Truly truly I say to you...

[santaro75]

**
**

So since He is not being offered anymore, the bread at communion cannot be the same one since He is no longer being offered and the Mass is a continuing sacrifice.

I think the distinction here is that the Catholic position would have us understand that the Sacrifice of the Cross was for salvation outside of time. It was for that time, all time before and all time after. The Eucharist is tied to the cross in that way. It is outside of time and for US who are subject to time. It is for us to be present at the moment of atonement in this day right here.

 

[jmcrae]

Do you know if all the church fathers believed in it?

Yes, they did. From the passage from Justin’s defense of the Christian faith, above:

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

 

[VociMike]

Do you know if all the church fathers believed in it?

No church father ever denied that Christ was truly and substantially present in the Eucharist.

 

[DesertBrother]

i don’t dismiss all early church authority but some of it. In regards to John 6, how did the early church of the 2nd century interpret this passage?

Read these carefully:

The Epistle of Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrneans (Disciple of John the Apostle)

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Justin Martyr
We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Was it consistent through time?

Yes, until it was questioned by modern Protestants who decided they had a better idea.

Did all the people agree what it meant?

No, the Gnostic sects did not because they believed Jesus to be merely a man. They also thought the Resurrection was symbolic. Once again, Christianity was saved by Church authority from “free thinkers” who thought themselves wise.*

 

[JonathanKinsman]

An example is post 96 (VociMike) expressing the same point that I am: it has been answered but you do not acknowldge it.

Some of these ideas are so simple as to be overlooked. Jesus and the Incarnation, Jesus and the Eucharist, takes 1000s of years of misunderstood mythos, legends, bad directions by the ancient Jews, and simplifies it for all mankind for all time.

No more holocausts. No more blood sacrifice. No need for killing the young to ensure a god’s favor. God is present when properly consecrated by an ordained priest in something as common as a wheat wafer and wine. These images are woven throughout the OT and most of the middle East cultures. Who knows, maybe it was God’s way of preparing those people to understand such a simple concept.

Again, the fallacy that personal interpretation trumps conventional wisdom (the many who agree over the millennia who have studied it) is ridiculous.

Are you this way with municipal codes and state statutes? Federal and state laws? The Rules of Baseball?

In all matters that matter most, our Faith, it should be done communally, collegially, whether in lectio divina or in good works: the individual is part of the Body of Christ and that Body is the Church on earth.

I can’t put it any other way to make sense to you.

 

[jonfan]

Do you know if all the church fathers believed in it?

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

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

“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?” (ibid., 5:2).

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]).

catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp**

 

[jonfan]

Mark
14:22. And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke and gave to them and said: **Take ye. This is my body. **

14:24. And he said to them: **This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many. **

Luke
22:19. And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.

*Do this for a commemoration of me… This sacrifice and sacrament is to be continued in the church, to the end of the world, to show forth the death of Christ, until he cometh. But this commemoration, or remembrance, is by no means inconsistent with the real presence of his body and blood, under these sacramental veils, which represent his death; on the contrary, it is the manner that he himself hath commanded, of commemorating and celebrating his death, by offering in sacrifice, and receiving in the sacrament, that body and blood by which we were redeemed. *

22:20. In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying:** This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. **

newadvent.org/bible/luk022.htm

1 Cor
11:23. 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,

11:26. For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come.

John
**6:51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven.

6:56. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed**

1 Cor
**10:16. The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? **

11:27. Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

*Or drink… Here erroneous translators corrupted the text, by putting and drink (contrary to the original) instead of or drink. Guilty of the body, etc., not discerning the body, etc… This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, even to the unworthy communicant; who otherwise could not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemned for not discerning the Lord’s body. *

**1 Cor 11:28. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. **

**Drink of the chalice… This is not said by way of command, but by way of allowance, viz., where and when it is agreeable to the practice and discipline of the church. **

I really don’t know how much clearer Catholics can show the real presence of the Eucharist to be true.

God bless,
Jon

Amen

 

[DesertBrother]

The church may interpret scripture but that doesn’t mean all its interpretations are correct.

If this were true, then that would make the Bible fallable. If the Church authority was able to err in interpreting and defining valid Scripture, then the books they chose to include in the Canon could’ve been the wrong ones.

You’re painting yourself into a corner here.

 

[VociMike]

Originally Posted by rbarcia

So since He is not being offered anymore, the bread at communion cannot be the same one since He is no longer being offered and the Mass is a continuing sacrifice.

Then Christ is no longer our High Priest in heaven. “For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.”

Paul wrote this after Christ’s death and Resurrection, but he doesn’t say it was necessary for this priest to have something to offer. He says it is necessary. Yesterday. Today. Tomorrow.

 

[Knight4God]

If this were true, then that would make the Bible fallable. If the Church authority was able to err in interpreting and defining valid Scripture, then the books they chose to include in the Canon could’ve been the wrong ones.

You’re painting yourself into a corner here.

Quick comment; that aside from maybe the Anglican Church which we still hold to some level to tradition as authority AND sola scriptura.

