interpreted by Catholics as indicating the primacy of Peter among the Apostles.

I think there may be as many as 15 passages. I have seen the list but don’t have it at my fingertips.

 

[jmcrae]

At least one more. Mt. 16:18-19 must be interpreted by Catholics as indicating the primacy of Peter among the Apostles.

I think there may be as many as 15 passages. I have seen the list but don’t have it at my fingertips.

This actually makes more sense, to me.

I got the list of seven from my old Inquiry teaching materials, and I’ve read that it’s seven elsewhere, too. But I think that the interpretation of other passages, such as Matthew 16:18, John 21:15-19, and the Bread of Life discourse arise naturally when we look at them in the context of history and Holy Tradition, as well.

 

[rstegeman]

Hey, Justasking4, could you please also adress posts #766 and #768? I find them extremelly important.

I too am interested in your response to these posts. We have evidence of people practicing this belief, some of who studied under the original Apostles. They must have learned this from the originals. So how is it that some of us, some two thousand years later, have been given the insight that nullifies what was taught to the Apostles by Jesus Himself???

To AJK if you are still reading. I was a cradle Catholic and in my late teen years, I fell away from the Church. At the time, I thought I knew the teachings of the Church and my logic just couldn’t accept it. At one point, I was probably agnostic, although I would have never admitted to it then. I have since come back to the Church and have learned so much more about my faith than I ever learned in my childhood. I realized that I my learning in my early years was clouded by: bad judgement, lack of full attention, lack of life experience to truly understand and typical teen cynicism. My best advice is not to take such a hard and fast approach to your opinions. Realize that, no matter what age we are, we are but mere infants when it comes to God and we still have much to learn.

 

[dessert]

I’m still not understanding you. If a real phyiscal change has taken place then there must be evidence for it that can be discerned with your senses. Without this you really don’t have anything going on.

**1 Timothy 4; v.15
“Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profitting may appear to all.”
The greek word for meditate means to chew on and swallow really eat, many left Jesus side when He said eat of my body and blood. When you give your self wholly to them, throw yourself at the feet of Jesus, live the way He taught. Profitting, or an evident in change will appear in you through the reception of the entire Jesus body and blood soul and divinity. **

The primary reason i do so is to see if the Scriptures truly teach what is being claimed. In matters of doctrine and practice the starting point and the foundations should always be the Scriptures since they alone are inspired-inerrant. Without them you are then having to build on the ideas of men who can be wrong and have been.
We cannot feed others until we have first fed ourselves.

i don’t think that the role of the Holy Spirit is to “interpret” the Scriptures. I can’t think of any passages that would support that. Rather it takes hard and diligent study to understand the scriptures. That was Paul’ advice to Timothy in I Timothy 4:14-16.

To do what you say here a person would have to assume the catholic church has always interpreted correctly the scriptures. There are to many problems with this approach. That does not mean we can’t learn from the past on how the church believed things. Somethings they got right some they didn’t.

**
Acts 2;42
“They continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.”
The doctrine of the Church does not need to be brought up to date it IS up to date**

 

[PatienceAndLove]

People have been producing all kinds of passages as if that alone is enough. I wish it were. When i have asked for specifics in the passages to support various claims, i don’t see it. For example someone said that the eucharists gives eternal life. Now we can read all the passages on the last supper and its never mentioned. This is alot of what i reading here.

The person that told you why the Eucharist gives Eternal Life was me. And I will say it again.

Jesus = Eucharist
Jesus = Bread of Life
Bread of Life = Eternal Life

Gospel According to Saint John 6:47- 52
He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

As we can see from the passage above:
Jesus = Bread of Life = Eternal Life

And as stated before: Jesus = Eucharist
Therefore: Eucharist = Eternal Life

Am I the only one who gets it?

 

[jmcrae]

The person that told you why the Eucharist gives Eternal Life was me. And I will say it again.

Jesus = Eucharist
Jesus = Bread of Life
Bread of Life = Eternal Life

Gospel According to Saint John 6:47- 52
He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

As we can see from the passage above:
Jesus = Bread of Life = Eternal Life

And as stated before: Jesus = Eucharist
Therefore: Eucharist = Eternal Life

Am I the only one who gets it?

