HELP,What is the best way to answer this question


#1

**one factual point: Cannabalism as taught in Romanism will never save you.

Jesus pointed out to us that eternal life comes through believing in Him, not in eating Him. Jesus told us:

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the WORDS that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63).

Jesus was talking spiritually, not physically. He was explaining that spiritually, all life comes through faith in Him, not eating His body in some cannibalistic manner. God has already forbidden cannibalism:

“But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.” (Gen. 9:4)

God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden, would He?

Observing the Lord’s Supper is A REMEMBRANCE OF CHRIST’S WORK AT CALVARY, NOT A REENACTMENT. Jesus Himself said, “…this do in remembrance of me.” (Luke 22:19b).

Why would the Roman Catholic religion rather have people eating God than believing ON Him and having faith IN Him?
**


#2

What does it mean to believe in him? What takes more faith, to believe what he said, or to think carnally and not believe him and walk away like the other disciples?

One takes a great deal more faith than the other. One truly believes him, the other does not.

Does believing in him mean accepting only the parts we like, or accepting everything he said according to Christ?

So what does it mean to believe in him?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene


#3

[quote=Will Pick]**one factual point: Cannabalism as taught in Romanism will never save you. **
[/quote]

The Eucharist is not cannibalism. The eucharist is a Sacramental presence, not a physical one. There is a difference between saying the real presence and physical presence.

**

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the WORDS that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63).

That is one single verse taken out of context with the rest. There are many sources that go into a better discussion of this. Try these:
davidmacd.com/catholic/eucharist.htm
scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html
The main poiont I always stress is that why would so many disciples leave him in verse 66 if Jesus was just speaking symbolically. In fact, they left him because they could not accept the teaching that he was speaking literallly.

**

**Jesus was talking spiritually, not physically. He was explaining that spiritually, all life comes through faith in Him, not eating His body in some cannibalistic manner. God has already forbidden cannibalism:
The entire context of the verses indicate otherwise. In addition, the other I am statements in John indicate a pattern of symbolic language (I am the door, I am the vine) that finds its LITERAL fulfillment in Christ.
I can go more into this if you’d like.

**

“But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.” (Gen. 9:4)

**
Again, John 6 is not cannibalism because this is physical flesh. Jesus is speaking Sacramentally. Most evangelicals will not be impressed with that difference because they have a heretical sense of Sacramental grace.

**

**Observing the Lord’s Supper is A REMEMBRANCE OF CHRIST’S WORK AT CALVARY, NOT A REENACTMENT. Jesus Himself said, “…this do in remembrance of me.” (Luke 22:19b).

**Why would the Roman Catholic religion rather have people eating God than believing ON Him and having faith IN Him? **

That is a false comparison because your friend is projecting his 21st century notion of a remembrance onto the 1st century.
the jewish notion of a remembrance is an active memorial. There is a fundamental difference of how the jews perceived a remembrance and the way your friend does.
In the passover, when the Jews celebrate the passover, they do not just remember what happened, they partake in the past action made present. They participate in the passover covenant now, today, in a way that transcends time because they celebrate the covenant. In a sense, the passover meal the jews celebrate is a present celebration of a past event.

The protestants do not understand or recognize this.
A commemoration is ACTIVE. It makes present a past event.
The Eucharist makes present, that which happened 2000 years ago.
Tell them that they have a false understanding of what a commemoration means. That is why Scripture outside of Tradition causes misinterpretations.**


#4

[quote=Will Pick]**one factual point: Cannabalism as taught in Romanism will never save you.

Jesus pointed out to us that eternal life comes through believing in Him, not in eating Him. Jesus told us:

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the WORDS that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63).

Jesus was talking spiritually, not physically. He was explaining that spiritually, all life comes through faith in Him, not eating His body in some cannibalistic manner. God has already forbidden cannibalism:

“But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.” (Gen. 9:4)

God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden, would He?

Observing the Lord’s Supper is A REMEMBRANCE OF CHRIST’S WORK AT CALVARY, NOT A REENACTMENT. Jesus Himself said, “…this do in remembrance of me.” (Luke 22:19b).

Why would the Roman Catholic religion rather have people eating God than believing ON Him and having faith IN Him?
**
[/quote]

If the flesh profiteth nothing, was Christ’s flesh given on the cross for nothing?

Secondly, partaking of the Eucharist is not canabalism because, while the body and blood of Christ are not “physically” present, as your friend implies, but “sacramentally” present. God, understanding that one would feel comfortabel chewing on flesh or sipping blood, made the reality of his body and blood appear under the accidents, or appearance of bread and wine. Keep in mind that Christ’s flesh is not longer like ours (which can be consumed through “canabalism”) - his flesh has been transformed, as evident by his ability to appear out of nowhere and walk through doors after the resurrection.

