Question to Catholics

[Curious Christian]

Ignatius of Antioch


"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).


"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).


Justin Martyr


"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).


Irenaeus


"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).


"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).


Clement of Alexandria


"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).


Tertullian


"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).


Hippolytus


"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,


the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).


Origen


"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).


Cyprian of Carthage


"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).


Council of Nicaea I


"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).


Aphraahat the Persian Sage


"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).


Cyril of Jerusalem


"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).


"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).


Ambrose of Milan


"Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).


Theodore of Mopsuestia


"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).


Augustine


"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).


"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).


...


"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).


Council of Ephesus


"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

[NewBeginning]

So what you're saying is.... you eat Jesus' fingers, toes, and neck? Do you get a hair stuck in your teeth ever? :popc1:

[Faith Hope Charity]

<b>Peace be with all!</b>


Please let's not allow this discussion to turn into a debate. Muslims... we, Christians will deal with your queries. There's no point in asking us questions & then providing convenient answers for yourselves. Christians... keep in mind that we are proclaiming the Word of God & we must do so in the loving manner Jesus taught us... without personal attacks. This is not a battle! We can all learn a lot from one another :)


My friend, Jacques (who is awaiting authorization to access these threads) asked me to enter his response to the first few posts, before we move on to next ones. Apologetics is his forte ;)


Mr. wel_mel_2:


"So, do you really believe that Jesus Christ is actually transformed into the physical appearance of bread and wine?"



No. The physical appearances & characteristics (called "accidents") of bread and wine do not change, their substance changes.


"Can you actually worship this “bread-god”?"



There is no bread-god. After the Consecration, the bread and wine are totally transformed to become the most holy Body and most precious Blood of Christ our Savior. What you see then, is no longer bread and wine, it is Christ Himself, the bread and wine no longer exist, but, through a divine miracle, though their substance is changed, their accidents remain.


"Do you really believe that this piece of bread which was made by human hands can be sacrificed for your sins and then you are granted salvation?"



No. The Son of God is the sacrifice.


"Also doesn’t the Bible say that:"



The Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament are written by the holy Apostles to the Church, & we know that they are inspired only because the Church has judged, by her divine authority, that they are so. Thus, to suppose that these Sacred Scriptures, written by the Church's teachers, for the Church, and whose authority is established by the Church- do you suppose they can contradict the same teachings of the same Church?


"… we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Hebrews 10: 10-14"



That is exactly what the Apostles taught the Church, exactly what the Church has taught, teaches, and will teach until the return of Christ her divine Spouse.


"And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel. Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. Acts 1:9"



That is exactly what the Apostles taught the Church, exactly what the Church has taught, teaches, and will teach until the return of Christ her divine Spouse.


"So how can you believe that he truly, really, and substantially present in the forms of bread and wine?"



Because He said so, because His Apostles said so, because the Church He established says so.


I hope that clears things up :)


Mr. AlShamms:


"During the mass, priests allegedly claim the bread and wine transforms into the actual and literal body and blood of Jesus Christ"



That's what Christ Himself established.


"This Catechism quote reveals that the Catholic church still adheres to this doctrine which was defined at the Council of Trent"



You bet it does :) The Church that Christ has established about 2000yrs ago is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15), she cannot and will not change any of her life-giving teachings that the most holy Apostles of Christ deposited in her.


(Unlike heretics who establish false dens hundreds of years after the true Church was established and call them "churches", who keep changing doctrines to suit the times and whims of their followers.)


"Since Catholicism is teaching members to partake in literal cannibalism"



Since we eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ under the species of bread and wine, it cannot be considered cannbalism. This same charge was refuted by St. Justin Martyr ca. AD 150 when the Romans accused Christians of the same. Protestants, who came 1500yrs after the true Church, are not even good at imitating old heretics & infidels.


But let us stretch our imagination suppose that it is truly cannibalistic, and let us stretch it further and suppose that the words of Christ are not literal, but rather symbolic. Are you saying that Christ wants us to engage in symbolic cannibalism? And if cannibalism is a sin & forbidden by God as you claim, is Christ saying whoever commits symbolic sinful acts will abide in Him, and whoever does not will not have eternal life?


Do you imagine God commanding us to engage in symbolic adultery? symbolic murder?


