Eating His Flesh and drinking His blood

[francisdesales]

Mondar makes a valid point that needs to be answered.

Are there any Catholics that has never been thirsty again and did not hunger again, since eating the Eucharist, seeing that it is real food and real drink ? But I think you guys would do a mid-air jump and turn around and say...."Oh no, that part is spiritual ! " It cannot mean heaven, because it says NEVER. Never means never and as such started at the very point of "eating and drinking"

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Of course the eucharist is also spiritual. We do not deny that. That's the point of Jesus' conversation leading to John 6:51 - that He will not just be speaking of a physical flesh ALONE. We correct you in that it is ALSO a physical aspect, a reality, just as Christ really came in the Flesh and was not just a pseudo-man that SEEMED to be in the flesh, a spiritual-only man. Just as John asserts that God came in the flesh, he also asserts that the Eucharist is also the real flesh of Christ.

"He that comes to Christ shall never hunger". Does that mean that a Christian will NEVER hunger again? Of course we do, just as the Psalms state, we continue to thirst for God.

Same applies here. When we abide in Christ, we continue to hunger for more union with Christ, a deeper union. The point is not that we will no longer desire Christ, but that we will have found the meaning of human life, happiness and purpose - in Jesus Christ. We will not hunger in this life when we abide in Christ. We will not need to search anywhere else when we drink of Jesus Christ. Our search will now focus on more of Jesus.

Regards

 

[Adullam]

Confusion is setting in. There is a difference between the actual spiritual eating and drinking in our moment by moment walk and the commemoration of the last supper (Passover) (together with the brethren) when Jesus revealed who He was (and is).

The presence of Christ is not brought about by getting bread and wine together no matter how sacred we make them. We can walk in His presence at all times. Disciples doing miracles in the bible were not tied down into they bringing the sacred elements around with them. That is a superstition to think that a physical re-enactment or a spiritualization of a physical act conjures up the Holy Spirit. This stems from paganism.

Baptism in water is a similar thing. We are commanded to do this to represent death and a new life. But a person is not regenerated through a physical act. There is a doctrine of regeneration through baptism as well, and this is also a superstition. There is a lack of true spiritual understanding in they who spiritualize (or trivialize) away the power of the ressurected Christ in our lives.

I am not denying that breaking the bread and taking the wine cannnot be an intimate moment with Christ and the brethren (notice AND the brethren). It depends how much reverence and UNITY is present. We do this to remember the Lord's sacrifice for us. But this is not what empowers us the rest of the time. It is a time of corporate intimacy, not a personal intimacy. We do this together. So here again the purpose is missed by those who spiritualize a physical act away from it's intended purpose.

We are to walk by the Spirit in newnes of life. The life that Jesus Christ brings us. And we are to eat the words of Christ to do them. Man shall not live by bread alone...but by every word that proceeds from God. We must eat these words as manna from heaven. Let us not reduce this obedience to a magic show that bears no lasting fruit.

 

[chestertonrules]

Confusion is setting in. There is a difference between the actual spiritual eating and drinking in our moment by moment walk and the commemoration of the last supper (Passover) (together with the brethren) when Jesus revealed who He was (and is).

Confusion has set it. Your are entitled to your opinion, but keep in mind that we have no evidence of any Christians who shared your belief in the first 1000 years of Christianity. Even Martin Luther believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Where did your belief come from? Let's see what Luther thought:

"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.â€

–Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

 

[Cornelius]

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

That is right. The sharing of the bread and the wine is in remembrance of Jesus. The eating of the Word/bread brings life eternal. The Word is the flesh, and inside the flesh is the life (blood) of God.Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, are life.

Amen, its the words that bring life eternal. Not a superstitious ritual. Even the disciples who stayed "got it" Joh 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. Notice Peter did not say " You have the flesh of life that we eat" He did not fall for the parable, he understood the true meaning of the words of Jesus.

 

[mondar]

If you had said... "mondar, that is a misrepresentation and could be considered a straw man argument by some" ... or something like that. Rather then "Strawman alert." It would have been less offensive.

I think you are "offended" way too easily. This is a charecter trait, I've noticed, with your conversations to others.

So I am thin skinned. Maybe. I find way too many people more interested in winning arguments and trash talking the other person. I am just looking to avoid those conversations.

You provided a strawman argument, did you not? Did I lie about that?

I alerted people to it. It IS a strawman argument by ANYONE knowledgeable about what the Catholic Church teaches, whether they are atheist, Protestant or whatever. Catholic documents clearly state that we do not believe Jesus is re-sacrificed. Thus, someone who pretends to know otherwise and presents that as fact is indeed presenting a strawman argument. Are you upset because I told you that you were wrong???

