• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

why I believe in the Eucharist

Status
Not open for further replies.

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,264
✟584,012.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Really sometimes I think that people deny the real presence because it's too hard to understand, so they think it can't be true. They reject it because it's a Mystery outside of human understanding. Yet, it's straight out of the Bible. It puzzles me how evangelicals take everything in the Bible literally, but this.

When the Bible speaks literally, we take it literally. But when it is speaking otherwise, we don't misunderstand that. At the Last Supper Christ was obviously not saying that they were eating the body that sat in front of them, but that this has to be a truth that is allegorical, just like we understand that he didn't mean it--literally--when he said he was a door or a plant. You don't either, I'll bet.

I'll try to explain how I see it though. The crucifixion and the Resurrection were real events, but they affected all of eternity. Not just the future, but the past, as well. During Mass, we are participating in heavenly worship and are spiritually taken back to Calvary. It is in a way a timeless event. The first Mass (the Last Supper) was exactly like this too.

OK

The Apostles were eating and drinking Christ's Body and Blood which would be shed for them on the Cross, in the future.

Quite a stretch, isn't that?

If you want Biblical evidence...remember how in Revelations, it talks about the Lamb, "looking as if it had been slain"? The crucifixion is an event that affected all of eternity.

Yes, but that doesn't make transubstantiation true. Anyway, if it were, it would have been church doctrine long before the 13th century.

I think that in transubstantiation, there is still a "co-existing" of Christ's Body and Blood and the bread and wine in a way, since the bread and wine are still real and not illusions.

Could be, even though taking that position puts you at odds with your church. However, most Catholics don't believe in transubstantiation as the church does, anyway.

The elements are however changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, on some sort of level (which I can't understand yet..) and when we receive the Eucharist, we are receiving Christ into ourselves, in something which was previously just bread. It is no longer bread in essence, although it is on the outside. I guess that is all that I can really say about this... I know that sometimes it might seem like Catholics think they have it all figured out, but the Catholic church also teaches that the Eucharist is a mystery, and well it is probably too advanced for us to understand fully.

"It's a mystery" doesn't cover every departure from scripture, though. If it did, we could all come up with even more bizarre theories and no one could call any of them wrong.

We can receive some knowledge through revelation, but that is about it. We can't really apply logic to the Eucharist, because if we do, we would end up with it being merely symbolic...I think that Zwingli's argument is very logical yet I believe it is false.

But it's also as Biblical as any other, although I also disagree personally with his POV.
 
Upvote 0

MoNiCa4316

Totus Tuus
Jun 28, 2007
18,882
1,654
✟49,687.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
When the Bible speaks literally, we take it literally. But when it is speaking otherwise, we don't misunderstand that. At the Last Supper Christ was obviously not saying that they were eating the body that sat in front of them, but that this has to be a truth that is allegorical, just like we understand that he didn't mean it--literally--when he said he was a door or a plant. You don't either, I'll bet.

In another part, He said that whoever eats His Body and drink His blood has life in them..and many of His disciples left because of this. If He was just using a metaphor, why didn't He say, "wait guys I didn't mean it that way!" He let them leave though... indeed it is a hard teaching!

Albion, are you Anglican? I thought Anglicans believe in the real presence :confused: (CS Lewis did, and he was Anglican)

OK

Quite a stretch, isn't that?

Why? I just explained that the Crucifixion is an event that affected all eternity :) meaning the past as well as the future.

Yes, but that doesn't make transubstantiation true.

I wasn't trying to explain transubstantiation there, but how the Last Supper happened..

Anyway, if it were, it would have been church doctrine long before the 13th century.

In the Catholic church, things are often believed long before they are made 'official'. They are usually only made official once there is opposition or if they need to clarify something. Basically, when there is a need to make it official. :)

Could be, even though taking that position puts you at odds with your church. However, most Catholics don't believe in transubstantiation as the church does, anyway.

umm I think you misunderstood me. I never said that the bread and wine are not transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. They are transformed in their substance.
On the outside, they remain themselves.. that is exactly what the Catholic church teaches. The substance, the essence, is changed...the bread and wine are not illusions though...they are no longer 'themselves' but keep their external characteristics. That is what I meant. So there is a 'co-existence' in a way...of the new 'substance' and the 'accidents'.
"It's a mystery" doesn't cover every departure from scripture, though. If it did, we could all come up with even more bizarre theories and no one could call any of them wrong.

I think it's the Protestants who have departed from Scripture here, since Christ plainly said: "this is My Body..this is My Blood".. Apostle Paul said, if we receive Communion unworthily we are sinning against the very Body and Blood of the Lord... Christ said, if we eat His flesh and drink His blood we would have life, and didn't stop His disciples from leaving when they didn't like this teaching..

