How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[rev kevin]

Originally Posted by Cinette

I have asked about this before - don't you mean the "Real Presence"? However you keep talking about the real presents and I am wondering what you mean by presents. Never heard of this before - and you are not the only Protestant to refer to the "real presents".

I am confused.

God bless
Cinette

Mispelt, Thanks for pointing it out.

[Cinette]

Hmmmm....... if I were Protestant and I came to this thread I would say "Yes, these Catholics have a point there ..... Hmmm...yes why did the disciples walk away? And Jesus did not call them back, He did not say "Hey I didn't mean it like THAT! Come back, let me explain what I really mean!"

No, immediately as they left He asked the Apostles whether they too would leave and Peter said "Lord to whom can we go, you have the words of Eternal Life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

This is why we need Faith which is believing because we trust and love and not because we understand. There would be no need for Faith if we understood all the mysteries of Life and Faith.

Remember it was not long before that that Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes.

Even so, I do believe and I have said it before that, had I lived in those days I too would have turned my back and left. Sad but true. I have the witness of 2000 years to back up my Faith. Praise God!.

God love you
Cinette

[rev kevin]

Originally Posted by Cinette

Hmmmm....... if I were Protestant and I came to this thread I would say "Yes, these Catholics have a point there ..... Hmmm...yes why did the disciples walk away? And Jesus did not call them back, He did not say "Hey I didn't mean it like THAT! Come back, let me explain what I really mean!"

No, immediately as they left He asked the Apostles whether they too would leave and Peter said "Lord to whom can we go, you have the words of Eternal Life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

This is why we need Faith which is believing because we trust and love and not because we understand. There would be no need for Faith if we understood all the mysteries of Life and Faith.

Remember it was not long before that that Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes.

Even so, I do believe and I have said it before that, had I lived in those days I too would have turned my back and left. Sad but true. I have the witness of 2000 years to back up my Faith. Praise God!.

God love you
Cinette

Jesus also talked in parables, did everyone get what he was saying then. NO so why didn't he say, Hay this is what I meant when I said this.....Because those who believed understood and those who didn't believe didn't understand. The same when the other disciples left and some stayed, Peter said it, not hard to understand why they stayed. They have come to believe and know he is the Holy One of God. The others didn't understand that.

The first part of your post is easy to say what, if you were a prostant would say because you are Catholic and believe the way the CC teaches and their teachings. If you werer a prostant you probably would say, What?

[Cinette]

Oh Man rev kevin!!! Benedictus can be excused for being frustrated with you because no matter how many times she says and points to the scripture you read through your own interpretation and cannot SEE the truth. You must excuse her for that surely? We have proved so many times from the scriptures that the bread and wine is CONSECRATED into the body and blood of Jesus. Jesus said so!

So I guess we must leave it at that - we can present the truth but the Holy Spirit is needed for it to penetrate into your heart - that is His job.

God love you
Cinette

[brkn1]

Originally Posted by shawn38

Christ's redemptive work was completed on the cross, hence "It is Finished!" I agree that He still needed to ascend to serve as High Priest and minister to the New Covenant. The Holy Spirit had to come to leads us into the truth.

The apostles were not yet baptized or received power.
Acts 1: 5For John baptized witha water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” ...8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you

We all agree that Christ needed to ascend to Heaven to serve as High Priest and minister to the New Covenant.

This presents a serious problem for those who claim that the Real Presence means that we go back in time to the actual one Sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist.
The resurrection does not happen until many days later and, if the resurrection has not happened during the Mass, then the participants would be yet in their sins as Paul explained. Catholics claim that some sins are forgiven by means of the sacrifice of the Mass, which can not be if the resurrection is not included in the Mass time frame.

[rev kevin]

Originally Posted by Cinette

Oh Man rev kevin!!! Benedictus can be excused for being frustrated with you because no matter how many times she says and points to the scripture you read through your own interpretation and cannot SEE the truth. You must excuse her for that surely? We have proved so many times from the scriptures that the bread and wine is CONSECRATED into the body and blood of Jesus. Jesus said so!

So I guess we must leave it at that - we can present the truth but the Holy Spirit is needed for it to penetrate into your heart - that is His job.

