Bread of Life is Hard to Swallow

[littlejoe]

Dear Socrates4Jesus.. My friend to me you seem to be mixing things up a bit. You write of the Catholic Church and then write the difference between the way the Protestant Churches view the different practices about The Lord's Table. Surely you know all The different Churches have differnt doctrines. I have many brothers and sisters in Christ in both Traditions. I can't qoute you bible verses for you,I will leave that for others who are more equiped to do that. I will however give my thoughts on what you are asking. I believe Jesus was speaking of spiritual things when he said this. I don't believe that the bread and wine actually become the Body and Blood when the priest says this at a mass. I believe the communion is meant to remind us. I am not sure where in the bible this is but as often as you do this you do it memory of me until I come. I am not knocking the catholics here many of my family practice that religion. I don't practice any religion. By the Grace of God I walk in the Faith of God and The Freedom of Christ Jesus my Lord. The bible says Jesus was only sacrificed once. I believe the members of the catholic church believe He is sacrificed at the mass each time communion is given. I am willing to be corrected if am wrong. There is nothing I can do to earn heaven I never deserved it nor can I earn it. If you fell you want to join the catholic church then do so. May I suggest that you place your faith in Jesus alone not in any church you may wish to belong to. Love in Christ littlejoe

[Michael.]

Dear Socrates4Jesus.. My friend to me you seem to be mixing things up a bit. You write of the Catholic Church and then write the difference between the way the Protestant Churches view the different practices about The Lord's Table. Surely you know all The different Churches have differnt doctrines. I have many brothers and sisters in Christ in both Traditions. I can't qoute you bible verses for you,I will leave that for others who are more equiped to do that. I will however give my thoughts on what you are asking. I believe Jesus was speaking of spiritual things when he said this. I don't believe that the bread and wine actually become the Body and Blood when the priest says this at a mass. I believe the communion is meant to remind us. I am not sure where in the bible this is but as often as you do this you do it memory of me until I come. I am not knocking the catholics here many of my family practice that religion. I don't practice any religion. By the Grace of God I walk in the Faith of God and The Freedom of Christ Jesus my Lord. The bible says Jesus was only sacrificed once. I believe the members of the catholic church believe He is sacrificed at the mass each time communion is given. I am willing to be corrected if am wrong. There is nothing I can do to earn heaven I never deserved it nor can I earn it. If you fell you want to join the catholic church then do so. May I suggest that you place your faith in Jesus alone not in any church you may wish to belong to. Love in Christ littlejoe

Hey Joe,

I remember reading a book back in college about an exorcism that occured back in 1566 in France. The exorcism was of a girl named Audrey I believe who at first had an apparition of a soul who wanted to be released from Purgatory and then this demon who was tricking her possessed her. She went before a group of protestant ministers and they tried everything they could to release her from the demon. However, they could not and the demon just laughed at them calling them his slaves. Then the ministers took one of their hosts from communion and they put it in front of the girls face and the demon laughed again at them saying that the host that they held contained no power of it since it was not the true body of Christ, they did not have the power to consecrate it and the demon continued to curse them and laugh. The protestant ministers called in a Dominican Priest and some other local clergy who came in and confronted the demon. They brought in a consecrated Eucharistic host and laid it before the demon who immediately screemed and yelled about it, saying this was the true body of Christ and he would leave the girl if only they took the host off. Many of the protestants witnessing the exorcism converted including some of the clergy. I searched for this on google for about an hour before finding a link. I have not read the link in its entirety, however I think it does give some historical reference that this exorcism did indeed take place. Here is the link: http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH35/cunn1.html

ABC's 20/20 did a report on exorcism and they witnessed one live - you can see in this too that the woman possessed is being exorcised with a host near her face as well. *edit links* With the power of our DNA technology today, scientists have linked up a Eucharistic Miracle from the middle ages and have analyzed the blood that came from a consecrated host and have matched it with the Shroud of Turin.