I take Jesus at His word here. He said that the Eucharist is His Body and Blood. He said it, we believe it. Zwingli, and others, rejected His words because they couldn't understand them. I can't understand either, but I don't think we really need to.

Peace

monica


But it's also as Biblical as any other, although I also disagree personally with his POV.[/quote]
 
Upvote 0

katherine2001

Veteran
Jun 24, 2003
5,986
1,065
68
Billings, MT
Visit site
✟11,346.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
As Monica pointed out, Paul said that many people have become sick and/or died for not discerning the Lord's body (1 Cor 11:29-30). In John 6, John makes it quite clear that Jesus knew what the people were saying among themselves and that they were complaining among themselves about Christ's words (John 6:60-61). In fact, Christ came right out and asked them whether His words had offended them! When many disciples left him, as Monica pointed out, our Lord didn't go chasing after them saying that they'd totally misunderstood His words and that He hadn't meant those words literally. After all, they'd understood Him perfectly. Now, the ball was in their court. They could either choose to accept His words and His teaching on this, or they could walk away. They understood that this wasn't negotiable. This was one of those times that Christ was saying if you are going to be His follower, you must do it. We are just reading the words in the Scriptures, those that were there that day heard Him speak these words, and saw his facial expressions and body language. Chances are if they took it literally, it was because it was clear to them that the Lord meant every word He said. After all, when Christ said He was the door, there was not a mass exodus of followers/disciples.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,264
✟584,012.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
In another part, He said that whoever eats His Body and drink His blood has life in them.

Of course. Either sacrament confers spiritual benefits upon the recipient. You don't believe that the Eucharist is important because of the caloric content, I hope.

many of His disciples left because of this.

That's right. They didn't understand what he was saying and mistook a spiritual concept for rank cannibalism.

If He was just using a metaphor, why didn't He say, "wait guys I didn't mean it that way!" He let them leave though... indeed it is a hard teaching!

I don't think any of us is entitled to decide how we'd improve upon the words Jesus chose to use, here or elsewhere. As you know, he was OFTEN misunderstood because he spoke in parables or figurative language.

Albion, are you Anglican? I thought Anglicans believe in the real presence :confused:

Absolutely. I do and all Anglicans do.

If you think I've contradicted myself along the way, I assure you that I have not, and that a re-read of all that I've written will show it to be consistent. The problem often is that Christians to the right or us and others to the left of us tend to think we're either in their camp totally or in the other one totally, when Anglicanism is the historic mainroad between extremes. That's why we often say we're both Catholic and Reformed (or Protestant).

I wasn't trying to explain transubstantiation there, but how the Last Supper happened..

OK

In the Catholic church, things are often believed long before they are made 'official'. They are usually only made official once there is opposition or if they need to clarify something. Basically, when there is a need to make it official. :)

I recognize the usual explanation, but it doesn't hold when the belief HAD NOT always been believed--as in the case of Transubstantation.

I think you misunderstood me. I never said that the bread and wine are not transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. They are transformed in their substance.
On the outside, they remain themselves.. that is exactly what the Catholic church teaches. The substance, the essence, is changed...the bread and wine are not illusions though...they are no longer 'themselves' but keep their external characteristics. That is what I meant. So there is a 'co-existence' in a way...of the new 'substance' and the 'accidents'.

That's the Church of Rome's view, I agree. However, I was speaking of how you justified such a view as correct by calling it a mystery. It is mysterious how miracles happen, but we'd be very wrong to slap the word mystery on every theory or doctrine and thereby proclaim it beyond examination.

I think it's the Protestants who have departed from Scripture here, since Christ plainly said: "this is My Body..this is My Blood".

And as I pointed out, he spoke figuratively in many places we read in the NT, calling himself the vine and we the branches, for instance. Using the line of analysis you have been following, we ought to call him a green leafy plant--and how to explain that can be put off to it being a "mystery." No, it's not that simple.

Apostle Paul said, if we receive Communion unworthily we are sinning against the very Body and Blood of the Lord.

Of course. But that doesn't require there to be any Real Presence at all for it to be true. If you desecrate anything holy, you are going to bring sin upon yourself because of it. If you were to throw water at your sponsors during a baptism or if you started playing a boom box during Mass, I assure you that everyone would recognize that as a desecration or mockery. It's not necessary for there to be any miracle underway, just that a holy or sacred act be defiled. Paul was quite understandable in cautioning against this. Similarly, but in a non-religious way, we all recognize that stamping on the flag is a desecration, but it still remains cotton.

I take Jesus at His word here.

