I Love Being Catholic

Yeah I don't doubt that Jesus could turn bread into his body and wine into blood.

The point is that it either is Jesus' blood or it aint.  It's either his body or it aint.  This illustrates to me that he was carrying out a symbolic gesture with his disciples.

What I do doubt though is a priest's ability to turn wine into Jesus' actual blood.  You either taste wine or his blood, which one is it?

 

1st April 2003 at 05:26 PM Miyu said this in Post #59

um...still waiting for an answer about the grape juice question...

*feels ignored*

Click to expand...

We can't use grape juice because Christ used wine to institute this Sacrament, and we must do it as He did.  During the time between the Ressurection and the Ascention, Christ taught the Apostles all they needed to know to go out and serve as the first priests.  He didn't give them the Liturgy (Mass) exactly, but He did lay down what needed to be in it, as is evidenced by the similarities between all the Liturgies written by the Apostles.  If grape juice was an ok substitute, Christ would have taught them as such during this period, and it would have been passed down.  But for 2000 years the Church has only used wine, as Christ did.

Both the Body and the Blood are present under both species, that which was the bread, and that which was the wine.  So if a person must receive only the Body, they are receiving both, the symbolism isn't as great, but they're not having any deficiency of grace.  Also, the wine used contains very little alcohol, and is mixed with a good deal of water, so it isn't a problem for most people.

1st April 2003 at 05:30 PM Gordi said this in Post #61

Yeah I don't doubt that Jesus could turn bread into his body and wine into blood.

The point is that it either is Jesus' blood or it aint.  It's either his body or it aint.  This illustrates to me that he was carrying out a symbolic gesture with his disciples.

What I do doubt though is a priest's ability to turn wine into Jesus' actual blood.  You either taste wine or his blood, which one is it?

 

Click to expand...

The priest does not have the ability to turn bread and wine into the Body and Blood, that'd be magic, that'd be dumb.  But God does.  The preist receives the Holy Spirit in a very special way at his ordination, like the Apostles did when Christ breathed on them and said "receive ye the Holy Spirit".  The Apostles ordained bishops after them, passing on the Spirit in this special way, and in each generation bishops ordain priests to assist them.  It is God who works this miracle, through the priest.  The preist prays and asks God to send down His Holy Spirit and work this miracle, and Christ does.  It is our High Priest, Christ who actually works the miracle, not the priest.

Thanks

How do you answer the common arguement among many protestant groups that Jesus didn't actually drink wine, that it was really grape juice...that the greek word translated wine in the New Testament was used for unfermented grape juice...I hear this arguement a lot.

CopticOrthodox I gotta go to a friends, I'll check back later.

What you could answer for me while I'm away, without debating thefact away is....

After the wine as you say has been changed to the actual blood of Jesus do you actually taste blood?  I mean literally taste blood?

Cause if you don't then it would be symbolic wiether you acknowledge it or not.

-peace out & cya later

1st April 2003 at 05:40 PM Gordi said this in Post #65

CopticOrthodox I gotta go to a friends, I'll check back later.

What you could answer for me while I'm away, without debating thefact away is....

After the wine as you say has been changed to the actual blood of Jesus do you actually taste blood?  I mean literally taste blood?

Cause if you don't then it would be symbolic wiether you acknowledge it or not.

-peace out & cya later

Click to expand...

Did you read my long post with the quote from Jn 6?  I said in it that no, it doesn't taste like flesh and blood, but He said it is and we believe Him.  It is Mysteriously (Sacramentally) the Body and Blood, in a real way.  It is no longer bread and wine, but it continues to look and taste like it.

1st April 2003 at 03:40 PM Gordi said this in Post #65

After the wine as you say has been changed to the actual blood of Jesus do you actually taste blood?  I mean literally taste blood?

Cause if you don't then it would be symbolic wiether you acknowledge it or not.

-peace out & cya later

Click to expand...

hmmm...seems to me that if Christ is able to preform the miracle of changing the bread and wine into His actual Body and Blood, then He is equally able to cause the sacrament to retain the appearance and taste of bread and wine.

So the fact that the bread and wine does indeed retain its taste in no way proves the Catholic position wrong.

1st April 2003 at 05:36 PM Miyu said this in Post #64

Thanks

How do you answer the common arguement among many protestant groups that Jesus didn't actually drink wine, that it was really grape juice...that the greek word translated wine in the New Testament was used for unfermented grape juice...I hear this arguement a lot.

Click to expand...

You're welcome.  Here are some links:http://www.cin.org/mateo/mt960309.htmlhttp://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ376.HTM

Bascially, there was no such thing as grape juice with no alcohol until very recently when science allowed it.  Grape juice ferments and becomes alcoholic natually.  Also, this wasn't just any meal with His diciples, it was in the context either of the Passover, or the meal before Passover (no point getting into the debate of which here), in either case it is wine and not new wine with very little alcohol that is used by the Jews in those meals.  The fact that every Church in every part of the world universally used wine until the 1800's makes it pretty obvious that there was no historical objection to it, and it's just Protestants trying to divorce the Bible from history that can read this kind of stuff into it.  Wine's what's been used since the beginning.

