curious..

[KC Catholic]

Whoa...that's what I want to hear! Let's jump into the fire....

When we participate in communion are we really eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood. Short answer - YES.

Let me explain..with biblical backing:

Christ established the mass in this passage from John 6: 31-69

So they said to him, "What sign can you do, that we may see and believe in you? What can you do?
31
16 Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'"
32
So Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heavenSo they said to him, "What sign can you do, that we may see and believe in you? What can you do?
31
16 Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'"
32
So Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
33
For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."
34
So they said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always."
35
17 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.
36
But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe.
37
Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,
38
because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.
39
And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day.
40
For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day."
41
The Jews murmured about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven,"
42
and they said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, 'I have come down from heaven'?"
43
Jesus answered and said to them, "Stop murmuring 18 among yourselves.
44
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day.
45
It is written in the prophets: 'They shall all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.
46
Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.
47
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
I am the bread of life.
49
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"
53
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
59
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60
20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"
61
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?
62
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64
But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65
And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father."
66
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
67
Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?"
68
Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."

 

[KC Catholic]

Now....that passage along with the well-known Passover passages we see where Christ established the Eucharist.

We believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ as he deemed. There are no visible or detectable changes - the body and blood are in the appearence of bread and wine. This is called "Transubstantiation".


It's not cannabalism either as many try and point out. This teaching was hard for the followers of Christ. Many left him that day, but he meant what he said and he made no apologies or corrected himself and his message to the people there that day.

 

[LouisBooth]

so you think its symbolic..okay..I agree..lets go onto the next sacriment. The other question I do have, if you don't believe it is symbolic..I think you would run out of "flesh and blood" by 1400 or so Just my thoughts...

 

[KC Catholic]

No..its not symbolic - its the true body and blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. Its the "true presence" of Christ.

Nowhere in my thread did I say it was symbolic.

 

[KC Catholic]

Whoops....the second part of your statement.

The other question I do have, if you don't believe it is symbolic..I think you would run out of "flesh and blood" by 1400 or so Just my thoughts

Huh? No, every time the Priest consecrates the bread and the wine during mass, by powers given to him through the Holy Spirit (ultimately Jesus Christ) and Apostletic Succession, the bread and the wine become the body and blood of Christ.

We will never "run out" because Christ lives today and at each mass he provides our spiritual nourishment and comes to us in the Eucharist.

 

[KC Catholic]

Seems like we trailed off here....

 

[LouisBooth]

Sorry, I was on vacation. Well one of the more simple replies to thinking that the bread and wine become the actual flesh and blood of Christ is that there was only a limited amount of christ's flesh and a limited amount of his blood.

 

[LouisBooth]

I don't like that "refute" because I think it isn't a true portrayal from what I have gotten from catholics I have talked to. They usually state it is the essence of christ that "indwells", for lack of a better word, the bread and the wine. I would also like to take the time to thank you for explaining what you believe to me. I value it greatly..diversity is okay as long as we agree on the essentals

 

[KC Catholic]

Well one of the more simple replies to thinking that the bread and wine become the actual flesh and blood of Christ is that there was only a limited amount of christ's flesh and a limited amount of his blood.

Please clarify this statement.

Christ stated very clearly in John 6 and in the passover story that his flesh and blood are true food and we need to part take of that in order to live. The Catholic Church has the Eucharist and we know this is the bread of live.

Also, Christ stated that he would be with us until the end of time...and there are no limits on how he would "be" with us.

 

[KC Catholic]

I don't like that "refute" because I think it isn't a true portrayal from what I have gotten from catholics I have talked to. They usually state it is the essence of christ that "indwells", for lack of a better word, the bread and the wine.

I'm not "refuting" anything. So, I know less than the other Catholics you have spoken with? There are Catholics who do not fully understand the churches teachings -> I've studied enough to know what the church is saying about the Eucharist.

I would also like to take the time to thank you for explaining what you believe to me. I value it greatly..diversity is okay as long as we agree on the essentals

So this is the "jumping off" point? I'm glad you enjoyed my explanation...but its not just what "I" believe, its what Christ taught, its what he meant and its what the Church teaches.

There should be no "diversity"...we are to be one body, one church sharing one bread. Its the fact that the "reformers" of the church decided they knew more than the Holy Spirit, who is leading and protecting the teachings of Christ's church, so they went their own way.

