Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #61  
Old Feb 12, '12, 8:18 pm
Luvtosew Luvtosew is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 1, 2009
Posts: 2,023
Religion: Christian
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

And then we come to the end of Luke, after the resurection and when Jesus meets two diciples walking down the road

But they constrained him; saying: Stay with us, because it is towards evening, and the day is now far spent. And he went in with them.
30 And it came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him: and he vanished out of their sight.
32 And they said one to the other: Was not our heart burning within us, whilst he spoke in this way, and opened to us the scriptures?

He took bread blessed it and broke it and gave it to them, and their eyes were opened and he vanished out of sight, they reconized him then , because before they ate with him, Jesus always took bread and blessed it, as we should do whenever we eat.
  #62  
Old Feb 12, '12, 8:23 pm
Luvtosew Luvtosew is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 1, 2009
Posts: 2,023
Religion: Christian
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

I don't know, he tried to explain what he meant to them, but they left anyway.



6:61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it?
6:62 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?
6:63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?


If then you shall see, etc. . .Christ by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; and at the same time orrect their gross apprehension of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and onsequently not suffer it to be as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.


6:64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.


The flesh profiteth nothing. . .Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man's flesh, that is to ay, man's natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of hrist (which we receive in the blessed sacarament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ's flesh had profitedus nothing, he would never have taken lesh for us, nor died in us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us. Are spirit and life. . .By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall eceive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain.


6:65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that did not believe and who he was that would betray him.
6:66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.
6:67 After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.
6:68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?
6:69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.
6:70 And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
6:71 Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve? And one of you is a devil.
6:72 Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve.

John Chapter 7
  #63  
Old Feb 12, '12, 8:30 pm
rjcash's Avatar
rjcash rjcash is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2012
Posts: 138
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrift View Post
No you didn't neither did you answer post 52. If it was spiritual only, why did they leave?
I'll answer it, Jesus goes on to clearly say, "the flesh profits nothing, it is the spirit that gives life and my words." Can't get any clearer than that, from the Lords own mouth.

I will repeat, "the flesh profits nothing, it is the spirit that gives life and my words."

Is that clear enough?
  #64  
Old Feb 12, '12, 8:34 pm
gentle atheist gentle atheist is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 28, 2009
Posts: 196
Religion: atheist
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjcash View Post
I'll answer it, Jesus goes on to clearly say, "the flesh profits nothing, it is the spirit that gives life and my words." Can't get any clearer than that, from the Lords own mouth.

Is that clear enough?
Spirit = God. Flesh = man. Please read my post #59 to understand what Jesus is saying.
  #65  
Old Feb 12, '12, 8:38 pm
NeedImprovement's Avatar
NeedImprovement NeedImprovement is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2008
Posts: 5,555
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvtosew View Post
...I am not here to try to get anyone to believe what I believe but I'm just stating why some adults may not believe as the CC teaches on this matter, it has nothing to do with ignorance or refusal or authority problems, for some of it it just isn't something we can"t believe.
Hi Luvtosew

Since your post was quoting mine, permit me to see if we can straighten something out first ? The part of your quote highlighted in blue which is cited above, doesn't correspond to anything I posted in post # 45 , but it appears to correspond to my previous post # 41 , which I specified as “addressed solely to Catholics who may be reading here at CAF” . It doesn’t have to be a point of contention though.

That being said, the reason for posting post # 41 was to help us try to understand where those who come to CAF to attack the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist may be coming from – It wasn’t a judgment call against other Christians at all – only elucidation as to why some would come here to attack the doctrine or belief in the Holy Eucharist .

"The Holy Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life ", [Lumen Gentium]. So if anyone Catholic or not, comes to CAF to attack the doctrine on the Holy Eucharist, (particularly the belligerent ones) , those attacks should be dismantled – if not for anything else, at least for the sake of those Catholics who might be struggling as you once did. Father John Hardon S.J. would’ve been the first to admit to you that enough of them still exist.

Going back to your response , can you see the difference between what I said concerning the Real Presence and what you said ?

