Science vs Transubstantiation

This situation should not occur. The minister should speak the Verba over the elements and the sick person should immediately receive them. I do not care to speculate on the consequences of not following Christ's command.

 

John,

So Lutherans operate under the assumption, from lack of explicit Scriptural evidence, that if it is not immediately consumed, Christ must not be present?

I don't see the benefit of assuming when he is not there over assuming that He is there, especially since He does not mention any sort of time frame, even less mention that His being there is only temporary.

Further, I would bring up the question of times and places where there are not enough priests/ministers to go around and visit all the sick/shut-ins that could consecrate the elements. According to your view, no layman could do this (or if he CAN do this, what need have we of ministers?), and if there is no minister around, the shut-ins do without.

Hopefully you can shed some light! God bless you,

Grant

 

That is the single fallacy of the dogma that bread and wine become body and blood of Christ!

Since the elements themselves do not change or transubstantiate, the body and blood of Christ is "consumed" when the receiver believes they are the body and blood of Christ. Otherwise they change not at all!

 

No, I said that I did not want to speculate on the consequences of improper use.

I don't see the benefit of assuming when he is not there over assuming that He is there, especially since He does not mention any sort of time frame, even less mention that His being there is only temporary.

When Jesus said, "Take, eat," did He mean, "Take, eat later"?

Further, I would bring up the question of times and places where there are not enough priests/ministers to go around and visit all the sick/shut-ins that could consecrate the elements. According to your view, no layman could do this (or if he CAN do this, what need have we of ministers?), and if there is no minister around, the shut-ins do without.

In case of emergency, any Christian can pronounce absolution from sin.

 

If the body and blood of Christ is "consumed" only when the receiver believes they are the body and blood of Christ, why does Paul say, "he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body" and "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord"?

 

Yelsew replied:

Good for you! Producing an action ("works") that comes out of your faith is what it is all about, sir!

In a previous conversation, you said:

Then what you are saying here is that you believe what the protestants believe, and that is, that the substance that you consume is the substance in its natural form and that no transubstantiation has occured in the natural realm.

And I previously replied:

Huh?

No, all I am saying is, when we go to communion, we acdrtually receive Jesus' body and blood.

What was once bread and wine, is no longer bread and wine, but actually Jesus' body and blood.

What we taste is the "accidents," of what used to be bread and wine, but is no longer bread and wine. Our senses therefore deceive us is what it is we are receiving (the action of the flesh) but intellectually, we know, by faith, that it is really Jesus' body and blood (the spirit part.)

Whew! And I get accused many times of reading too much into in John 6!

You seemingly "protestest too much" with a statement of fact that I cannot reconcile with the simple words of Christ when He says "For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink" (John 6:55), period. But I am glad to hear you say "He was not altering bread into flesh and wine into blood" because that is not what He did. When He says, as He did at the Last Supper, "This is my body; this is my blood" we see a change in the species by divine fiat, not by a physical/chemical substance change that can be detected by the senses of the flesh.

And what do you mean by "substitutes" here? If you are saying that His body and blood are "true food and drink," yet under the appearance of bread and wine (which certainly remain - the "accidents") and not under the appearance of his natural flesh and blood, I would still have little difficulty with it the word as I tend to take the word "substitute" to mean that the bread and wine remains what it is, and is simply a representative of Christ, just like a photo of me is not really me but is a replica, a "substitute" if you will, of me, myself and I!

Of course, while you have the real "me," you also have "me" in the real natural flesh. But to have the "real Jesus" before us while He is on His throne in heaven, yet present on the altar of the Sacrifice of the Mass, in every Catholic Church tabernacle around the entire world, all at the same time, goes beyond the normal senses, I am sure you would agree.

I believe it is a gift of faith we Catholics enjoy when we believe this. We actually have Jesus come into our bodies, actually and without any "substitutional" conditions, His real body and blood, yet under the appearance of bread and wine that would also have Him come into our hearts and minds spiritual as well.

To believe the "Catholic extremes" of this astounding doctrine, I would concur, is a difficult thing to do. We cannot conceive how Jesus, He being God, can do this. We simply believe it out of faith, simply because He declared it so! It is so beautiful to me that I accepted it instantly without a struggle, once I realized what Jesus did here. And it occurs to me, why accept a lesser extent of this belief? Why water it down to a simple memorial service, often done once a month or even once every six months when in fact, the significance is so great, we Catholics, if we can, partake of His body and blood daily, being fully retired, my wife and I are privileged to do.

Well, when a partake of the Eucharist, it tastes like unleaven bread! And the blood of Christ tastes like the wine it used to be! But intellectually with the gift of faith, we believe that it is not what it tastes like, but what it is in a "spiritual reality" we cannot otherwise demonstrate by the senses of the flesh.

Now, you need to demonstrate what the Occult does that is similar. But be aware that we are physical creatures who are ritualistic by nature. Thus do not be surprised that the false religions of the world take advantage of these ritualistic tendencies that expresses itself with the physical elements found here on earth. For example, the pagans used water in a purification rite. Christians use water for baptism! Pagans anointed with oil, used the flames of candles, and the wonderful smelling incense in their use of physical things to worship their gods; Christians (and yes, the early New Testament Christians) used these same elements in their worship of GOD! Jesus Himself used physical things to parallel what He did in his ministry. Using his own spittle mixed with dirt to make mud, He applied it on the eyes of a blind man that he would see once again. God made us ritualistic beings, and God uses that to have us worship Him as well.

And the most cumulative, the most wonderful, the most powerful "element" Christ used was His own body and blood in the Eucharist! When we partake of Him, we take Him physically as we would have Him come into our hearts and minds!

As I return to my place in church after receiving Him in the Eucharist, I place my hand over my heart and say, "Lord, while you are visiting me for a little while in my body, please enter into my heart and mind as well!"

I last said:

First of all, how is it that we can eat and drink of this "unworthily" if it is only "substitutionary" as you say, since if it were so, it simply would not be the reality of Jesus Christ in His body and blood!!!?

Before I can answer this, I must determine what you mean by "substsitutionary." If you mean it by the strictest definition in that it refers to the fact that the Eucharist is not His natural flesh and blood (something that revolted the Jews and those deserting disciples in John 6) but rather in the form of bread and wine, yet still be His ACTUAL body and blood, then fine (but I still don't like the word). But if you mean that the bread and wine "substitute" for Christ in a non-literal/symbolic/representative way, then we have a problem.

If it is the former, then I certainly understand how it is we can partake of it "unworthily." What an insult to Christ if we take him when we may be steeped in sin! But if the latter, how can "worthiness" be as powerful an issue when the species simply "substitutes" for Christ in a simple representative way without it being really HIM, the Lord Jesus Christ? How can one be "guilty of the body and blood of Jesus" (1 Cor. 11:23-29) if in fact, we partake of the "substitute" that is simply a symbolic stand-in for the real person of Christ?