I always hope to represent those who differ with me in a correct way. If I made a mistake feel free to correct how I represent the RCC. I think you can do that more gently. The words "Strawman Alert" sounds like buzzers going off, lights flashing, and a raising of the emotional level.

If my language is not pleasing to you, you certainly didn't take the morale high road by telling me to "take my meds", so stop being a hypocrite. Being told to "take my meds" if quite more offensive than being told I am presenting an fallacious argument !!!

Well, this would be correct about me. In fact I commonly respond with the same emotional statements when offended. It does not settle things down. I have in the past at times just ignored people who are offensive. So what do you recommend?

If you want to see where the Catholic Church officially tells the world that we do not believe Christ is resacrificed, consult the Council of Trent and its discussion on the subject.

I have access to the Canons of the C of T. But it is a long document. It would be like searching for the proverbial needle in the haystack for me. If you are aware of where there is a statement in the C of T that denies the resacrifice of Christ, please let me know. I would not want to misrepresent anyone.

 

[Mysteryman]

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

That is right. The sharing of the bread and the wine is in remembrance of Jesus. The eating of the Word/bread brings life eternal. The Word is the flesh, and inside the flesh is the life (blood) of God.Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, are life.

Amen, its the words that bring life eternal. Not a superstitious ritual. Even the disciples who stayed "got it" Joh 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. Notice Peter did not say " You have the flesh of life that we eat" He did not fall for the parable, he understood the true meaning of the words of Jesus.

Who was Jesus talking too in Luke 22:19 ?

Most definitely not the church !

And if this was to continue, then why didn't any of these paticular disciples continue to teach a continuation of this ?

 

[chestertonrules]

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

.

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

.

1 Cor 11
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

 

[chestertonrules]

[quote="mondar]


If you want to see where the Catholic Church officially tells the world that we do not believe Christ is resacrificed, consult the Council of Trent and its discussion on the subject.[/quote]
I have access to the Canons of the C of T. But it is a long document. It would be like searching for the proverbial needle in the haystack for me. If you are aware of where there is a statement in the C of T that denies the resacrifice of Christ, please let me know. I would not want to misrepresent anyone.[/quote]

From the Catechism:

1357 We carry out this command of the Lord by celebrating the memorial of his sacrifice. In so doing, we offer to the Father what he has himself given us: the gifts of his creation, bread and wine which, by the power of the Holy Spirit and by the words of Christ, have become the body and blood of Christ. Christ is thus really and mysteriously made present.

1358 We must therefore consider the Eucharist as: - thanksgiving and praise to the Father;
- the sacrificial memorial of Christ and his Body;
- the presence of Christ by the power of his word and of his Spirit.

 

[mondar]

John 6 was spoken long before the institution of the Eucharist. There is non-literal language being used. The meaning of the non-literal language is explained in verse 35.
Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

The words John used had a particular meaning...

Certainly I agree, words have meanings. In John 6:35 they have meaning. John 6:35 introduces the concept of hunger and thirst. It is obviously not a physical literal hunger and thirst. If the one who believes never has a physical thirst, then believers would never need to drink water, or fluid. Therefore, since words have meaning, this verse is setting up some non-literal language that follows. Drinking his blood refers to faith, eating his body refers to "coming to him."

- it is quite clear that John intends to tell his audience that Jesus was indeed using literal words. IF John wanted to pursue a "merely metaphorical" understanding, he WOULD HAVE USED metaphorical words and would NOT have related "truly, truly, ...".

And would not the literal use of the words "hunger, thirst" in 6:35 refer to physical hunger. This of course would not work in that verse. So then, my point is that verse 35 cannot possibly be read as literal phyiscal hunger and thirst. So then if we follow that thought through the chapter, he is not talking about actual physical things, but spiritual issues.

John 6:35 does nothing to overturn the reality of John 6:51!

Francis, I am not saying it "overturns the reality of John 6:51" I am saying it defines the reality of John 6:51. If there is non-physical language in John 6:35, it defines how we understand John 6:51.

That's the fallacy of your view. It is clear that Jesus is working His way TO John 6:51 by ensuring His teaching would be understood in literal AND a spiritual manner, not just a spiritual manner. If Jesus would have just said, "you must eat my flesh", that would have been quite confusing. Clearly, there is SOME POINT in eating Christ's Body that goes beyond mere human nourishment...

I dont see that John 6:35 has any issues of physical nourshment at all. It just is not there. Forgive me for being repetitive, but in John 6:35 coming to him and believing does not satisfy physical hunger and thirst. It is a spiritual issue only.

It is provided for eternal life. Not for physical nourishment.