I said
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedImprovement
Belief in the True Presence of our Blessed Lord in the Holy Eucharist – entirely –Body ,Blood, Soul, Divinity ; our loving Lord Jesus – right there in person !
, but you said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvtosew View Post
...Jesus in the physical body and flesh... I don't know why the we would need flesh and blood instead of spiritual food, as we are spirits in our bodies. ... for some of it it just isn't something we can"t believe.
Your definition has not included God’s Human Soul and His Divinity. Before we say we can’t believe it , we have to be able to at least correctly define what we say we do not believe ... don’t we ?

Conversely, being able to understand what we mean when we say we do believe (as Catholics) is just as essential. In Understand Your Catholic Faith or Lose It , Fr Hardon says of understanding our faith:

Quote:
What do we mean by understanding the faith? We mean growing in our grasp of what we believe. I cannot tell you how crucially important it is to know what we are talking about.
The core of God’s revelation is the mysteries which He has shared with the human race. By definition a Christian mystery is something which cannot be rationally conceived before revelation, or fully comprehended even after being revealed.
So it isn’t like anyone Catholic would have a monopoly on fully comprehending the mysteries. Consider for a moment , Father Hardon's definition of the True Presence – from the same article:

Quote:
There is only one meaning to the Real Presence. It is Jesus Christ. It is the Son of God who became the son of Mary, who died on Calvary, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and is now on earth in every tabernacle of every Catholic Church in the world. When we receive the Holy Eucharist, Jesus Christ is in our bodies no less than he was in the womb of His blessed Mother the moment she conceived Him at Nazareth.
So it is God Himself we receive in Holy Communion – that is the correct definition. Now if I apply that definition to what you have said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvtosew View Post
... I don't know why the we would need flesh and blood instead of spiritual food ...
Your statement (as lacking as it is in the proper definition of the Eucharist) has basically said “God is not spiritual food” .

I would encourage you to begin by using the correct definition of the Real Presence . If you don’t think you can, then I hope you realize that your reasoning remains unsubstantiated , at which point, for you , I still think it would help to consider whether by this statement :
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvtosew View Post
I don't know why the we would need flesh and blood instead of spiritual food, as we are spirits in our bodies.
You mean ...
  1. I don’t think God is able to change bread and wine into His Body and Blood (and Soul and Divinity) .

    ... or are you saying

  2. I don’t think God , intends to change, or desires to change the bread and wine into His Body and Blood (and Soul and Divinity).

Reduced to its simplest terms, you are either saying : God can’t do it, or He can do it, but he doesn’t want to.

?
__________________
" ... you should know that there is present with you the angel whom God has appointed for each man…This angel, who is sleepless and cannot be deceived, is always present with you; he sees all things and is not hindered by darkness. You should know, too, that with him is God"…-St. Anthony the Great
  #66  
Old Feb 12, '12, 8:38 pm
rjcash's Avatar
rjcash rjcash is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2012
Posts: 138
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjcash View Post
I'll answer it, Jesus goes on to clearly say, "the flesh profits nothing, it is the spirit that gives life and my words." Can't get any clearer than that, from the Lords own mouth.

I will repeat, "the flesh profits nothing, it is the spirit that gives life and my words."

Is that clear enough?
The simple reason they left is they misunderstood Jesus as talking about real flesh. Jesus then made it clear to those that stayed, "THE FLESH PROFITS NOTHING". This is in the context of the whole passage. There was NO physical bread and NO physical wine referenced in the passage. Therefore it would be impossible for this passage to be talking about the Eucharist. The RCC clearly teaches bread and wine transubing. NOW CAN YOU HAVE A EUCHARIST WITHOUT PHYSICAL BREAD AND PHYSICAL WINE. Let's be consistent with your own beliefs!! There was nothing about transub. mentioned. And this passage about eating his flesh was addressed to UNBELIEVERS. The RCC forbids unbelievers from taking communion!! They understood
  #67  
Old Feb 12, '12, 8:59 pm
gentle atheist gentle atheist is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 28, 2009
Posts: 196
Religion: atheist
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjcash View Post
The simple reason they left is they misunderstood Jesus as talking about real flesh. Jesus then made it clear to those that stayed, "THE FLESH PROFITS NOTHING".
Jesus did not say that they misunderstood. He said that they did not believe. Get the difference?