As a matter of fact, if I were to partake of the species of bread and wine that is substutionary of the body and blood of Christ in an "unworthy" matter, it is not to say that I do such a thing that I am not accountable for before God, just like if I were to destroy a photograph of you in anger, I do not actually harm you physically, except that if you see me do this, I still harm you in the heart. You would be sad to see me do such a thing, right, Yelsew? So, to do so to a symbolic representation is still a serious thing to do, isn't it?

But imagine if in fact that the species of the Eucharist is actually Christ in His body, blood, soul and divinity? Oh how much more serious is the offense if we partake of Him unworthily! Now, look at your last sentence above: Under the very same sinful conditions you speak of here, how terribly awful is it to receive Christ into our unclean bodies! It would be comparable of me harming you personally instead of defiling your photograph. That is a vast difference, don't you think?

Bread and wine do not "substitute" for Christ; the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine actually, completely but are His actual body and blood!

The problem is, the "spotless lamb" remains what it is, a "spotless lamb"! But it does forshadow in the Old Testament, what was to become the most perfect spotless lamb, Jesus Christ Himself! Only the sacrifice of Him would our sins be forgiven completely and the gates of heaven opened once again, something that a mere "spotless lamb" could never do!

And while the ritualistic requirements of offering this spotless lamb in the Old Testament is, it pales in significance of what the "ritualistic requirements" of receiving Christ in the Eucharist, the pure spotless lamb that demands us to be utterly "worthy" in that we are free of sin, have reconciled with our brother or sister as you say, that we may partake of the most perfect sacrifice ever - Jesus Christ Himself in His body and blood!

How does Christ appear to us in the Eucharist from on high on His throne in heaven? By one of the most wonderful gift he could give us, that sustains us in the greatest gift He gave us - Salvation!

Nothing "substitutes" for Him, as it is actually HIM! Else how can we partake of a "substitute" unworthily if the substitute is not actually HIM?

Answer: It cannot!

Except for one thing here, Yelsew: We do not offer up the "blood sacrifice of innocent animals" any longer, because the ultimate sacrifice has already been completed, and we receive back the perfect sacrifice in His body and blood! We are the recipients of His sacrifice, not the perpetuator of it! (Although we often see inwardly in ourselves, the role of sacrificer of Christ in our sins had we been in the crowd that condemned him before Pilate.) Therefore, what we receive back from that sacrifice is……………..Jesus!

To receive back something that is only "substitutionary" is far less then to receive Him ACTUALLY!

I see that you have an inkling of the physical things we may use ritually in our worship and devotions, which is certainly good. As is also the rosary a "devotional tool," as also the use of holy water when we enter church, making the sign of the cross is a "devotional tool" as well, and many of the other things we do. In my house, we also light a seven-day votive candle to signify our prayers for a certain intention, be it simply to give honor to God or to ask for a certain favor, but when I go to church and receive Him in the Eucharist, I am receiving not a substitute of Christ, but of Christ, period!

The Jews revolted against Jesus when He spoke of "eating His flesh and drinking His blood" thinking that he was speaking cannibalistically and something that is forbidden in the law of Moses. Jesus separated the "men from the boys" in a test of faith that would have Peter and, thankfully, all of the apostles, remain with Him even while they most probably did not fully understand what He was saying here.

Ah, I see the old canard that has been refuted time and time again!

And I wonder how many times it has been explained to you that we do not "re-sacrifice" at every Catholic Mass as is claimed, but that the same sacrifice is represented every time we have a Mass. The one sacrifice of Christ on the cross is a one time even that crosses all boundries of time - it is timeless. And the closest way we can reflect it's timelesness is to repeat the sacrificial ritual in the Mass time and time again! And each time, we see Christ as He was sacrificed that one time 2,000 years ago, not again and again and again as is charged.

I will continue to say, you can have your "bread and wine" (while others have their soda crackers and Welch's Grape Juice) I have His body and blood, soul and divinity!

(Continued in next message)

 

(Continued from previous message)

I previously said:

How is it one could ever be "worthy" if what I partake of is simply "substutionary"?

Of course God is interested in the "faith condition" of all of us, always! But I am certain that He is especially concerned when it comes to partaking of His Divine Son's Holy Eucharist - His actual body and blood in Holy Communion! Again, I compare the irreverent handling of a photo of you, with a personal attack on your own person! One is bad, the other is despicable to say the least.

He made it unavailable to is disciples for consumption! He did it before them even before He died! He held up the piece of bread/chalice and declared "This is my body/this is my blood!"

I will digress for a moment….

I often hear the charge, "can you take Christ's words literally when He said, "I am the door," or "I am the vine"? If course not simply because by simple intuition, we can see that is obviously a metaphoric reference He is making. And even in the John 6 "bread of life" discourse, we read, "…I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." (John 6:35) Taken at face value in isolation from the context that follows, we would immediately believe this was also metaphoric and you would be right, simply because to think He was to be actual bread is foolish nonsense that I would certainly agree with! Christ began to ease into his radical doctrine from the metaphoric or symbolic idea, progressing slowly into the literal, something that is very hard to do, even to the failure of the Jews to go along.

Now, please note this:

Jesus says "I am the door," but never does He say, "The door is my body."

Jesus says "I am the vine" but never does He say, "The vine is my body ."

Jesus DID say, (holding the bread in his hands) THIS (the object in His hands) IS (a command that determines a condition of what He is holding) MY BODY!

What the "THIS" he is holding is changed to by the "IS" that is confirmed by the "MY BODY," what it becomes!

AND…………………………..

Jesus never said, as He is holding the bread at the Last Supper, "I am the bread."

And likewise….

Jesus never said, as he is holding the chalice) "I am the wine."

And now back to our regularly scheduled broadcast…

OK, let me digress once again…

Using the Matthew statements on what occurred at the Last Supper:

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, 'take and eat; THIS IS MY BODY." I see nothing here that says the bread represents him, but that rather THIS IS MY BODY! There is no ifs, ands, or buts about what Christ has done here. And it is here that the disciples learn how it is that they will be consuming the body and blood of Jesus Christ, something He said they must do in John 6 if they are to "have life in them." It is not cannibalistic, because they will not be eating his natural body or drinking His natural blood, but would still be partaking of His actual body and blood, but in the form and accidents of bread and wine, once bread and wine but no longer bread and wine, the accidents of bread and wine remaining.

I last said:

If can tear-up a picture of you in anger, simply because that picture is "substutionary" of you as only an image of you, how can I then be "guilty" of actually hurting you?

Much different, I think you would agree, if I were to take my anger against you personally, right, Yelsew? (Heaven forbid! I am not a violent person!)

No diversion at all, Yelsew because it strikes at the very reason the act of consuming the Eucharist while in a state of sin is a natural terrible disservice to the person of Christ if what you consume is really and truly Christ in the Eucharist! Such a condition is a perfect description of "unworthiness" in my humble opinion.

Not so, if it is ordinary soda crackers and some Welch's Grape Juice that "substitutes" for Christ in you watered-down communion service! (No offense intended, Yelsew…)

First of all, the Catholic Church is not a "denomination" simply because it was the ONLY church around for about 1500 years?!!!

