The Eucharist IS Scriptural!

[Philthy]

geno75:

In this gospel book it is not implied. Where is the wine in chapter 6? And there is no mention of proclaiming the bread(body) and wine(blood) for his death at the last supper.

Why do you think the Apostle John wrote this gospel in this way?

Hi Geno -
Im having a little trouble understanding what you are trying to say. Would you mind succinctly stating it? Do you believe there is a conclusive significance to the failure to mention wine during John 6? If so, please state the significance and then support why you believe it is conclusive. Claiming the failure to mention wine in John 6 as significant seems a little silly to me - actually it seems intellectually desperate. If you are trying to sell the concept that the failure to mention it somehow clarifies this text of Scripture then you have a very tough sell. The only thing that approach will accomplish will be to reinforce the lack of clarity of Scripture and the need for a sure norm of interpretation - both of which are contrary to sola scriptura.
Also, please recognize that we are not in a Scriptural vaccuum: the early Church has plenty to offer on the Christian Faith which, though it is not Scripture, greatly enhances our ability to understand the often ambiguous message that Scripture alone provides. Especially John’s disciple Ignatious - if anyone knew what John taught it would be Ignatious. Why would you - in a situation where your interpretation requires you to contradict Scripture(“This IS my body”) due to the ambiguous nature of what Scripture reveals - ignore his (name removed by moderator)ut? Do you really believe any other human(yourself included) within the last 500 years is going to provide better insight?
Lastly, do you realize that you restarted a thread that had been inactive for almost a year?!

 

[geno75]

Church Militant:

If I have to choose who to believe between you and the rest of the post reformation teachers & preachers, and Ignatius and St. John, who do you think I’m gonna go with?
Pax vobiscum,

In this case, I would stick with the Apostle John, and the Apostle John only.

Why?

Genesis so clearly shows us that satan’s evil works best when it’s ever so subtle. He went after Eve to eat from the forbidden tree, why? Because she did not receive direct relevation from God. Didnt you learn this in Sunday School? So if you believe this concept, how can one trust anything from those that did not receive the direct teachings of God? Ignatious, Linus, whoever. I trust in God through Jesus Christ, and to all those who recieved his word first hand, that is in the bible that you claim the RCC canonized.

The sovereignty of God, there isnt anything that can top that.

By believing the interpretation that when Peter confessed who Jesus is; that only the popes get the keys of the kingdom opens up a whole new game for satan. Now many are convinced that the keys of the kingdom are to be had by one man only. Now the little “g” god of this world has something to neutralize the Word of God. Just imagine the devils torment if all the called out ones of Christ moved in this world with the heavenly kingdom keys of authority, what is needed for us to do the fathers will, to destory satan and all his works. Instead, there are those who believe Matthew 16 is to protect the “church” from making bad doctrinal decisions and to protect “her” from the gates of hell.

The PEOPLE makeup the church. Extra-biblical doctrines and buildings, papal relics are protected more preciously than those living believers of John 3:16. Tell me that is not the work of the devil.

 

[geno75]

Philthy:

Hi Geno -

Lastly, do you realize that you restarted a thread that had been inactive for almost a year?!
Militant has been crying for people to use the search function, and I did.

 

[Mickey]

geno75:

In this case, I would stick with the Apostle John, and the Apostle John only.

You misunderstand what Church Militant is saying. Since you are unable to fully comprehend what St John is saying in his Gospel about the Eucharist, (not to mention countless other places in Scripture), we have available some writings from one of St John’s disciples. But sadly, you are unable to accept any of it.

 

[Philthy]

geno75:

In this case, I would stick with the Apostle John, and the Apostle John only.

Why?

Genesis so clearly shows us that satan’s evil works best when it’s ever so subtle. He went after Eve to eat from the forbidden tree, why? Because she did not receive direct relevation from God.

Interesting - where is it taught in Scripture that God did not reveal anything to Eve and that the Serpent chose Eve because she did not receive direct revelation?

geno75:

Didnt you learn this in Sunday School?

Of course not - its pure speculation.

geno75:

So if you believe this concept, how can one trust anything from those that did not receive the direct teachings of God?

