You must eat this bread

[georgemiller]

What response does one give a protestant who says it is Spirit that gives life not the body and blood of Jesus?

58 this is the bread which has come down from heaven; it is not like the bread our ancestors ate: they are dead, but anyone who eats this bread will live for ever. This is what he taught at Capernaum in the synagogue. After hearing it, many of his followers said, ‘This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?’ Jesus was aware that his followers were complaining about it and said, 'Does this disturb you?2 What if you should see the Son of man ascend to where he was before?

63 'It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh has nothing to offer. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life

 

[John_Martin]

What response does one give a protestant who says it is Spirit that gives life not the body and blood of Jesus?

58 this is the bread which has come down from heaven; it is not like the bread our ancestors ate: they are dead, but anyone who eats this bread will live for ever. This is what he taught at Capernaum in the synagogue. After hearing it, many of his followers said, ‘This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?’ Jesus was aware that his followers were complaining about it and said, 'Does this disturb you?2 What if you should see the Son of man ascend to where he was before?

63 'It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh has nothing to offer. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life

(same reply as to your other post):
Initial observation; you can agree with him that it is not the bread and wine that give life because you are not eating bread or drinking wine. There is no bread or wine on the altar after the consecration. Instead there is a body lying on the altar and there is blood drained from a body and filling a chalice that is set next to the body that is on the altar. A sacrifice - a body without blood in it and blood next to the body but not in it, and both on the altar of sacrifice. That is what we are eating - flesh, and what we are drinking - blood, to be in covenant with God.

 

[georgemiller]

(same reply as to your other post):

thank you, I thought my first post did not take for some reason. Thank you for your help.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

(same reply as to your other post):
Initial observation; you can agree with him that it is not the bread and wine that give life because you are not eating bread or drinking wine. There is no bread or wine on the altar after the consecration. Instead there is a body lying on the altar and there is blood drained from a body and filling a chalice that is set next to the body that is on the altar. A sacrifice - a body without blood in it and blood next to the body but not in it, and both on the altar of sacrifice. That is what we are eating - flesh, and what we are drinking - blood, to be in covenant with God.

John, perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but the Body (host) is not ‘body without blood in it’ and the Blood (chalice) is not 'blood next to the body but not in it.

Per Catholic teaching, as I have understood it for nearly 7 decades, the Eucharist is Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. . .not ‘separate’. When one ‘eats the Body of the Lord’ one is also consuming His Blood; likewise when one drinks the Blood, one is also consuming His Body; both species contain the other. Therefore, if one receives the Body only, one is receiving “all” Christ, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. If one receives the Blood only, one is receiving ‘all’ Christ, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. Receiving both species (if one has the option and chooses to do so) is a fuller ‘sign’ but it is not more ‘complete’. One does not have to receive ‘both’ to receive the Whole Christ. The way you phrase it, to my understanding, seems to imply that Christ is two separate ‘parts’, a body sans blood and blood sans a body, that have to be consumed ‘together’ to make a complete whole.

Also we understood that the Body and Blood retained the APPEARANCE of bread and wine, meaning we ‘taste’ bread and wine, and not flesh and blood, even though again, each species contains ‘both’ the Body and Blood of Christ. Again, perhaps I misunderstand and if so, would be glad to have you explain it to these rapidly aging ears. Many thanks.

 

[Techno2000]

63 'It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh has nothing to offer. The words I have spoken to you are** spirit** and they are life

the flesh has nothing to offer = Human reasoning, because it can’t understand spiritual supernatural things.

 

[John_Martin]

John, perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but the Body (host) is not ‘body without blood in it’ and the Blood (chalice) is not 'blood next to the body but not in it.

Per Catholic teaching, as I have understood it for nearly 7 decades, the Eucharist is Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. . .not ‘separate’. When one ‘eats the Body of the Lord’ one is also consuming His Blood; likewise when one drinks the Blood, one is also consuming His Body; both species contain the other. Therefore, if one receives the Body only, one is receiving “all” Christ, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. If one receives the Blood only, one is receiving ‘all’ Christ, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. Receiving both species (if one has the option and chooses to do so) is a fuller ‘sign’ but it is not more ‘complete’. One does not have to receive ‘both’ to receive the Whole Christ. The way you phrase it, to my understanding, seems to imply that Christ is two separate ‘parts’, a body sans blood and blood sans a body, that have to be consumed ‘together’ to make a complete whole.

Also we understood that the Body and Blood retained the APPEARANCE of bread and wine, meaning we ‘taste’ bread and wine, and not flesh and blood, even though again, each species contains ‘both’ the Body and Blood of Christ. Again, perhaps I misunderstand and if so, would be glad to have you explain it to these rapidly aging ears. Many thanks.

There is a difference between “sacramental substance” of Body, and the “concomitant presence of the Blood, Soul, Divinity” The substance of the sacrament is the body of Christ alone, and the Blood of Christ alone. But since Christ is Risen, where his body is, there is also his blood, soul, Divinity. and since Christ is Risen, where his blood is alone, there is also his body, soul, and divinity. But sacramentally, the bread is only changed into his body, and the wine is only changed into his blood.