Secondly, it rightfully claims it status and the only church established by Christ by simple history: She can trace her origins back to Christ Himself!

I give up!

And I think all the Catholics in this conference would be hanging on their computers, waiting for your answer here!

Tell me where the Roman Church "branched away from this "true catholic universal faith," sir. And if this happened, show me the document of this event, and the separate paths the "branches" went. Can you even tell me when this happened?

Whew! Let me just have you do the following mental exercise, using what ever documentation you can find:

We both agree that the "church" essentially the only church at Pentecost, agreed?

Increment one year:

Was it the same church, sir?

Increment another year:

Same question…

Now, keep doing this, one year at a time until you get to, say, the 10th century (or before the Orthodox schism)

Ask the same question at each time increment…

Now, halt, sing a tune and do some serious typing at the precise time the Church of Rome separated from what you consider the "universal church" as established by Christ. You may speak of the church at Corinth, at Thessaloniki, and anywhere else you wish, but please note, they were not a separate and distinct "denomination" in that they preached the same gospel, practiced the same sacraments, including the Holy Eucharist as being the actual body and blood of Christ, so you are gong to need to demonstrate a separate and distinct separation where the doctrine of the Eucharist (in so many words) was believed in and practiced in all of Christendom.

And while you are at it, please show me anywhere before Luther in the so called "Protestant Reformation" where the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (even before that word "transubstantiation" was coined) was as you think it is in this response of yours.

You are playing the word game, Yelsew! When Christianity first got a foothold in Rome, it certainly was called "the church that is at Rome" or simply the "Church of Rome." Was it the same church as we found at Jerusalem, or perhaps in Corinth? Yes and No,

Yes, because in those days, all beliefs and doctrines were uniform, as taught in all of these "local churches" of which the "Church of Rome" was and still is, a part. I think it was St. Ignatius who first coined the term "catholic" which of course, means "universal." Did it apply to the "Church of Rome" alone? Nope! How about the Church at Corinth or Jerusalem? Nope again. But the term certainly applied to them collectively, and guess what, Yelsew, collectively, THEY WERE ALL THE SAME CHURCH!

The term "Roman Catholic" which is really an oxymoron, is a term given to the Roman Church by the Anglicans, in an attempt to distinguish the difference between the "Church of England." But in recent times, the term "Roman Catholic" is more or less be acceptable by Catholics, but simply to denote it as the Church of Rome as against the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH[/b] of which the "Roman Catholic Church" is a sub-set.

Now did "Christ establish the Roman Catholic Church"? YES, since the "RCC" is a sub-set of the universal church made up of all local/regional churches including the Church at Rome and in that togetherness, they all preach and teach the same doctrines, practice the same seven sacraments, and, recognize the "Chair of Peter" which happens to be in Rome, since that is the See established by Peter, the Chief of the Apostles, and them Rome, by that fact, became the "headquarters" of the Universal Church - again, the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

What you cannot do is find that cleavage you so desperately look for that shows the branching of the Universal Church. You cannot find it, Yelsew! But if you consider the Orthodox schism, do you realize that they recognize and practice the same seven sacraments of the Catholic Church, including the Eucharist? They are the only church outside of Catholicism that we consider having Valid Holy Orders. That is to say, their deacons, priests and bishops are validly ordained and are truly in those Holy Orders. (There are some fragments of bishops, surreptitiously ordained in the "Old Catholic Church" schism, as well as some isolated cases in Anglicanism.)

Did the church in Jerusalem exist before the church in Rome? Most probably, but that is simply not the point. As I have already said, the "Roman Catholic"/Latin/Western Rite is a sub-set of the Holy Catholic Church (Universal Church) a Rite that had no bishops, perhaps not even priests and deacons in their initial move into Rome, until Peter and Paul came to Rome.

Had Peter stayed in Antioch, there would be the "seat" of the Whole Universal Church.

Had Peter gone to Constantinople, there would be the "seat" of the Whole Universal Church.

But Peter came to Rome instead simply because Rome was the "plumb to pick" in the spreading of the gospel to all nations per Matthew 28:19.

You see, Yelsew, you are working on a false premise that we Catholics think the Church in Rome was the original church; it certainly was not! But as the church developed in Rome, it was a part of the Universal Church for that fact.

"Rome" is the pet term today for the whole Universal Church! It is that only because it's headquarters are there. The Latin/Roman/Western Rite happens to be the Rite that is the home for the headquarters - "Roman Catholic" does not describe the whole Church.

Am I making myself clear here?

I'm tired!

Now I got to answer Bob's replies…………………

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima Christi -


Soul of Christ, sanctify me.

Body of Christ, save me.

Blood of Christ, inebriate me.

Water from the side of Christ, wash me.

Passion of Christ, strengthen me.

O good Jesus, hear me;

Within Thy wounds hide me and permit

me not to be separated from Thee.

From the Wicked Foe defend me.

And bid me to come to Thee,

That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,

For ever and ever. Amen.

 

Bob replied, where he previously said:

Only the faithLESS disciples take the RC POV in John 6. The faithFULL disciples - take no BITE out of Christ.[/font]
And I previously replied:

What is the Catholic point of view, Bob? That indeed, they took Him literally, even cannibalistically?

You are being a little cryptic on me here, having me suppose you are referring to verse 63, a verse I thought I pretty well explained in my link. But I will try to elaborate here:

"Does this shock you?" (From verse 61)

What "shocked" the disciples was what they heard from Christ and His words from verse 53 to 59. What was it about those verses that "shocked" them, Bob? If this is to be taken symbolically, how in the world could those words be so shocking them? In symbolic terms, to "eat and drink" of him is to simply believe in Him, follow Him, and do what ever He commands. Are not the disciples doing that already? How then they are "shocked" by Christ's words if they already believe in Him, and follow Him?

On the other hand, what is "shocking" is indeed, taking Him literally! Let me copy/paste an original statement that I should have responded to in greater detail:

"Only the faithLESS disciples take the RC POV in John 6. The faithFULL disciples - take no BITE out of Christ."

It just not hit me that you have performed one of the most amazing twists I have ever seen of scripture in regards to the Catholic Church! In you view, those disciples who abandoned Him went off and formed the Catholic Church? Are you really serious in implying that? What happened to the Jews who also abandoned Him? Did they follow the abandoning disciples into their "new church" as well, Bob?

Let's see how the early church took the Eucharist:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/realp.htm

As well as (where there is some overlap in the writings of the fathers here):

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/trans.htm

Looks to me that the early church believed in transubstantiation, and that the Eucharist was truly the body and blood of Christ! But I must caution you here, as you will see words used that "this is a figure of Christ" or similar wording, that cannot be taken as a testimony to the "substitutional or "symbolic" nature of the Eucharist as we know the term today.

The word "figure" can be seen as denoting the "symbolic" nature of the bread and wine, but there is a larger context upon which the word does not such thing. After all, is not the Eucharist, as we Catholics define it, a wonderful "figure" of Christ? Even the word "symbolic" can be taken that way - what a wonderful "symbol" of Christ His actual body and blood is!