You mean to not believe stuff like, say, the canon of Scripture?
Thats right my friend. The bible is NOT a direct teaching of God - it is a product of Tradition, like it or not. This is a most desperate attempt to validate sola scriptura. Unfortunately Jesus didn’t write anything down, none of the disciples were inspired to write that they were told to write anything down, and the stuff that they did write has all sorts of admonitions to “hold fast to tradition” to “be subject to the elders” and that “the Church is the pillar and foudation of Truth”. This last admonition was given to Timothy who “knew the Scriptures since his childhood”. Are we supposed to “read between the lines” there like you are attempting to do with John 6?

geno75:

Ignatious, Linus, whoever. I trust in God through Jesus Christ, and to all those who recieved his word first hand, that is in the bible that you claim the RCC canonized.

Well that is history, as they say. I guess you have to supply us with direct revelation of the authenticity of Scripture or you will just have to be quiet. good luck. Did you recieve direct revelation? If not, then why do you believe it? You are beginning to trip over yourself…

geno75:

The sovereignty of God, there isnt anything that can top that.

I agree, but what, exactly is your point? Here let me help: Nothing can top the sovereignty of God, but the Bible is a product of Tradition through the Catholic Church and it was not a product of “direct revelation”. Ok, you still have no Bible via direct revelation - all you have is recognition of that fact and your decision to violate your own “don’t beleive anything other than direct revelation” mandate.

geno75:

By believing the interpretation that when Peter confessed who Jesus is; that only the popes get the keys of the kingdom opens up a whole new game for satan. Now many are convinced that the keys of the kingdom are to be had by one man only.

Gee, I wonder why. Could it have anything to do with the implications of such an interpretation?

geno75:

Now the little “g” god of this world has something to neutralize the Word of God. Just imagine the devils torment if all the called out ones of Christ moved in this world with the heavenly kingdom keys of authority, what is needed for us to do the fathers will, to destory satan and all his works. Instead, there are those who believe Matthew 16 is to protect the “church” from making bad doctrinal decisions and to protect “her” from the gates of hell.

The PEOPLE makeup the church. Extra-biblical doctrines and buildings, papal relics are protected more preciously than those living believers of John 3:16. Tell me that is not the work of the devil.

Blah, blah, blah, blah. I find it all meaningless avoidance of the issues at hand - and extraScriptural at that! The fact is that if it were not for the Catholic Church guided by the holy Spirit you wouldn’t have a Bible. You should be very careful about making false accusations - it borders on bearing false witness.
Stick to the issue: Where did you get your Bible and why do you believe it is contains the words of life spoken by Christ to his Apostles?

 

[VociMike]

I was struck by a thought recently :whacky:

In the Protestant case, where the bread and wine (juice) do not become the body and blood of Jesus, what a miserable memorial it is. A couple of cents worth of crackers and juice to remember the Incarnation, Ministry, Passion and Resurrection of Christ?! And even that only once a month, more or less? On the face of it, it is almost an insulting mockery. Of course our Protestant bretheren are well-intentioned and insulting mockery is the furthest thing from their minds, but the actual symbolism of the situation suggests a very different (and lower) level of honoring and remembering than that which Christ deserves.

“But you Catholics use crackers and a sip of wine too!” might come the reply. No, our meal does not consist of crackers and wine, but of Jesus Christ. That is the only suitable meal for the remembrance of the Incarnation, Ministry, Passion and Resurrection. It is the only food worthy of the subject it honors, which is (one reason) why Christ has given it/Himself to us.

 

[Church_Militant]

geno75:

Militant has been crying for people to use the search function, and I did.

Yeah and proved again the very reasons that Catholics reject Sola Scriptura. You make several assertions without any real proof and attempt to impugn valid sources, while asserting that your particular interpretation (wherever you got it) of the Word of God is the correct one, yet the fact remains that the extensive scriptural evidence I have provided proves you wrong and the further corrobration of the writings of the early church shows that you again assert that your own modern interp of this issue is the correct one despite the substantial evidence to the contrary. If this is the best you have to offer, I think you are wasting time on Catholics that know the Word of God and their faith. Believe whatever you please, but please don’t try to tell Catholics that you know better than we do about the Eucharist. It’s clearly not the case…
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Church_Militant]

geno75:

In this case, I would stick with the Apostle John, and the Apostle John only.

Why?