I don't subscribe to the "PC" speak that takes place on some of these boards. It gets frustrating when the faithful Catholics try and explain Christ's teachings and how the Church continues those teachings today - only to have someone wave off our explainations and say "aslong as we agree on the essentials" blah, blah, blah.

Christ gave us what is essential...his body and blood in the Eucharist -> it wasn't a parable or a story or cute little analogy -> he meant what he said. You cannot "willy-nillie" go through the bible and decide "ad hoc" what Christ meant as fact and what was a parable.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone here...I've just had enough of others downplaying and second-guessing the Churchs teachings.

Peace - we outta here.

 

[onesheep]

Peace - we outta here.

Don't you dare leave or you'll have me to deal with. I appreciate you and your knowledge of the Church. No one has any reason to be offended here.

Besides, if you leave, I'll cry.

 

[KC Catholic]

It was just something to say....

I t'aint be goin' nowhere. This is my only refuge!

 

[LouisBooth]

KC..not trying to belittle you or anything. I was just stateing that we can be diverse in the non-esentials. I believe when christ spoke about this he was being symbolic. Just as I also believe baptism is symbolic. When I say refute I say this is a reply to the statements you make. Not an arugement but a question in reply to what you said. If it literally becomes the body of christ a logical question would be that christ's body was in a certain amount wouldn't it stem to reason that you would run out of body and blood. I don't agree with this because the Catholics I have talked to say that it becomes the essence of what christ is..(because christ is God and is infinite hence you don't run out) see what I'm trying to say or did I just dirty the water again?

 

[KC Catholic]

KC..not trying to belittle you or anything

Ok.

. I was just stateing that we can be diverse in the non-esent

[/b]Hmm...so communion is non-essential. Even if Christ says "This is body and who eats my body and drinks my blood will be filled with life"? (paraphrased of course.)

I believe when christ spoke about this he was being symbolic. Just as I also believe baptism is symbolic.

Ok, You believe this based on what? What parts of the bible say that Christ was being symbolic in the "Bread of Life Discussion"? On whose authority do you base your beliefs on what is symbolic and what is literal?

If you notice...Christ always took the time to explain his parables, since they were symbolic of his teachings.

But in John 6, Jesus did not explain what he meant by his flesh and blood being food that we must eat. The people with him that day asked "How an this man give us his flesh to eat?" Well, Jesus didn't say "What I meant by this was that my flesh and blood are symbolic of my words and teachings."

You show me in the bible where Jesus corrects himself to the Apostiles. Rather than making the Catholics prove our beliefs, you need to justify why YOU don't accept teachings that were accepted by Christians for 1500 years before the "Reformation".

Louis...I'm not meaning to come off as defensive, but I'm at a point where I am tired of having to explain the same things over and over again. So, rather than defend my faith, which has been around for 2000 years, I'd like to see someone defend 500 years of Protestant teachings.

Mods...I hope I haven't gone too far here. I'm not trying to incite a riot, I just have questions.

[edited to remove extra spacing]

 

[LouisBooth]

"If you notice...Christ always took the time to explain his parables, since they were symbolic of his teachings."

Not true KC. He explained only a select few. Others he did not explain at all.

"Ok, You believe this based on what? What parts of the bible say that Christ was being symbolic in the "Bread of Life Discussion"? On whose authority do you base your beliefs on what is symbolic and what is literal?"

When he says things like the kingdom is a "blah" does it really mean it is a "blah". NO. It is symbolic. When he says I am the tree and you are the branches..does he mean we are a tree? Nope it is symbolic to say we are like branches. See what I'm getting at?

"Rather than making the Catholics prove our beliefs, you need to justify why YOU don't accept teachings that were accepted by Christians for 1500 years before the "Reformation"."

Okay..first thought I do not want to turn this into a shouting match. As you have said this place is your "refuge" and I have NO right to disturb that. I am not trying to do that. I am just asking for reasons why beliefs are held in the catholic faith. As far as justifing my reasons I can state many places in the bible where christ talks symbolically but doesn't say he is talking symbolicly..the branches being one example.

"I'd like to see someone defend 500 years of Protestant teachings."

Okay...Well as I have described the "figuartive" language we can cover any topic you wish. i would love to hear your thoughts on other topics we "disagree" on. We can start another thread for each topic if ya like

 

[KC Catholic]

Louis, dude....

This thread is going to go nowhere. We have all been down this road before.