Then I would ask why you don't take him at his word when he said he was a door.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,264
✟584,012.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
As Monica pointed out, Paul said that many people have become sick and/or died for not discerning the Lord's body (1 Cor 11:29-30). In John 6, John makes it quite clear that Jesus knew what the people were saying among themselves and that they were complaining among themselves about Christ's words (John 6:60-61). In fact, Christ came right out and asked them whether His words had offended them! When many disciples left him, as Monica pointed out, our Lord didn't go chasing after them saying that they'd totally misunderstood His words and that He hadn't meant those words literally.

First, Jesus never went chasing after anyone to make them a disciple of his, so that doesn't prove anything.

Second, they plainly misunderstood him. It is NOT a literal eating of flesh he was talking about. This passage only goes to substantiate the correctness of my understanding and works against any kind of transubstantation.
 
Upvote 0

chestertonrules

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2007
8,747
515
Texas
✟11,733.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes Paul was talking about the Church that was established by Jesus.

The Roman Catholic Church isn’t that church. (Galatians 1:7-9) “Not that there can be more than one Good News; it is merely that some troublemakers among you want to change the Good News of Christ; and let me warn you that if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one we have already preached to you, whether it by ourselves or an angel from heaven, he is to be condemned. I am only repeating what we told you before; if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one you have already heard, he is to be condemned.”

The Roman Catholic Church really started preaching a different version of the Good News when Constantine the Great coned the church into going to war. It no longer was part of God’s Church.
(Galatians 1:7-9) “Not that there can be more than one Good News; it is merely that some troublemakers among you want to change the Good News of Christ; and let me warn you that if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one we have already preached to you, whether it by ourselves or an angel from heaven, he is to be condemned. I am only repeating what we told you before; if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one you have already heard, he is to be condemned.”



Paul said there is only one gospel.

Jesus prayed for unity.

This unity of message is only possible with one Church.

Jesus only founded one Church.
 
Upvote 0

NathanCGreen

Regular Member
Jan 30, 2008
138
7
40
✟22,804.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
oki :) the Holy Spirit has also confirmed to me that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus.. as for the 'spiritual' part, I think it's 'substantial' or 'essential', but maybe we're talking about the same thing here!! Maybe we are just using words differently.

You're joking, right? You say that God's Spirit gave you an account that was different to another person who also claimed to receive truth from the same source? I am wondering what spirit this was? If it does not conform to God's written word, then it is false. Plain and simple.
 
Upvote 0

NathanCGreen

Regular Member
Jan 30, 2008
138
7
40
✟22,804.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Paul said there is only one gospel.

Jesus prayed for unity.

This unity of message is only possible with one Church.

Jesus only founded one Church.

And you are correct, except for the fact that a "church" should really read as "ecclesia", which is basically just a name for a gathering of believers, community-like. A synagogue, for example, could consist of a mere 10 people.

The Catholic 'church' is NOT from God.
 
Upvote 0

NathanCGreen

Regular Member
Jan 30, 2008
138
7
40
✟22,804.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Coud this possibly be what you believe? If not check yourself against the heresy's below. :)

Apollinarianism


No, I was referring to Christ after his resurrection. Not beforehand.

This heresy denies the true and complete humanity in the person of Jesus which in turn, can jeopardize the value of the atonement since Jesus is declared to be both God and man to atone. He needed to be God to offer a pure and holy sacrifice of sufficient value and He needed to be a man in order to die for men.


Where in the Bible does it proclaim that Jesus had to be both God with a capital G, and man, to make atonement?

Jesus is completely both God and man. This is known as the Hypostatic Union.
  • "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..." (John 1:1,14).
  • "for Him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form," (Col. 2:9).

I do not see Trinitarianism in these passages.
 
Upvote 0

NathanCGreen

Regular Member
Jan 30, 2008
138
7
40
✟22,804.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Christ is fully God and fully Man. 100% of each.

First off, I don't know what you are thinking or feeling about my posts, Monica, but I appreciate very much your attitude in your posts that is seeming to come through. But...
No, there is only one God, the Father. And Jesus' God is our God. Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus never claimed to be God Himself. God made Jesus both Lord and Saviour at his ascension and seat at His right hand.


I dont want to reject something from the Bible just because my little human mind can't comprehend it. Are not all things possible with God? Are not His ways not our ways? Really sometimes I think that people deny the real presence because it's too hard to understand, so they think it can't be true. They reject it because it's a Mystery outside of human understanding. Yet, it's straight out of the Bible.

Just saying that "aren't all things possible with God?" is not going to get you out of trying to defend that specific teaching (false by the way). It is a cop-out. Also, there is something that is impossible for God to do, according to the scriptures, He cannot lie. When Jesus said that about all things being possible for God, he was talking about His goodness and power to deliver.
Your use of the word Mystery, with the capital M, reminds me of Mystery Babylon... you know, the power that takes the reins of the ancient pagan religions and mixes them up? Yes, the Catholic church has done just that. Rome was termed Babylon, and rightly so, the Ceasars of ancient Rome, are now in the form of the Popes.