The idea that the canon could be wrong is exactly the protestant position when it comes to making a distinction between the scriptures which are inspired and figuring out which ones those are. Two professors at Dallas Theological Seminary (Independent Bible Church) for a NT backgrounds class both have this same opinion: that we just have to have faith in the Spirit and cannot be 100% certain if we are right. R.C. Sproul also said once “we have a fallible collection of infallible books”. Right or wrong, it is the protestant position in general to separate the authority of the books from the authority of which books they are. This is exactly how Protestant theology says it holds to sola scriptura and rejects the ontological infallible authority of Rome (or any other council) consistently…not that pope’s can’t be infallible…I am a human is an infallible statement, but that there is no 100% infallible way of knowing the canon was right, instead we opt for looking for historical and objective reasons in each book argued independently that can be examined by each person as if we where discussing which primary sources are valid for the study of any other subject.

Of course, as an Anglican I can still accept authority of a general consensus of the faith on matters, but that is another issue

 

[DesertBrother]

there is no 100% infallible way of knowing the canon was right, instead we opt for looking for historical and objective reasons in each book argued independently that can be examined by each person as if we where discussing which primary sources are valid for the study of any other subject.

Then there’s no 100% infallible way of knowing anything is true about Christianity. What if a group of these modern fellows you speak of decided that the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas is the inspired Word of God? Who would be the authority to tell them they are wrong? How would they claim that authority and convince the rebel group to submit to them? The answer is, they’d form yet another denomination and develop their own version of Christianity. This is why Protestantism will continue to divide itself into oblivion.

As I said earlier:

What would the United States be like, if the founding fathers just gave each man a copy of the Constitution and left it up to each man to be his own legislative, executive, and judicial authority?

Answer: There would be no United States.
This is why there is nothing but anarchy among Protestant beliefs and private interpretations. If it had been done their way from the beginning, there would be no Christianity.

 

[DesertBrother]

Justasking4,

I feel somewhat bad that you’ve become so outnumbered here. Then again it is a Catholic forum

Keep in mind that everything said here today, especially by those of us who may become passionate, is motivated by a deep love for our Church, and a desire for all believers to become united spiritually AND physically with the Resurrected Christ through the Holy Eucharist. Peace be with you. :tiphat:

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Not so. As Christians we are to examine everything carefully. We are warned in scripture about false teachers within and outside the church. It will not do just to accept what any church claims to be true unless it has the facts to back up the claim.

Are you aware that the catholic church has never interpreted every verse of the scripture infallibly? Since this is the case, you as a catholic must also interpret the scriptures without knowing with certainty what a particular verse means and must rely in part on your own private interpretations.

I’m sorry, but for the longest time I struggled with the dogma of transubstantiation and of the Sacrifice of the Mass until I started reading the Church Fathers and they all point to the belief that the early Church held there to be a literal transformation of the bread and wine into body and blood during the Liturgy. The Fathers do not point to a symbolic interpretation. It’s not something Christendom had even considered up until Ulrich Zwingli – a Swiss Reformer.

I have examined this and other Catholic doctrines thorougly through the writings of the Church Fathers and have come to conclude that the Catholic Church today teaches what the early Church taught in regards to these doctrines.

 

[corvidae]

I think its not correct for a number of reasons. One that follows from it is that it would mean that Jesus has a third nature i.e. bread for example.

This has already been addressed.

Remember, it is no longer Bread, it is Jesus with the appearance of bread, but there is no longer bread there, therefore, Jesus has no third nature.

Just a reminder
Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

A lone Raven

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

This has already been addressed.

Remember, it is no longer Bread, it is Jesus with the appearance of bread, but there is no longer bread there, therefore, Jesus has no third nature.

Just a reminder
Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

A lone Raven

Amen!

Jesus has no third nature in Catholic teaching and the proposed idea of transubstantiation put forth by this Protestant would be considered heresy and anathema to the Faithful.

Jesus has two natures: True God and True man. And you can thank the Holy Spirit for showing the Catholic Church the truth of these teachings when Christian dogma was being developed.

 

[AlegreFe]

You do the same, when trying to show a point.

I’m not in junior high so I won’t argue with you. You see very well when I put up verses, 98% of the time I put up more verses than you might think we need. I see one liners a lot of the time from some Protestants. Perhaps they have no time to look up and copy & paste, I’m not sure. But I always try to put up more verses to get more context. Just click on my screenname and look for all my posts and you will see. But I’m sure you know this already. You just have to be jh about it.
"rbarcia:

Thanks for the verses I forgot , but I thought you were posting all the way to verse 71?

I guess you didn’t read my post?

I suggested to read all of John 6. But now I say at least read from verse 35 to 71.
Let me put up some of those verses for you…
But you know, I can put up all the verses in the world and you still refuse to see. So I’ll stop here as you seem to just ignore the verses that I put up for you to read.

more…

 

[AlegreFe]

don’t forget verse 63:
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

That’s one of my favorite ones!

