Catholics, and the Eucharist.

[Joshua Patrick]

As most of you people know, us Catholics believe in the actual real presence of Christ, in the Eucharist.

Before I put my argument across, I mean no offence. I hold all Baptist's, and other Christian Denominations, who uphold the Blessed Trinity, as people to be held in high esteem, and respected.

I'm going to make it short, I do not wish to bore people with long detailed essays on doctrinal issues. Although I will be referencing, the writing I am basing the structure of my argument upon, at the end of the writing.


1. "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: (John 6:53–56).

Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?

On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.



2. "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.


3. Christ takes it far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

4. "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.


5. Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16).

Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

6. What Did the First Christians Say?

Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1).

If the student, of the Apostle John, taught the Eucharist, is the real flesh and blood of Christ, why the sudden change.

Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1–20).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

God Bless

- Joshua

 

[lori4dogs]

"As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.

Bingo!

Jesus followers obviously took Him literally, otherwise why didn't He make any effort at all to clarify what He said when so many of them left Him because of this teaching. Generally this is ignored on this board. Let's see if it gets addressed this time around.

 

[annsni]

As most of you people know, us Catholics

Can I ask why you did not label yourself as Catholic when you joined the Baptist Board? The form asks for "Denomination (Baptist, Methodist, Catholic...) yet you put down "Christian" instead. Why did you not answer the question as asked? You obviously identify as Catholic since you say here "us Catholics".

Can I ask you your purpose in joining the Baptist Board as a Catholic? I'm honestly curious.

 

[annsni]

Do you believe that those who do not believe in the "real presence of Christ in the Eucharist" are saved?

 

[lori4dogs]

Do you believe that those who do not believe in the "real presence of Christ in the Eucharist" are saved?

We Catholics also identify ourselves as Christians, Ann. You should know that. Whats the big deal? He has been upfront about being Catholic even in
the introduction thread.

 

[webdog]

"As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.

Bingo!

Jesus followers obviously took Him literally, otherwise why didn't He make any effort at all to clarify what He said when so many of them left Him because of this teaching. Generally this is ignored on this board. Let's see if it gets addressed this time around.

Talk about a stretch and twist! Cannibalism is alive and well in the RCC!

If I take out a picture of my wife and say "look at my wife", do you literally think my wife is a wallet sized photo of a beautiful woman?

 

[webdog]

We Catholics also identify ourselves as Christians, Ann. You should know that. Whats the big deal? He has been upfront about being Catholic even in
the introduction thread.

The big deal is the deception to gain membership with the administrators.

 

[Joshua Patrick]

Can I ask why you did not label yourself as Catholic when you joined the Baptist Board? The form asks for "Denomination (Baptist, Methodist, Catholic...) yet you put down "Christian" instead. Why did you not answer the question as asked? You obviously identify as Catholic since you say here "us Catholics".

Can I ask you your purpose in joining the Baptist Board as a Catholic? I'm honestly curious.

Hello friend, thanks for the reply. I labeled myself as a Christian, because that is what I am. Naming yourself as a Methodist,Catholic or Baptist in my own personal perspective, scatters the unity which all Christians should hope and inspire to achieving. But I clearly said I was Catholic and proud, in my introduction of myself.

I said "Us Catholics" because it specificly pointed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church and what we believe as Christian Catholics. If I said "Us Christians" people may be confused, since they is alot of Christian denominations.

The big deal is the deception to gain membership with the administrators.

I did not mean to be deceitful in gaining membership, forgive me if I offended you. I hope we can correspond and debate in a friendly environment?

God Bless.

 

[Joshua Patrick]

Talk about a stretch and twist! Cannibalism is alive and well in the RCC!

In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).

But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).

This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.

But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do Fundamentalists say?

This is why Catholics, claim the Eucharist to be our spiritual food. The actual presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

If I take out a picture of my wife and say "look at my wife", do you literally think my wife is a wallet sized photo of a beautiful woman?

No ofcourse not, I do not think your wife, "is a wallet size photo of a beautiful woman". The picture as symbolic meaning behind it, "The image of your wife".

The difference is, Christ, when talking about "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6, did not mean symbolically.

John 10:9 ("I am the door") and John 15:1 ("I am the true vine"). These are symbolic meaning. Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him.

But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).


God Bless.