Anyway, this is an overwhelming testimony of what the early church believed adjacent to the end of the apostolic era, or are you going to claim that these early fathers are simply the offshoot of those disciples who abandoned Jesus?

If so, how in the world could you prove such an assertion?

 

(Continued from previous message)


Bob previously said:

He actually shows the REAL way to get life -

"63 "" It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."


Me wonders if you really read that link of mine…

Of course it shows the REAL way to get life - when the spirit comes, you will understand, and find the "bread of life" that is the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ per all this business from verses 53 to58!

Now, how is that for twisting your words around, Bob?

I last said:


And how wonderful did the spirit come, that they would understand exactly what He was talking about! Not then and there, as we seem to see in Peter's simple, "...to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." (verse 68)

Bob, the Jews and all of His disciples most probably know (or suspected at least) that Jesus had the "words of eternal life" as Peter says to Jesus in verse 68. So, what does the radical nature of verses 53 to 58 alter things that the Jews would abandon Him, taking along with them, some of His own disciples? Then verse 66 comes along and you think this somehow causes those previous verses to somehow disappear? Tell me precisely, bob, why did the Jews and some of His own disciples flee from him because of those "terrible" words in those verses? And if verse 66 somehow explains it all, why do not those same Jews and disciples return to his side?

Do you have any idea, bob?

He did no such thing, Bob, the issue of "eating His body and drinking His blood" remain as the issue. All Peter does is take Jesus' words in belief, not understanding what they meant out of pure blind faith!

"Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." In blind faith Peter and the apostles continue to follow Him. You see not one whit of an understanding on their part, yet they continue to follow Him.

Christ has given His followers the supreme test of blind faith in Him, in my opinion, Bob. No where else will you see any of His followers desert Him in scripture save for the scattering in fear, the day He was tried, condemned and crucified.


I previously said:

The "flesh" obviously did not understand, or at least have the courage of Peter to remain with Him until it was fully explained...at the Last Supper.

I think the better word is unenlightened at that point concerning the words He had just said to them, an enlightenment that would come at the Last Supper, with further enlightenment at Pentecost!

Did not the disciples who left him "accepted" Him as well before these events that happened? Had Christ simply said those words (verse 66) without the words of verses 53 to 58 still find them at His side, including some of the Jews who otherwise left Him? There was something mighty powerful about those marvelous words of verses 53 to 58!

They were "faithful" even in their lack of understanding of exactly what Christ was telling them here. They already knew that He had the "words of eternal life" well before verses 53 to 58, don't you think, Bob?

Bob previously said:


And given that John OPENS the book with "The WORD became FLESH and dwelt among us" - anyone using even a smattering of exegesis sees this and says "I get it!".


And I previously replied:


And obviously that particular, singular and specific "flesh" was also God!

Oops, I see a little denial of the Trinity here………………..

Bob, from the earliest of heresies, Arianism, the Church declared that Jesus the Man is God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, else how else could Jesus declare that "before Abraham came to be, I AM!!??? If Jesus is I AM, then Jesus is obviously GOD!

Am I running smack dab into SdA thology again here…………..??????????

I see Christ returning to earth in a glorified body, Bob, and I think most of the non-Catholics here would agree with me here.


I previously said:

I would really like you to read over agin, and again, and again, the magnificance of what the "bread of life" discourse in John, Chapter 6 is really saying...

You must be doing this in your next message! OK, let's see what gives………….

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima christi -


Soul of Christ, sanctify me.

Body of Christ, save me.

Blood of Christ, inebriate me.

Water from the side of Christ, wash me.

Passion of Christ, strengthen me.

O good Jesus, hear me;

Within Thy wounds hide me and permit

me not to be separated from Thee.

From the Wicked Foe defend me.

And bid me to come to Thee,

That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,

For ever and ever. Amen.

 

Bob continued in his second message:

Since Bill has rightly pointed us to John 6 as "key" in this discussion - might as well post it "again".

It way toooo long - I know - but why "talk about" John 6 and then not "look at the details"?

Bob then provided the following:

ALARM! ALARM! Here is where I know I am going to disagree with you here, big time!

But then, you don't define what "flesh" is here! What does John mean by the "flesh" if not the marvelous Incarnation of Jesus made flesh as a man?

I could not find any such definition for Manna being the "symbol for WORD" anywhere, but I did see a lot of references in my Catholic NAB as it being defined as BREAD.

Here is a link to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09604a.htm

And so far, I see nothing to suggest that it is a reference to a "symbol for WORD."

But we continue on…

And as you will note, the above link also references this in John 5, as a forshadow of what is to come as "real food from heaven."

Wow! Talk about eisegesis!

Bob, Christ does no such thing! He is rebuking the disciples for taking the phrase, "…'beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees' They concluded among themselves, saying 'It is because we have brought no bread.'."

And we see exactly what Jesus was speaking of, not the "leaven" per se, but of the "teaching" of the Pharisees and Sadducees, per verse 12.

To contort this scripture passage to have the Manna (bread) God gave to the Israelites as being a "teaching" is just too much for me to handle, Bob! Oh my God in heaven, what would you have for me in an eisegesis of John 20:22-23?!!

I am afraid to ask! Whew!

Yes, as any normal logical look at the scriptures would reveal to you, the "flesh" here is simply the general deficiencies, the "flesh" of physical nature has in the discernment of the spiritual!

I was about to say No, not at all, but I notice that it very well YES, simply because of verse that reads:

"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." (Verse 53) So yes indeed, it is about "life and death," for without the Eucharist, the "perfect food of God" that far outweighs the value of manna, that fed only the belly, the Eucharist has those who partake to "have life within you."

No, He certainly does not! And as a matter of fact, Jesus is being a bit secretive here, easing up the discussion from something that can be taken figuratively (like as in "I am the door") to something quite precise and quite literal. It is when He says the great "AMEN, AMEN…" that begins verse 53 (Your bible may say "Verily, verily…") that we see this preciseness, going from the ambiguity of "I am the bread of life" to "…unless you eat my body and drink my blood" that we see the obvious "in your face" literal statement, a statement which the Jews leave Him and so do some of His disciples!

And what say you about "BELIEVING" when He speaks the words of verses 53 to 58, hummmmmmm? He says nothing about "biting" but He sure does talking about EATING, don't you think? It is so amazing to me that you can dance around verses 53 to 58, the central core of the "bread of life discourse" in John 6, and ping on only the peripheral in an attempt miminize those embarassing words! Incredible!

Why is it so obvious to me, Bob? Why does it bring a tear into my eyes when I read this wonderful discourse that brings to Christianity, the most beautiful Sacrament (Ordinance to others) that actually have Christ among us in physical form, as well as the spiritual? When, as a Fundamentalist (Church of the Nazarene) I read those words, I know I must become a Catholic! That was the Coup de Grace for me, Bob!