As a Catholic, I don't know what I would do without being able to recieve communion. For me it is not just a piece of bread, it is the body and blood of Christ and the abundant graces that I recieve from it keep me alive spiritually and physically.

For a person who banks so much on the validicity of the bible and the absolute truth of it, I find it sad that protestants don't take Christ literally in one passage and then take another passage as literally when it is clearly allegory. You either believe the bible 100% or you don't. There shouldn't be any if/or/and's in there about what Jesus was saying in one passage vs another.

If Jesus was able to multiply a few loaves of bread and fish to feed a crowd of 5,000 men not counting the women and childen, then wouldn't he also be able to multiply himself into his own creation? Jesus also caused great distress to his apostles when he told them that "Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood you shall not have everlasting life". He repeated this 3 different ways to convince his disciples that what he was saying wasn't just allegory or comparative to something, it was just as he was saying. It is also interesting to note, that the last supper wasn't the first sacrifice containing bread and wine. In the old testament you can read on Malkiezedek who offered God bread and wine as a sacrifice which was very uncommon back then when animal sacrifice was the norm.

I think I could go on about this topic forever, so I will just end it here. I hope this helps to answer a few questions as well as challenging you to dig further and research more on the validity of the Eucharist and what it really contains and not what you think it symbolizes.

Pax Tecum,

Michael

[nebula]

... They brought in a consecrated Eucharistic host and laid it before the demon who immediately screemed and yelled about it, saying this was the true body of Christ and he would leave the girl if only they took the host off. Many of the protestants witnessing the exorcism converted including some of the clergy. I searched for this on google for about an hour before finding a link. I have not read the link in its entirety, however I think it does give some historical reference that this exorcism did indeed take place. Here is the link: http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH35/cunn1.html

I read through this account, and there is one thing mentioned that bothers me:

"In the days that followed this initially successful exorcism, Nicole was repeatedly repossessed. Each time, only the host was effective in exorcising the demon."

Note the bolded part.

Demons are masters of deception. This makes me wonder if the demons actually left her. As far as anyone can tell, they were playing a game with everyone, making them think there was something special about the consecrated bread, when in fact there was not.

Did a demon ever repossess a person that Jesus cast out?

[Michael.]

... They brought in a consecrated Eucharistic host and laid it before the demon who immediately screemed and yelled about it, saying this was the true body of Christ and he would leave the girl if only they took the host off. Many of the protestants witnessing the exorcism converted including some of the clergy. I searched for this on google for about an hour before finding a link. I have not read the link in its entirety, however I think it does give some historical reference that this exorcism did indeed take place. Here is the link: http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH35/cunn1.html

I read through this account, and there is one thing mentioned that bothers me:

"In the days that followed this initially successful exorcism, Nicole was repeatedly repossessed. Each time, only the host was effective in exorcising the demon."

Note the bolded part.

Demons are masters of deception. This makes me wonder if the demons actually left her. As far as anyone can tell, they were playing a game with everyone, making them think there was something special about the consecrated bread, when in fact there was not.

Did a demon ever repossess a person that Jesus cast out?

This is the only passage that I found in the bible containing a person that was exorcised and recieved a demon again. Mt 12:43-45. I don't think that once someone is exorcised that they are locked down from all evil, I think they are more likely to be repossessed again if they allow themselves to fall back into a bad sin or practice another evil.

However, I do know of many exorcisms where the devil/demons will pretend to leave in hopes that the person exorcising them will leave thinking they won the battle.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Michael.

[Michael.]

... They brought in a consecrated Eucharistic host and laid it before the demon who immediately screemed and yelled about it, saying this was the true body of Christ and he would leave the girl if only they took the host off. Many of the protestants witnessing the exorcism converted including some of the clergy. I searched for this on google for about an hour before finding a link. I have not read the link in its entirety, however I think it does give some historical reference that this exorcism did indeed take place. Here is the link: http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH35/cunn1.html

I read through this account, and there is one thing mentioned that bothers me:

"In the days that followed this initially successful exorcism, Nicole was repeatedly repossessed. Each time, only the host was effective in exorcising the demon."