"We proclaim your Death, O Lord (seeing and consuming your flesh and separate from that drinking your blood), and Profess your resurrection (by Faith we know you are Whole, and that with your body and blood we also consume you in whole). Death and Resurrection: Body and blood separate on and altar (death), Concommitant wholeness of body, blood, soul, divinity.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

There is a difference between “sacramental substance” of Body, and the “concomitant presence of the Blood, Soul, Divinity” The substance of the sacrament is the body of Christ alone, and the Blood of Christ alone. But since Christ is Risen, where his body is, there is also his blood, soul, Divinity. and since Christ is Risen, where his blood is alone, there is also his body, soul, and divinity. But sacramentally, the bread is only changed into his body, and the wine is only changed into his blood.

"We proclaim your Death, O Lord (seeing and consuming your flesh and separate from that drinking your blood), and Profess your resurrection (by Faith we know you are Whole, and that with your body and blood we also consume you in whole). Death and Resurrection: Body and blood separate on and altar (death), Concommitant wholeness of body, blood, soul, divinity.

From where did you get the last quote?

I get you, I think, after all the priest in offering us the Eucharist says “Body of Christ” for the sacred Bread, and “Blood of Christ” for the chalice. But I was taught, back in the day, that although the priest proclaimed "body of Christ’ for the host and "blood of Christ’ for the wine, that did not mean that the host was ONLY the Body and the wine ONLY the blood. So to me, hearing “body of Christ” I always understood it as containing Body AND Blood, Soul and Divinity, and that the “Body of Christ” was always from the start of the consecration to be understood as not just ‘the body’ but as the ‘whole Christ’, and ditto with the "blood of Christ’. Right? in the Catechism of the Catholic Church today it also says,
"Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.“225 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.”

 

[John_Martin]

Your understanding is true, you are receiving the whole Christ with each. But part of your understanding is formed in your mind by material sensed and also by words heard and believed.

Consubstantiation is about the material substance. But a human, even a human assumed by divinity is a composite of soul and body. Jesus called it his body, so that is what we are eating. That is the understanding he has when at the altar, and when he is laying his body on the altar. And the same with the chalice, when he is setting the chalice of his blood next to his body. And when he is offering the sacrifice of his body and blood (which died) to the Father, returning the gift of his human life to the Father, in atonement for the human life we try to steal for ourselves with our sin. That is what our senses see, and when we participate with him, we are seeing and accepting and proclaiming his death as we chant around the altar (“We proclaim your death, O Lord” - in the liturgy). But, we also chant “and profess your resurrection.” That we know from faith, that he is living and therefore his whole being, must be present with his body (for a human is a composite of body and soul and must have blood to be living, and in the case of our Lord this human body is one with the Divinity of the Son of God) - so we have sight and sound for our bodies to know we are eating his flesh and drinking his blood according to his requirement in John 6. and we have his Spirit, life and truth, which makes our souls fully alive.

If you wish to see about the concomitance of the blood, soul, and divinity with the sacramental (transubstantiated) body, you can read about in in Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica at this site: ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q76_A2.html
A single sentence from there reads:

" it must be held most certainly that the whole Christ is under each sacramental species yet not alike in each. For the body of Christ is indeed present under the species of bread by the power of the sacrament, while the blood is there from real concomitance, as stated above (A[1], ad 1) in regard to the soul and Godhead of Christ; and under the species of wine the blood is present by the power of the sacrament, and His body by real concomitance, as is also His soul and Godhead: because now Christ’s blood is not separated from His body, as it was at the time of His Passion and death. Hence if this sacrament had been celebrated then, the body of Christ would have been under the species of the bread, but without the blood; and, under the species of the wine, the blood would have been present without the body, as it was then, in fact. "

 

[mikeeh]

You have to remember Jesus was priest, prophet, and king. In this case he was a prophet prophesying the Last Supper and the Eucharist. You have to eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. We do not eat bread and drink wine to have eternal life. But without the Spirit it is only bread and wine, or useless flesh. The Spirit gives life to the bread and wine and turn them into the living flesh and blood of Christ. The words that he spoke give spirit and life because they lead you to the Eucharist.

 

[PJM]

=georgemiller;12703432]What response does one give a protestant who says it is Spirit that gives life not the body and blood of Jesus?

58 this is the bread which has come down from heaven; it is not like the bread our ancestors ate: they are dead, but anyone who eats this bread will live for ever. This is what he taught at Capernaum in the synagogue. After hearing it, many of his followers said, ‘This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?’ Jesus was aware that his followers were complaining about it and said, 'Does this disturb you?2 What if you should see the Son of man ascend to where he was before?

63 'It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh has nothing to offer. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life

First such a position stems from a radical lack of right understanding of what the bible teaches.

The Catholic Dogma of the Real Presence is testified to by FIVE bible authors and Jesus Christ Himself.

**Mt. 26:26-28
Mk. 14: 22-24
Lk. 22:19-19

John 6 [all]** here are verses 45 & 56-57 [Douay bible] " 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." & “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”
**
Paul 1st.Cor. 11: 23-30 “**
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. [24] And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. [25] In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [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. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29]** For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep”. ** “SLEEP” here means have chosen for themselves Eternal Damnation.

Your freind is referencing John 6: verse 64 [63 in some bibles] " [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"
From the Douay bible explanation:

“.[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 sacrament, 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”

I wil add READ Mt. 28:16-20 and discover that God gives the Charism and Mandate to TEACH His Faith directly to the Apostles ALONE and their Successors [Mt. 10:1-8].h