Unless you eat my FLESH and drink my BLOOD you have no life in you.

[cyberjacques]

Please excuse my lack of Scripture quotes, but I think enough of that has been flung around on this post. I think I can help settle this debate by reminding you that this all comes down to a matter of human sin and imperfection.

On the subject of transubstantiation, the bread and wine contain no human DNA for two reasons. First, it is unnecessary for the purposes of conveying Jesus to us. Second, if the miracle of actual transformation (which Mannyfit75 has provided a link to) were repeated every time the Eucharist is shared, it would be indicative of a profound lack of faith in the Church, since the Bible tells us that only a sinful generation requires miraculous signs to believe.

On the subject of a continuous partaking of the Eucharist, I also have two answers. First, Jesus told us that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. This applies to everything that God asks of the faithful. God is well aware of the fact that it’s not humanly possible for us to individually partake of the Eucharist 24/7, and he doesn’t demand anything of us that’s not humanly possible. Just as we are still permitted to sleep even though God commands us to worship him always. Second, blessedtoo is right. In a very real sense, we ARE partaking of the Eucharist 24/7, since, through the communion of saints, we share, and hopefully all of humanity shares, in the Eucharist of those people around the world who, at any given moment, are somewhere celebrating mass. Now, I know many of you would love to argue about the communion of saints, but we can discuss that in another thread.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Please excuse my lack of Scripture quotes, but I think enough of that has been flung around on this post. I think I can help settle this debate by reminding you that this all comes down to a matter of human sin and imperfection.

On the subject of transubstantiation, the bread and wine contain no human DNA for two reasons. First, it is unnecessary for the purposes of conveying Jesus to us. Second, if the miracle of actual transformation (which Mannyfit75 has provided a link to) were repeated every time the Eucharist is shared, it would be indicative of a profound lack of faith in the Church, since the Bible tells us that only a sinful generation requires miraculous signs to believe.

On the subject of a continuous partaking of the Eucharist, I also have two answers. First, Jesus told us that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. This applies to everything that God asks of the faithful. God is well aware of the fact that it’s not humanly possible for us to individually partake of the Eucharist 24/7, and he doesn’t demand anything of us that’s not humanly possible. Just as we are still permitted to sleep even though God commands us to worship him always. Second, blessedtoo is right. In a very real sense, we ARE partaking of the Eucharist 24/7, since, through the communion of saints, we share, and hopefully all of humanity shares, in the Eucharist of those people around the world who, at any given moment, are somewhere celebrating mass. Now, I know many of you would love to argue about the communion of saints, but we can discuss that in another thread.

AMEN

 

[Tonks40]

Please excuse my lack of Scripture quotes, but I think enough of that has been flung around on this post. I think I can help settle this debate by reminding you that this all comes down to a matter of human sin and imperfection.

On the subject of transubstantiation, the bread and wine contain no human DNA for two reasons. First, it is unnecessary for the purposes of conveying Jesus to us. Second, if the miracle of actual transformation (which Mannyfit75 has provided a link to) were repeated every time the Eucharist is shared, it would be indicative of a profound lack of faith in the Church, since the Bible tells us that only a sinful generation requires miraculous signs to believe.

On the subject of a continuous partaking of the Eucharist, I also have two answers. First, Jesus told us that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. This applies to everything that God asks of the faithful. God is well aware of the fact that it’s not humanly possible for us to individually partake of the Eucharist 24/7, and he doesn’t demand anything of us that’s not humanly possible. Just as we are still permitted to sleep even though God commands us to worship him always. Second, blessedtoo is right. In a very real sense, we ARE partaking of the Eucharist 24/7, since, through the communion of saints, we share, and hopefully all of humanity shares, in the Eucharist of those people around the world who, at any given moment, are somewhere celebrating mass. Now, I know many of you would love to argue about the communion of saints, but we can discuss that in another thread.

Well said! And welcome to CAF!!

 

[Herrobp]

The concept of Jesus’ body and blood is simple. Your twisted idea of how you can transubstantiate and nobody else can is only there to attempt to show how no Protestants can have it. Only you and the Orthodox church. That is what is strategically complex. i don’t buy it for a second and neither does the one who gave his life for all, not just catholics. Sorry.

Explaining the reasons we believe that the Catholic and Orthodox churches possess the power to confect, in Christ’s name, His real presence in the Eucharist is a very difficult task. This is the case because it boils down to the theology behind holy orders and what constitutes valid ordination (which carries with it the power to confect the Eucharist).

Jesus explained the phenomenon of the real presence to the multitudes. But at the Last Supper, only the Apostles were present when He instructed them to confect the sacrament in His name. The Gospels are replete with examples of situations in which Christ bestowed special graces upon the Apostles, and not upon the multitudes.

