The Eucharist is NOT the body of Christ

[PatienceAndLove]

It says that we believe as the glorious martyrs believed.

Right on!

 

[mercygate]

"agangbern:

To “invoke” is not the same as “to speak”. He invoked the consecration, but he did not speak the very words of the consecration.

mercygate:

Huh?

Ha ha ha! Mercy, why “huh”?

I simply do not know what you mean that Paul “invoked” but did not “speak” the words of consecration in 1 Corinthians. Are you saying that he is quoting the words here but that this passage is not the whole liturgy of the Eucharist?

 

[mercygate]

I understood that and you are right. We will be leaving soon another week yet, for the holidays for 2 months and I will miss looking for your messages No computor where we are going. But will bring my bible and books and read alot and again on St Therese, St. Faustina etc. So get ready I will probably be asking you lots of questions on my return.

God Bless have a Blessed Merry Christ-mass–a very little child of God.

You’ll be better off! Pray for us while you are away. And pray that those who will be coming to Mass at Christmas – those who may not attend at any other time – will be moved by the Holy Spirit to return Home and seek the restoration of their relationship with the Lord.

 

[teachccd]

YES IT IS!!!

---

**Praise the Lord for this most beautiful gift of Himself. How sad it must be for those who never knew…and refuse to see…:nope: For those who don’t believe no explanation is possible. For those who do believe no explanation is necessary. **

---

Lord, You left a Church who knows you in the Eucharist. We will never stop proclaiming Your Real Presence in this most Holy and living sacrifice of Yourself. Many left You (John 6:66) but we hear Your words and we believe. You would not have said “This is my body” if it was not. We believe You Lord. I pray for all of those here who do not. “You have the words of eternal life.” To whom should we go??

---

:harp: ** TEACHCCD**

---

---

 

[guanophore]

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.

I think you are right, ja4. However, unlike yourself, they accepted what He said even though they did not understand it. They knew Him well enough to trust that He had the words of eternal life.

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 disagree with you about the passage being related to Eucharist, but I do agree with you about where Paul learned the consecration. I think He got this directly in a vision:

1 Cor 11:23-26

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

But I also think Paul observed this as soon as he met with the Christians after His baptism. He was probably invited by them, long before his visit to Peter, to do the consecration.

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

Because these are the words that have been used since the Last supper.Paul repeats them, saying he received them from the Lord. They are still used in the same way today.

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?

It is the same account of the same last supper. Jesus equates the cup with His saving blood. What part of “this is” becomes so difficult?

 

[guanophore]

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.

No, ja4, it does not show that. Jesus was a prophet, and often spoke of things that had not yet come to pass. However, He had clearly in mind the Last supper. We know this because it is prefigured in the Passover, which He revealed millenia before.

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

Jesus used many excellent teaching methods. He taught with parables, he taught by asking difficult questions, He taught by confronting people with things they thought He could not know. He sometimes revealed things that did not make sense, and answered questions that had not yet been asked.

Take for example, the woman at the well. He told her “if you knew who was asking you for water…” She did not even know the question yet. She yearned for living water, but did not recognize that He was the One who could provide it. You have been asked if you have ever been in a position to have an answer revealed to you, when you did not yet know the question.

I submit to you that your presence here on these fora is one such event. You have stated that you are here to convince people that Catholicism is wrong. Have you ever had one person follow your lead? Yet, you keep coming back! Why? You are looking for something, and I think it is not just converts!

 

[guanophore]

Help me out here. I’ve read thru the last supper accounts and i don’t see any reference to eternal life. Not even in Paul’ account do i see anything.

This is a consequence of your vacuum reading. As has been pointed out to you, the Apostolic faith does not derive doctrine from isolated passages, but from all of them together with the Apostolic teaching. We have from the Apostles that the John 6 passage is connected to Paul’s account, and the Last Supper Accounts. We do not isolate them from each other, but find how they can all be connected properly to each other. Sacred Tradition teaches us this, a Source that you reject. Therefore, there is no help for you!

Question for you and others. I have heard from other catholics that you get “special graces” from taking the eucharist. Is this true?

Eucharist is one of the 7 sacraments. Sacraments are instituted by Jesus as a means through which His grace flows. Therefore, anyone who participates in the sacraments receives the special graces of those sacraments (if they are in a state of grace).