Not at all. (You should have seen the look on my face, the first time I realized where the Holy Grail is. :extrahappy: )

 

[davidv]

Am I the only one who gets it?

I get it!!

 

[Rolltide]

Hey, Justasking4, could you please also adress posts #766 and #768? I find them extremelly important.

How about posts 179-187? That’s about as much detail on the Early Church Fathers and the Real Presence as you could want.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=205815&page=12

 

[justasking4]

JUSTASKING4:

Here are is what the early Church bealieved about the Eucharist. If you still do not believe than I openly challenge you to show show me those who oposed them and interpreted the Truth correctly. And if you do not find any then you must explain us why no one actually complained of this false interpretation that leads only to adolatry. Or has the Church falled into apostasy right after Jesus left the earth?

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]).

Justin Martyr

“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?”

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]).

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]).

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]).

Continued…*

I’m not that well versed in the fathers as a whole. Perhaps you are. Have you read the entire works of the fathers or just quotes?

Secondly what are the contexts for these quotes? What are the particular issues these fathers are addressing?

Thirdly, do the fathers speak for the entire church of time?
If so who appointed them?

Are there not fathers who did not believe as Rome teaches on various doctrines including this Pope Gelasius?
Pope Gelasius of Rome in his work against Eutyches and Nestorius:

The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.

 

[justasking4]

The person that told you why the Eucharist gives Eternal Life was me. And I will say it again.

Jesus = Eucharist
Jesus = Bread of Life
Bread of Life = Eternal Life

Gospel According to Saint John 6:47- 52
He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

As we can see from the passage above:
Jesus = Bread of Life = Eternal Life

And as stated before: Jesus = Eucharist
Therefore: Eucharist = Eternal Life

Am I the only one who gets it?

Again go back to the supper accounts and see if there is any promise of eternal life. A quick read will answer this question in the negative.

Trying to combine John 6 with the supper accounts won’t work since in context it has nothing to do with the Lord’s supper. Jesus is teaching something far different in John 6 than the eucharist.

 

[Rolltide]

I’m not that well versed in the fathers as a whole. Perhaps you are. Have you read the entire works of the fathers or just quotes?

Secondly what are the contexts for these quotes? What are the particular issues these fathers are addressing?

Thirdly, do the fathers speak for the entire church of time?
If so who appointed them?

Are there not fathers who did not believe as Rome teaches on various doctrines including this Pope Gelasius?
Pope Gelasius of Rome in his work against Eutyches and Nestorius:

The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.

I’ve addressed some of your questions in an earlier response that I wrote back in posts 179-187 (particularly your question #2, the context). Please note that the vast, vast majority of Early Church Fathers believed in the Real Presence, and they did so all the way back to the Apostolic era.

 

[revelations]

But JA, you’re missing the point the Jesus is there. I asked him, he told me, you should do the same.

 

[justasking4]

Yes, in fact there is.

There are seven passages in Scripture that the Church has defined. The remainder, we can interpret as we like, so long as our interpretation doesn’t clash with the official teachings of the Church.

John 3:5 tells us that natural water must be used in the Sacrament of Baptism.

Luke 22:19 and I Corinthians 11:24 tell us that Christ ordained the Apostles to the Catholic priesthood.

John 20:23 tells us that Christ authorized the Apostles and their successors to forgive sins in His name, meaning that we can go to Confession to a priest and receive the forgiveness of our sins.

John 20:22 - Christ conferred His authority on the Apostles and their successors.

Romans 5:12 - The Apostles’ hands were made holy (thus giving them the ability to confer holiness on others, through the Sacraments).

James 5:14 - This refers to the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick.

Don’t you find this absolutely shocking that your church claims to be the only one with authority to interpret the Scriptures and yet it has done only 7?
Catholics are in no better position on interpreting scripture than protestants. You to are left to your “private interpretations” and can’t really know with certainity if your interpretation is true or not. Even on such an important doctrine as the eucharist you have no infallible interpretation but just your own.
If i was a catholic i would be utterly shocked by this.