I really think we cannot discuss anything further by the sheer fact that "your" interpretation and what the Catholic Church through over 1500 years of stuyding the biblical text while being guided by the Holy Spirit will never come to an agreement.

Its really an authority issue, isn't it? You feel you have studied the bible and based on your responses maintain the false pretense that you can interpret the bible yourself.

You cannot on your own strength and intellect decide what is symbolic and what is not.

 

[LouisBooth]

"You cannot on your own strength and intellect decide what is symbolic and what is not. "

Hmm KC..if I was the ONLY one that thinks that way I might agree..but I'm not. Just because the current "tradtion" is that way there is nothing wrong with questioning that. God answers questions..I always try and remember that Jesus himself questioned the currect practices and was a "rebel". I just am saying that there are other examples in the bible that clearly show he was being symbolic but he didn't say he was. My other thought was always (on this subject) that never was a person supposed to eat what was sacrificed to God in the old sacrifice system? I know it did happen a few times..but it was not the usual thing? Am I wrong on that point? We can stop discussing this if you would like, but I still would like to hear your views on the things the reformers changed and the biblical basis for it. I am not saying I am right and you are wrong. I very much conceed that I could be wrong and it is a literal thing, but to me this is not one of the "essentials", but that goes back to that other disagreement we had. So where do we go from here?

 

[onesheep]

Hmm KC..if I was the ONLY one that thinks that way I might agree..but I'm not.

Louis, Louis, Louis. I guess that makes what Hitler did okay because he wasn't the only one to think that way, as well as abortion since so many people are for it.

How many think that way isn't pertinent.

 

[KC Catholic]

Hmm KC..if I was the ONLY one that thinks that way I might agree..but I'm not. Just because the current "tradtion" is that way there is nothing wrong with questioning that.

Ok...so I'm gonna pull a "parent move" on you...If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you? Just because "others" are doing it too does not justify Protestantism.

There is nothing more to "protest". And there is nothing "traditional" about the Eucharist being true body and true blood. Read the writings of the first fathers of the church. They've been doing it that way since Day 1 after the assention.

always try and remember that Jesus himself questioned the currect practices and was a "rebel".

That may be true....that's because the current practices included 631 rules for cleanliness along with living the Ten Commandments. Jesus was not a "rebel" he was a devout Jew.

He was God who came to Earth to re-establish a new covenant with us, his people and remove some of the 631 rules the Jews lived by. He celebrated passover, which is the traditional jewish sadre meal. Study Jewish practices...Christ is the unblemished lamb that was sacraficed for our sake.

Read the passover supper...He said "This is my body,take and eat. And oh, by the way..its symbolic and its going to run out in 1400 years."

I just am saying that there are other examples in the bible that clearly show he was being symbolic but he didn't say he was.

Ok, show me.

I am the bread of life.
49
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"
53
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Ok, now where is he? At the last supper? No, he is out in the fields preaching. If it was meant to be symbolic, don't you think this discourse would be repeated in the last supper writings? THEN, I could see how you would interpret it to be symbolic. But they take place at different times.

My other thought was always (on this subject) that never was a person supposed to eat what was sacrificed to God in the old sacrifice system? I know it did happen a few times..but it was not the usual thing? Am I wrong on that point?

This is true...part of the old system, which Jesus came to correct. Its not what we put in our mouths that make us unclean or holy - its what is in our hearts, minds and what comes out of our mouths that can be unclean.

But wouldn't you think that if Christ really didn't want us to take his words "Eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood and you shall have life" as literal, don't you think the bible would reflect that?

He said "my flesh is true food and my blood true drink" - no hesitation, clarification or otherwise. This was a hard teaching in those days as they are for some Protestants now. Remember - "How can this man give us his flesh and blood to drink?" Well, because he is GOD - he can do anything.

20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"
61
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?
62
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64
But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65
And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father."
66
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
67
Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?"
68
Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."

.

Its hard not to argue me point -> the evidence is clear.

but to me this is not one of the "essentials"

I think its absolutely essential that we understand what Christ meant. Jesus said its essential "How ever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him." How much more clearer can it get that Jesus felt it was essential - maybe we should, too.

Keep talking - I'm listening.

 

[onesheep]

I'm sorry, Louis, I owe you an apology for the Hitler crack. Your statement just hit me really wrong and I flung it out there. I ask your forgiveness.