 

[agangbern]

**

I simply do not know what you mean that Paul “invoked” but did not “speak” the words of consecration in 1 Corinthians. Are you saying that he is quoting the words here but that this passage is not the whole liturgy of the Eucharist?

Ha ha ha! Sorry Mercy, but It seems you have not read all the posts in this thread.
First, the background of this “invoke” thing is in this post.
It was not actually I who originally said it. In said post justasking objected to Manny’s statement that Paul invoked the consecration. Justasking objected saying, Where do you get the idea from I Corinthians 11:27 that Paul is speaking words of consecration?
That is where I entered because while Manny said “invoke”, justasking said “speak”. Justasking certainly could not find in 1 Cor 11:27 a word for word quotation of the consecration which says, " This is my body and This is my blood, or This is the chalice of my blood" *pronounced by the priest assuming the person of Christ and using the same ceremonies that Christ used at the Last Supper. That this is the essential form has been the constant belief and teaching of both the Eastern and Western Churches *(Renaudot, “Liturgiarum Orientalium Collection”, I, i).

Because of the seeming confusion of justasking about the word “invoke”, so I clarified that to “invoke consecration” is not the same as
“to speak the words of consecration”. For indeed, the two acts essentially differ from each other.

 

[mercygate]

Ha ha ha! Sorry Mercy, but It seems you have not read all the posts in this thread.
First, the background of this “invoke” thing is in this post.
It was not actually I who originally said it. In said post justasking objected to Manny’s statement that Paul invoked the consecration. Justasking objected saying, Where do you get the idea from I Corinthians 11:27 that Paul is speaking words of consecration?
That is where I entered because while Manny said “invoke”, justasking said “speak”. Justasking certainly could not find in 1 Cor 11:27 a word for word quotation of the consecration which says, " This is my body and This is my blood, or This is the chalice of my blood" *pronounced by the priest assuming the person of Christ and using the same ceremonies that Christ used at the Last Supper. That this is the essential form has been the constant belief and teaching of both the Eastern and Western Churches *(Renaudot, “Liturgiarum Orientalium Collection”, I, i).

Because of the seeming confusion of justasking about the word “invoke”, so I clarified that to “invoke consecration” is not the same as
“to speak the words of consecration”. For indeed, the two acts essentially differ from each other.

Actually, I have read this entire thread. Thank you for this attempt to clarify the distinction between “speaking” and “invoking” the words of consecration.

I hope your point is clearer to AJ4 than it is to me. He is not really interested in nuances of ancient liturgical formulae. The only thing he really needs to know is that Paul includes a Eucharistic liturgical formula in that passage of 1 Cor, which, to the best of my knowledge ,is one of the oldest (if not THE oldest) writings of the New Testament. It certainly pre-dates the written Gospels.

 

[mercygate]

Actually, I have read this entire thread. Thank you for this attempt to clarify the distinction between “speaking” and “invoking” the words of consecration.

I hope your point is clearer to AJ4 than it is to me. He is not really interested in nuances of ancient liturgical formulae. The only thing he really needs to know is that Paul includes a Eucharistic liturgical formula in that passage of 1 Cor, which, to the best of my knowledge, is one of the oldest (if not THE oldest) writings of the New Testament. It certainly pre-dates the written Gospels.

 

[Gamera]

Hello,

If we look at Revelations, which John wrote, he gives us a number of a beast, one that would deceive and mislead. He says the number is 666. If we look at another of John’s works - the Gospel according to John - his verse 6:66: As a result of this (teaching on the Eucharist), many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

That beast that deceives, misleads and devours being connected to peoples refusal of the doctrine of the Eucharist. I don’t know if there is actually anything to that, but I have always found that interesting.

The flaw here is that the number of the Beast is not “three sixes,” but rather “six hundred sixty-six.” As John originally wrote it in Roman Numerals, the number of the Beast is DCLXVI. The occurence of three sixes (VI, VI, VI), or of one six and one sixty-six, (VI, XVI) has no connection to the number John cited, which is six hundred sixty-six (DCLXVI).

And of course, John didn’t divide his own Gospel by chapter and verse. That happened long after he was gone. So he would have had no idea which verse would wind up being numbered “6:66”.

 

[EphelDuath]

There were no numbered verses in the Bible until the 16th century, when they were split up by Robert Estienne.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

The flaw here is that the number of the Beast is not “three sixes,” but rather “six hundred sixty-six.” As John originally wrote it in Roman Numerals, the number of the Beast is DCLXVI. The occurence of three sixes (VI, VI, VI), or of one six and one sixty-six, (VI, XVI) has no connection to the number John cited, which is six hundred sixty-six (DCLXVI).