Believing “On” Him means that, not only do we put our faith in Christ, but we believe we must do as he asks. Even the demons in Hell believe in God, but they suffer eternal damnation for not accepting his love and putting it into action themselves. If Christ tells me to wear a pink hat every Tuesday, I’ll do that. If Christ tells me to partake of his flesh and blood through the Eucharist, I’ll do that. To ignore him means that we don’t “believe On Him”.

The antagonist asks if God would really ask us to do something he had forbidden. Well, simply read through the gospels and see the number of times that Christ had his apostles and disciples break the Old Covenant laws, which were established through the Spirit-guided Old Testament, such as rules of ritual cleanseliness or fasting.

In marriage a couple must consumate the relationship by taking the groom into the wife throught the sexual act. This is our crude imitation of the fact that, in our marriage to Christ, we must consumate the relationship by taking the groom (Christ) into the bride (us, the Church) through the sacramental act.

In addition, Paul must have been a subscriber to “Romanism” as, in 1 Cor. 11:27, he tells us that anyone who doesn’t discern the body and blood in the bread and wine is eating and drinking judgement upon himself. The flesh - human endeavors - do profiteth nothing, but the spirit of Christ, joined supernaturally to his supernatural body after the resurrection, brings us eternal life.

one factual point: Prooftexting, as taught by your correspondent will never lead to a fullness of the truth.


#5

Many followers left Jesus, saying this is too hard to accept.
He let them go and didn’t try to coax them into staying with “oh I didn’t mean that literally”. Why would it be so hard to accept if it were only figurative language?
Maybe that would make them think a little.


#6

Assuming nothing else,
What could be better than eating Our Lord?

I answer the question with: Ok it’s cannalbilism, so what?
It gives me grace, it nourishes my soul and is in obdiance to my Blessed Lord, I don’t have a problem with it. It is just another case of my Lord and His love for a wretch like me.


#7

[quote=Will Pick]**one factual point: Cannabalism as taught in Romanism will never save you. ******
[/quote]

Catholicism does not teach cannabalism - that is a carnal understand, not a spiritual one.

[quote=Will Pick] Jesus pointed out to us that eternal life comes through believing in Him, not in eating Him.

[/quote]

This is false. Jesus explicitly says: “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you.” The most simple refutation to the above interpretation is to maintain that there is a way to “eat his flesh and drink his blood” otherwise we make Jesus a liar and misleader of his disciples.

[quote=Will Pick]**"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: ******
[/quote]

THE flesh profiteth nothing, but HIS flesh profiteth EVERYTHING. BIG difference. The entire Christian religion is prefaced on the fact that the Word was made…FLESH. How can a Christian possibly conclude that Christ’s flesh profiteth nothing? It accomplished EVERYTHING. This is what happens when you try to promote an agenda rather than the Truth itself - and this was one of the very earliest heresies in the faith, promoted by the gnostics: Spirit good, body bad: HERESY.
**


**Jesus was talking spiritually, not physically. **


This changes nothing. Understanding the Eucharist to be the “body, blood, soul and divinity” Christ is a spiritual gift of understanding - I dont consider it a “physical” truth understanding. Understanding his words to mean “eat my body that you see right in front of you exactly as it is” would be a “physical” understand which is exactly what your friend has IMHO. That understanding, BTW, is exactly the understanding that caused all of the non-Apostolic disciples to walk away from Jesus over this teaching.
**

**He was explaining that spiritually, all life comes through faith in Him, not eating His body in some cannibalistic manner. **


Actually he didnt explain of the sort. When they specifically addressed the fact that “this is a hard saying” - ie, when you interpret it “physically”, he doesn’t back off at all. In fact, he “explains” by getting more LITERAL: "Truly, Truly " and “Amen, Amen” are not symbolic gestures, rather they are to solidify that he means exactly what he says.
**

God has already forbidden cannibalism:
God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden, would He?


No he wouldnt, and he hasnt. The flesh Christ is speaking of is his resurrected body which, although Really Present in the Eucharist is not the forbidden flesh spoken of in Genesis.

**Observing the Lord’s Supper is A REMEMBRANCE OF CHRIST’S WORK AT CALVARY, NOT A REENACTMENT. Jesus Himself said, “…this do in remembrance of me.” (Luke **
22:19b).


The word remembrance - in the sense that we understand it - is a poor translation of the original intent. I believe the original term was “zikkaron” which had a more comprehensive meaning which did actually connote entering into the actual event in a real way, not simply a recollection of the mind.