Genesis so clearly shows us that satan’s evil works best when it’s ever so subtle. He went after Eve to eat from the forbidden tree, why? Because she did not receive direct relevation from God. Didnt you learn this in Sunday School? So if you believe this concept, how can one trust anything from those that did not receive the direct teachings of God? Ignatious, Linus, whoever. I trust in God through Jesus Christ, and to all those who recieved his word first hand, that is in the bible that you claim the RCC canonized.

The sovereignty of God, there isnt anything that can top that.

By believing the interpretation that when Peter confessed who Jesus is; that only the popes get the keys of the kingdom opens up a whole new game for satan. Now many are convinced that the keys of the kingdom are to be had by one man only. Now the little “g” god of this world has something to neutralize the Word of God. Just imagine the devils torment if all the called out ones of Christ moved in this world with the heavenly kingdom keys of authority, what is needed for us to do the fathers will, to destory satan and all his works. Instead, there are those who believe Matthew 16 is to protect the “church” from making bad doctrinal decisions and to protect “her” from the gates of hell.

The PEOPLE makeup the church. Extra-biblical doctrines and buildings, papal relics are protected more preciously than those living believers of John 3:16. Tell me that is not the work of the devil.

This is nothing but a load of disjointed and irrelevent anti-Catholic drivel. The scripture is the first source that I cited and you have not dealt with the overwhelming evidence there, much less the verifiable historical FACT that the early church shared these beliefs. You reject both the Word of God AND the witness of the early believers who gave their lives for their faith.

The truth has been there for 2,000 years, and yet you choose to believe some modern (less than 500 years old!) teaching of men.

That really is hard to figure out, but if it makes you feel like something special, knock yourself out. I can’t muster that much audacity to buy into it.
Pax vobiscum,

BTW THANKS for reopening my thread so that all of us can see these things again. There are probably some folks out here that need to see this all and to use it to deal with people like you. :clapping: :clapping:

 

[CindyGia]

It’s just amazing that with all the scriptural proof shown in this thread alone about the Real Presence of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament that Protestants refuse, with a mule-like stubbornness, to accept the FACT that Jesus IS present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist. It seems they just don’t understand that He wants to always be present for all of us (His flock) to consume on a daily basis, which, by eating of His Flesh and Blood, fortifies us in this “sublime Heavenly manna” the needed spiritual (and perhaps bodily) ARMOR to battle against the terrible evils of this world.

It’s very sad Protestants refuse to simply “see” with their hearts and to have faith as little children (which our Lord requested of us) which when believing as “little children,” abundant graces flow down upon us opening a torrent of heavenly wisdom which reveals the mysteries of this Sublime Sacrament.

I have noticed too many “intellectual” Protestants on this site (for instance “Contari”) who so eloquently argue to the hilt using all their intellectual prowess, but though time and time again, miss the mysterious “target” completely (regarding Christ’ Holy Catholic Church) - because they rely solely on their intellectual “wits” and have not allowed themselves to believe as “little children”. This is where most Protestants have gone astray. They let their intellectual pride get in the way. But isn’t it said somewhere in scripture “God confounds the worldly?”

It’s absolute lunacy that here we have the Beloved Master, Who loves us so much that He stays with us in the most Blessed Sacrament of His Church for all His flock to gnaw upon His Divinity, His Blood, His Flesh, and Body - so that we are well armed for this life and the attacks by Satan - and yet silly Protestants, refuse to believe that it is all true!

HOW can anyone pass up this Wonderful, Beautiful, AMAZING and SUBLIME Sacrament of receiving Our Precious and Loving God into their own bodies? I DON’T GET IT!!! Someone help me with this! I’m freaking out!!!

 

[montanaman]

I’m freaking out!!!

For some reason, I heard Milhouse’s voice when I read that, and I’m still cracking up.

 

[Church_Militant]

Hi again! Something else that I discovered in talking with a priest during RCIA on the Eucharist was this passage from the Our Father in the Douay-Rheims Bible.

9 Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our supersubstantial bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen. (Matthew 6:9-13)

I mentioned the use of the word “supersubstantial” in the passage and his eyes lit up as he went on to point out the word that most translators translate “daily” is nearly untranslatable in the original because it is such a comprehensive word and encompasses so much that the word daily was used to point out that one needs it that often just to live.

Try getting communion out of a non-Catholic church on a daily basis…

 

[NotWorthy]

I go by simplicity.