63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is
of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are
spirit and life. John 6:63 NAB

Commentary in my NAB bible;
“Spirit . . . flesh: probably not a reference to the
eucharistic body of Jesus but to the supernatural
and the natural, as in John 3:6. Spirit and life: all
Jesus said about the bread of life is the revelation
of the Spirit.”​

6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth
nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are
spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 KJV

No commentary ^
I wonder why there’s no commentary for this verse in the KJV. I could imagine why.​

62: Then what if you were to see the Son of man
ascending where he was before?
63: It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no
avail; the words that I have spoken to you are
spirit and life. John 6:63 RSV-SCE

Commentary in my RSV-SCE bible
6:62: When Jesus ascends into heaven they will
know that he spoke the truth.​

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. John 6:63-64 Douay-Rheims Bible

Commentary in my D-R bible;
63 “If then you shall see”… Christ by mentioning his
ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would
confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; and at the
same time correct their gross apprehension of eating his
flesh, and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner,
by letting them know he should take his whole body living
with him to heaven; and consequently not suffer it to be as
they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.

64 “The flesh profiteth nothing”… Dead flesh
separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed
they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth
man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal
apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and
words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it would be the height of
blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive
in the blessed sacarament, with his spirit, that is, with his
soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had
profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us,
nor died in the flesh for us.

64 “Are spirit and life”… By proposing to you a
heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful
manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain.​

This is how I see it.
The Spirit makes it possible!
1. The Holy Spirit comes upon the bread to make it possible as the Priest consecrates the bread & wine and prays over them.
2. The Holy Spirit comes upon us to make us believe that the Eucharist is indeed Jesus!

We as humans “in the flesh” with our “flesh/human” understanding cannot believe that the piece of bread can be the Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity of Jesus Christ.
However, if we have the Holy Spirit we will be believers. With the gift of Faith that comes to those who are open to the Truth of the Faith, you shall believe! Jesus says in verse 47, “Truly, Truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.” Then right away in verse 48 He says that He is the bread of life. So to me that says if you believe that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist you will have eternal life. Not only believe however, but partake in Him also.
Believing in Jesus is to believe all the words that He says and trust in Him that He will give us life.

more…

 

[AlegreFe]

The Holy Spirit did.

But how do you know that it was the Holy Spirit that told you and not an Evil Spirit? How do you know for sure that it is the Holy Spirit if you say that it is. And saying that you just know because you know because it is the Holy Spirit is not enough.
How can you say that it is the Holy Spirit when there are so many different denominations out there? Do you really think that the Holy Spirit would teach contraditions? Do you think the Holy Spirit is confused or something because there are so many different Protestant doctrines out there? HOW DO YOU KNOW?
By what Authority do you go?

You didn’t answer this question below.

Can you actually trace your pastors and/or ministers back to Peter and the Apostles as they taught because God sent them?

Answer that question please. ^ It’s more important than you think.

rbarcia:

That is why it is essential to check all teachings that come from men against scripture as the Beareans did

Who are the Beareans?

rbarcia:

And how do you trace who you learned this from? Obviously the trace records themselves are documents given to you by men of today, and you accept them by faith. You even use the Bible to try to justify authority.

I’m sure you heard this a thousand times; Apostolic Succession.

rbarcia:

But church = all members, not the magesterium.

I never said that the Church only consists of the Magisterium. We the people who have been baptized into Christ are part of the Church.
The Magisterium is the Teaching Authority that Jesus gave to His Apostles and therefore to their successors, the bishops of the Church united with the Pope who is the successor of Peter. Because of that authority that Jesus gave, it is the Magisterium that has the guarentee of the Holy Spirit to actually teach and preach the Word of God as Jesus and the Apostles preached and taught it.

rbarcia:

So you are not part of the church, when you say he left ‘us’ the church?

I am part of the Church. I was baptized into Christ. Weren’t you baptized? And therefore you are also part of the universal church; not the Catholic Church but you are my brother/sister in Christ if you were baptized.

rbarcia:

No Jesus left us (us being the church, the collective body of believers) His Holy Spirit.

You’re not wrong by saying that. But He did establish His Kingdom here on earth too and so He left us His Church so that we can have her to teach us. The Church is the Guardian of the Truth.

15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how
thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of
God, which is the church of the living God, the
pillar and ground of the truth. 1 Tim 3:15 (KJV)

more…

 

[AlegreFe]

John 14:16
16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
John 14:26
26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

:yup: Yep! That’s right! He left His Church the Holy Spirit. And that is why the Pope is infallible when it comes to preaching about Faith & Morals. That doesn’t mean that he’s impeccable so don’t say that that’s what I’m saying.

 

[VociMike]

Originally Posted by rbarcia
don’t forget verse 63:
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

Here’s the commentary from the Ignatius Study Bible:

A contrast between the Spirit’s ability to enlighten our minds (14:26) and human reason’s inability to comprehend revealed truths apart from faith (8:15). It is this earthbound perspective that is profitless in the face of divine mysteries. Note that Jesus is not speaking of his own flesh, which does in fact give life to the world (6:51, Eph 2:13-16, Heb 10:10) (CCC 737).

And then there is the parallel with Matt 16:15-17:
*He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” *