Such is the folly of these ungodly accusations.


"'... For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 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.' John 6:33-35



This teaching is consistent with the rest of Scripture. Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body"


You have created a false dichotomy between believing in Christ and eating His holy flesh & drinkind His sacred blood, as if the two are mutually exclusive. This is the result of a strained logic, like a one-eyed cat trying to chase two rats.


Such opposition did not exist in the mind of Christ, nor the Apostles, nor the Church. On the contrary, believing in Christ and coming to Him are necessary before one can receive the Holy Eucharist. Thus, St. Augustine rightly says that no one eats the Holy Eucharist unless He adores it first.


"Jesus was talking spiritually, not physically"



Of course He was. Why then do you think that carnal minds have misunderstood Christ ever since He uttered those words? Why do you think all those disciples left Him because of that "hard teaching"? Yet Christ does not compromise the truth for the sake of carnal minds, on the contrary, He elevates the carnal minds to the divine and sublime truths.


"He was explaining that spiritually, all life comes through faith in Him, not eating His body."



Thus you have rendered the plain meaning invalid, & set up a false opposition between the two which are declared mutually necessary for each other.


"When Jesus said, "Take, eat: this is my body," He was not suggesting that they reach out and begin eating His literal body. To even suggest such is ridiculous."



Of course that is ridiculous. Yet nobody claimed that. You are setting up a straw-man, trying to refute something that is not related to the real subject.


He was giving them His Body under the species of Bread, not under its proper species.


So I would have to say that the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation is NOT Biblically sound.



If you think that quoting a few Scriptures and interpreting them according to your beliefs makes your beliefs true, remember that Satan himself quoted Scripture, and you don't have any advantage over him in quoting Scriptures.


I would encourage you to read this very small article:


http://www.freewebs.com/jacques7/Summa/Eucharist.mht


Or if you prefer .doc format: http://www.freewebs.com/jacques7/Summa/Eucharist.doc


Thank you :)


<b>God bless you my dear friends.</b>

[Faith Hope Charity]

<b>In the name of God - Father Son Holy Spirit.</b>


May the peace of our Lord & Saviour, Jesus Christ, be with you all.

It is taught in Roman dogma that the Mass is the resacrificing of Jesus Christ.

It is not a resacrifice. The mass is the same sacrifice as that of the cross, but without the bloodshed. Christ being raised from the dead will never die again. We may speak of Mass as a "renewal" or "representation" of Calvary, but we avoid the words "repitition" or "reenactment".

In practice, however, the wine ("blood") is withheld from the laity

After consecration, the substance of bread becomes the Blood, Body, Soul & Divinity of Christ & the wine becomes the Blood, Body, Soul & Divinity of Christ. The Priest MUST consecrate both on the altar, however, the congregation only needs to receive one (either one) because Christ is present whole & entire under each species. You may receive both if you wish... I do sometimes.

the Mass is treated as being a literal continuation of Christ's actual death and sacrifice

Who treats the Mass like this? We commomerate Christ's passion at Mass but we also rejoice at His resurrection & receive Him in His glory.


This might be a good time to ask you a question. My Muslim friend (he's not practicing) once told me that Muslims view the cross as a defeat & humiliation. Your thoughts??? Do Muslims believe that Jesus Christ was crucified? Where do Muslims believe Jesus Christ is right now? Thanks :)

When Jesus was on the cross, He said, “It is finished” ... and there is no grace that can be obtained by “re-presenting” Him.

The Old Covenant has been fulfilled & is now complete. If there is no New Covenant then why are we still on earth? What's the point of life after the Paschal Mystery if grace can no longer be obtained?


Hmmm... are you a Muslim or a Christian, AlShamms???


I'll post another entry containing relevant info concerning symbolism/literalism & stance of the Early Church Fathers.

I apologize for the length of this post, but I believe the information to be useful.

Please don't apologize. It's quite all right :)

My username is "Curious Christian"...but I should change it to "Curious Catholic"...
I am in the midst of adult confirmation into the Catholic Church and will be received this Easter.

No need to change your name, Mate. Catholics are Christians :D You haven't changed faiths, just switched codes. You had half the truth & now you possess the fullness of it :)


I pray that the Holy Spirit continues to guide you on your path to Heaven.