No, not at all, at this point, Bob. They are grumbling that here it is, "we know this guy. We know His mother and father, a carpenter and so how dare He make the claims He is making here?" It is more of a disbelief in His own divinity then in what He is trying to explain to them concerning Him being the "bread of life come down from heaven." The Jews say, "How dare He make such a statement?"

Bob, Jesus is setting the stage here. So far, His "bread of life" claim is, for all intents and purposes, metaphoric at least (they not realizing - yet - that He is going to say something that will REALLY upset them!

Indeed! It is nice to agree with you here, but again, Christ introduces this in the metaphoric sense. (Ambiguously, actually, even while they cannot yet conceive a literal interpretation of this statement…as Christ will soon correct!)

No, time to laugh at your explanations so far!

And by the way, I don't "bite" Christ; I take Him in my mouth in Holy Communion…

Now you are getting close! It is here that the Jews begin to squirm, knowing full well the ominous and "unthinkable" literal interpretation comes to the fore! They rebell against the idea of eating the flesh of a man as in cannibalism, but perhaps even more, the drinking of His blood, something expressly forbidden in the Law of Moses!

(Continued in next message)

 

(Continued from previous message)

And now, TA DA! We come to the "core" of the issue:

Bob, concentrate of the actual reaction to this scriptural statement. What actually happened? The Jews immediately abandoned Him, taking along with them, most of the disciples! Would it occur to you that those who do not abandon Him, simply stay with Him, stunned a bit, I surely believe, yet simply believing in Him still, waiting for the other "shoe to drop" in explaining exactly what He has been saying here?

Scripture does not see the apostles, with Peter, going up and eating Jesus in the natural flesh, do you? Do you blame them? If I were there, I certainly would not do something that is naturally revolting to me in actuality. (I often wonder if I were there, would I stay with the apostles here or abandon Jesus along with those defecting disciples?)

You insist that for Christ to be literal in His words, all must come up immediately and do something unthinkable!

They wait, Bob, for that "other shoe to drop" in patience, even while they do not understand, continue to follow Him…

Thanks, Bob, but I have no idea how this out of context fragment figures in to what Christ is doing in John 6. So I would have you lead me by the hand and explain it to me…

But instead, the faithful apostles with Peter, endure to the end, as Jesus sits on a young ass to brings Him into Jerusalem, that alas, they discover the truth of His statements: The Upper Room and the Last Supper! That is when they first consume the body and blood of their Lord, Jesus Christ!

The Bereans?

OK, we will see…

Why not, after all, manna is also called "bread," I think it is quite appropriate! But if you are referring to your idea that manna here is "the word," I soundly refuted and debunked that way up on this message!

Remember, Bob, that this reference is to the physical feeding of the body here, as the Israelites lacked to faith that would have God take care of them. What Christ does is take this as a foreshadowing of a "bread" that indeed, is to come in John 6. At this point in the Exodus from the land of Egypt, the Israelites are not being giving a "Eucharist" in the sense that we declare in John 6. That was to come in the new covenant of Jesus Christ. And as I have already explained, Christ uses that as a foreshadowing of the sacrament that was to come.

Must it be apparent that Christ had to refer to a future communion table, Bob? After all, is not Christ doing a grand test of faith in a doctrine He well know would be revolting to the sensibilities on it's face, awaiting the revelation of how it was to be applied at the Last Supper? For us Catholics, it is a obvious as going to Church on Sunday!

How about baptism? Confessing your sins? Believing, that includes those good works that such belief should bring, else that same faith is as dead as a doornail? How is it that you have faith to move mountains, yet not have love, you have nothing but tinkling brass? Would the above just happen to include the partaking of the body and blood of Christ as he as already explained in verse 53 that you would have "life in you"?

So what, Bob? He is declaring a reality that will come to fruition at the right time and place.

No, but He referred to the manna as a precursor to what he is about to lay upon them. Likewise, I might add, the multiplication of the loaves and fishes is likewise a precursor, demonstrating that if He could do that, what is to stop him form declaring what is an astounding doctrine concerning the consumption of His very own body and blood?

Which does nothing to the argument about what He says in verses 53 through 58. Bob, to "bit him" right then and there is a most unrealistic requirement you make on Christ's statements here. He speaks literally of His body and blood and many resent Him for saying it, even abandoning Him, while others continue to believe, waiting for that wonderful "second shoe to drop" at the Last Supper!

No, it can also be seen as future tense as well, since it is obvious that "eating his flesh and drinking His blood" has not yet occurred. His declaration stands on it's own without a reference to a future event, such as the last supper. Shoot fire, man, the disciples did not really think He was going to die on the cross, did they?

All of this the apostles must have held in their hearts to see what was going to happen. I am sure they know something was up, not knowing precisely what it was. Even as Peter continues with Christ in believing Him blindly about the words He just spoke, he nevertheless denies Him thrice in his weakness! There is much to learn, much to understand, and much that the holy Spirit must do at Pentecost. Christ must die to bring salvation to all the world. The holy Spirit must come to finally bring the tongues of fire that will start the church in it's full understanding of what Christ has already taught them. And that certainly includes what He taught them in John 6.


(Continued in next message)

 

(Continued from previous message)

Again, the Manna is referred to as a precursor of what is to come in His ministry in His new covenant that will shortly replace the old covenant. And by "bread alone" speaks of natural bread, as was manna in the desert. And likewise, the multiplied fishes and loves were not for the soul but for the body! To nourish the body, the fleshy body!

Jesus had something infinitely better in mind. His own body and blood! And to introduce it, He refers to the foreshadowing of what God has already done.

Ezekiel says in that chapter, "As for you, son of man, obey me whenI speak to you: be not rebellious like this house of rebellion, but open your mouth and EAT what I shall give you.." (verse 8)

Way too tenuous to make a claim here, that the "eat Christ (or His word)" is to simply to believe in Him, as proof that Jesus was speaking metaphorically in John 6. But then, I see the desperation to find context far and wide in an attempt to prove your point. In my experience with isegesis, it is dangerous to venture too far to find context, especially when the New testament is spanned to the old. And being a non-scholar of scripture, I must personally be completely wary of such attempts.

Well, you quoted more if it then I did, which is fine. But again, does this mean that to "Eat Christ" is to simply believe in his Word? I would submit that to "Eat Christ" as in the Eucharist, the basic requirement would certainly to believe in His word. Why would one consume the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist if they did not believe in Christ and His word? It does not make sense, and in fact, persons are prohibited from Holy Communion if they do not believe in Christ and His word! People prepare for weeks before they can partake, Bob, did you know that?

So you reference to Ezkiel makes no sense, at least to me. And there is certainly no way it discounts the Catholic interpretation of the discourse of John 6, sorry, Bob…

Hogwash! What it means is exactly what it means, and no one dares to do what you suggest, but rather wait in patient faith to the culmination of what Christ is instituting here - The Holy Eucharist!

And it took place in the Upper Room, on the night he was betrayed, and before He was tried, convicted, and nailed to the cross!