Agreed, physical nourishment is not in view. "Coming" to Christ and "believing" is issues of eternal life. Dont we both agree here?

So then, in John 6, Jesus says from the start, that the person who has faith, drinks his blood and will never thirst. I dont see a reference to the Eucharist at all in John 6.

????

What is the Eucharist, in your understanding? Please provide Scripture verses, if you can.

I admit I have not ready a lot on the Eucharist. Being protestant, influenced by both reformed and anabaptist theology, I view the Eucharist as a solemn time of remembrance. Some Reformed see it as sacramental, I see it as an issue of worship. In fact, it is the only actual worship service given to the church (other then maybe the water baptism).

 

[Cornelius]

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

.

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

.

1 Cor 11
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

That is correct. So be careful when you turn the bread and wine into an idol.

 

[Joe67]

Our Lord Jesus was made a curse for us, because we are under the curse in our flesh. Even when our consciences have been made right before him, our bodies remain under the curse until our vile bodies are changed at his coming. Thus we show forth his death until he comes, confessing that our bodies are dead because of the sin that is in them, yet in our inward parts we confess the hope of eternal life and righteousness because of Jesus' righteousness.

Joe

 

[francisdesales]

Well, this would be correct about me. In fact I commonly respond with the same emotional statements when offended. It does not settle things down. I have in the past at times just ignored people who are offensive. So what do you recommend?

How about I apologize for saying "strawman alert", I didn't realize you'd be offended. The "med's" bit was a tad over the top, but being one of the few Catholics here, I'm not bothered by this remark. I only point it out since you complained about being offended.

Anyway, I'll try to be more careful with you.

I have access to the Canons of the C of T. But it is a long document. It would be like searching for the proverbial needle in the haystack for me. If you are aware of where there is a statement in the C of T that denies the resacrifice of Christ, please let me know. I would not want to misrepresent anyone.

Very well, I'll help you out here, I don't expect you to go meandering through such things...

1. The Holy Mass is a true and proper Sacrifice. This is "de fide" Trent says "if anybody says that in the Mass, a true and proper sacrifice is not offered or that the offering of Mass is not something other than that Christ is given to us that we may partake of Him". D 948

2. In the Sacrifice of the Mass, Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross is made present, its memory is celebrated, and its saving power is applied "de fide".

Trent : "Christ left a visible Sacrifice to His Church: in which that bloody sacrifice which was once offered on the Cross should be made present, its memory presever to the end of the world, and its salvation-bringing pwer applied to the forgiveness of the sins which are daily commtted by us." D 938

The Sacrifice of the Mass is a commmeroration of the Sacrifice of the Cross whcih continues until the end of time, as the anamnesis following the consecration specially indicates. But it is not a mere commeorative celeration (D 950). it is also a true and proper sacrifice. The Catechism of Trent defines the relation of the Sacrifice of the Mass to the Sacrifice of the Cross as a renewal

3. In the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the Sacrifice of the Cross, the Sacrificial Gift and the Primary Sacrificing Priest are IDENTICAL; Only the nature and the mode of the offering are different. "de fide".

Trent: "The Host is the One and the same. He is the Same Who now offers Himself through the ministry of the priests and Who then by Himself offered Himself on the Cross. The difference lies solely in the mode of offering: D 940.

Trent also mentions that the Sacrifice of the Mass is the same as the Sacrifice at Calvary, except in an unbloody manner. The fruits of the Cross and presented to us in time and applied to our selves.


---
The current Catechism cites the Council of Trent in paragraph 1365 and 1366...

You may read them on line, but the summary is "the Sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are ONE SINGLE SACRIFICE. "...the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner. this sacridice is truly propitiatory (DS 1743, cf Heb 9:14, 27)

Thus, there is no "resacrifice", it is the SAME sacrifice, just in an unbloody manner (mode)

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

So be careful when you turn the bread and wine into an idol.

IF we think that the bread and wine are God, we ought to fall flat on our faces in worship, correct? This is not idolatry, if we think the material is God hidden behind the material substance...

Of course, John mentions that the Father calls men to such a faith in John 6. It's not something humans can muster up, to believe that a piece of bread is God's Own Flesh.

Regards

 

[Adullam]

So be careful when you turn the bread and wine into an idol.

IF we think that the bread and wine are God, we ought to fall flat on our faces in worship, correct? This is not idolatry, if we think the material is God hidden behind the material substance...

Of course, John mentions that the Father calls men to such a faith in John 6. It's not something humans can muster up, to believe that a piece of bread is God's Own Flesh.