That's kinda what I think. It makes no sense that it wasn't real wine.

It seems that it is the groups that believe that any alcohol consumption, even in moderation, is sinful...if that were true, and Jesus drank real wine, well, then He would be sinning...and we know that cannot be true...so they adjust the facts to coincide with their belief...

1st April 2003 at 05:02 PM Miyu said this in Post #69

they adjust the facts to coincide with their belief...

Click to expand...

Gordi,

Oh ye of little faith...don’t you believe in miracles? Do you really need it to look and taste like flesh and blood in order to believe? Where would the faith part even come in if it looked like flesh and tasted like flesh and a unbloody manner is the point. He instituted the Eucharist in a unbloody manner for us to do in memory of him. He said to take bread and eat it, why would we think it would not still taste like bread? How does it NOT tasting like bread compromise the miracle?

It's all in the bible if you want to check it out. Before he said we are to take bread and eat it he said you have to eat his flesh, not a symbol of his flesh and he never said that it had to taste like actual flesh and he never said at that point how he was going to have us eat his flesh. It was not until the Last Supper that he revealed how we are to eat his flesh.

Another point you are missing out on is that he says that the flesh is of no avail but the spirit gives life. It is his living body that we receive, not dead, we receive not only flesh and blood but soul and divinity, it is the living, resurrected body of Jesus we receive, not cannibalism. That is why it does not taste like or look like flesh because cannibalism is a sin and God would not have us commit sin.

1st April 2003 at 06:02 PM Miyu said this in Post #69

That's kinda what I think. It makes no sense that it wasn't real wine.

It seems that it is the groups that believe that any alcohol consumption, even in moderation, is sinful...if that were true, and Jesus drank real wine, well, then He would be sinning...and we know that cannot be true...so they adjust the facts to coincide with their belief...

Click to expand...

We also can't forget what apostle Paul said to Timothy:

1 Timothy 5:23 - Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.

Apparently, wine was used as some sort of medicine.

-Jason

1st April 2003 at 05:30 PM Gordi said this in Post #61

Yeah I don't doubt that Jesus could turn bread into his body and wine into blood.

The point is that it either is Jesus' blood or it aint.  It's either his body or it aint.  This illustrates to me that he was carrying out a symbolic gesture with his disciples.

What I do doubt though is a priest's ability to turn wine into Jesus' actual blood.  You either taste wine or his blood, which one is it?

 

Click to expand...

While I don't know everything about the Eucharist, here's a website by a protestant who has some information on eucharistic miracles where the wine literally turned into blood. (by the way, there's lots of spelling mistakes on that page) =)

http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/Miracles3.htm

God bless!

-Jason

Well, I'm going to back up a few pages and respond to Jason's request for Protestant communion experiences. I have received communion in Methodist and Baptist churches, and I have to say that my biggest memory of both was disappointment, and a strong dislike for grape juice. Both communions were anything but. There was no sense of communion with God or with each other. Some Protestants harp about 'empty ritual', but they participate in a 'ritual' that is, by their own admission, empty of any true Substance, save what each individual personally ascribes to it. They communicate themselves. They do not share in communion with their brothers and sisters, instead they take their own sterile plastic wrapped glass and plate and partake alone. It seemed very sad to me at the time, even though I knew no differently, and it seems almost heartbreaking now that I know true Communion. Hundreds of people gathered together in His name, and they are each an island. That is no communion.

The Eucharist. I don't think that I can say any more than my brothers and sisters have already said. Christ calls to me through the Eucharist. He shows me myself as I can be, if I only let Him lead me. I, too, feel a flood of Grace, almost a physical warmth, when I receive. And I, too, feel the Peace of the True Presence. When I enter the church my eyes go immediately to the Tabernacle, and I whisper, "Here I am, Lord". I am overwhelmed during the Consecration, and am frequently in tears. It isn't emotionalism. It goes beyond that, but I don't have the words.


Peace be with you.

1st April 2003 at 07:32 PM ZooMom said this in Post #74

Well, I'm going to back up a few pages and respond to Jason's request for Protestant communion experiences. I have received communion in Methodist and Baptist churches, and I have to say that my biggest memory of both was disappointment, and a strong dislike for grape juice. Both communions were anything but. There was no sense of communion with God or with each other. Some Protestants harp about 'empty ritual', but they participate in a 'ritual' that is, by their own admission, empty of any true Substance, save what each individual personally ascribes to it. They communicate themselves. They do not share in communion with their brothers and sisters, instead they take their own sterile plastic wrapped glass and plate and partake alone. It seemed very sad to me at the time, even though I knew no differently, and it seems almost heartbreaking now that I know true Communion. Hundreds of people gathered together in His name, and they are each an island. That is no communion.