You continued:

The end finally! And again, Christ was not speaking of bread but rather the "leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

And again, verse 63 does not change the meaning of what Christ says in verses 53 to 58, but simply explains that the "flesh" cannot comprehend what is being said here, but only the spirit.


Come, holy Spirit that Bob may come to understand as well!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima christi -


Soul of Christ, sanctify me.

Body of Christ, save me.

Blood of Christ, inebriate me.

Water from the side of Christ, wash me.

Passion of Christ, strengthen me.

O good Jesus, hear me;

Within Thy wounds hide me and permit

me not to be separated from Thee.

From the Wicked Foe defend me.

And bid me to come to Thee,

That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,

For ever and ever. Amen.

.

 

quote:Bob responds to Bill's question "What do you think Catholics believe"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again Bill -- it's in the "details".

In John 6 Christ said "MY FLESH IS FOOD indeed" and "You must EAT my flesh and Drink My blood" to obtain eternal life.

Catholics argue that this is to be taken "literally".

Non-Catholics typically argue that this is symbolic SINCE as Christ stated "literal FLESH is WORTHLESS" in this regard - but that "My WORDS are SPIRIT and are LIFE".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quite shocking to the faithLESS disciples that took Him "literally" - I agree.

However - recall that they were already going down the wrong road when they came to him at the start of the day "looking for more bread miracles".

Christ was trying to point them AWAY from earthly concerns about literal bread and TOWARD the spiritual truth of the "Bread of Heaven" - just as John 6 tells us "in the details".

Agreed!!

Nope. That would be "a red herring".

I am saying that the RCC position today is the same one that the faithLESS disciples took in John 6.

Just as the RCC position today is similar to the Jews position in Mark 7:1-11 in terms of "tradition".

Red herring. The Catholic church today is taking the same doctrinal view as the faithLess disciples in John 6 - (Obviously) taking Christ "literally" on the FLESH FOOD idea.

Just not the New Testament - first century Christian church.

As The Faith Explained confesses - this tradition of the Catholic church is in fact idolatry - if the RCC is wrong in the way it has turned John 6 around.

I am not asserting that - "you are" putting it out as a "red herring".

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He directs to the LITERAL source of LIFE in His own summary.

 

quote:Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter is NOT saying "To whom shall we go to figure out what you are talking about"!

Peter said that they would not leave like the FaithLESS disciples because they already figured out that Christ had "The WORDS of LIFE" just as HIS OWN summary stated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope. Wrong again. The words of Peter are NOT found as the words of the faithLESS disciples that LEFT saying "this is a hard saying, WHO CAN LISTEN".

In fact They CAME to him that very morning seeking more earthly-fleshly-miracles of literal BREAD.

Wrong.

66 comes along showing full comprehension of Christ's OWN summary in vs 63 as summary of His OWN point as made in the symbols he used in his discussion.


quote:Bob says of the faithFUL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They were not going to "bite the FLESH" because the FaithFUL ones that stayed - got the message. No forks, no knives, no biting.

Christ pointed them to His WORD as the SOURCE of LIFE - not biting on His literal flesh.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In fact He did that VERY thing - after saying REPEATEDLY that the way to obtain eternal LIFE was to EAT His flesh and dring His blood -

He says "FLESH IS WORTHLESS my WORDS are Spirit and ARE LIFE".

Impossible to miss.

Impossible to obfuscate.

It is there - blatant in the text.

We all see it.

Nothing in the text says "Peter was confused" as you suppose.

Peter in fact EXPLICITLY makes the VERY POINT that Christ makes in HIS summary "The FLESH is WORTHLESS - my WORDS are Spirit AND are LIFE".

Impossible to miss that AFTER talking about "HOW to gain LIFE" He then spells it out for us.

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RC argument is that the faithFUL disciples were confused.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is only the case of the faithLESS in John 6.
You don't hear them affirm Christ's summary as does Peter.

quote:Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They were not! They accepted Christ there and then - as the ONE with the WORDS that bring LIFE - and they accepted that the "FLESH profits NOTHING".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FaithLESS starting at vs 25 were already headed deep down the wrong road. Christ is trying to turn them AWAY from the Earthly-literal view and toward the spiritual - eternal life view of the "lesson of Manna".

Bob said
And given that John OPENS the book with "The WORD became FLESH and dwelt among us" - anyone using even a smattering of exegesis sees this and says "I get it!".
[/quote]


quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philipians 2 says "Christ EMPTIED HIMSELF" to become found in the form of a man. Prior to that He was in the FORM of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope. As it turns out we can fully accept Paul's statement in Philipians 2 about Christ EMPTYING Himself and that having BEEN found in the FORM of a God - takes on the FORM of mankind - without denying the trinity.

No possible way to turn that.

It appears that you don't know what SDA theology is in this case.


quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We see Christ coming to Earth at Sinai in the FORM of God - considerably "different" result.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again - not following the point. I reference Sinai above - referring to Christ at Sinai in Exodus 20.

In Christ,

Bob

 

If the body and blood of Christ is "consumed" only when the receiver believes they are the body and blood of Christ, why does Paul say, "he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body" and "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord"? </font>[/QUOTE]That, of course, is NOT WHAT I SAID! You have misconstrued my meaning. I was speaking to "transubstantiation" and if it exists or occures, it exists and occurs in the mind of the one who believes that it exists and occurs, because the elements do not physically change from one substance to another substance except as takes place in the digestive process.

"Unworthily" means that the one partaking of the substitutionary elements has in his heart a sin or is holding a grudge, or unsettled issue, with another, if you will. The sin that remains in the partaker's heart is why one who is convicted of sin is not supposed to partake of the elements, but to leave his offering at the altar, confess the sin, and/or go to the one with whom there is a grudge or unsettled issue and resolve it first, then return to the Altar and offer the sacrifice with a clean heart (clear conscience).

The partaking of the substitutionary elements is directly equivalent to the OT substitutionary animal sacrifice. It was and is viewed as an Holy event, and the one who offers the sacrifice is required to do so with a clean heart else the sacrifice is not acceptable to Holy God, but is instead an abomination. So you see, it matters not that the elements are substitutes because they are mere symbols of the reality of the spirit in which the receiving of the elements represents the recieving of the real flesh and blood of the HOLY Son of God sacrificed for us. To hold onto a sin, grudge or an unsettled issue between yourself and another is sin, so you are receiving the HOLY, pure and clean, into a dirty, UNWORTHY receptical therefore bringing damnation upon one's self for so doing.

 

Of all the exposed weaknesses in the RC argument from John 6 none is greater than this..

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 6:[/b]
61"Does this cause you to stumble?
62"What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?
63"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
64"But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.
65And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."
[/b]
Peter's Confession of Faith

66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. 67So Jesus said to the twelve, "You do not want to go away also, do you?"
68Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.