So what you're saying is.... you eat Jesus' fingers, toes, and neck?

We don't eat parts. The Blessed Sacrament is Jesus' entire Flesh & Blood. It's not food for our bodies, but rather, Spiritual Food for our souls.

Do you get a hair stuck in your teeth ever?

If so, it would probably happen at the hands of a divine miracle. The Church would have to investigate it. There have been countless Eucharistic Miracles (Lanciano, Sacred Hosts of Sienna, Blood Stained Corporal in Bolsena - just to name a few). But don't be phased! As Jesus said, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe" (St John 20:29).

:popc1:

Hope you're enjoying the show!


<b>God bless.</b>

[Faith Hope Charity]

<b>In the name of God - Father Son Holy Spirit.</b>


I'm back from Mass & pumped for another round - LOL!

I'll post another entry containing relevant info concerning symbolism/literalism & stance of the Early Church Fathers.

CC's quotes from the Early Church Fathers are gold! I don't think it's neccasry for me to post more. I urge you to read the book CC recommended (the Lamb's Supper - Dr Scott Hahn). If you're like me & don't have time to read... buy the audio discs :) I give it 5 stars * * * * *


Speaking of brilliant books & admirable authors, here are some excerpts from "Defend the Faith" by Robert Haddad, explaining the various ways to interpret Jesus' sayings. Sorry, I couldn't shorten the length of it! I hope you find it helpful :)


Our Lord used words either literally or figuratively. The issue surrounding verses 35-71 is how to determine what meaning He intended to give.



Our Lord Himself gives us two basic rules to resolve this dilemma.


<b>Rule number one: When Our Lord spoke figuratively but was taken literally, He always corrected the mistake of His listeners immediately.</b>


<b>Example A:</b> <i>“Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees”</i> (St. Matt. 16:5).


The Apostles took these words literally and began to argue among themselves about the fact that they had no bread. Then Our Lord said, <i>“How is it that you fail to perceive that I did not speak about bread…Then they understood that he did not tell them to be aware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees”</i> (vv. 11-12).


<b>Example B:</b> <i>“Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awake him out of sleep”</i> (St. John 11:11).


The Apostles again took Our Lord literally and said, <i>“Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover” </i> (v. 12). Immediately came the correction, “Lazarus is dead” (v. 14).


<b>Example C:</b> <i>“…unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God” </i> (St. John 3:3).


Nicodemus automatically took these words literally and replied, <i>“How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”</i> (3:4). Our Lord’s answer immediately dispelled Nicodemus’ error, showing that He meant a spiritual, not physical, rebirth: <i>“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”</i> (3:5).


<b>Rule number two: When Our Lord spoke literally, and those who heard Him understood Him correctly but refused to accept what He said, He reasserted the literal meaning again more forcibly.</b>


<b>Example A:</b> <i>“Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven”</i> (St. Matt. 9:2).


The Scribes at hearing these words were greatly disturbed and said among themselves, <i>“This man is blaspheming” </i> (9:3). However, Christ did not try to water down or explain away His words but reasserted His claim to forgive sins by miraculously healing the paralytic before all.


<b>Example B:</b> <i>“Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day”</i> (St. John 8:56).


The Jews correctly understood Our Lord literally but rejected Him asserting, <i>“You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”</i> (8:57). Our Lord’s solemn reply, which brought forth the immediate wrath of the Jews and the risk of being stoned to death, was, <i>“Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I am”</i> (8, 58-59).


Keeping in mind these two rules, let us examine Our Lord’s discourse in St. John 6.


Our Lord proclaims <i>“I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh”</i> (vv. 48-51). The Jews present understood Christ literally but could not accept what He said:<i> “The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”</i> (v. 52). But Christ reinforced His literal meaning saying, <i>“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him”</i> (vv. 53-56).


Not satisfied with this, Our Lord went further and solemnly invoked His Father’s Name to confirm His meaning: <i>“As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever”</i> (vv. 57-58). Nevertheless, the Jews continued in their disbelief, seeing in Christ’s words a literal meaning that contradicted the Mosaic prohibition against the consumption of blood (Lev. 17:14): <i>“Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”</i> (v. 60). But knowing their murmuring, Christ again did not retreat or explain away His words, rather He implicitly asserted His own divine authority and future glorification: <i>“Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?”</i> (v. 62).