Moreover Paul speaks of ecclesiastical offices, such as the office of Bishop (Episcopos) and draws distinctions between those offices and the laity. Scripture is clear that people can be “ordained” into those offices and through the “laying on of hands” can become successors of the Apostles, and receive the same graces from their predecessors that the Apostles received from Jesus. Remember that in Scripture Matthias was chosen to replace Judas and received the laying on of hands. He became an Apostle.

We believe that some churches don’t possess the power to confect the sacraments because they abandoned some of the teachings that are necessary for maintaining apostolic succession.

I don’t know all the teachings with respect to the question of who does and does not maintain an unbroken line of succession back to the Apostles and to Christ. But I do know of an authoritative document (to Catholics anyway) that deals with this very question. Pope Leo XIII wrote an encyclical (the name of it escapes me but you could do a Google search) explaining the reasons why the Church of England no longer maintains apostolic succession.

Finally, I respect your opinion, even if I don’t agree with it. But why do you believe that the Catholic view that most other churches don’t possess apostolic succession is “twisted”? I can understand disagreeing, but why “twisted” when there really is legit theology behind the Catholic viewpoint?

Also I suspect that you perceive the obvious distinction between this sacramental dispute, and the question as to the people for whom Jesus died. Why would our views on the prior question lead you to infer that we believe Jesus only died for us? We too believe that He died for everyone, even if many will reject Him.

 

[Montalban]

Let me ask you something. Right here. Did Jesus take a chunk of Himself and feed it to the disciples? Did He prick Himself and and pour the blood into the cup and pass it around?

No, right?

Jesus spoke in parables so that those around Him would understand what He was talking about

Not everything Jesus said was a parable. That’s why, when he said his flesh is real food the people hearing ask him for clarification. And what does he say? He confirms its really this!

John 6:55
For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink

How much plainer do you want it put?

Paul says that if you come together for the ‘bread’ don’t think of it as food,

1 Corinthians 11:22
Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

He even ties this back to the Last Supper.

So if you’re gathering just for ‘bread’ stay at home and have a meal.

 

[Nella]

I’m not the one ranting you are. I have tried to explain to you Catholic Church doctrine but you just ignore it completely by not believing or trying to understand it.

Instead you attack the Catholic Church by bringing up sex abuse scandals.

I know the Catholic doctrine you keep explaining to me over and over. I understand it perfectly. i do not agree with it. I don’t care whether you think my church is valid or not. Just because one of your popes says it’s not doesn’t mean anything. I try to agree with you about the real presence and all I get from you are attacks on my church. And sexual abuse to children is not an attack on your church, Please!! It’s the facts about how your so called high morals aren’t so high.

 

[donnyblake]

I know the Catholic doctrine you keep explaining to me over and over. I understand it perfectly. i do not agree with it. I don’t care whether you think my church is valid or not. Just because one of your popes says it’s not doesn’t mean anything. I try to agree with you about the real presence and all I get from you are attacks on my church. And sexual abuse to children is not an attack on your church, Please!! It’s the facts about how your so called high morals aren’t so high.

NELLA: Which church is yours? I’m sorry if you mentioned it and I didn’t catch it. Also, what year was your church started and by whom? Thanks and God Bless You!

 

[sandusky]

You don’t have real presence. I would only acknowledge real presence in Your Church if they reunit themselves with Rome but I think that is unlikely since your Church allow gay priests and female priests.

That is another reason why I believe your church has invalid sacraments.

You don’t have real presence either; you have transubstantiation; that’s two different things.

 

[Yerusalyim]

You don’t have real presence. I would only acknowledge real presence in Your Church if they reunit themselves with Rome but I think that is unlikely since your Church allow gay priests and female priests.

That is another reason why I believe your church has invalid sacraments.

This is not entirely true…baptism and marriage are twi valid sacraments…if she would convert to Catholicism she wouldn’t have to be rebaptised or remarried…sorry if I got the gender wrong.

SANDUSKY…Transubstantiation is the ACTION that brings about the REAL PRESENCE…the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood…the change is called transubstatiation to describe what occurs…the nature of the bread and wine are changed (as oppossed to CONSUBSTANTIATION of the Lutherans which says the nature of bread and wine remains and is joined with that of the body and blood of Christ at the same time…anyhow

I was thinking about the Eucharist today at mass…which is appropriate…look at the Mosaic Law of sacrafices…when the sacrafice was offered at the altar the priests AND those who offered the sacrafice ATE THE SACRAFICE…not a symnbol of it…but the actual offering itself. With this as a shadow of the perfect sacrafice of Christ…doesn’t it make sense that we consume…supernaturally…the body and blood soul and divinity of Christ?
Why is it so difficult to believe Christ can change bread and wine into his body and blood? If he can create the entire universe…then transubstantiation is a simple feat.