Regards

Jesus also said He was the door...should we consecrate a door and worship it as Jesus? The sin of the golden calf was not that they were worshipping a different God...but improperly using a physical representation of God for worshipping purposes. Aaron was not creating a new god...just transferring what is spiritual into a physical representation. So it is with the bread and wine. They are NOT Jesus. They represent the Passover mystery. Jesus is the lamb that was slain for us. We remember His actions NOT recreate His sacrifice.

The derogatory term "calf" was actually a bull that represents power.

 

[Cornelius]

If we believe the same way as the RCC, it means we can be saved by a ritual, which of course is pure nonsense.

This ritual robs people of the true understanding, plus it gives a feeling in the hearts of the "faithful" that they have now done which is necessary to be saved. That is wrong on so many levels.

When we miss that fact that Jesus is talking about the Word, we change our focus to something physical (the wafer and the wine) and we loose out eternally. Not once do we see this ritual happening in the time of the apostles. Not once do we see the "adoration of the Eucharist" . Not even a mention of it.

This quote shows the idolatry that is involved in the Eucharist

Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration is the adoration of Jesus Christ present in the Holy Eucharist. In the many Churches that have this adoration, the Eucharist is displayed in a special holder called a monstrance, and people come to pray and worship Jesus continually throughout the day and often the night. Christ’s great love for us was shown when he was crucified on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins and give us eternal life. He loves us without limit, and offers Himself to us in the Holy sacrament of the Eucharist. Can we not give Jesus a few minutes of love and adoration in return?

So now Jesus is actually present in the wafer and locked up in a glass box. They baked Jesus in an oven and then put Him on display , so that people can "love and adore "Him. Does this not disturb people on a very deep level ?

C

 

[stranger]

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

That is right. The sharing of the bread and the wine is in remembrance of Jesus. The eating of the Word/bread brings life eternal. The Word is the flesh, and inside the flesh is the life (blood) of God.Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, are life.

Amen, its the words that bring life eternal. Not a superstitious ritual. Even the disciples who stayed "got it" Joh 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. Notice Peter did not say " You have the flesh of life that we eat" He did not fall for the parable, he understood the true meaning of the words of Jesus.

Hi Cornelius,

You are right in saying Peter did not say 'You have the flesh of life that we eat.' It was Jesus who repeatedly said unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood' you have no life in you. etc -- this is reiterated a number of times in different ways where the emphasis is clearly the body and blood of Christ.

The difference is simply this you eat with your mouth, but/and listen with your ear. While Jesus is speaking to the Jews (who left him) and the disciples what He is speaking about is clearly His physical body and blood.

If a Hebrew slave heard and believed the intent of the passover without eating the passover lamb and sprinkling the blood on the doorposts ... the destroyer would 'kill the firstborn... so you see it wasn't enough to listen, and understand it spiritually though that was necessary -- but to fulfill the physical requirements. In the same was the NT speaks of eating the body and drinking the blood, it isn't enough to believe and understand- this is a falling short.

blessing brother

 

[Cornelius]

First comes the letter and then the spirit.

First they literally had to eat the flesh of the lamb
Now we do not, we eat the Word by taking it into our spirit.


Blessings
C

 

[francisdesales]

Jesus also said He was the door...

It was clear Jesus was speaking metaphorically, since He did not present a piece of a door and say "This is MY Body", did He???

should we consecrate a door and worship it as Jesus?

[/quote]


Jesus SAID that you must eat His Bread, which is His Flesh - not His Words.

If we are condemned at judgment for following the clear words of Christ, I suppose we can ask "well, why did you confuse us and billions of Christians for 2000 years by saying we must eat your flesh - we took you at your word by faith. Didn't you say "THIS is My Body' at the Last Supper"?

You don't believe because you are not being drawn by the Father to believe.

The rest, no comment. You either believe or you walk away from the Christ, as the Jews did. If you believe Christ has the words of eternal life, you believe, even if you don't understand it. Understanding comes AFTER faith.

 

[Cornelius]

I suppose we can ask "well, why did you confuse us and billions of Christians for 2000 years by saying we must eat your flesh - we took you at your word by faith. Didn't you say "THIS is My Body' at the Last Supper"?

And HE will say: Because it was not given to you to understand.

The disciples indeed asked Him that very question and He told them, that to the "billions" .......masses.......it was not given to understand. It was given to the small group , the remnant, to truly understand. God is always the same. Yesterday, today and forever. He is still not showing the billions the truth. Its ALWAYS to the remnant.

Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

 

[Cornelius]

I will tell you something else. There are also VERY few protestants who truly understand the meaning of "eating the Word of God and drinking the blood" They get the "in my memory" bit, but fail to understand just exactly how the Word brings life into their mortal bodies. How exactly the eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood brings eternal life.