By now this was too much for the Jews who <i>“drew back and no longer went about with him”</i> (v. 66). Christ had now lost most of His long-time and closest followers but he allowed them to go even though He had earlier declared <i>“that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me”</i> (v. 39). Is it reasonable to believe that He would have allowed such a catastrophe over a simple misunderstanding, particularly in light of His established habit of correcting past misunderstandings? He went further still and challenged the Apostles themselves: <i>“Do you also wish to go away?”</i> (v. 67). Christ was prepared to lose all human support rather than deny the literal truth of His words.


This was the first apostasy from the Body of Christ recorded in history, an apostasy which even claimed one of the Apostles: <i>“For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him”</i> (v. 64). This apostasy continues in the denials of Protestantism, which since the sixteenth century has repeatedly said of Catholic belief in the Real Presence, <i>“This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”</i> Catholics, on the other hand, profess the faith of Simon Peter who, though not having full understanding himself, answered <i>“Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life”</i> (v. 68).


Most Fundamentalist authors claim that they can prove that Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing His words in St. John 6:35 <i>(“I am the bread of life”)</i> to verses such as St. John 10:9 <i>(“I am the door”)</i> and St. John 15:1 <i>(“I am the true vine”)</i>. The problem with such an argument, however, is that there is no connection between St. John 6:35 and these latter verses. Furthermore, St. John 10:9 and 15:1 make sense as metaphors while, as we shall see, St. John 6:35 does not. In addition, Our Lord Himself takes St. John 6:35 beyond symbolism by repeating four times the injunction <i>“to eat my flesh and drink my blood”</i> and saying <i>“for my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed”</i> (v. 55).


Another Protestant objection revolves around the claim that Christ’s phrase <i>“to eat his flesh and drink his blood”</i> was a figurative way of saying to believe and have faith in Him. There is some truth in the assertion that such a phrase had a figurative meaning. However, in the cultures of the Middle East it meant to calumniate, revile, attack or insult someone unjustly. It is, therefore, nonsense to argue that Christ would have used this phrase in the popular figurative sense, for that would have been tantamount to Christ asking His followers to sin against Him in order to inherit eternal life! It should also be noted that the Greek word used for “eat” in St. John literally means “to gnaw.” This is not the language of figuration.


A final Protestant appeal is also made to St. John 6:63: <i>“It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”</i> We are told that these words mean that the eating of flesh is of no spiritual value, and only faith can profit one unto eternal life. So, Christ could not have meant to eat His flesh in order to have life. The Catholic response is that Christ was, in reality, making an appeal to His listeners to trust Him on faith rather than try to rationalize His words in order to find their true meaning. In the previous verse (v. 62) Christ infers that His listeners would have had no difficulty accepting His words if they had seen Him in His original glory, that is, as the Son of God equal to the Father, for then His words would obviously be the words of God rather than the words of man––words of “spirit and life.”


To conclude, it is also necessary to examine the words of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians, chapters 10 and 11. In these chapters he sternly chastises the Corinthians for their idolatry and their poor attitude towards reception of the Eucharist. His language is remarkably literal and blunt:


<i>"I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ (10:1-4) … Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols … The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread (10:14-17) … You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons (10:21-22)…"</i>


In verses 1-4, St. Paul is regarding the manna, the water and the rock as types of things to come. This ties in with the words of Christ in St. John, outlined earlier, <i>“I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die”</i> (vv. 48-50). The early Christians saw the Eucharist as a fulfillment of the promised manna, but unlike those who ate the manna, he who eats the bread of the Eucharist will “live forever” (v. 51).


The language of verses 14-17 again is the type that excludes all sense of the figurative or symbolic. St. Paul speaks directly of “participation in the blood and body of Christ.” St. Paul uses even more striking language in chapter 11:


<i>"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died" (vv. 23-31). </i>


Some scholars believe this written account of the institution of the Eucharist predates all the Gospel accounts. Stephen Ray, a recent convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Christianity, comments on vv. 23-31 as follows:




"Being guilty of someone’s ‘body and blood’ was to be guilty of murder. How could one be guilty of murder if the body (bread) was only a symbol? The Real Presence of Christ’s Body is necessary for an offense to be committed against it. How could one be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ by simply eating a little bread and drinking a little wine?…St. Paul’s words are meaningless without the dogma of the Real Presence."