Yes - taking Him literally here means walking up NOW and taking a BITE out of Him NOW or else not having true LIFE - NOW. This is the TENSE used by Christ. And it is TRUE using HIS own statments regarding the TRUE use of His WORD - it was TRUE THEN that they must DIGEST His WORD THEN and that if they did not - then RIGHT then - they did NOT have eternal life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fine - then answer the point. Exegete the text SHOW that it "really says"

"SOME day in the FUTURE my flesh WILL BECOME real food"

"Some day in the FUTURE you will have to eat my flesh to obtain life".

"Some day in the FUTURE I will be the BREAD of heaven".

INSTEAD of "My flesh IS FOOD".

Because we all agree "His WORD was ALREADY Spirit AND LIFE" as He stated - and literal "FLESH PROFITS nothing" when speaking in the context of BITING it to gain eternal life.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

Your reply was done in such haste, I scarcely see how you read it, let along reply to it so quickly.

In any case, going over your reply, I see it is simply impossible to reply to since I would have to go back and read what said I had said in justoposition to what little you quote from me, and that would simply be too much trouble for me to do. Attempting to do this is much too draconian of an experience to get that involved in.

You have my position, you know what I have said, and there is a plethoria of errors and misunderstanding all through your reply that I feel would lead us into never never land. And if this is a taste of SdA eisegesis, no think you, I want no part in it!

If you are going to sluff-off the writings of the good early church fathers who were indeed, writing the first century history of the church, a church just outside of the apostolic era, with that little attention as if they were nothing at all, I would be "casting my pearls before swine" to continue with you. No offense intended, please.

Before I close here is a good link to read, perhaps to give you a different perspective on the subject:

http://hometown.aol.com/philvaz

Oops, that won't take you to the article I wanted you to read, but if you scroll down and click on "apologetics," you will see articles on the Eucharist.

Phil Porvaznik is a good friend of mine. Maybe be he can influence you better then I can.

Have a nice day, Bob.

One day, I would like to see how you would distort John 20:22-23. I shudder to even think about it..........

God bless,

PAX

Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

[ June 18, 2003, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

 

WPutnam,

First, A photo of you is not a replica at all, nor is it a substitute for you. A photo is a flat two dimensional depiction of what you look like, a form of image by which your likeness is revealed, that in no way replicates you, or substitutes for you. One can replicate photos of humans, but not the human. The only way in which a photo can substitute for you is in revealing your general likeness in a broadly relative manner, and be placed in a position that you would ordinarily occupy. The photo of you could not function in your stead, except as a place holder, or perhaps as a REMINDER of what you look like or something you may have done. In that sense it is a substitute for you, but by no means a replica of you.

Jesus however declared that the bread is his flesh broken for us. That invokes an image for our mind to comprehend the magnitude of what the Christ is about to suffer. He likewise declared the wine to be his blood which is spilled for us. Again invoking an image of the magnitude of his sacrifice for our sins.

He commanded us who believe in him to eat the "broken bread as a token of His promise to indwell us with his spirit. One reason the Christ was incarnated.
He commanded us who believe in him to drink the wine as a token of his spilled blood that cleanses us from sin. The image of atonement, and the reason the Christ was incarnated.

The first two words of this paragraph sum up the whole situation. The elements "being the body and blood of the Christ is totally a matter of "I believe", and every protestant who ever lived to be blessed in partaking of the communion does so because "they believe" that the elements are symbolically, the body and blood of the Christ. Therefore the Catholic holds absolutely no advantage in partaking of the elements. Every protestant believes, which is a spirit thing you know. Therefore, the Catholic that believes that the elements are the body and blood of the Christ is believing the same thing the protestants believe, and that is the elements taken orally represent the body and blood of Christ being taken spiritually. CASE CLOSED! BELIEF IS BELIEF!

Well, you'll have to take that up with Jesus and Paul. They are the ones who tell us "do this in remembrance". Now I don't know of any definition of memorial that doesn't invoke remembrance to someone of something.

You make my point when you declare that it is by belief (faith), and that there is no actual "transubstantiation" of the elements. Hense "transubstantiation" is a false doctrine!

I mean the physical symbols used to represent the "real" Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because of the absence of the real, physical, body and blood of Jesus Christ. Symbols by which our minds and our spirits accept the "ingestion" of the "real" body and blood of Jesus Christ into our spirits.

The real question is why the species needs to believe, in light of all that scriptures reveal about Jesus, that what we take into our physical body has any bearing whatever on our spirit since spirit does not consume physical food at all!

Unworthiness, as attributed to the partaking of the elements of communion, is not a matter of the physical anyway, it is a matter of spirit! It is in our spirit that we hold grudges and retain sins, therefore it is our spirit that must be worthy and the only way to make it worth is to confess sins and to resolve differences between us. We are ALL, each like ALL others, free from the penalty of sin by Jesus atonement, but we each continue to sin and that is an issue with God in partaking of the remembrance of his broken body and spilled blood that freed us from the penalty of sin. Therefore we must confess our sins so that we can, again, be forgiven. We must resolve issues so that there is no strife among us. That is the Christian's responsibility even though we are free from the penalty of sin. To eat the elements while harboring sin is equivalent to putting the holy and pure into an unclean vessel. That which is holy and pure is made unclean by being in an unclean vessel.

The problem here is that you are equating spiritual matters to physical matters. Here's an example of what I mean. One does not repent from sexual immorality by imprisoning the physical body. Sex offenders remain sex offenders until they repent in the spirit. Incarceration of the sex offender merely protects some innocents from becoming victims. The evidence is huge that if a sex offender is released with no change in spirit, that the offender will offend again and again, even if the sex offender were castrated. On the other hand if an offender has a change in his/her spirit, there is no reason to incarcerate the physical person because they have repented, meaning they will not offend again! Repentence from sin, reconciliation of relationships, etc, are all conditions that God finds acceptable in mankind. Changes of this nature are changes unto righteousness. Righteousness is, in God's eyes, worthiness as testified by Noah, Abraham and the other notably faithful men of old. It is like them that we are to be! Then, our faith in God is counted unto us as righteousness too!

Jesus says "I am the door," is A DECLARATION of what HE IS

Jesus says "I am the vine" A DECLARATION of what HE IS

"This is my body..." is a declaration of what Jesus wants the object in his hand to represent to those to whom he is speaking. I use that very same convention of speech every time I teach, which is often! Virtually every teacher, teaching abstract concepts uses that same convention. When I say, "This spherical shaped object in my hand "is" the earth...", I do not mean that I, a mere mortal, am holding the earth in my hand nor does it mean that the sphere in my hand is the earth, it is an object of substitution for the earth that I declare to be the earth in order to make my point. That is what Jesus is doing with the bread and the Cup!

Why don't the "is's" in this sentence all mean the same thing you try to make Jesus "is" mean?

You MISINTERPRET ENTIRELY TOO MUCH!

As for the discussion of the Church, I will continue to benefit and be blessed by membership in the true church while you document the physical organization called "the church"...enjoy! Scriptures speak of the vanity of "geneology" even that which applies to "the church".

 

My recent (2) extended replies were to the first 2 of your own extended replies.

