The Eucharist is NOT the body of Christ

[tm30]

However when a claim is made by the church that something has happened and there is no evidence for it then you have no grounds to truly beleive it.

Again, there is no evidence that God created the world, or that the Bible is His inspired word. Please reconcile.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

If i understand you correctly then in John 6 Jesus is advocating canabalism. This is what follows from what you are saying.

Which is why the Romans were in such an uproar. The Early Christians taught that we eat His Body and drink His Blood. Thus, the Romans believed the Christians were cannibals. Even the crazy pagans got it.

 

[JudieK]

Jesus was asking you to trust Him, even if it seemed awful. Perhaps it was a test… think of what God asked Abraham to do… was He advocating murdering your own son? When Abraham showed He was willing to follow God no matter what, his faith was rewarded. Many of Jesus’ disciples walked away, and could not follow. He turned to Peter and asked “Will you, too leave?” Peter and the apostles were just as troubled as everyone else, but the difference was, they TRUSTED Jesus. Their trust was also rewarded… Jesus held up the BREAD and said THIS is my body… and the with the wine, THIS is my blood. He was saying that “because you have proven that you would follow me no matter what, even to what you believe to be awful - your faith is rewarded- I will miraculously turn this bread and wine into my flesh and blood… and be fully but sacramentally present in them.” Jesus can do that… He can do anything! His word is good enough for me! Remember… it is a bit prideful to think that our own feeble interpretation could be more true than thousands of years of some of the greatest thinkers in history. Be humble, and trust Jesus. Take Him at His word.

 

[JudieK]

Again, there is no evidence that God created the world, or that the Bible is His inspired word. Please reconcile.

We walk in faith, enlighted by reason. If everything was proven scientifically, there would be no need of faith. The proof for us is the change that happens when we live our lives for Christ… our hearts change- our lives change. We become children of God, beloved and comforted even when we are in the midst of suffering and hatred. We become more like Him- more loving, more forgiving, more charitable. Everyone is free to believe what he or she wants… I chose to believe in God as revealed through Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Blessings to all.

 

[planter654]

You are easily shocked and thin skinned. Not you nor any other protestant will ever change the fact that the Catholic Church is the one, true church that Christ intended to exist after His ascension into heaven and of which He left Peter as its first Pope - 263 popes later to Pope Benedict XVI.

The Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ. No heretic, blasphemer or protestant will ever, ever change that. Not only that!..the day in which the Perpetual Sacrifce is abolished ( Eucharist, for all you protestant minded) - you and your protestant friends better run for the hills or better yet to the nearest remnant of catholics that still has a good priest among them.

So type away…it just won’t matter and it won’t change the truth. All your quick ,quirky come backs will not change the facts. You’ll die a “martyr and a heroe in your own mind” unless you come to the sacrament of Penance and to the Eucharist.

If I ever hear from this thread again…it’ll be too soon.

Please do not threaten souls, for we were all created by God. Not all souls are at the same level as you, yet in their own faith or beliefs. Even we were at one time or another. St. Peter said; " forgive them for they know not what they do".

When Jesus came were we not also his enemies. Instead I pray for all souls and let God do the work. The fact that he is on this site is a start, God is in the work.

So do not interfer with God’s work, but build up the faith in others.
from what you also have received. For are we not all sinners, sipping milk? We also are not at the Spiritual Level of ST. Peter or St.Paul or any of the apostles. Our journey has not ended on earth, but preserver till the end. FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT.

Like Jesus said in the temple, I think it was Barnabas when he ask Jesus to serve justice upon all that were killing the Christians. Jesus reply; " FAR BETTER FOR YOU, IF YOU PRAY FOR THEM".

God Bless…a very little child of God

 

[chris_molter]

And why was this cahrge against the church false? Was it based on a literal understanding or a figuative?

In a way, the charges were true, since the Christians believed that they were truly eating the body and blood of Christ (the passover lamb) as he commanded them to do.

A lamb was not a sufficient sacrifice to atone for the sins of man. A man would not be a sufficient sacrifice either, for the sins of man against God were infinitely offensive (as God is infinite). Only a divine sacrifice could wash away sin and that sacrifice also had to come from man, hence the death of Jesus (who is fully human and divine).

Connect that with the Passover and we have the Eucharist. This had always been understood in a literal sense. Although within the Catholic Church, the doctrine of transubstantiation came to be defined later, the literal belief in Jesus’ actual, physical presence in the Eucharist has existed since the beginning. All of the ancient Patristic churches hold to this (Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Coptic, etc) as do many protestants (Anglican, Lutheran) even if the formulae for understanding the mechanics differ.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Justasking does not believe in Sacred Oral Tradition. He thinks that anything of relevance was written in the Bible, and that what the Catholic Church considers Sacred Traditions are only the “speculations of men”.