[Faith Hope Charity]

<b>From Jacques...</b>

It is taught in Roman dogma that the Mass is the resacrificing of Jesus Christ.

Wrong. Protestantism lives on ignorance, case in point. Once a Protestant knows, he will no longer remain a Protestant.

In practice, however, the wine ("blood") is withheld from the laity

Wrong again. Protestantism thrives on such ignorance. Christ is totally present under both species of bread and wine, thus to receive Him under the species of bread or wine means you have received all of Christ.


Furthermore, you are refering to the custom of the Latin rite, Eastern rites administer the holy sacrament under both species.

This very act alone shows the unscripturalness of this practice

You have no advantage over Satan in quoting and explaining the Sacred Scriptures.

Catholic apologists will sometimes calumniate by saying that the Mass is not a direct resacrifice

Calumniate ?! No, we simply point out to the ignorant and the malicious that we don't believing in any resacrificing.

"Re-presents" is defined specifically as "making present", hence the belief is in the "real presence" of the body and blood of Christ in the host and wine.

The two are not related. The making present of Christ's sacrifice is not why we say Christ is "really present" in the Holy Eucharist. We say "Real Presence" to confirm that Christ is present substantially (in His substance).


I will pass over your attempts at explaining Scriptures since, like I said, you have no advantage over Satan in quoting and interpreting the Sacred Scriptures. Once you can show me that you have an advantage over Satan in quoting and interpreting the Sacred Scriptures, we will discuss them.

The Egyptian belief likely is what was incorporated into the syncretistic "Christianity" of the late Roman Empire.

Ignorance strikes again. The Church has always believed in the Real Presence & the Transubstantiation, St. Paul explains it in his holy epistles, and you will abundantly find it in the writings of early Christians (for example, St. Ignatius of Antioch in AD107 defends it explicitly). Get some historical education and I will assure you that you will no longer remain a Protestant. Like the Anglican convert John Henry Newman said: whoever is deep in history ceases to be a Protestant. Try http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/realp.htm and http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/trans.htm

Here, Justin states that the bread and the cup were given to Christians for the purpose of remembrance.

Being ignorant of the Sacred Scriptures and the teachings of the holy Apostles, you are unaware that remembrance is a specific type of sacrifice. Read the website I gave you in my former post and you will have an idea on what "remembrance" really is.

Here we see Tertullian referring to the body of Christ as a "figure of bread". clearly saying that the identification is not to be taken literally.

"This tree it is which Jeremiah likewise gives you intimation of, when he prophesies to the Jews, who should say, 'Come, let us destroy the tree with the fruit, (the bread) thereof,' that is, His body. For so did God in your own gospel even reveal the sense, when He called His body bread; so that, for the time to come, you may understand that He has given to His body the figure of bread, whose body the prophet of old figuratively turned into bread, the Lord Himself designing to give by and by an interpretation of the mystery.""


Tertullian is not even talking about the Holy Eucharist, He is refuting the Docetist heretics who denied that Christ had real flesh, & one of his arguments is that the Holy Eucharist was Christ's real flesh :)


The sentence you quoted concerns the prophesy of Jeremiah which says that they will put the bread on a tree, Tertullian explains that by this prophesy Christ "He has given to His body the figure of bread", i.e. His body which will be crucified on a tree.


As for the other quote, when you provide references, we will explain.

So what you're saying is.... you eat Jesus' fingers, toes, and neck?

Of course. His Body was a real Body with fingers, toes, and a neck. When He says "Eat, this is My Body", that includes all of His Body.


However, as "Faith Hope Charity" has already pointed out, we don't eat Christ in parts, because He is wholly present in every particle of the sacred species.

Do you get a hair stuck in your teeth ever?