God love you
Cinette

I have given you scripture and what they mean. All you give me is Jesus said this is my body, and say what else would it mean besides his real presence. [spelt it right this time] At least I have given what it means, and not just saying, he said this is my body. I have given scripture and meaning, scripture and meaning. You have not proven that Jesus said so. Once again all that is said is, this is my body. LIke you say, I can present the truth but the Holy Spirit is needed for it ti penetrate into your heart-thats his job. You give up, I never will, because Jesus never gave up and I try to as much like Jesus as I can and do what he wants and that is to make disciples of all nations.
God's love
Rev Kevin

[benedictus2]

Originally Posted by PRmerger

Excellent!

So we know the New Covenant began at the Last Supper and reached its fulfillment at the Crucifixion.

Slum dunk! The apostles were drinking the Blood of the New covenant. Some people think as if everything is linear.

[benedictus2]

Originally Posted by shawn38

You say "began". Interesting choice of words. What redemptive benefits are gained from the time of the Last Supper and before Christ's crucifixion?

How about the very simple fact that it is the SAME BLOOD? If the Blood of Christ is what redeems, then that very same blood, they were drinking prior to the crucifixion, therefore redemptive.

At the Last Supper, Christ did not drink of the Cup of Redemption (3rd cup). That was later.

You mean the fourth cup. Christ did not drink the 4th cup. That was to happen later at the crucifixion.

[benedictus2]

Originally Posted by brkn1

The benefits of Christ's one Sacrifice did not reach fulfillment at the Crucifixion as you claim.

There had to also be the burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ into glory at the right hand of the Father, before even the Holy Spirit could come and indwell all believers.

Correct so far.

Without the indwelling Holy Spirit, no benefits of the New Covenant were possible.

How is that so? The benefits of the New Covenant come precisely from that, the New Covenant. And it is this New Covenant that makes possible the sending of the Holy Spirit. Without this New covenant the Holy Spriit would not have been sent.

The Holy Spirit empowers those whom God has redeemed. Without redemption, there will not be the sending fo the Holy Spirit.

[benedictus2]

Originally Posted by shawn38

Christ's redemptive work was completed on the cross, hence "It is Finished!".

Wrong. Until Christ has risen, redemption is not finished. We would have remained in the sadness of Good Friday without the Joy of Easter. If Christ had remained dead, we would have remained dead.

So no, you got that wrong. "It is finished" means the passover is finished. That is why He said these words after he had taken the wine offered to Him at the cross.

I agree that He still needed to ascend to serve as High Priest and minister to the New Covenant. The Holy Spirit had to come to leads us into the truth.

Yes, you got that right.

[benedictus2]

Originally Posted by rev kevin

Well the same can be said, if he meant it to be his real body why didn't he say, this is my real body, it really is my body. But he didn't now did he. So the argument of why he didn't say this or that can go both ways.

But that is exactly what He meant. The apostles understood this to be so. They needed no clarification. And the reason for this is because, the year before at the same passover, He gave the discourse on the bread of life (John 6).

They said, this is very hard to understand, How can anyone accept it? Now what was Jesus talking about before this. Jesus was talking about being the bread of life and eating his flesh. They took him literally and that is not what Jesus was saying. He was saying that you need to believ in him, that he is the Son of God and he was sent down from heaven as the bread of life to save the world.

Yes they took Him literally because it is precisely what Jesus was saying.

So here is the text to make sure we are clear about this:
John 648 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"
53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"

With the words I highlighted, Jesus made it very clear what He was saying. Notice How he did not remain with the terminology of bread, he changed this terminology to flesh and to blood (repeating it 6 times) so that you will have no mistake as to what He means.

[benedictus2]

Originally Posted by rev kevin

He was saying that you need to believ in him, that he is the Son of God and he was sent down from heaven as the bread of life to save the world.
He was talking about his Father, God and they only knew that he was the son of Joseph and that they know his father and mother. How can he say, I came down from heaven? They could not understand this about him being the son of God and that he is the bread that came down from heaven.

How is Jesus the Bread that came down from Heaven? How is Jesus bread and how does His being the bread of Life mean that He has come to save the world? What does bread and salvation have to do with each other.?

And they didn't understant the eating his flesh which means you are to believe in him and the Father who sent him.

Well I just posted the text in my previous post and there is nowhere in that text can you equate flesh with believing in Him.

If that is all that is required, He would have left at at verse 40 : For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day.