Note the bolded part.

Demons are masters of deception. This makes me wonder if the demons actually left her. As far as anyone can tell, they were playing a game with everyone, making them think there was something special about the consecrated bread, when in fact there was not.

Did a demon ever repossess a person that Jesus cast out?

This is the only passage that I found in the bible containing a person that was exorcised and recieved a demon again. Mt 12:43-45. I don't think that once someone is exorcised that they are locked down from all evil, I think they are more likely to be repossessed again if they allow themselves to fall back into a bad sin or practice another evil.

However, I do know of many exorcisms where the devil/demons will pretend to leave in hopes that the person exorcising them will leave thinking they won the battle.

I just found another passage talking about the demon coming back and being worse than the original in the previously possessed person. Luke 11:24-26

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Michael, I have problem with the story too only in the effect that we see demons cast out in scripture and even by the seventy sent out. They return rejoicing that even the demons are subject to us under the name of Jesus. No where were they given the eucharist (in fact it wasn't even consecrated yet), it was the name of Jesus at which these demons came out.

Scripture is built up line upon line and precept upon precept so that assertions in the Word support themselves.

I see no support for the argument that the eucharist casts out demons, except the testimony of demons who appear to have lied. If these demons needed the very presence of Jesuses flesh and blood, how is it that the seventy were enabled to cast out the demons?

Peace,

Dave

[Michael.]

Grace to you,

Michael, I have problem with the story too only in the effect that we see demons cast out in scripture and even by the seventy sent out. They return rejoicing that even the demons are subject to us under the name of Jesus. No where were they given the eucharist (in fact it wasn't even consecrated yet), it was the name of Jesus at which these demons came out.

Scripture is built up line upon line and precept upon precept so that assertions in the Word support themselves.

I see no support for the argument that the eucharist casts out demons, except the testimony of demons who appear to have lied. If these demons needed the very presence of Jesuses flesh and blood, how is it that the seventy were enabled to cast out the demons?

Peace,

Dave

Dave I agree with you for the most part! Exorcisms are carried out in Jesus name, I have rarely seen the host used to cast out demons in as far as the bit of research I have performed on the subject. However, I do not think that God would have a problem with someone using his body and word to remove a demon from a possessed person. I was merely using that case as an example that the Demon who during an exorcism cannot lie when he is invoked to tell the truth in Jesus' name, therefore his understanding of the consecrated host vs the non consecrated host attests to the validity of the Catholic standing. I think you misunderstood my reasoning behind posting that example.

Pax,

Michael

Edited April 4, 2009 by Michael.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Michael, I have problem with the story too only in the effect that we see demons cast out in scripture and even by the seventy sent out. They return rejoicing that even the demons are subject to us under the name of Jesus. No where were they given the eucharist (in fact it wasn't even consecrated yet), it was the name of Jesus at which these demons came out.

Scripture is built up line upon line and precept upon precept so that assertions in the Word support themselves.

I see no support for the argument that the eucharist casts out demons, except the testimony of demons who appear to have lied. If these demons needed the very presence of Jesuses flesh and blood, how is it that the seventy were enabled to cast out the demons?

Peace,

Dave

Dave I agree with you for the most part! Exorcisms are carried out in Jesus name, I have rarely seen the host used to cast out demons in as far as the bit of research I have performed on the subject. However, I do not think that God would have a problem with someone using his body and word to remove a demon from a possessed person. I was merely using that case as an example that the Demon who during an exorcism cannot lie when he is invoked to tell the truth in Jesus' name, therefore his understanding of the consecrated host vs the non consecrated host attests to the validity of the Catholic standing. I think you misunderstood my reasoning behind posting that example.

Pax,

Michael

Mike,

Here's the problem, the testimony of a demon isn't worth anything. As a matter of fact when a demon posessed woman was following Paul stating an obvious fact, he silenced it under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus did the same and Paul was following suit because these were not the proper heralds of the Gospel Truth such as they would likely take advantage and pervert it even as we see in the Church today.