The Eucharist. I don't think that I can say any more than my brothers and sisters have already said. Christ calls to me through the Eucharist. He shows me myself as I can be, if I only let Him lead me. I, too, feel a flood of Grace, almost a physical warmth, when I receive. And I, too, feel the Peace of the True Presence. When I enter the church my eyes go immediately to the Tabernacle, and I whisper, "Here I am, Lord". I am overwhelmed during the Consecration, and am frequently in tears. It isn't emotionalism. It goes beyond that, but I don't have the words.


Peace be with you.

Click to expand...

Wow...that's amazing!  Thanks for sharing! =)

-Jason

So, could I ask you, when you drink from the communion cup, then you actually taste blood literally? And not wine?

Cause after it's conscrated it's either wine or blood?

Click to expand...

After consecration, the wine is literal blood. However, it retains the taste, appearance, smell, and properties of wine.

To quote Aquinas: "It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And therefore Christ's flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the species of those things which are the more commonly used by men, namely, bread and wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament might be derided by unbelievers, if we were to eat our Lord under His own species."

In other words, God retains the appearance of bread and wine in this sacrament after consecration to avoid both revulsion in the part of the communicant and to avoid charges of cannibalism by pagans.

....it's either symbolic or it aint. It's either Jesus' blood or wine, it's either Jesus' body or bread.

Click to expand...

According to Catholic teaching from the beginning, the bread and wine are changed into Christ's literal Body and Blood. Again, to quote Aquinas: "Thirdly....while we receive our Lord's body and blood invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith." In other words, you either believe it or you don't. You don't have to agree with it if you're not Catholic.

Thats why i agrue it is symbolic. The reason I presume Jesus didn't say this is symbolic etc.. Is because they knew that, considering he was standing in front of them.

Click to expand...

How, then, do you account for passages like John 6:53-57?

What I do doubt though is a priest's ability to turn wine into Jesus' actual blood.

Click to expand...

The priest doesn't turn wine into Christ's Blood. The Holy Spirit does. The priest is merely an instrument used by the Holy Spirit.

When the Consecration takes place at Mass, the priest prays to the Holy Spirit, "We ask You to bless these gifts, that they may become the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ." He does NOT say, "*I* bless these gifts, that they may become the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ." The priest has no instrinsic power in and of himself to do anything outside the Holy Spirit.

You either taste wine or his blood, which one is it?

Click to expand...

You taste wine. See above.

After the wine as you say has been changed to the actual blood of Jesus do you actually taste blood? I mean literally taste blood?

Cause if you don't then it would be symbolic wiether you acknowledge it or not.

Click to expand...

So in other words, your senses are what determine for you whether this is symbolic or actual, is that not correct?

Okay; so, according to your senses, Gordi, does the sun literally rise out of the earth at the horizon every morning, and sink back into it at night?

Never mind what the astronomers tell you, forget what they told you in school, what do your senses tell you? What do you see with your own eyes every day? Does the sun rise out of the earth in the morning, or not?

See my point? God is not bound by the limitations of the human mind, or by its five senses.

1st April 2003 at 03:13 PM Gordi said this in Post #50


And just thought I'd let you know that your wine aint Christ's blood either, its symbolic for it.

Click to expand...

Refresh yourself with the rules of this forum.  Make a comment like that again, and you will receive a warning for it.

1st April 2003 at 07:58 PM Wolseley said this in Post #76

So in other words, your senses are what determine for you whether this is symbolic or actual, is that not correct?

Okay; so, according to your senses, Gordi, does the sun literally rise out of the earth at the horizon every morning, and sink back into it at night?

Never mind what the astronomers tell you, forget what they told you in school, what do your senses tell you? What do you see with your own eyes every day? Does the sun rise out of the earth in the morning, or not?

See my point? God is not bound by the limitations of the human mind, or by its five senses.

Click to expand...

Wow...I never thought of it like that =)

That's interesting!

-Jason

First of all i want to apologise to for that comment which was quite bitter now that I can think on it calmly.

By ZooMom

Some Protestants harp about 'empty ritual', but they participate in a 'ritual' that is, by their own admission, empty of any true Substance, save what each individual personally ascribes to it. They communicate themselves. They do not share in communion with their brothers and sisters, instead they take their own sterile plastic wrapped glass and plate and partake alone.

Click to expand...

I know what kind of communion you're talking about, though the Presbyterian church I was brought up in did not do this, they had the one communion cup they passed around.  I don't know if they absorbed this from the Catholic Method?

I still don't think that the wine is actually Jesus' literal blood, but believe me, if I find out that it is, don't think that I'm gonna be stubborn and hold to my old opinion.  If I find I'm partaking in communion thats bogus, Im gonna change were I have communion.

I think though that I must stop debating and stick my head firmly into my Bible for ages, cause if I agreed with what everyone who has talked to me about the way things should be done I would not know what I was at.

Also I would like to apologise for arguing in the Catholic forum and not the IDD.