Anytime Jesus begins a sentence with, “Amen, Amen, I say to you…” you can take it to the bank!

If He repeats Himself FOUR TIMES, you can even charge Interest!!!

Notworthy

 

[AquinasXVI]

You are what you eat.

We eat the flesh of Christ, so we partake and and become organically united to the BODY OF CHRIST.

in XT.

 

[MaggieOH]

geno75:

In this case, I would stick with the Apostle John, and the Apostle John only.

Why?

So what the other Apostles, including St. Paul is not good enough. Is that it?

Genesis so clearly shows us that satan’s evil works best when it’s ever so subtle. He went after Eve to eat from the forbidden tree, why? Because she did not receive direct relevation from God. Didnt you learn this in Sunday School?

No wonder Catholics do not send their children to Sunday School. It seems that there is a good chance that the children will be led astray with all sorts of heretical interpretations of the Scripture.
Where in Genesis does it say that Satan’s evil works best when it is ever so subtle? Where in Genesis does it say that Eve did not receive direct revelation from God? Is this an interpretation based upon the fact that God told Adam that HE was forbidden from eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? What about the fact that God came walking in the Garden of Eden with both Adam and Eve? Was this a case of Eve being so gobbed smacked at seeing the Big Daddy of them all, that she did not hear a word that He was saying? Methinks that there is a Sunday School teacher somewhere that needs to be sacked and the books that she is using need to be burned.

So if you believe this concept, how can one trust anything from those that did not receive the direct teachings of God? Ignatious, Linus, whoever. I trust in God through Jesus Christ, and to all those who recieved his word first hand, that is in the bible that you claim the RCC canonized.

So the people who are closest to the source are not good enough. Yet you believe a Sunday School teacher who tells porkies about what is written in Genesis?

The sovereignty of God, there isnt anything that can top that.

By believing the interpretation that when Peter confessed who Jesus is; that only the popes get the keys of the kingdom opens up a whole new game for satan.

Jesus promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the holders of the keys of the kingdom. I guess that leaves out the church that teaches that Eve did not receive divine revelation.

The rest of the conversation comes under the heading of diatribe of the extreme kind.

MaggieOH

 

[MaggieOH]

Church Militant:

This is nothing but a load of disjointed and irrelevent anti-Catholic drivel. The scripture is the first source that I cited and you have not dealt with the overwhelming evidence there, much less the verifiable historical FACT that the early church shared these beliefs. You reject both the Word of God AND the witness of the early believers who gave their lives for their faith.

The truth has been there for 2,000 years, and yet you choose to believe some modern (less than 500 years old!) teaching of men.

That really is hard to figure out, but if it makes you feel like something special, knock yourself out. I can’t muster that much audacity to buy into it.
Pax vobiscum,

BTW THANKS for reopening my thread so that all of us can see these things again. There are probably some folks out here that need to see this all and to use it to deal with people like you. :clapping: :clapping:

These teachings of men are far less than 500 years old, because the original Reformers believed in the Eucharist. However that is not the case since the Enlightenment. Maybe that is why Sunday School teachers do not get paid, because they would have to be accountable for what they teach.

MaggieOH

 

[MaggieOH]

Church Militant:

Yeah and proved again the very reasons that Catholics reject Sola Scriptura. You make several assertions without any real proof and attempt to impugn valid sources, while asserting that your particular interpretation (wherever you got it) of the Word of God is the correct one, yet the fact remains that the extensive scriptural evidence I have provided proves you wrong and the further corroboration of the writings of the early church shows that you again assert that your own modern interp of this issue is the correct one despite the substantial evidence to the contrary. If this is the best you have to offer, I think you are wasting time on Catholics that know the Word of God and their faith. Believe whatever you please, but please don’t try to tell Catholics that you know better than we do about the Eucharist. It’s clearly not the case…
Pax vobiscum,

Maybe someone should do an accrediation on Sunday School teachers, because they not only do not know what the Catholic Church teaches but they seem to teach some rather erroneous ideas about Divine Revelation and why Eve was tempted by Satan.

 

[CindyGia]

I’m still finding it completely bewildering that none of our “other” Protestant friends so often posting on this site have not yet “stepped up to the plate” to argue their case against the Eucharist being totally and completely scriptural!