No, because it is eaten under the accidents of bread and wine :)


<b>By the way... the question I asked in my previous post is addressed to Muslims, not AlShamms. I didn't really specify...</b>


<b>"This might be a good time to ask you (Muslims) a question. My Muslim friend (he's not practicing) once told me that Muslims view the cross as a defeat & humiliation. Your thoughts??? Do Muslims believe that Jesus Christ was crucified? Where do Muslims believe Jesus Christ is right now? Thanks :)</b>



<b>God bless.</b>

[Curious Christian]

Protestantism lives on ignorance, case in point. Once a Protestant knows, he will no longer remain a Protestant.

Amen.


I was joking about chaning my name to "Curious Catholic" as being Catholic is being Christian.

[AlShamms]

Peace.....


It amazes me how some people set standards then don't adhire to them.


FHC, you stated:

Please let's not allow this discussion to turn into a debate. Muslims... we, Christians will deal with your queries. There's no point in asking us questions & then providing convenient answers for yourselves. Christians... keep in mind that we are proclaiming the Word of God & we must do so in the loving manner Jesus taught us... without personal attacks. This is not a battle! We can all learn a lot from one another

Yet in your quest to be correct you've called me ignorant, questioned my religious belief and stated I don't interpret scripture as well as Satan does. (At least, I believe that was the point you were trying to get across) Interesting. I also notice that when people cannot deal with what you say, they make up some absurd reasoning for not addressing it, For instance in order for them to consider what you say, you must prove your ability to interpret scripture to their approval. And if what you say does not meet their approval, they don't respond to the points you've made.


Seems to me to be a contradiction between your words and your actions. Anyway, let's continue.


Through all the information passed back and forth, I found this one thing to be telling....


In the King James Translation we read:


(Matthew 26:26) And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.



(Matthew 26:27) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;



(Matthew 26:28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.



Christ said the bread was his body, the wine his blood. Now then, what SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE do either you FHC or CC have to make the following claim:

After consecration, the substance of bread becomes the Blood, Body, Soul & Divinity of Christ & the wine becomes the Blood, Body, Soul & Divinity of Christ. The Priest MUST consecrate both on the altar, however, the congregation only needs to receive one (either one) because Christ is present whole & entire under each species.

This to me seems a contradiction in what Christ said, and what the Roman dogma teaches. Albert Barnes writes on the subject of Matthew 26:26 -


<b>"This is my body"</b> - This represents my body. This broken bread shows the manner in which my body will be broken; or this will serve to recall my dying sufferings to your remembrance. It is not meant that his body would be literally “broken” as the bread was, but that the bread would be a significant emblem or symbol to recall to their recollection his sufferings. It is not improbable that our Lord pointed to the broken bread, or laid his hands on it, as if he had said, “Lo, my body!” or, “Behold my body! - that which “represents” my broken body to you.” This “could not” be intended to mean that that bread was literally his body. It was not. His body was then before them “living.” And there is no greater absurdity than to imagine his “living body” there changed at once to a “dead body,” and then the bread to be changed into that dead body, and that all the while the “living” body of Jesus was before them.



Yet this is the absurd and impossible doctrine of the Roman Catholics, holding that the “bread” and “wine” were literally changed into the “body and blood” of our Lord. The language employed by the Saviour was in accordance with a common mode of speaking among the Jews, and exactly similar to that used by Moses at the institution of the Passover (Exodus 12:11) “It” - that is, the lamb - “is the Lord’s Passover.” That is, the lamb and the feast “represent” the Lord’s “passing over” the houses of the Israelites. It serves to remind you of it. It surely cannot be meant that that lamb was the literal “passing over” their houses - a palpable absurdity - but that it represented it. So Paul and Luke say of the bread, “This is my body broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.” This expresses the whole design of the sacramental bread. It is to call to “remembrance,” in a vivid manner, the dying sufferings of our Lord. The sacred writers, moreover, often denote that one thing is represented by another by using the word is. (See Matthew 13:37) “He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man” - that is, represents the Son of man. (See also John 15:1, 15:5)


The meaning of this important passage may be thus expressed: “As I give this broken bread to you to eat, so will I deliver my body to be afflicted and slain for your sins.”


Shamms

[Faith Hope Charity]

Peace.....

Peace brother!

It amazes me how some people set standards then don't adhire to them.
Yet in your quest to be correct you've called me ignorant, questioned my religious belief and stated I don't interpret scripture as well as Satan does. (At least, I believe that was the point you were trying to get across) Interesting.