What Jesus is saying is that God gives life, not man. The words of Jesus are the words of God Himself. So if Jesus tells them that they must eat His flesh to live forever then they must not reject it simply because they find it repulsive. After all, they are just mortal men who cannot possibly figure out the secret to eternal life. Who are they to reject the words of God?
  #68  
Old Feb 12, '12, 8:59 pm
Luvtosew Luvtosew is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 1, 2009
Posts: 2,023
Religion: Christian
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedImprovement View Post
Hi Luvtosew

Since your post was quoting mine, permit me to see if we can straighten something out first ? The part of your quote highlighted in blue which is cited above, doesn't correspond to anything I posted in post # 45 , but it appears to correspond to my previous post # 41 , which I specified as “addressed solely to Catholics who may be reading here at CAF” . It doesn’t have to be a point of contention though.

That being said, the reason for posting post # 41 was to help us try to understand where those who come to CAF to attack the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist may be coming from – It wasn’t a judgment call against other Christians at all – only elucidation as to why some would come here to attack the doctrine or belief in the Holy Eucharist .

"The Holy Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life ", [Lumen Gentium]. So if anyone Catholic or not, comes to CAF to attack the doctrine on the Holy Eucharist, (particularly the belligerent ones) , those attacks should be dismantled – if not for anything else, at least for the sake of those Catholics who might be struggling as you once did. Father John Hardon S.J. would’ve been the first to admit to you that enough of them still exist.

Going back to your response , can you see the difference between what I said concerning the Real Presence and what you said ?

I said , but you said



Your definition has not included God’s Human Soul and His Divinity. Before we say we can’t believe it , we have to be able to at least correctly define what we say we do not believe ... don’t we ?

Conversely, being able to understand what we mean when we say we do believe (as Catholics) is just as essential. In Understand Your Catholic Faith or Lose It , Fr Hardon says of understanding our faith:



So it isn’t like anyone Catholic would have a monopoly on fully comprehending the mysteries. Consider for a moment , Father Hardon's definition of the True Presence – from the same article:


So it is God Himself we receive in Holy Communion – that is the correct definition. Now if I apply that definition to what you have said:


Your statement (as lacking as it is in the proper definition of the Eucharist) has basically said “God is not spiritual food” .

I would encourage you to begin by using the correct definition of the Real Presence . If you don’t think you can, then I hope you realize that your reasoning remains unsubstantiated , at which point, for you , I still think it would help to consider whether by this statement :

You mean ...
  1. I don’t think God is able to change bread and wine into His Body and Blood (and Soul and Divinity) .

    ... or are you saying

  2. I don’t think God , intends to change, or desires to change the bread and wine into His Body and Blood (and Soul and Divinity).

Reduced to its simplest terms, you are either saying : God can’t do it, or He can do it, but he doesn’t want to.

?
God can do whatever he wants, but I don't think he sends Jesus's body down to earth to

eaten, to be put into bread, to be eaten do you? his flesh body? Think about it. and to drink his blood.

Jesus changed water into wine and it tasted like wine, not water. that is transubstaniation.
I do believe we take the body , blood, soul and divintiy of Christ in a spirtiual sacred sense, remembering every thing he did for us at Calvary. It is how we approach the host and our belief, but to say its his heart muscle, physical body , his actural blood, his veins, is not what I think that verse is saying.
  #69  
Old Feb 12, '12, 9:14 pm
adrift adrift is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: October 28, 2005
Posts: 17,037
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjcash View Post
I'll answer it, Jesus goes on to clearly say, "the flesh profits nothing, it is the spirit that gives life and my words." Can't get any clearer than that, from the Lords own mouth.

I will repeat, "the flesh profits nothing, it is the spirit that gives life and my words."

Is that clear enough?
NO and stop shouting. It does not explain why they left. What was hard about "the flesh profits nothing, it is the spirit that gives life and my words."
The reason they left is they clearly understood what he meant
Quote:
51 I am the living bread which came down out of heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: yea and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when the heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it?
66 Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

.
  #70  
Old Feb 12, '12, 9:19 pm
adrift adrift is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: October 28, 2005
Posts: 17,037
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvtosew View Post
God can do whatever he wants, but I don't think he sends Jesus's body down to earth to

eaten, to be put into bread, to be eaten do you? his flesh body? Think about it. and to drink his blood.
AMEN! That is said each time communion is given it means I believe that it IS the body and Blood of Jesus.