Hmph, maybe this thread has given them ALL something to contemplate and ponder. We can only hope and pray (for them) that maybe in God’s great mercy and love for all people, He will unlock their hearts and minds to be able to finally understand the wonderful mysteries of His Holy Catholic Church and the fact that this Church IS the ONE AND ONLY Church of Christ upon this entire earth!

God Bless us all!

**And thank you and God Bless you “Church Militant” for all your wonderful posts and threads that always inspire and lead us as Catholics closer to God in His Holy Catholic Church! **

 

[Alfie]

Church Militant:

I offer as evidence the following passages of Scripture:

John 6:31-70

"31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. 34 They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. 35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.

36 But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out. 38 Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day. 40 And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day.

41 The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 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. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. 67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. 68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? 69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 70 And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. "

Will you explain to me what the benefits of the Eucharist are? Is it a temporary protection from sin? That is what I understand from reading Catholic writings. Why do you have to have to keep taking mass over and over? What happens when the mass wears off and you don’t go to mass for several months and during that period of time you die? Do you go to hell?

 

[AquinasXVI]

Alfie:

Will you explain to me what the benefits of the Eucharist are? Is it a temporary protection from sin? That is what I understand from reading Catholic writings. Why do you have to have to keep taking mass over and over? What happens when the mass wears off and you don’t go to mass for several months and during that period of time you die? Do you go to hell?

Alfie:

That’s a great question.

As for the benefits of eating the body and blood of Jesus, there’s two answers to this:

1. the CCC has the OBJECTIVE causes and effects which would be better if you read it personally. That way it’s clear to you what the doctrine is. There are far too many points for a response here.
2. The SUBJECTIVE effects vary from individual to individual as you can imagine. Just like a personal relationship with people it has a life of its own and grows and grows, the intimacy cannot be graphed on a chart, it is deeply personal and mostly unspeakable joy and peace. It has to be experienced from within. Nothing cerebral from the outside can come close to explaining the interior movement of this mingling of our blood with his, our flesh with his.

As a non catholic, this may sound cryptic…but that’s my best answer to your question…it’s like asking you for your most happy moments with your parents, you may say a hundred things and still feel deficient in explaining to me the interior experience.

Maybe, if you become Catholic one day, you’ll understand. In that regard, I pray that God grant you that gift at some point. I hope that doesn’t offend you because for us, the greatest gift we can share is this intimacy with Christ that is so deep it cannot be sufficiently put into words.

God bless.

in XT.

 

[MaggieOH]

geno75:

In this gospel book it is not implied. Where is the wine in chapter 6? And there is no mention of proclaiming the bread(body) and wine(blood) for his death at the last supper.

Why do you think the Apostle John wrote this gospel in this way?

I take it that you are not very well schooled when it comes to understanding both the context of the Gospels, and precisely when they were written.

What was the purpose of what was said in John Chapter 6? That is the question that is most relevant, not some stupid question about where is there mention of wine.

The relevance is that John’s Gospel was written after the synoptics, and there was no need to state the same things about the Last Supper. Instead St. John related the incident in the synagogue at Capernaum and used it as the vehicle to reveal Jesus in all of His Glory as the Son of God who is “the Living Bread come down from Heaven”.

In fact you are quite wrong to say that the “wine” is not mentioned in John Chapter 6. Let me quote for you what seems to be missing from your own Bible text:

“I tell you most solemnly, if you do not eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and **drink his blood you will not have life in you. **Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise him up on the last day. **For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I in him.” (John 6: 53-56)

**When this is tied to the actions of Jesus at the Last Supper, then we see that Jesus meant us to remember Him through what appears to be bread and wine offered as the gifts that are turned into His Body and Blood as a remembrance of both the Last Supper and His torture, and death upon Calvary. That is, these gifts are offered and Jesus comes down from Heaven so that He is present at the high point of the Mass when the priest, in situ Christi says those words “This is My Body…” and “This is My Blood of the new and eternal covenant” (paraphrased imperfectly).

So, when you say that wine is not mentioned, it seems that you have not looked beyond the physical and you have not managed to link the speech at Capernaum to the later events. St. John definitely made the link and that is why he wrote about this particular speech, which screams Eucharist from the moment that the Eucharistic miracle of feeding the crowd was performed to the end of the discourse at Capernaum.

As St. Peter said: “Lord, who shall we go to? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe. We know that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6: 68)