LOL! AlShamms, I didn't say those things... my friend Jacques did. I didn't think it was fair to edit his comments before posting them (he's still waiting for authorization to access the boards). I'm sure he didn't mean anything bad by what he said. He's an admirable Christian. I think you misunderstood the Satan point. Anyways, I'll let him respond when he's ready.

I also notice that when people cannot deal with what you say, they make up some absurd reasoning for not addressing it, For instance in order for them to consider what you say, you must prove your ability to interpret scripture to their approval. And if what you say does not meet their approval, they don't respond to the points you've made.

AlShamms, you & I can both attempt to interpret Scripture, but at the end of the day, the Holy Bible is the property of the Catholic Church (a whole other issue) & so our private interpretation doesn't bind universal Christians. It's the Church's duty to teach, govern & sanctify us, considering she put the books of the Bible together in the 4th Century AD... under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who protects her from error. What did Christians do during the fist 3 centuries when there was no "official" Bible? I'm not saying we shouldn't read the Bible (I read it every night) but what's going to happen when everyone appoints themselves to be the Pope? You'll end up with 50 000 different Christian denominations, which is the result of "Sola Scriptura". There are 50 000 various Christians Churches around the world! It's ridiculous man!!! Obviously only one interpretation is right - Christ did not build His Church on 50 000 different "Rocks of Faith". How do the Baptists prove that they're right & the Lutherans are wrong? How do the Methodists prove that they're right & the Presbyterians are wrong?... etc! The Catholic Church can trace its roots back to the Apostles: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm One more thing to keep in mind, Martin Luther was way more Catholic than Protestants are today!

Seems to me to be a contradiction between your words and your actions. Anyway, let's continue.

Mate, I'm not perfect (I go to confession almost every week). Sorry if I crossed the line. I'm try to remain calm in future :)

In the King James Translation we read:

Not a bad translation! I'm looking forward to the Catholic edition :)

The language employed by the Saviour was in accordance with a common mode of speaking among the Jews, and exactly similar to that used by Moses at the institution of the Passover (Exodus 12:11) “It” - that is, the lamb - “is the Lord’s Passover.” That is, the lamb and the feast “represent” the Lord’s “passing over” the houses of the Israelites. It serves to remind you of it. It surely cannot be meant that that lamb was the literal “passing over” their houses - a palpable absurdity - but that it represented it.

Dude, do yourself a favour & read "The Lamb's Supper". Passover was a prefigurement of the Lord's Supper. Remember when St John the Baptist professed that Jesus Christ is the "Lamb of God"??? There's so much I wanna say to you right now! The Mass is deeply imbedded in the Book of Revelation... I can't even begin to tell ya! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read Scott Hahn's book! Even if you don't agree with it in the end, it'll at least help you understand the Mass better :)

This to me seems a contradiction in what Christ said

I'm sorry you feel that way. Let's say "hypothetically" (for you) that Jesus really did mean for us to understand that the Eucharist was meant to be His real Body and Blood. What words would He have to use to signify that?


http://scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html - Worth checking out!


AlShamms, are you Pentecostal? My friend is a pastor & he invited me along to one of their services. I might go this Sunday... after Mass ;)


God bless.

[Faith Hope Charity]

<b>Peace be with all!</b>



Here is probably the last entry Jacques will post for a while. Please keep him in your prayers. Thanks!


First of all, I am sorry for the confusion that resulted from having my friend 'Faith Hope Charity' post my words for me. I have registered several days ago but I still can't post anything.


Mr. AlShamms:

Yet in your quest to be correct you've called me ignorant

Yes, because you said "<i>It is taught in Roman dogma that the Mass is the resacrificing of Jesus Christ."</i> This could be said either by ignorance or by malice. I prefer to think that it was by ignorance. If you knew that this statement was false and said it by malice, please correct me.


You also said "<i>In practice, however, the wine ("blood") is withheld from the laity</i>", which is also untrue, since 1) the blood of Christ is received under either species 2) Eastern rites administer the holy mystery under both species.


You also said "<i>The Egyptian belief likely is what was incorporated into the syncretistic "Christianity" of the late Roman Empire,</i>" when in reality we see explicit statements of the Church's belief in Transubstantiation & the Real Presence since the 1st & 2nd centuries.