This is the most classic error I find from non-Catholics. Everything has to be either/or and can never be both. Who says the Catholic Church has people eating on God somehow in opposition to having faith in Him? That’s actually the beauty of the Catholic faith: we have BOTH. We can read John 6 without any need for fancy explannations about what Christ said. And we can comfortably say, like Peter, that we don’t quite understand it, but we believe in Him and we will obey.
As a final note (and I could go on and on) where is the historical record of the Catholic teaching being condemned? All the Apostolic successors, including Ignatious who was Johns disciple, held a firmly to the Real Presence. Whenever heresy tried to work its way into the Church, the ECFs were very vocal in opposition to it. Why is there no such opposition to the Real Presence until the last few hundred years? Even Luther held that the “consubstantiation” of the Eucharist is more than a mere symbol. Basically this “symbolic ONLY” interpretation appears to be a man-made innovation of recent times which appeals strictly to the INTELLECT - while ignoring the spirit. I say they are guilty of hearing Christs words in carnal terms and not in Spiritual terms as well.


#8

John 6


#9

[quote=Will Pick]**one factual point: Cannabalism as taught in Romanism will never save you. **
If you believe the Eucharist is cannibalism then you are denying both the Incarnation and the Resurrection. Catholics deny neither.

“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ and not do what I tell you?” That is the big question.
[/quote]


#10

[quote=Will Pick]**one factual point: Cannabalism as taught in Romanism will never save you.

Jesus pointed out to us that eternal life comes through believing in Him, not in eating Him. Jesus told us:

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the WORDS that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63).

Jesus was talking spiritually, not physically. He was explaining that spiritually, all life comes through faith in Him, not eating His body in some cannibalistic manner. God has already forbidden cannibalism:

“But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.” (Gen. 9:4)

God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden, would He?

Observing the Lord’s Supper is A REMEMBRANCE OF CHRIST’S WORK AT CALVARY, NOT A REENACTMENT. Jesus Himself said, “…this do in remembrance of me.” (Luke 22:19b).

Why would the Roman Catholic religion rather have people eating God than believing ON Him and having faith IN Him?
**
[/quote]

This is a total straw man argument, that’s the reason that it seems so damning. Have a look at THIS THREAD and don’t be confused or decieved by this kind of anti-Catholic rhetoric. As someone pointed out before, the whole context of the 6th chapter of John points up that Jesus was speaking literally. Only by pulling verses out of that context can anyone attempt to spiritualize His meaning.

Furthermore, this error does not fit the context of the other New Testament passages that touch on the Eucharist. Most especially 1st Corinthians 10:16-17

“16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.”

and 1st Corinthians 11:23-30

"23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. "

Nor does it align with the teachings of the teachings of the early church as shown in this quote from a man discipled by St. John himself.

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. (LINK )
Pax tecum,


#11

If there is no real presence in the Eucharist, then how can St.Paul warn us not to take it unworthily lest we become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? That “spiritualization” makes complete nonsense not only of the 6th chapter of John, but of 1st Corinthians 10:16-17 “16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.”

and 11: 23-30

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many inform and weak among you, and many sleep.

Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE? Now if I make a symbol of Karl Keating like this symbol here: :slight_smile: and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol …like say this: http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/blowup1.gif I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol of the goodman Karl Keating, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question…of course not! Why? BECAUSE KARL KEATING IS NOT REALLY PRESENT IN THAT SYMBOL is he?

Pax tecum,


#12

Just please keep in mind that God is INFINITE. He is not merely just like us, only smarter. He is INFINITE. We exist in His imagination.

If we cannot conceive of how John 6 might could possibly BE, then the fault … the inadequacy… is not with God ( or with the Church ) but with us.


#13

[quote=Will Pick]**one factual point: Cannabalism as taught in Romanism will never save you.

Jesus pointed out to us that eternal life comes through believing in Him, not in eating Him. Jesus told us:

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the WORDS that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63).

Jesus was talking spiritually, not physically. He was explaining that spiritually, all life comes through faith in Him, not eating His body in some cannibalistic manner. God has already forbidden cannibalism:

“But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.” (Gen. 9:4)

God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden, would He?

Observing the Lord’s Supper is A REMEMBRANCE OF CHRIST’S WORK AT CALVARY, NOT A REENACTMENT. Jesus Himself said, “…this do in remembrance of me.” (Luke 22:19b).

Why would the Roman Catholic religion rather have people eating God than believing ON Him and having faith IN Him?
**
[/quote]

Ask this:

Do you believe Jesus Christ was truly human in body and soul? If so, why? Why would God take on flesh, if the flesh is useless for salvation?

God wants to save us body and soul. The means of grace are physical, because we are physical. The salvation offered by anti-sacramental Protestants is a salvation for ghosts, not for human beings.