And of course, John didn’t divide his own Gospel by chapter and verse. That happened long after he was gone. So he would have had no idea which verse would wind up being numbered “6:66”.

I never said that this was an intentional point of Saint John - I just said that I found that little connection interesting.

 

[Ella]

Just a quick note from a lurker on this thread - it’s awesome. Please don’t end the thread - yet. Best explanations of the biblical proofs of the Eucharist I’ve ever pondered.

God bless and Merry Christmas!

 

[guanophore]

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?

Good Jobe Alicia

 

[guanophore]

(preserve the Church in Truth) I suppose He could. The issue is though, did He? That’s where the debate is.

If you reject that Jesus has kept the Church in His truth, then you are basically calling Him a liar:

John 16:13-15
13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

You are also saying that Jesus’ High priestly prayer in John 17 was wrong to pray, or that there is some other reason the Father chose not to answer Jesus’ prayer for His disciples.

Or, maybe you are saying that Jesus’ consecration was inadequate?

John 17:19
19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.

Or perhaps you are saying that the consecration did not apply to them, only to you?

 

[guanophore]

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?

Now is as good a time as any! I was studying in a Protestant Seminary the first time I read the Fathers. I was taking a semester in historical theology. I was very surprised to learn how Catholic they are in their beliefs. Are you discounting what the quotes say, because you believe they were already deceived?

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

While looking at context is also important, you did not respond to the quotes themselves. Do you deny that they believed in the real presence?

Thirdly, do the fathers speak for the entire church of time?

You know very well that they do not. However, we can trace the threads of the Apostolic Teaching through the Fathers.

If so who appointed them?

How is that relevant, since you reject the Apostolic succession anyhow? We can demonstrate that the Bishops trace their appointment back to the Apostles, and those to Jesus Himself, but that carries no weight with you. So, are you now using another strawman to dismiss the historical evidence?

Are there not fathers who did not believe as Rome teaches on various doctrines including this Pope Gelasius?

This is a smokescreen, ja4. Instead of changing the subject, address the question at hand. From the evidence posted, does it appear that the Fathers who wrote these passages held “Catholic” beliefs about Eucharist, or not?

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.

Do you think this denies the real presence? Catholicism teaches that the Eucharist is a sacrament instituted by Christ, that it is indeed the Body and Blood, that by partaking in it we become partakers in the divine nature, that the appearance of the bread and wine continue, and that by celebrating it we partake of the mystery of the Body and Blood.

I note that, instead of addressing all the Fathers that support the Real Presence, you tried to find one passage that (in your opinion) denies it. What’s with that?

 

[guanophore]

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.

This is an example of that “wooden minded” you were talking about, ja4. You see, the church interprets ALL the scripture. She does not do so in a vacuum, or each verse in isolation from the others, but She interprets them as a whole, in the light of Apostolic teaching. Just as we have, on this thread, been trying to show you how the passages on Eucharist are interpreted by the Church. Sibnce this method of understanding Apostolic Teaching does not commend itself you, apparently you believe it just does not exist at all! It appears that you are utterly shocked, and you do not even believe you are Catholic!

Would you not agree then that the church has not always believed the samething on this through the centuries? They all did not believe in the Real Presence as taught by Rome today.

You are confusing misled individuals with the church. The Church is the mystical Body of Christ. She has Christ as Her Head, and that is why she cannot err. Persons, individuals, members of the body can be in error, but that does not change the Teaching of the Church. Persons who don’t believe in the Real Presence are not Catholic. They are, like yourself, uneducated in what Jesus really taught, or they were taught the truth, and rejected it (became heretics). Uneducated or heretical people do not define what the Church teaches. They are the reason it is clarified, but the Truth comes from Jesus.

 

[dessert]

One Bread – One Body – One Christ
Everyone have a Blessed Christmas!
Take Care
See you next year!

 

[guanophore]

The problem with this is that even though the passover is mentioned its not the focus of the passage. Its not about literally eating bread but how we inherit eternal life (v47) and how we are to get the life. When Jesus is speaking of eating and drinking He is speaking figuratively not literally.

If this is true, then He is also saying that He is going to give his “figurative” flesh for the life of the world, not His actual flesh. That he only “symbolically” died on that cross, but not really.