But He didn't. He went on and on and on.

See they could not believe that Jesus is who he says he is. Jesus said, the things I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But some of you don't believe. What were they to believe, that they are to believe in him and who he says he is.

Yes, that too. But more primarily based on this discourse that you have to believe that what He says is true. That when He says that His flesh is food that will you life then you believe that. That when He says that His blood is true drink, you believe that becausse you believe Him. If you believe that He is Son of God then you will believe that all these things that He has said are true.

Then they left and Jesus asked the remaining disciples if they were going to leave also and Peter said, Lord to whom would we go? You alone have the WORDS that GIVE ETERNAL LIFE. We BELIEVE THEM and we know you are the Holy One of God. See they believe in Jesus.

Yes they did. They believed in Jesus, so at the last supper when Jesus said eat this, this is my body, drink this, this is my blood, they did as He asked them.

That is where the main difference is. But because the others did not believe that He was capable of giving them His flesh and blood without the repulsion attendant to it, then they left.

Peter and the apostles because they believed that He was the Son of God, took it on faith that whatever He asked of them, will be good. They did not know how He was going to give them His flesh and blood but they went along with Him anyway because they believed in Him.

It is only when you believe enough in the Lord that you will be able to accept this hard saying, because it is indeed hard saying.

They believed that he was the bread of God, the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. How did Jesus give life to the world. By his suffering and death on the cross. Keep in mind that this was before the Last Supper, when Jesus, as you believe, made bread and wine into his body and blood. How can he or why would he say these things when it had not yet happened, the Last Supper.

That is the prelude. He knew what He would be doing at the Last Supper. Here, with this discourse, He is preparing them. That is why when they finally got to it at the Last Supper, there was no "What do you mean that is your body, your blood?". There was no "How can that be your body?". There was no "Why are you saying all these things which are not part of the passover ritual?" There was none of that becuase they had be prepared for it, the year before.

And why didn't John mention the Last Supper if it was so important and that Jesus turned the bread and wine into his body and blood?

You could equally ask, why didn't Mark, Luke and Matthew mention the Bread of Life discourse?

Could it be that John understood it to be just a symbol and not actually his body?

If you re-read John, you will notice that John did not have a passover meal. He just had Jesus having dinner with His disciples. In John's account, the meal happened before passover, because Jesus was killed at the time they were slaying the lambs for the passover.

Eating his flesh or his body meant that you Believe in him and all the Good he stands for.

No, if that is what He wanted to say, He would have cut his discourse short at verse 40. I suggest you re-read the entire chapter 6 slowly and ruminate on every word.

[benedictus2]

Originally Posted by WatchingMedia

Catholics believe in Transubstatiation.
It does not matter what non-Catholics believe, that is why they are not Catholic.

But it does matter because we want everyone to believe what we believe about the Eucharist so that they too may be nourished by the Body and Blood of Our Lord, that they're joy may be full.

[rev kevin]

Originally Posted by benedictus2

But that is exactly what He meant. The apostles understood this to be so. They needed no clarification. And the reason for this is because, the year before at the same passover, He gave the discourse on the bread of life (John 6).[/size]

Yes they took Him literally because it is precisely what Jesus was saying.

So here is the text to make sure we are clear about this:
John 648 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"
53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"

With the words I highlighted, Jesus made it very clear what He was saying. Notice How he did not remain with the terminology of bread, he changed this terminology to flesh and to blood (repeating it 6 times) so that you will have no mistake as to what He means.

48 Yes he is the bread that came down from heaven. The bread of life from heaven gives eternal life to everyone who eats it. The bread of life from heaven from heaven is Jesus, we agree with this. Jesus came from heaven to be the sacrifice for our sins, we can agree with this. He gives eternal life, we agree with this. To everyone who eats it. Now this is where the disagreement comes in, to eat it means to believe in him.

50 This bread I give you is my flesh, his body to die on the cross for our sins, we can agree with this.

53 Unless you eat the flesh, here is where we disagree, means unless you believe in me. You do not have life within you, means your spiritual life, your soul is dead, I hope we can agree with this.

54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, here we disagree, believe in me.
And I will raise them on the last day, you will be with me in heaven, we can agree with this.

55 My flesh is true food, true spiritual food, and by blood is true drink, spiritual drink, Those who are spiritual hungry will be fed by the word of Christ and those who thirst for the word of Christ, will not be thirsty.