Edwin


#14

The Eucharist - Ahhhh, what awesome beauty in it. Nothing can compare to it. The Sacrament of Sacraments. :yup:The meaning of it was inbedded in my heart as a teen, thats why when I thought about leaving the Church and visited others, they seemed simply empty, and tastless, no matter how vibrant the music or the preaching, they didnt have the Eucharist - so I said, thanks but no thanks. I am helping out a priest friend of mine. He needs help with the first communion kids. He also wants all the parents to go through instructions because they know so little about the Eucharist. Some didnt want to believe me about the need for parents to be good examples and teachers to their children and I found out that out of about 25 couples there at least 12 are not married by the Church and saw no need. I opened up a hornets nest when I brought it up that I finally called the priest because they wanted to hear it from him. He told these couples would have to stay after class and have a long talk with him. He told them in very, very strong terms that they were living in sin. One lady said that she saw no need to get married by the church since she and her husband had been common-law for over 20 years. I feel that we may loose some of them and they wont come back. The previous priest at that parish never questioned the parents at all. This priest wants to make sure that parents understand their responsibility and told them that is why there are so many problems in that parish because many parents a living a lie and passing that lie on to their children. He told them that they probably would not like what he was about to tell them, but he was going to tell them the truth and not simply what they want to hear.

Thank you CM, :tiphat:I will bookmark these threads as I can use the material. I hope you dont mind. God Bless You.


#15

[quote=Will Pick]**one factual point: Cannabalism as taught in Romanism will never save you. **

[/quote]

You are right, cannablism will not save you. And the Catholic Church does not teach that cannabalism will save you.

**Jesus pointed out to us that eternal life comes through believing in Him, not in eating Him. **


John 6:53 "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."
John 6:57"…so also one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
**

Jesus told us:

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the WORDS that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63).

**Jesus was talking spiritually, not physically. He was explaining that spiritually, all life comes through faith in Him, not eating His body in some cannibalistic manner. **


Re read this passage carefully. The flesh of Jesus profits us everything. He is the Word of God made flesh, his flesh was nailed to the cross, and he tells us to eat his flesh, in more than one place. How could this possibly be saying that “His” flesh profits nothing? So, he must be talking about our flesh not his.

Then he says “…the Words that I speack unto you, they are spirit…” Look at this carefully, John says earlier that “God is spirit”, Jesus is re-affirming here that he is the Word of God. Also remember, God is the one who gives life. So the rest of the sentence fits very well, with Jesus’s re-afirmation that he is the "Word of God and his words give life. Absolutely nothing to do with a symbolic definition of the euachirst. And everything to do with Jesus re-stating that he is speaking the truth.
**

God has already forbidden cannibalism:

“But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.” (Gen. 9:4)

God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden, would He?
**
First of all this is talking mostly about animals, and a little about humans. Are you going to insist that God’s flesh is the same as an animals flesh? The Old Testament believed that “Life” of an animal was in it’s blood. The same with humans. The true definition of Cannabalism deals with eating one’s own kind. We are eating God’s/Jesus’s flesh, not humans or animals.

**

**Why would the Roman Catholic religion rather have people eating God than believing ON Him and having faith IN Him? **
**

Actually you can’t eat God unless you believe(faith) in God first. So this isn’t an either or situation.

It is the protestants that eat the bread and wine who commit Symbolic Cannibalism. For some strange reason they think it’s okay to Symbollicaly eat his flesh. But I say a Cannablisitic act done symbolically is almost as bad as doing it for real, as far as cannabalism goes that is.

Chipper


#16

[quote=Contarini]Ask this:

Do you believe Jesus Christ was truly human in body and soul? If so, why? Why would God take on flesh, if the flesh is useless for salvation?

God wants to save us body and soul. The means of grace are physical, because we are physical. The salvation offered by anti-sacramental Protestants is a salvation for ghosts, not for human beings.

Edwin
[/quote]

Edwin-

Are you OK?! I’ve not seen you post such an aggressive comment before and I just wanted to make sure everything was OK. :wink: Obviously this topic is near and dear to your heart - bless you…

Phil


#17

Many people misunderstand the reality of the Eucharist…but I get it…
Check this out…When the words of consecration happen at the altar everytime there is Mass, the Moment of Jesus’ death on the cross, which happened in 33 AD, and that moment on the altar become one and the same thing! It is not Christ dying again and again, but the Once and For all Sacrifice being intersected in our time and at your local parish! God, who transends all time, can do this and Does do this.
If people only really knew what was happenening at that moment of consecration…church would be a lot more quieter. All over the world in thousands of parishes, Calvary becomes present. The “Lamb who appears to have been slain” makes Himself known and touchable, eatable, and drinkable, and therefore we are nourished. When we are nourished. We grow. When whe grow, we change. That change is God from within doing an amazing thing to us.
Exodus 12:1-23 describes the instructions God gave to the Israelites on the first Passover. They were told to kill a Lamb with out blemish, sprinkle the blood on the doorposts so that the Angel of Death would “passover” that home, and God instructed them to not break the Lamb’s bones and guess what…Eat it.
If that’s not a forshadowing of the Eucharistic sacrifice of our Paschal Lamb, then I don’t know what is…


#18

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.