The Eucharist is NOT the body of Christ

[mercygate]

"mercygate:

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?

Christ is hidden to the mortal eye and the ear in the Eucharist. He is discerned only by faith. Christmas ushers in the period of history when “the blind receive their sight.” Perhaps the prayer of the blind man might be yours: (Lord, if this is really You), Let me receive my sight."

 

[Mannyfit75]

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.

Unknown? It’s pretty clear after hearing this 70 disciples left Jesus because of this hard belief. Jesus told them 4 times that they must eat His flesh and drink his blood. It doesn’t get any simple than that. 1 Corinthians 11:27 also affirms this as well as the writings of the Early Church Fathers. It is pretty clear that we must eat His Flesh. We do so when we break bread.

It is not unknown. In Acts, the Apostles gather in the first day of the week in the breaking of the bread. They under fully that they are eating Jesus.

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?

The Catholic Church taught this for over 2,000 years. Scripture in his full context revealed to them that Jesus is the Paschal Lamb. Do you know the significance why John the Baptist called Jesus the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world?

Well, based on Scripture and our Tradition, the Paschal Lamb at Passover is eaten. Jesus is the Lamb that we must eat. He is a pure sacrifice offered to God, the Father. The Apostles are Jews, they understand fully why John, the Baptist called Jesus the Lamb of God.

The Church is called the Bread of Lamb. This is an echoing of Paschal Mystery of the Sacrifice of Christ, especially the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

Like I said, the belief that the bread and wine as symbolic meaning is FOREIGN. This was never the Orthodox Christian belief. Symbolism of the Eucharist is a modern Protestant belief. It is NOT ancient Christianity. Protestant theologians have gone at length to change the deposit of faith. Under whose authority do they have to change that the Eucharist is not Jesus?

You want authentic Christianity. Return to ancient form of Christianity, go back to the Catholic Church. Don’t fall into the modern Protestant theological errors…

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Church is called the Bread of Lamb. This is an echoing of Paschal Mystery of the Sacrifice of Christ, especially the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

I like to make a correct. The Church is called the Bride of the Lamb. Not Bread…

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;3109486]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
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.

Mannyfit75
Unknown? It’s pretty clear after hearing this 70 disciples left Jesus because of this hard belief. Jesus told them 4 times that they must eat His flesh and drink his blood. It doesn’t get any simple than that. 1 Corinthians 11:27 also affirms this as well as the writings of the Early Church Fathers. It is pretty clear that we must eat His Flesh. We do so when we break bread.

It is not unknown. In Acts, the Apostles gather in the first day of the week in the breaking of the bread. They under fully that they are eating Jesus.

The “unknowns” i was referring to were the ones in John 6. They had no idea that Jesus was referring to a later event called the last supper.

 

[mercygate]

The “unknowns” i was referring to were the ones in John 6. They had no idea that Jesus was referring to a later event called the last supper.

So?

Haven’t you ever in your life received an answer before you knew there was a question?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

The “unknowns” i was referring to were the ones in John 6. They had no idea that Jesus was referring to a later event called the last supper.

How many times did Jesus refer to His Crucifixion and Resurrection and the persecutions to be faced and nobody really understood what He was talking about.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The “unknowns” i was referring to were the ones in John 6. They had no idea that Jesus was referring to a later event called the last supper.

It would be revealed to them. I also like to add that Paul received the breaking of the Bread probably from the Apostles since the Apostles themselves were with Jesus at the Last Supper. So when Paul invoke the words of consecration in 1 Corinthians 11:27, he was recalling into mind the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Breaking of the Bread.

I remember while reading Galatians that Paul remain with Peter for 15 days. I would assumed that Peter taught Paul the breaking of the bread.

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;3109995]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The “unknowns” i was referring to were the ones in John 6. They had no idea that Jesus was referring to a later event called the last supper.
Mannyfit75
It would be revealed to them.

There is nothing in any passage of scripture that i’m aware of that mentions this kind of thing happening. Actually this supports my view in this passage that it had nothing to do with eucharist.

I also like to add that Paul received the breaking of the Bread probably from the Apostles since the Apostles themselves were with Jesus at the Last Supper. So when Paul invoke the words of consecration in 1 Corinthians 11:27, he was recalling into mind the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Breaking of the Bread.

Where do you get the idea from I Corinthians 11:27 that Paul is speaking words of consecration?

I remember while reading Galatians that Paul remain with Peter for 15 days. I would assumed that Peter taught Paul the breaking of the bread.

Perhaps.

 

[jmcrae]

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

Just give it a shot, and see for yourself what happens.