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.

THis is a very interesting confession on your part ja4! you are trying to impose limits on the interpretations fo the Catholic Church. had you considered that such an effrort is not in “sync” with the forum rules? The purpose of the fora are to answer questions about the faith, not to provide you a venue in which to educate Catholics about their errors, according to justasking4.

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.

Since you have demonstrated with regularity that you do not understand the Catholic view, and categorically reject what you THINK is the Catholic view, how do you consider yourself to be in a position to determine “what follows from the catholic view”?

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.

So are you saying it is “wooden” to take Jesus at His word, and believe that he meant exactly what He said?

 

[justasking4]

I’m still waiting for you to prove to me that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. It’s just paper and ink, as far as I can tell.

This is not the forum for this.

 

[justasking4]

Again, there is no evidence that God created the world, or that the Bible is His inspired word. Please reconcile.

Not so. There is a lot of evidence for your 2 comments.

 

[justasking4]

Then go to Adoration, and ask Him in Person, whether it is really Him there, or just a piece of bread.

If it is just a piece of bread, then nothing will happen, but if it is really Him, then He will answer you.

If i were to get no answer would that mean what you believe is false?

 

[planter654]

Wowser! You make me feel so SMART! The observation that Gelasius was debating the hypostatic union, not the Eucharist, and that the theological language used since the 13th century had not yet been systematized was what I said (with less detail) up-thread when JA4 first poste this quote. Gives me confidence that the old bean is still functioning.

To further test the old bean is still functioning go now and read

JOB CHAPTER 38—41 and— JOB’S CHAPER 42—Jobs answer

God did not give us the answers, just the questions— but thought maybe you could?

God Bless

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;3108779]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Christ is fully trustworthy men are not
Mannyfit75
Jesus also said that we have to eat His flesh and drink his blood. He also said, his flesh is real food indeed, and his blood is real drink.

To do what you are saying here requires you to interpret the words of Christ. In the context of John 6 where these words appear, what does Jesus mean if the last supper was totally unknown to those in whom He spoke to? He gives no hint that He will make this clearer to them at that time.

If you truly trust Jesus, you take his word truthfully. You would have to believe that the Eucharist is Jesus Christ.

I do take His word truthfully as you do. Its still comes down to what He meant. If this doctrine was as the catholic church teaches it is, then why don’t we see any of the apostles teaching on it except Paul who mentions the Lords supper but does not say how to change the bread and wine into Christ?

On the side note, the word Eucharist derives from the Greek word eucharista which means thanks.

 

[planter654]

To further test the old bean is still functioning go now and read

JOB CHAPTER 38—41 and— JOB’S CHAPER 42—Jobs answer

God did not give us the answers, just the questions— but thought maybe you could?

God Bless

Mercygate— sorry I did not know it was you I pushed the wrong one, I meant it for the other friend. Sorry.

 

[mercygate]

If i were to get no answer would that mean what you believe is false?

He will give an answer. But unless you have the disposition to receive it, it is likely that you may not hear it. Sometimes He smacks you with a two-by-four. Sometimes He whispers in that “still, small voice.”

This is Advent. We have just read in the Scriptures: “the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them.”

One more thing about the Emmaus episode: The Mass follows the pattern of that encounter. First, we have the Liturgy of the Word, followed by the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

 

[guanophore]

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

No, we see Jesus offering his Body and Blood, and He had previously taught the disciples that eating His flesh and blood would lead to eternal life. That is how we know it is no longer bread and wine. Bread and wine do not lead to eternal life.

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.

Ahh. Yes, you are right, there are “dumb idols” spoken about in both the old and the NT. I think that only such people as yourself, who cannot discern the Body and the Blood, would be led to “this kind of thing”. Another poster recommended that you attend Adoration, but I think this is not a good idea for you. Since you do not discern the Body, it would just be an act of idolatry for you.

Before i respond to your answers i’d like other catholics response to these questions and see if they agree with yours.

That is really irrelevant. Individual Catholics may be in error. What is relevant is that this is the Teaching of the Church.

Is there any indication in the passages that refer to the last supper that gives you any indication that they thought of Jesus was also to be known as a piece of bread and wine?

No, all the relevant passages speak of the Body and Blood of the Lord.

If not there, any other places in the NT?

Each instance speaks about Christ being present in the breaking of the bread, and warns that people not profane it.

If your literal interpretation is correct then the answers you gave above would be supported not only by the scriptures i.e. others also understood Jesus to now also have the nature of bread and wine combined with His nature being God and man.

This is a very difficult concept, and it is not surprising that you are having trouble understanding it. People have been trying to wrap their intellects around it for two millenia. In fact, it is a mystery,and it is quite beyond our human intellect to understand, and maybe even appreciate. It is a basic tenent of the Apostolic faith, however.