That's the problem with your reference, it is the testimony of a demon and thus subject at best.

Peace,

Dave

[Michael.]

Grace to you,

Michael, I have problem with the story too only in the effect that we see demons cast out in scripture and even by the seventy sent out. They return rejoicing that even the demons are subject to us under the name of Jesus. No where were they given the eucharist (in fact it wasn't even consecrated yet), it was the name of Jesus at which these demons came out.

Scripture is built up line upon line and precept upon precept so that assertions in the Word support themselves.

I see no support for the argument that the eucharist casts out demons, except the testimony of demons who appear to have lied. If these demons needed the very presence of Jesuses flesh and blood, how is it that the seventy were enabled to cast out the demons?

Peace,

Dave

Dave I agree with you for the most part! Exorcisms are carried out in Jesus name, I have rarely seen the host used to cast out demons in as far as the bit of research I have performed on the subject. However, I do not think that God would have a problem with someone using his body and word to remove a demon from a possessed person. I was merely using that case as an example that the Demon who during an exorcism cannot lie when he is invoked to tell the truth in Jesus' name, therefore his understanding of the consecrated host vs the non consecrated host attests to the validity of the Catholic standing. I think you misunderstood my reasoning behind posting that example.

Pax,

Michael

Mike,

Here's the problem, the testimony of a demon isn't worth anything. As a matter of fact when a demon posessed woman was following Paul stating an obvious fact, he silenced it under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus did the same and Paul was following suit because these were not the proper heralds of the Gospel Truth such as they would likely take advantage and pervert it even as we see in the Church today.

That's the problem with your reference, it is the testimony of a demon and thus subject at best.

Peace,

Dave

Dave,

I can understand your tepidity towards this, however can you explain to me why then the protestant ministers couldn't cast out the demon and when they tried further the demon laughed and them and told them that they held no power over him that they were his slaves? I see my link was removed up there regarding the youtube video, however there is too many historical facts pertaining to the body of Christ to discount it.

Pax,

Michael

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Michael, I have problem with the story too only in the effect that we see demons cast out in scripture and even by the seventy sent out. They return rejoicing that even the demons are subject to us under the name of Jesus. No where were they given the eucharist (in fact it wasn't even consecrated yet), it was the name of Jesus at which these demons came out.

Scripture is built up line upon line and precept upon precept so that assertions in the Word support themselves.

I see no support for the argument that the eucharist casts out demons, except the testimony of demons who appear to have lied. If these demons needed the very presence of Jesuses flesh and blood, how is it that the seventy were enabled to cast out the demons?

Peace,

Dave

Dave I agree with you for the most part! Exorcisms are carried out in Jesus name, I have rarely seen the host used to cast out demons in as far as the bit of research I have performed on the subject. However, I do not think that God would have a problem with someone using his body and word to remove a demon from a possessed person. I was merely using that case as an example that the Demon who during an exorcism cannot lie when he is invoked to tell the truth in Jesus' name, therefore his understanding of the consecrated host vs the non consecrated host attests to the validity of the Catholic standing. I think you misunderstood my reasoning behind posting that example.

Pax,

Michael

Mike,

Here's the problem, the testimony of a demon isn't worth anything. As a matter of fact when a demon posessed woman was following Paul stating an obvious fact, he silenced it under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus did the same and Paul was following suit because these were not the proper heralds of the Gospel Truth such as they would likely take advantage and pervert it even as we see in the Church today.

That's the problem with your reference, it is the testimony of a demon and thus subject at best.

Peace,

Dave

Dave,

I can understand your tepidity towards this, however can you explain to me why then the protestant ministers couldn't cast out the demon and when they tried further the demon laughed and them and told them that they held no power over him that they were his slaves? I see my link was removed up there regarding the youtube video, however there is too many historical facts pertaining to the body of Christ to discount it.

Pax,

Michael

Michael,

Jesus said this when confronted with the very same subject;

Mt