Funny…I was actually thinking about the Eucharist today and the various scriptures that support the Real Presence

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I commend all of my Catholic brothers and sisters for holding fast to the truth and honoring the teachings of Christ. I have a question…doesn’t it get tiresome to have to defend the truth over and over again to people who just will not surrender to it? My concern is the same as Jesus when preaching on the mountain as recorded in Matthew 7:6.

Again I commend you for your persistant truth telling but wonder when this teaching is applicable.

CDL

 

[Fisher]

How can Protestants ignore this command from Jesus? Many Perotestant churchs don’t even celebrate the Eucharist symbolically more than a few times a year,or maybe once a month. Just how far from the One True Faith have many Protestant sects gotten? How does this happen? Any thoughts? Thanks.

Do you know Christ the Lord Jesus or do you want to argue your religion, and how you think it is right? Did you religion died on the cross or did raise form the dead? Do you have pride in your heart for your religion or do you have and open heart for God ? One look in the mirror of the bible should give an answer for and born again believer. I hope and pray that all souls get save. With love in the name of the Lord Jesus. God sees the heart, he sees all, he is all knowing. all powerfull, unchanging, mercyfull,everlasting,Holy,Holy,Holy.The first and the last the begining and the end.The Alpha and Omega.

Romans 8:24For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

8:25But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

8:34Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[Nella]

NELLA: Which church is yours? I’m sorry if you mentioned it and I didn’t catch it. Also, what year was your church started and by whom? Thanks and God Bless You!

I am Anglican. We trace our roots the same way you do. We broke from Rome in 1534 over doctrine and practices which we believe were not Biblical and not what Christ taught us. As far as the Eucharist, we believe you have it and so do we. It is what Christ taught, not what man has said about who has it and who doesn’t. That kind of stuff doesn’t matter to me and shouldn’t with real faith in Christ.

 

[guanophore]

I know the Catholic doctrine you keep explaining to me over and over. I understand it perfectly. i do not agree with it. I don’t care whether you think my church is valid or not. Just because one of your popes says it’s not doesn’t mean anything. I try to agree with you about the real presence and all I get from you are attacks on my church. And sexual abuse to children is not an attack on your church, Please!! It’s the facts about how your so called high morals aren’t so high.

I think one must distinguish between the high moral teaching of Christ, preserved in the Church Teaching, and the sinful behavior of certain of it’s members. You have stated that you trace the roots of your church "the same way (Catholics) do. If this is true, then you are familiar with the writing of the fathers that a valid eucharist can only take place in unity with the bishop appointed by the Apostles.

Having read your posts, it is clear that you believe you are celebrating the “real presence” just as the early church believed.

 

[guanophore]

I know the Catholic doctrine you keep explaining to me over and over. I understand it perfectly. i do not agree with it. I don’t care whether you think my church is valid or not. Just because one of your popes says it’s not doesn’t mean anything. I try to agree with you about the real presence and all I get from you are attacks on my church. And sexual abuse to children is not an attack on your church, Please!! It’s the facts about how your so called high morals aren’t so high.

I think one must distinguish between the high moral teaching of Christ, preserved in the Church Teaching, and the sinful behavior of certain of it’s members. You have stated that you trace the roots of your church "the same way (Catholics) do. If this is true, then you are familiar with the writing of the fathers that a valid eucharist can only take place in unity with the bishop appointed by the Apostles.

Having read your posts, it is clear that you believe you are celebrating the “real presence” just as the early church believed.

I am Anglican. We trace our roots the same way you do. We broke from Rome in 1534 over doctrine and practices which we believe were not Biblical and not what Christ taught us. As far as the Eucharist, we believe you have it and so do we. It is what Christ taught, not what man has said about who has it and who doesn’t. That kind of stuff doesn’t matter to me and shouldn’t with real faith in Christ.

I have not all your posts, so maybe you already answered this, but what practices were those, if it was not the flesh and blood?

 

[lakerdotts80]

the bottom line is you either eat Jesus body and drink his blood or you dont. your either with christ or against him you either have christ in you or you dont. The Eucharist is with Catholics because what we teach is perfect. Jesus said the gates of hell will never prevail against it and whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven… so Jesus has one church. One body that will never be destroyed.