You also did not know that "remembrance" is a specific type of sacrifice described throughout the Sacred Scriptures.


I think you made these errors by ignorance and not by malice.

and stated I don't interpret scripture as well as Satan does.

That's not exactly what I meant :)


I meant: Satan himself quoted the Sacred Scriptures and interpreted them in a false way (cf. Mat. 4). What makes your interpretations of the Sacred Scriptures better than Satan's interpretations? If your authority of interpretation is the same as Satan's (or even inferior), then why do you believe in it, and try to convince us of it ?


I don't accept Satan's interpretations of the Sacred Scriptures, why should I accept yours? What makes your interpretations of the Sacred Scriptures better than Satan's?

For instance in order for them to consider what you say, you must prove your ability to interpret scripture to their approval.

I don't just accept anyone's interpretations of the Sacred Scriptures, since Satan himself quoted and interpreted the Sacred Scriptures. Unless you give me a valid reason & show me your authority that makes me accept your interpretation, I will not even begin to consider it.


I refuse to discuss any Scriptures with you simply because you, like Satan, have no authority to interpret them.


You don't even have any real basis to consider them God's inspired word (since your only divine authority is the Bible, and the Bible nowhere gives a list of inspired books). You accept that this collection of books is God's word based on human tradition, you interpret them according to human understanding, and say to us: "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written..."


The same goes for Mr. Albert Barnes.


Rightly did St. Vincent of Lerins say of you in A.D. 495:


[68.] But some one will say, What proof have we that the Devil is wont to appeal to Holy Scripture? Let him read the Gospels wherein it is written, "Then the Devil took Him (the Lord the Saviour) and set Him upon a pinnacle of the Temple, and said unto Him: If you be the Son of God, cast yourself down, for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning you, that they may keep you in all your ways: In their hands they shall bear you up, lest perchance you dash your foot against a stone." What sort of treatment must men, insignificant wretches that they are, look for at the hands of him who assailed even the Lord of Glory with quotations from Scripture? "If you be the Son of God," says he, "cast yourself down." Wherefore? "For," says he, "it is written." It behoves us to pay special attention to this passage and bear it in mind, that, warned by so important an instance of evangelical authority, we may be assured beyond doubt, when we find people alleging passages from the Apostles or Prophets against the Catholic Faith, that the Devil speaks through their mouths. For as then the Head spoke to the Head, so now also the members speak to the members, the members of the Devil to the members of Christ, misbelievers to believers, sacrilegious to religious, in one word, Heretics to Catholics.


[69.] But what do they say? "If you be the Son of God, cast yourself down;" that is, If you would be a son of God, and would receive the inheritance of the Kingdom of Heaven, cast yourself down; that is, cast yourself down from the doctrine and tradition of that sublime Church, which is imagined to be nothing less than the very temple of God. And if one should ask one of the heretics who gives this advice, How do you prove? What ground have you, for saying, that I ought to cast away the universal and ancient faith of the Catholic Church? he has the answer ready, "For it is written;" and forthwith he produces a thousand testimonies, a thousand examples, a thousand authorities from the Law, from the Psalms, from the apostles, from the Prophets, by means of which, interpreted on a new and wrong principle, the unhappy soul may be precipitated from the height of Catholic truth to the lowest abyss of heresy. Then, with the accompanying promises, the heretics are wont marvellously to beguile the incautious. For they dare to teach and promise, that in their church, that is, in the conventicle of their communion, there is a certain great and special and altogether personal grace of God, so that whosoever pertain to their number, without any labour, without any effort, without any industry, even though they neither ask, nor seek, nor knock, have such a dispensation from God, that, borne up by angel hands, that is, preserved by the protection of angels, it is impossible they should ever dash their feet against a stone, that is, that they should ever be offended. (ch. 26)


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm


<b>I will just add one thing... Shamms, I do not even the authority to interpret Scripture, being Catholic & all. I cannot expect anybody to accept my private interpretation. Christ instructed St Peter to bind all believers by teaching, governing & sanctifying them in truth. Sacred Scripture & Sacred Tradition cannot be seperated.</b>



God bless you & yours.