 

[Joshua Patrick]

Do you believe that those who do not believe in the "real presence of Christ in the Eucharist" are saved?

"Decree on Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio" (1964)

"The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. ...it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."

"Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ."

"The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation."

"It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."

"Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life- that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is 'the all-embracing means of salvation,' that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God."

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Deception no greater than a person putting a title in his name to have the brothers think he was on a higher educational plain than he actually was ...was that not fraud? This guy indicated he is a Christian....he did not id which kind. Perhaps the board needs to debate (without contentious fighting) the validity of his claim. I'd personally view this as an opportunity....at least he is not perpetrating a hoax like the phony "Doctor" was.

 

[annsni]

We Catholics also identify ourselves as Christians, Ann. You should know that. Whats the big deal? He has been upfront about being Catholic even in
the introduction thread.

I didn't ask if Catholics were Christians. It actually asks specifically what DENOMINATION one is - not if they are Christian or not. Additionally, it gives examples and names Catholic so that there should be no confusion. Filling out a form that says "Denomination (Baptist, Methodist, Catholic)" as "Christian" shows clearly deception IMO. Not only that but the "proud Catholic" is truly not that proud if they will not identify themselves as such in something as simple as a question to get on a board. I wonder how the OP will react when the heat is really turned up and there's a chance of losing one's life based on their faith.

 

[webdog]

Hello friend, thanks for the reply. I labeled myself as a Christian, because that is what I am. Naming yourself as a Methodist,Catholic or Baptist in my own personal perspective, scatters the unity which all Christians should hope and inspire to achieving. But I clearly said I was Catholic and proud, in my introduction of myself.

I said "Us Catholics" because it specificly pointed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church and what we believe as Christian Catholics. If I said "Us Christians" people may be confused, since they is alot of Christian denominations.

The point is the BB administrators didn't ask you if you were a Christian...they asked what denomination and gave specific examples of what they were looking for from you. You evaded the question.

But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do Fundamentalists say?

An argument from silence does not hold water. If you are going to take this as literally as you do, Jesus must be God, man and bread.

This is why Catholics, claim the Eucharist to be our spiritual food. The actual presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

...and hence cannibalism.

No ofcourse not, I do not think your wife, "is a wallet size photo of a beautiful woman". The picture as symbolic meaning behind it, "The image of your wife".

The difference is, Christ, when talking about "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6, did not mean symbolically.

Now you are picking and choosing how you want to us any given
statement. You cannot prove He did not mean symbolically...it goes against all logic as well. My God is not a piece of bread.

John 10:9 ("I am the door") and John 15:1 ("I am the true vine"). These are symbolic meaning. Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him.

But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

...but the first two statements do not say "like" a door and "like" a vine. If you are going to use the faulty hermeneutic of keeping to a literal interpretation with John 6:35, you must be consistent throughout John's letters.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

As most of you people know, us Catholics believe in the actual real presence of Christ, in the Eucharist.

Before I put my argument across, I mean no offence. I hold all Baptist's, and other Christian Denominations, who uphold the Blessed Trinity, as people to be held in high esteem, and respected.

I'm going to make it short, I do not wish to bore people with long detailed essays on doctrinal issues. Although I will be referencing, the writing I am basing the structure of my argument upon, at the end of the writing.


1. "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: (John 6:53–56).

Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?

On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.



2. "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.


3. Christ takes it far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

4. "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.


5. Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16).

Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

6. What Did the First Christians Say?

Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1).

If the student, of the Apostle John, taught the Eucharist, is the real flesh and blood of Christ, why the sudden change.

Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1–20).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

God Bless

- Joshua

As you know Eucharista means Thanksgiving Freely Offered. And since it up holds the sacrifice of Calvary and makes it present. This being the fact it seems as though the Catholic church Makes direct allusions to the thanks offering provided for in Leviticus. Lets look at it

" 'These are the regulations for the fellowship offering [a] a person may present to the LORD :
12 " 'If he offers it as an expression of thankfulness, then along with this thank offering he is to offer cakes of bread made without yeast and mixed with oil, wafers made without yeast and spread with oil, and cakes of fine flour well-kneaded and mixed with oil. 13 Along with his fellowship offering of thanksgiving he is to present an offering with cakes of bread made with yeast. 14 He is to bring one of each kind as an offering, a contribution to the LORD; it belongs to the priest who sprinkles the blood of the fellowship offerings. 15 The meat of his fellowship offering of thanksgiving must be eaten on the day it is offered; he must leave none of it till morning.