That last one was a "starter" for the next two - however in looking over your reply - I noticed that your argument requires a few things missing from the text. Not the least of which is the problem that the text is not arguing for a future Eurcharist "when My flesh WILL become food" as your argument states.

The text ALSO says "Some do not believe" while others DID believe Christ and those that believed drew the same summary conclusion "that His were the Words of LIFE" and the entire discussion about "HOW to obtain life" is answered.

(Also I might add that even if you allow them to wait patiently for his FLESH to become food thinking that He really said "some day in the future My FLESH will become real FOOD" - then after the crucifixion - they had yet "another chance to bite Christ - Literally" if the Literal biting of His real literal flesh is the Catholic view. Funny how the "biting part" never happens.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Yelsew replied, where I last said:

What do you mean by "substitutes" here? If you are saying that His body and blood are "true food and drink," yet under the appearance of bread and wine (which certainly remain - the "accidents") and not under the appearance of his natural flesh and blood, I would still have little difficulty with it the word as I tend to take the word "substitute" to mean that the bread and wine remains what it is, and is simply a representative of Christ, just like a photo of me is not really me but is a replica, a "substitute" if you will, of me, myself and I!

Yelsew, bread and wine come nowhere near being a "substitute" (I also used the word replica) to the natural body and blood of Christ, so I think you are going off on a tangent with my statement above. The point I was trying to make was, to destroy a photo of you (a "substitute" of you) in anger is far less of an offense against you then if I were to do you bodily harm with my fists, would you agree! (And God help me, I would never do such a thing!)

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! Sorry, I used the wrong word, Yelsew! I'm a baaaaaaaaaad boy!

Nevertheless did you get the idea I was trying to express here? &lt;shish!&gt;

Yelsew, you are a razor-blade width close to the truth here……………

First you speak of "substitutes," now of "tokens"? Does this mean that the "broken bread" and the "wine in the chalice" remain just that in their "token" status? In your church, what do you do with the "left-overs" in your holy communion service?

I last said:

I believe it is a gift of faith we Catholics enjoy when we believe this. We actually have Jesus come into our bodies, actually and without any "substitutional" conditions, His real body and blood, yet under the appearance of bread and wine that would also have Him come into our hearts and minds spiritual as well.

Of course we Catholics base our belief from the discourse we see in John 6, which you seemingly discount and from Bob, I see the most amazing distortion of that fragment of scripture in an eisegesis that total foreign to me. The "advantage" we have is in the gift of receiving His actual body and blood! The "disadvantage" I see in the Protestant position is the symbolic nature of the species, which makes the Eucharist far less then intended by Christ, in my humble opinion.

And if that "closes the case" for you, fine; I can only do what I can do…

I last said:

And it occurs to me, why accept a lesser extent of this belief? Why water it down to a simple memorial service, often done once a month or even once every six months when in fact, the significance is so great, we Catholics, if we can, partake of His body and blood daily, being fully retired, my wife and I are privileged to do.

Well, I certainly can do that, Yelsew, but through the authority of a teaching Magisterium of Holy Church. I do this because this is he only Church that can do it! I cannot take my bible into the privacy of my bedroom, sit down and read it to form my own interpretation unless I bounce off of that same teaching Magisterium. And all of the opinions you see me state on scripture are really not my own, even while I may form different words to express it.

Now, if I take Christ's actual body and blood per the Catholic transubstantiation doctrine, how is this lessened or countered by the fact that we do it "in remembrance" of Jesus? If He says, "take and eat…this is my body" and it is indeed, His actual body (and blood) how wonderful a "rememberance" that is!

We no longer have Christ with us in the natural flesh, as the apostles had Him before He ascended to the Father in heaven. To look at a picture of Christ, that can serve and a "rememberance," of course.

And of course, if the bread and wine are only symbolic of Christ, it would also be a remembrance of Him.

But oh, how greater a "rememberance" it becomes if we still have him in the Eucharist! We have Him spiritually always, even everywhere on earth, but we also have Him spiritually when "two or more are gathered together…" but when we also include the Eucharist, there is no greater way to "remember" Jesus then to actually have Him actually in His body and blood!

I last said:

Well, when I partake of the Eucharist, it tastes like unleaven bread! And the blood of Christ tastes like the wine it used to be! But intellectually with the gift of faith, we believe that it is not what it tastes like, but what it is in a "spiritual reality" we cannot otherwise demonstrate by the senses of the flesh.

No, it is not your point when you include the proposition that "there is no actual transubstantiation." I believe as a Catholic that this happens, based upon John, Chapter 6, the other discourses we have read in the bible, and as corroborated by the one agent Christ left behind to and the authority to teach on it - Holy Church.

I last said:

Before I can answer this, I must determine what you mean by "substsitutionary." If you mean it by the strictest definition in that it refers to the fact that the Eucharist is not His natural flesh and blood (something that revolted the Jews and those deserting disciples in John 6) but rather in the form of bread and wine, yet still be His ACTUAL body and blood, then fine (but I still don't like the word). But if you mean that the bread and wine "substitute" for Christ in a non-literal/symbolic/representative way, then we have a problem.

Just as I thought.

And the reason I reject the "substitutionary aspects you claim entirely! John 6 reads contrary to that idea completely, including the teachings of the early church. For the heck of it, I will give you the same link I gave to Bob (which were rejected out of hand by Bob) but for which you may derive some benefit from:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/realp.htm

And this one (which has some overlap with the above):

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/trans.htm

Bob rejects them because it is not scripture. He must also reject church history of all kinds which is a shame. I hope you do not, Yelsew.

I last said:

If it is the former, then I certainly understand how it is we can partake of it "unworthily." What an insult to Christ if we take him when we may be steeped in sin! But if the latter, how can "worthiness" be as powerful an issue when the species simply "substitutes" for Christ in a simple representative way without it being really HIM, the Lord Jesus Christ? How can one be "guilty of the body and blood of Jesus" (1 Cor. 11:23-29) if in fact, we partake of the "substitute" that is simply a symbolic stand-in for the real person of Christ?

Perhaps I did not explain this adequately, but do you recall that we are a ritualistic creature, who operates in the physical word with the things that are physical? Being "spiritual" is not a normal thing for a physical creature to do, outside of the grace of God that we may do so. Christ knows this, knowing full well how God created us.

Therefore, it is much easier to understand the physical then it is the spiritual. And it is why Christ had a most difficult time explaining it to the Jews in John 6. Even so, it is not easy to consider Jesus in "spiritual" terms when He is not with us physically. Therefore, in His infinite wisdom, He left Himself for us in the Eucharist! He is in heaven, yet he is still with us physically as well as spiritually.

And the "ritual" of consuming Him in the Eucharist, at the Sacrifice of the Mass, is all apart of God's plan to influence us through our ritualistic tendencies, similarly as we find in the physical waters of baptism brings holy Spirit; the human physical priest brings us absolution for our sins in the "ritual" of the confessional; we are spiritually healed by the application of oils of anointing when are ill (can you find that being done in the NT, Yelsew?) and other physical externals that enhance our worship of God.

(Continued in next message)