I'll try to explain how I see it though. The crucifixion and the Resurrection were real events, but they affected all of eternity. Not just the future, but the past, as well. During Mass, we are participating in heavenly worship and are spiritually taken back to Calvary. It is in a way a timeless event. The first Mass (the Last Supper) was exactly like this too. The Apostles were eating and drinking Christ's Body and Blood which would be shed for them on the Cross, in the future. If you want Biblical evidence...remember how in Revelations, it talks about the Lamb, "looking as if it had been slain"? The crucifixion is an event that affected all of eternity.

Do you get some of these answers from your priests?

In Revelation, the Lamb that was seen as having being slain, was a symbolic reference to Jesus obviously, but not as one continually dying.
 
Upvote 0

calluna

Regular Member
Apr 23, 2008
2,237
114
✟25,394.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
I believe the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Jesus because the Holy Spirit told me it was true. The Word of God confirms that to be true.
John 6 shows that Jesus must have speaking metaphorically regarding bread and blood, because the event it portrays took place before the Last Supper, when his disciples can have had only two possibilities to consider. These were metaphorical meaning (which frightened most away), and literal cannibalistic eating of Jesus, which was absurd.
 
Upvote 0

yashualover

Veteran
Nov 12, 2007
1,622
46
Ontario Canada
Visit site
✟24,675.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally Posted by Giver
I believe the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Jesus because the Holy Spirit told me it was true. The Word of God confirms that to be true.



What does human flesh tast like? Please dont say chicken. :)
 
Upvote 0

Giver

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
5,991
249
91
USA - North Carolina
✟8,112.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Politics
US-Others
John 6 shows that Jesus must have speaking metaphorically regarding bread and blood, because the event it portrays took place before the Last Supper, when his disciples can have had only two possibilities to consider. These were metaphorical meaning (which frightened most away), and literal cannibalistic eating of Jesus, which was absurd.
I wonder did you come by your belief about the Eucharist on your own, was it taught to you by some minister, read what some theologian said, or have you asked God to explain it to you?
 
Upvote 0

calluna

Regular Member
Apr 23, 2008
2,237
114
✟25,394.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
John 6 shows that Jesus must have speaking metaphorically regarding bread and blood, because the event it portrays took place before the Last Supper, when his disciples can have had only two possibilities to consider. These were metaphorical meaning (which frightened most away), and literal cannibalistic eating of Jesus, which was absurd.

I wonder
The disciples who left failed to tell the truth about what Jesus was saying. Can you prove that you wonder? Can you write just one thing that you can prove to be true? Can you prove that you are not utterly convinced that Jesus spoke metaphorically?

Can you prove that the RCC can survive without a closed Bible and brute force? Do your best.
 
Upvote 0

MoNiCa4316

Totus Tuus
Jun 28, 2007
18,882
1,654
✟49,687.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Can you prove that the RCC can survive without a closed Bible and brute force? Do your best.

"closed Bible"? I'm Catholic and I read the Bible. And so do many other Catholics. And the Bible is read at every Mass.
"brute force"? :confused: I converted to Catholicism without any "brute force".
 
Upvote 0

calluna

Regular Member
Apr 23, 2008
2,237
114
✟25,394.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
"closed Bible"? I'm Catholic and I read the Bible. And so do many other Catholics. And the Bible is read at every Mass.
"brute force"? :confused: I converted to Catholicism without any "brute force".
What would happen if Catholics had to write without using personal pronouns?
 
Upvote 0

MoNiCa4316

Totus Tuus
Jun 28, 2007
18,882
1,654
✟49,687.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
What would happen if Catholics had to write without using personal pronouns?

The Church IS the people. When we use "personal pronouns" we talk about what our experience of the Church has been. If Catholics talk about the Church positively, then they havent experienced it as a bad thing, which means that it's probably not a bad thing in 'reality'.

You didn't use "personal pronouns" but that doesn't mean that your statement about the Church was in any way objective. In fact I'd say it's very subjective, especially because yours is the minority view.

I'm wondering what makes you see Catholicism in this way?

Peace
 
Upvote 0

calluna

Regular Member
Apr 23, 2008
2,237
114
✟25,394.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
The Church IS the people. When we use "personal pronouns" we talk about what our experience of the Church has been.
Or, what Catholics want people to think has been their experience.

There is not a single Catholic I have ever met on the 'net who could survive more than a few seconds in a debate- and precious few in real life who could.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.