 

[justasking4]

If a catholic wants to argue that bread and wine is to be taken literally then what do you take the “cup” to be in Luke 22:20
in which Jesus says, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is poured out for you.” At that moment, is the “cup” also the body/blood of Christ, or is it a figure of symbolic language?

 

[planter654]

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.

Thank you for your understanding answer. Whow spiritual biography, I knew by your kindness, compassion with me and what I have read in your answers you were spiritual. You came down in knowledge to my littleness to understand. You did so with much patients and compassion. I felt at peace after talking to you. Some others here upset me in my sleep …I would love to have you as my spiritual director.

The arguing I was reading today back and forth was upsetting me. I thought if I mention Job they would read and return to peace with each others.

I am not judging anyone I love them all. I was just trying to understand more, but I know now when St. Teresa
said, she would get a headache if she read so many books.

thank you
God Bless very little child of God.

 

[revelations]

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

Yes, you win, you’ve beaten the big bad Catholics. Please pray for us, we are all on the highway to hell. I hope we have not damaged your pride.

“Win an argument, lose a soul…” cant remember who said that…

Now please, can we close this thread? It’s like a car that can only turn left…eventually you go by the same bakery again and again and again and again…

 

[justasking4]

mercygate;3109959]So?

Since Jesus makes no reference to the supper to help them to understand that it would be clear then, this would show that He does not have the supper in mind at all.

Haven’t you ever in your life received an answer before you knew there was a question?

Not sure what this has to do with our discussion. Can you clarify?

 

[justasking4]

Yes, you win, you’ve beaten the big bad Catholics. Please pray for us, we are all on the highway to hell. I hope we have not damaged your pride.

“Win an argument, lose a soul…” cant remember who said that…

Now please, can we close this thread? It’s like a car that can only turn left…eventually you go by the same bakery again and again and again and again…

We have only just begun----so hang on:thumbsup:

 

[jmcrae]

If a catholic wants to argue that bread and wine is to be taken literally then what do you take the “cup” to be in Luke 22:20
in which Jesus says, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is poured out for you.” At that moment, is the “cup” also the body/blood of Christ, or is it a figure of symbolic language?

The “cup” is the Holy Grail - the Chalice of Christ’s blood, which, when drunk from, gives us eternal life. No need for archaeologists to keep looking for it - it’s at your local Catholic Church, every single time a Mass is being said. :extrahappy:

 

[jmcrae]

Since Jesus makes no reference to the supper to help them to understand that it would be clear then, this would show that He does not have the supper in mind at all.

Not sure what this has to do with our discussion. Can you clarify?

The same disciples were present at the Bread of Life Discourse as at the Last Supper. They received the answer to the question (“in order to receive eternal life”, before they had the question to ask (“why do we have to eat and drink of Christ’s Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, at the Last Supper or at the Mass?”

Notice that nobody at the Last Supper ever asked that question - because they had already received the answer to it, in the Bread of Life Discourse.

 

[Mannyfit75]

If a catholic wants to argue that bread and wine is to be taken literally then what do you take the “cup” to be in Luke 22:20
in which Jesus says, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is poured out for you.” At that moment, is the “cup” also the body/blood of Christ, or is it a figure of symbolic language?

The cup holds the Blood of Christ. Jesus is the New Covenant, hence, Jesus said. “This is the new covenant of my blood.” The blood is Jesus’ blood. The cup holds his blood.

 

[jmcrae]

Where do you get the idea from I Corinthians 11:27 that Paul is speaking words of consecration?

Just curious; have you ever actually been to Mass?

Anyway, the words of the Consecration are found in I Corinthians 11:24-25 (if you listen carefully at Mass, you will hear that these are the same words being used, which come down to us from Apostolic times.)

In verse 27, St. Paul is warning people that they must not profane the Body and Blood of the Lord by receiving the Eucharist in an unworthy manner.

The question you are being asked is: **If the Eucharist is nothing more than bread and wine, then how can someone who is receiving it in an unworthy manner possibly profane the very Body and Blood of the Lord? **

The only way this is possible is if the bread and wine are no longer earthly substances, but have become the Body and Blood of the Lord, through the miracle of transubstantiation.

 

[teachccd]

Will another thousand posts unite Christianity? I’m willing to read through a million if just one Protestant comes home to the Eucharist. One can only pray for an open heart…God Bless, Teachccd

 

[Mannyfit75]

Where do you get the idea from I Corinthians 11:27 that Paul is speaking words of consecration?

Perhaps.

Actually its 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 is where he made the words of consecration.

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the cup, after he had supped, saying: This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. 26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.

The blood text is the words of consecration.