Quote:
Jesus changed water into wine and it tasted like wine, not water. that is transubstaniation.
I do believe we take the body , blood, soul and divintiy of Christ in a spirtiual sacred sense, remembering every thing he did for us at Calvary. It is how we approach the host and our belief, but to say its his heart muscle, physical body , his actural blood, his veins, is not what I think that verse is saying
But it isn't what Jesus said. He didn't say this is a spirtual sense that you are receiving He said this IS. They walked away from Jesus because they too could not accept what Jesus was saying.
  #71  
Old Feb 12, '12, 9:24 pm
NeedImprovement's Avatar
NeedImprovement NeedImprovement is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2008
Posts: 5,555
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvtosew View Post
God can do whatever he wants, but I don't think he sends Jesus's body down to earth to

eaten, to be put into bread, to be eaten do you? his flesh body? Think about it. and to drink his blood.
I do think about it - a lot actually . Many a Catholic theologian has ruminated on it long and hard too :

From This is My Body, This is My Blood ; Fr. John Hardon, S.J.

Quote:
Then the Jews started arguing with one another. Did they understand Him correctly? Was He actually telling them He would give His own flesh for food? “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” they asked. Instead of reassuring them that he did not mean to be taken literally, Christ went on:

I tell you most solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will not have life in you. Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in him. As I, who am sent by the living Father, myself draw life from the Father, so whoever eats me will draw life from me. This is the bread that came down from heaven; not like the bread that your ancestors ate; they are dead, but anyone who eats this bread will live forever (John 6:48-58).
The evangelist explains that Christ taught this doctrine in the synagogue, but that hearing it “many of his followers said, ‘This is intolerable language, How could anyone accept it?’” Jesus was fully aware that His followers were complaining and, in fact, asked them, “does this upset you?” But He took nothing back. Rather He insisted, “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” At the same time He explained that such faith is not of man’s making, since “no one could come to me unless the Father allows him.”

Following this animated dialogue, we are prepared for the statement, “After this, many of His disciples left Him and stopped going with Him.” Then, to make absolutely certain there was no mistaking what He was saying, Jesus said to the Twelve, “What about you, do you want to go away too?” To which Simon Peter replied, “Lord, who shall we go to? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe” (John 6:59-68).

The Church’s decisive revelation on the Real Presence is in the words of the consecration, “This is my body; this is my blood,” whose literal meaning has been defended through the ages. They were thus understood by St. Paul when he told the first Christians that those who approached the Eucharist unworthily would be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. There could be no question of a grievous offense against Christ Himself, unless Paul assumed that the true Body and the true Blood of Christ are really present in the Eucharist.
...clear as water to me ...

It doesn't appear you're yet able to work with the correct definition of transubstantiation , so as I pointed out in the previous post , any of your reasoning regarding transubstantiation remains unsubstantiated .

What is also as clear as water to me (and I take no joy in pointing this out at all) is that anyone who has left the Catholic Church has, for all practical purposes lost any belief they had (if any) that Jesus is truly and personally present in the Eucharist, because if they really knew Who was there ... they would never leave. That in itself can be attributable to any number of factors. These people have my prayers. I don't even know how some can get along in the world without the sacrament of Reconciliation - I know I can't. Those others also have my prayers.

It looks like you won't be able to work with the proper definition of the Real Presence - even as it is presented by Fr. John Hardon . That would currently bring us to an impasse.

God bless. I wish you well.
__________________
" ... you should know that there is present with you the angel whom God has appointed for each man…This angel, who is sleepless and cannot be deceived, is always present with you; he sees all things and is not hindered by darkness. You should know, too, that with him is God"…-St. Anthony the Great
  #72  
Old Feb 12, '12, 9:38 pm
NotWorthy's Avatar
NotWorthy NotWorthy is offline
Forum Master
 