I’m curious to see if other catholics see it your way to.

Irrelevant. There are very few Catholics who could even attempt to explain the Eucharist in a logical manner. It is something that absolutely defies logic.

 

[justasking4]

mercygate;3109308]He will give an answer. But unless you have the disposition to receive it, it is likely that you may not hear it. Sometimes He smacks you with a two-by-four. Sometimes He whispers in that “still, small voice.”

This is not the only possibly. It could be very well it does not exist. What you say here reminds of what mormons tell me to know if mormonism is true. If i don’t get the “burning in the bosom” that is supposed to tell me mormonism is true, he will most likely say the same kind of thing your have here.

This is Advent. We have just read in the Scriptures: “the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them.”

What does this have to do wirh the eucharist?

One more thing about the Emmaus episode: The Mass follows the pattern of that encounter. First, we have the Liturgy of the Word, followed by the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Interesting.

 

[guanophore]

What do mean by “appearance of”? Either the bread literally turned into His body (human since that is the only body He had) and the wine into His blood or it didn’t.

Since Jesus said “this is”, one can only accept his words at their face value. You are adding words to the scripture (this represents/symbolizes).

The apostles would be able to determine this by their senses if this indeed had happened.

This is an erroneous assumption that is based on pure speculation on your part. There are many things that happen in the spiritual realm that the senses cannot determine. How did the people in Mary’s time know that her child was conceived by the HS? Did their senses tell them? How did they know their sins were “washed away” in baptism? Did they see them floating down the Jordan?

For example when He gave them the cup to drink do we have any indication that they thought they were drinking His real blood?

The indications appear in the later writings and practices. When Paul writes about having received this as “first importance”, and cautions them against disbelief, we see some decades later how this teaching was understood.

This passage though doesn’t support your position though. Just because they recognized Him after the breaking of bread doesn’t mean they believed He was bread and wine.

Fortunately, Catholics are not limited to developing theology on one passage. We take into account all the passages equally, and the Teaching from the Apostles. This prevents us from believing errors that can arise when theology is developed from one particular passage in a vacuum from others.

 

[mercygate]

To further test the old bean is still functioning go now and read

JOB CHAPTER 38—41 and— JOB’S CHAPER 42—Jobs answer

God did not give us the answers, just the questions— but thought maybe you could?

God Bless

The theme verses of my spiritual biography written for admission in the Confraternity of Penitents were Job 42:6 & 12: “Now my eye sees thee . . . therefore I repent in dust an ashes.” And the Lord blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning.

 

[WitnessToHope]

I’ve been following this thread from the very beginning and I know a lot of people put a lot of hard work and effort into the responses. The original poster and justasking4 have resisted believing the truth set before them but I want all who contributed to know your efforts were not wasted. I’ve learned so much on how to explain and defend the Real Presence. To me John 6 is crystal clear, thanks be to God, but I’ve always struggled with putting it into words. What you all have posted has helped me to where I feel very comfortable now articulating what I believe. You all are awesome and you have served our Lord well in explaining and defending the Truth!

May everyone have a very blessed and holy Christmas!

Witness To Hope

 

[guanophore]

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.

Clearly this is where you are hung up. You are not able to make a spiritual discernment, because you have to rely on your physical senses. Whereas, one who comes to God must come in faith, not in the senses.

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.

Here you go again, claiming that Catholic teaching is just the “ideas of men who can be wrong and have been”. It is a puzzle to me why you are here at all, ja4. You have already made up your mind that Catholic teaching is the false misleadings of men, and that we should only use scripture as the rule of faith. What do you hope to accomplish here?

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.

In fact, the Catholic Church not only wrote the NT, but has always interpreted it correctly. She knows best what it means, having produced it in the first place. It is like you go to the library, pull a book off the shelf, an claim to understand what the authors meant more than the person who wrote the book!

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

Not this tired old dead horse AGAIN! JA4! You have been told repeatedly that Catholics don’t take the verses out of context and parse them apart! You have been repeatedly directed to the catechism for the Teachings. You reject the Catholic interpretation of the scriptures, and excuse yourself based on a strawman that you have developed, some sort of “infallible interpretation” text.

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?

You have made it clear on these threads that you already believe that you know the truth,a dn that it is not Catholicism. You are not interested in studying the Teachings of the Church, or understanding the Catholic teaching on scripture. You have stated that what Catholics believe is the truth are the “speculations of fallible men”.

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?

On the contrary, the catechism is indeed the document that fills that purpose. It faithfully echoes the teachings of the church, and articulates the magesterial teaching to the people. You reject the catechism, the magesterium, and the Sacred Tradition.

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.

Yes, I believe this is true. It seems you have such a staunch resistance to the Catholic teaching that it is impossible for you to even see the point of view, much less agree with it. There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.