56 I in them and them in me, Christ will never leave you once you accept and believe in him. Probably disagree.

57 Because I live by the power of the Father, those who believe in me or the power of me will live spiritually. Provbably disagree.

58 I am the true bread from heaven, agree its Jesus, Anyone who eats this bread, anyone who believes in Jesus, probably disagree. Will live forever, spiritually, agree, and not die as your ancestors did, even though they ate the manna, they ate regular food and died physically but if you eat the bread from heaven, believe in Jesus, your spirit will not die.

60 They could not accept that he was from God, the Son of Man, they did not believe in and who Jesus was so it would be hard for them not to understand because they could not accept Jesus for who he really is. Probably disagree.

[benedictus2]

Originally Posted by rev Kevin

I have read all of John 6 several times and know what he said about himself.

It seems not or you would have got the rest of the meaning of John 96

Because he is the bread of life that came down from heaven. Why would he make bread into his real body if its made out of flour?

So that you will not be repulse by eating His flesh. His flesh and blood is veiled in bread and wine so that you will not be repulsed. If people were to line up for communion expecting to be gnawing on this meat on the altar, I doubt very much that you will see them going for communion.

I was responding to what you wrote, didn't you say that the rememberance would only be a rememberance of the meal. Read what you wrote.

What I said was without the “This is my body…… This is my blood….” Then all we would be doing would be remembering a meal. But because of the “this is my body…. Blood”, then it is much more than just a meal.

And?

I was quoting you the institution narrative to prepare you for the later explanation.

And?
Same thing with this one.

Yes, that too but much, much more than that. Because He said “this is my body…blood” then it comes much more than just a mental recollection, you become actually present at that sacrifice and the bread that you break is no longer just bread but His flesh given for the life of the world, His blood shed for the forgiveness of sins.

No it isn’t or He would have said that. He said this is my blood.

[QUTOE] Using them as a symbol.

Sorry but no. In all the text of the Bible He did not say they were a symbol and the apostles did not understand them to be just symbols..

Bread was a main staple that was eaten at every meal. So he used the bread as a symbol because every time they would break bread at a meal they would remember his sacrifice.

Nope, because the ‘THIS’ in “Do THIS in mememory of me” referred to what He did earlier, which is an offering of His body.

Also, the term here is anamnesis. Anamnesis is much deeper than just memory. It means a reliving of the even.

So thats what he believes but that is not what Jesus meant.

Sorry but St Augustine knows more about what Jesus meant than you do. The Church for 1000 years believe the same, until Berengarius came, whose theory the church declared as heretical. Then 600 years after that Calvin and Zwingli came to revive Berengarius’s heresy.

NOW THIS IS UNCALLED FOR. PERSONAL ATTACKS ARE NOT ALLOWED AND I WOULD ASK THAT YOU REFRAIN FROM THEM. SAYING THINGS LIKE THIS IS WHAT A CHILD WOULD DO.

Sorry about that, but my goodness, you insist on twisting Jesus’s words and making Him say things He did not say.

If you truly love the Lord you will let what He said be and just follow it instead of twisting it because it does not suit your own view of things.

Oh I believe he has the words of eternal life and I would never walk away from him.

Then like Peter you should eat His body and drink His blood. And not by believing in Him. But by exactly that: eating His body and drinking His blood because that is what He requires of His true disciples.

I know that, thats why he used the bread as a symbol of his body.

Wrong, that is why He gave us Himself in the form of bread and wine.

[quote] No they knew what he meant before the last supper. John 6 68-69 "Simon Peter replied, Lord, to whom would we go? You alone have the words that give eternal life. We believe them and know you are the Holy One of God."

No they didn’t. When Peter said that, He was going strictly on faith. He did not know how he was supposed to “feed” on Jesus’ flesh then or how he was going to drink his blood. But then came the last supper and they knew. They were going to eat his flesh in the form of bread and drink his blood in the form of wine.

No it was on the cross that he showed how.

Wrong again. Were they supposed to take Jesus flesh piece by piece and eat Him on the cross? How did Jesus show them that on the cross?

Also How is He bread on the cross? Cross and bread don’t correlate.
The only way you can correlate the cross and bread is if we say that Body that hung on the cross is the same bread that we partake of in the Eucharist.