Join Date: May 10, 2005
Posts: 13,932
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Quote:
Originally Posted by gentle atheist View Post
Spirit = God. Flesh = man. Please read my post #59 to understand what Jesus is saying.
I would change that to "The Flesh = man". Sometimes Jesus talks about "His Flesh" and the wonderful things that happen to people who partake of it. But when Jesus, and later St. Paul, write of "The Flesh", 99% of the time they are speaking of "man", or more exactly, "being stuck in this world".
__________________
Follow your Dreams! Except for the ones where you're naked in Church!
  #73  
Old Feb 12, '12, 9:43 pm
gentle atheist gentle atheist is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: September 28, 2009
Posts: 196
Religion: atheist
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotWorthy View Post
I would change that to "The Flesh = man". Sometimes Jesus talks about "His Flesh" and the wonderful things that happen to people who partake of it. But when Jesus, and later St. Paul, write of "The Flesh", 99% of the time they are speaking of "man", or more exactly, "being stuck in this world".
Good point.
  #74  
Old Feb 12, '12, 11:55 pm
rjcash's Avatar
rjcash rjcash is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2012
Posts: 138
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Quote:
Originally Posted by adrift View Post
NO and stop shouting. It does not explain why they left. What was hard about "the flesh profits nothing, it is the spirit that gives life and my words."
The reason they left is they clearly understood what he meant
Seems you forgot some verses in there. Jesus tells you very clearly the real reason they walked away.

66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.

67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.

I will take the words of Jesus!! Not the theology of someone walking away from him! Not's not how you establish doctrinal teaching.

Anyway, you seem to be ignoring my question about this passage. The RCC does not permit unbelievers to take communion. If this passage is speaking of taking the "Eucharist", why was Jesus telling unbelivers to do so? "For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, " And they walked away, so they were NOT followers.

Also, since the RCC says the physical bread and physical wine is transubed, where is the physical bread ever mentioned in this passgage and where is the physical wine.

Where is wine ever mentioned in the passage?

Look you have to admit the whole transub thing is made up by the RCC. It does not exist anywhere in scripture. Jesus said, this IS my body, not "it will become my body" there was never any mention of it becoming reall, but oh wait it will still have all the properties of bread and all the properties of wine, look like it, smell like it, but it will be in substance. Jesus never taught that! That is just double talk. If it is changed, then it would look like flesh and it would look like blood and it would be FLESH and BLOOD. I will take Jesus word for it over something that is just made up. Jesus said it "was the fruit of the vine". RCC says it becomes flesh and blood, but it still has all the properties of bread and wine. Jesus what do you say? I said it is "fruit of the vine"! There was never any reason to think otherwise since he was sitting with them in his body with all his blood in his body. They fact is you or the RCC does not take the passage about the Lords supper literally. Remember, Jesus said it was. The RCC says it becomes. Don't run off to 1 Cor now and we know that John 6 is out of the discussion, since communion was not for unbelivers. In Hebrews it says "they trample under foot the body of Christ" does that mean they went up to heaven and trampled on his body. NO. It's so obvious that it is still wine, that after the passing of the bread and wine Jesus says it's still fruit of the vine!! Jesus, I belive you!
  #75  
Old Feb 13, '12, 12:09 am
Sacred_Heart Sacred_Heart is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2011
Posts: 408
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquinas4585 View Post
Hello all,

I have a quick question . If Jesus instituted the Eucharist on the last supper, and in particular transformed the wine into his blood, why does he refer to the newly transubstantiated wine as "fruit of the vine" in Matthew 26:29? It seems to indicate that the wine is, in fact, merely wine.

Here is the reference:

Matthew 26:26-29 (New International Version)

26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."

27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

What does Jesus mean when he refers to the "fruit of the vine" which he will not drink until he drinks it in the Father's kingdom if the wine is no longer wine but is now his Body and Blood?

Thank you all for your response ,

Aquinas4585
Well if you can recall in the gospel of John Jesus tells his disciples after the Supper a parable about the vine, saying, I am the vine and you are the branches. Every branch that bears fruit my Father prunes and it bears forth much fruit and ever branch that bears none he breaks off...

He also speaks of other parables concerning likewise...

By saying "fruit of the vine" he connects the Sacrament with his teachings. It is a spiritual teaching so he uses this type of connection to show that the Sacrament is his teaching and his teaching is his Sacrament. What Jesus did alot of is weaving a web of Faith in order to make it solid or whole. He points out alot of things from one parable to another to show that it is all one-solid faith.
Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Sacred Scripture

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8569Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: Kellyreneeomara
5241CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4436Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3895Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: DesertSister62
3876SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany
3463Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3318Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3237Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3171For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: eschator83



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 6:39 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.