 

[Nella]

I think one must distinguish between the high moral teaching of Christ, preserved in the Church Teaching, and the sinful behavior of certain of it’s members. You have stated that you trace the roots of your church "the same way (Catholics) do. If this is true, then you are familiar with the writing of the fathers that a valid eucharist can only take place in unity with the bishop appointed by the Apostles.

Having read your posts, it is clear that you believe you are celebrating the “real presence” just as the early church believed.

you are correct and we believe that we are celebrating within the unity of a bishop appointed by the Apostles. Not Roman catholic of course but still in apostollic succession

 

[cyberjacques]

I am Anglican. We trace our roots the same way you do. We broke from Rome in 1534 over doctrine and practices which we believe were not Biblical and not what Christ taught us.

Alright, pardon my hostility, but this is just too dishonest a statement to let go unchallenged. Henry VIII founded the Church of England because he wanted to divorce his wife and marry the younger sister of another woman he was already having an affair with. But the pope wouldn’t let him. And after Thomas Cromwell convinced him that becoming the head of his own religion was a good idea, he did precisely that. It had nothing to do with a dispute over doctrine and practices that were somehow Biblically challenged. NOTHING. The nerve of some people! You may be able to pull that one over on those who don’t know any better, but some of us have actually studied history. Now Nella, let’s see if you ignore this post like you did my last one.

 

[mikeledes]

I am going to repost something I posted in another thread in this one:

John 6:51-58 is to be interpreted literally and is one of the strongest passages that testify to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In the Gospel of John, there is a certain pattern that helps to shed light on John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement, it is usually followed by a misunderstanding/question, and this, in turn, is followed by a clarification either by Jesus or the Evangelist. So, this is the basic outline of this pattern:

1. **Ambiguous Statement by Jesus **
2. Misunderstanding/ Question
3. Clarification

Now here are some examples from the Gospel of John:

John 2:19-21

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days? But He was speaking of the temple of His body."

John 3:3-5

Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?Jesus answered, "Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

John 4:32-34

"But He said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” So the disciples were saying to one another, 'no one brought Him anything to eat, did he? Jesus said to them, " My Food is to do the will of Him who sent me and to accomplish His work."

John 8:31-34

So Jesus was saying to those Jews who believed in Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, "We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, “You will become free.” Jesus answered them, "Truly, Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

Now let’s look at John 6:51-53 and see if it fits the Ambiguous Statement/Question/Clarification pattern:

"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat? So Jesus said to them, Truly, Truly, I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in yourselves.

So, following the established pattern, verse 53 is a clarification of verses 51-52. If he were merely speaking figuratively, then we would have expected the literal meaning of the “figurative” langauge he used, as it happens in the verses I gave above and in many other places in the Bible. Instead, what we see in verse 53 is a reaffirmation of what the Jews understood Jesus to mean. So the clarification is that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. If he were speaking figuratively, He would have indicated that in verse 53.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

The point of the above post is that when Jesus is speaking figuratively, either Jesus Himself or the Gospel writer explains what He means. He often uses progressive revelation as a teaching method, going from ambiguity to greater clarity. There are numerous examples of this in the 4 Gospels. Here are some more:

John 4:10-14

**10Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”
11She said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water?
12"You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?”
13Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again;
14but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” **

John 8:56-58

**56"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
57So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” **

John 10:1-10

**1"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber.
2"But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep.
3"To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
4"When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.
5"A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers."
6This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them.
7So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
8"All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.
9"I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.
10"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. **

John 7:38-39

38"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’"
39But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive

John 12:32-33

**32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” 33 This He said, signifying by what death He would die. **

John 21:18-19

**18 Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. **

Matthew 16:6-12

6 Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have taken no bread.”
8 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread?[a] 9 Do you not yet understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up? 11 How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

This does not happen in John 6.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

]John 6:63

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

This verse does not mean that Jesus was speaking figuratively. The word “Spirit” is used to refer to those things that pertain to God and the word “flesh” refers to those things that pertain to sin. We constantly see the Spirit vs. flesh construct thorughout the Bible:

Galatians 5:16

16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

Romans 8:5-6

5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace

So what Jesus meant in John 6:63 was not that he was speaking figuratively. Rather, that His words originate from God (i.e. Spirit) and they are life giving (i.e. life). He said this in response to the rejection of His teaching. Those who were “carnally minded” rejected His teaching, while those who were “spiritually minded” accepted it. If one is in the flesh, one cannot accept His words because the flesh wars against the Spirit, effectively cutting off the person from the source of life. Consequently, the flesh profits nothing because its end is death. Those who are in the Spirit receive life (Romans 8:6). To be “carnally minded” does not mean to be literally minded. It means to have a mind that is in rebellion against God. Those who were in such a state did not accept Jesus’s words.

God Bless,
Michael