The question is from a NT perspective of studying the gospels and colosians do we get the idea that this is what Jesus wanted to institute for the Lords supper? Or did Jesus want to do something entirely new more closely related to the Passover? And doesn't making Jesus sacrifice connected to the Leviticus thank offering lessen calvary?

 

[webdog]

Deception no greater than a person putting a title in his name to have the brothers think he was on a higher educational plain than he actually was ...was that not fraud? This guy indicated he is a Christian....he did not id which kind. Perhaps the board needs to debate (without contentious fighting) the validity of his claim. I'd personally view this as an opportunity....at least he is not perpetrating a hoax like the phony "Doctor" was.

While you have a point, one can choose any username they wish. It is not a violation of BB rules. There is no question asking if one is truly a Dr., but there is one asking what denomination you belong to.

 

[annsni]

Hello friend, thanks for the reply. I labeled myself as a Christian, because that is what I am. Naming yourself as a Methodist,Catholic or Baptist in my own personal perspective, scatters the unity which all Christians should hope and inspire to achieving. But I clearly said I was Catholic and proud, in my introduction of myself.

Whether that was your own personal opinion or not, it asked if you were Catholic and you proudly....denied it. Why is that?

I said "Us Catholics" because it specificly pointed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church and what we believe as Christian Catholics. If I said "Us Christians" people may be confused, since they is alot of Christian denominations.

I did not mean to be deceitful in gaining membership, forgive me if I offended you. I hope we can correspond and debate in a friendly environment?

God Bless.

What is your purpose in coming to a Baptist board though? I know if I went to a Catholic board, there would be a lot I'd disagree with and the only reason I'd go there would be to debate and defend Biblical truths against some of the false teachings of the Catholic church. I'd certainly not go there for fellowship even though I have friends who are Catholic. If I'm joining a "religious" board, I'm there for sharpening my iron and being amongst other like-minded believers. So why join a Baptist board?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

BTW I think I have valid points in post 14 that I would like a catholic to answer. Instead of determining whether the person can post here lets debate the topic. I have an issue with the Eucharist and I think I made a valid point.

 

[Joshua Patrick]

I didn't ask if Catholics were Christians. It actually asks specifically what DENOMINATION one is - not if they are Christian or not. Additionally, it gives examples and names Catholic so that there should be no confusion. Filling out a form that says "Denomination (Baptist, Methodist, Catholic)" as "Christian" shows clearly deception IMO. Not only that but the "proud Catholic" is truly not that proud if they will not identify themselves as such in something as simple as a question to get on a board. I wonder how the OP will react when the heat is really turned up and there's a chance of losing one's life based on their faith.

Denomination: a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith.

How can Catholics class the church as an denomination?

The Catholic Church, refuses to acknowledge such religious societies as organizations, like herself, of Divine origin. We cannot class ourself's as an denomination. We Catholics belief the Church is an institution, set up by Christ himself. The Church does not profess the beliefs of men, but it professes to truth of Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit, God as lead us into our beliefs.

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

A full detailed explanation, why Catholics cannot class themselves as part of an denomination: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13674a.htm

So when a question like, "what DENOMINATION one is", knowledgable Catholics, cannot and should not claim to be in any denomination. Therefore when the question arises, I had to put Christian, for that is what I am.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Everyone is going off topic here. Lets debate on the issue of the Eucharist. I very rarely get to hold a position counter catholic and here is one I wish to debate. Eucharist.

 

[webdog]

Denomination: a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith.

How can Catholics class the church as an denomination?

The Catholic Church, refuses to acknowledge such religious societies as organizations, like herself, of Divine origin. We cannot class ourself's as an denomination. We Catholics belief the Church is an institution, set up by Christ himself. The Church does not profess the beliefs of men, but it professes to truth of Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit, God as lead us into our beliefs.

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

A full detailed explanation, why Catholics cannot class themselves as part of an denomination: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13674a.htm

So when a question like, "what DENOMINATION one is", knowledgable Catholics, cannot and should not claim to be in any denomination. Therefore when the question arises, I had to put Christian, for that is what I am.

...and the spin and deception continues...