Jump to content
IGNORED

ERROR OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION (1215 AD).


Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Members *
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  176
  • Topics Per Day:  0.07
  • Content Count:  870
  • Content Per Day:  0.35
  • Reputation:   330
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/23/2017
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  01/22/1968

ERROR OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION (1215 AD).
 
Definition: The whole substance of the bread and wine is converted into the actual and
real entire body and blood of Christ.
 
Answer: Radbertus first invented this doctrine in the 9th century. Catholics support this by a
literal view of Matthew 26:26-29. "Take eat; this is my body. For this is my blood of
the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
 
Consider these reasons why the bread and wine were symbols of Christ’s body and blood,
to be partaken in for remembrance purposes only, and that there was no material
conversion of the bread to the body, nor of the wine to the blood of Christ.
 
1. Jesus, after saying "this is my blood" in Matthew 26:28 also said "I will not drink
henceforth of this FRUIT OF THIS VINE" in Matthew 26:29, showing that the
grapejuice was STILL WINE and had not been changed to blood.
 
2. Jesus often referred to Himself in symbols. So why see Him as literal in a symbolic
context?
 
John 10:7 "I am the door." Did Jesus mean he was literally wooden? No.
 
John 14:6 "I am the way." Did Jesus mean he was literally a road? No.
 
John 15:5 "I am the vine." Did Jesus mean he was literally a tree? No.
 
John 8:12 "I am the light." Did Jesus mean he was literally a torch or a sun? No.
 
John 6:48 "I am the bread of life." Did Jesus mean he was literally a loaf of dough? No.
 
John 6:63 states clearly that Jesus was speaking spiritually, not literally: "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life."
 
Luke 22:19 states clearly that the Lord's supper is for remembrance purposes: "This do in remembrance of me." This is a metaphor, where one thing is said to be another thing because of it’s similarity. A metaphor is a figurative use of terms without indicating their figurative nature, for example, “he shall eat his words”.
 
3. The bread and wine did not become Christ's body and blood because:
 
a) Christ was still present with them. Christ would have had 2 bodies, one which died on the cross and one which did not.
 
b) To drink blood was forbidden in Acts 15:20,29 "We write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from BLOOD."
 
In Deuteronomy 12:16 "Only ye shall not eat the blood."
 
4. The tense of the Greek verbs "EAT" in John 6:50,51,52,53,54,56,57,58 is in the AORIST tense showing a ONCE-FOR-ALL, point action, that is NOT CONTINUAL.
 
The Biblical Lord's supper is to be a repeated event, and therefore has no saving merit. Roman Catholics are commanded to believe in transubstantiation because it was stated at the Council of Trent (11 October 1551) that this doctrine was essential for salvation. They pronounced curses on anyone who would deny it.
 
Paul the Apostle, in contrast, pronounced a double curse on anyone who preached a gospel different from the all sufficiency of Christ's death, burial and resurrection to save us from our sins. Galatians 1:6-9 puts a double curse on this "other gospel" of transubstantiation for salvation.
 
5. Before Christ ascended to heaven, He promised to come to us during the Church Age, NOT in the sacrifice of the MASS, but by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-18 as Comforter): "He shall give you another Comforter ... even the Spirit of truth ... I will not leave you comfortless: I WILL COME TO YOU.” Note: Christ will return to earth a second time visibly in glory. This is what is meant by 1 Corinthians 11:26 "For as oftenas ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death TILL HE COME."
 
Note: This means that Christ does not come literally and visibly as the wafer in the mass, but to the air as in 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17.
 
6. At the Council of Constance in 1415 it was agreed to withold the cup from the congregation lest the wine be spilt. However this contradicts 1 Corinthians 11:25-29 where ALL Corinthian believers drank of the wine: "Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup unworthily." v.27. Drinking the cup is mentioned six times in five verses. Transubstantiation is not a mystery, but an absurdity; not a difficulty but a contradiction.
 
Question: How then do we eat his flesh and drink his blood?
 
Answer: Through the WORD OF GOD.
 
John 6:63 "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
 
John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh."
 
John 5:24 "He that heareth my Word and believeth on him that sent me, has everlasting life."
 
The scribes who knew Jeremiah 31:31-34, "I will put my law in their inward parts", and
Jeremiah 15:16, "Thy words were found and I DID EAT THEM; and thy word was unto me
the joy and rejoicing of mine heart", understood the idea of receiving God's Word into one’s
inner being.
 
Peter got the message, while others planned to desert Jesus:
 
"Thou hast the WORDS of eternal life." John 6:68.
 
"Being born again ... by the WORD of God." 1 Peter 1:23-25.
 
Peter knew that Jesus was speaking about the WORD of God, and not about literal flesh
and blood.
 
Question: If this doctrine of transubstantiation only arose in the 9th century, and if it is so
necessary to Roman Catholic salvation, what happened to those who lived before the 9th
century not believing this doctrine? Did they all go to hell?
 
Question: What about the thief on the cross who repented and never took the wafer? Did
he go to hell? 
 
No! Jesus said he went to paradise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  194
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/12/2018
  • Status:  Offline

On 5/6/2018 at 4:55 AM, KiwiChristian said:
ERROR OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION (1215 AD).
 
Definition: The whole substance of the bread and wine is converted into the actual and
real entire body and blood of Christ.
 
Answer: Radbertus first invented this doctrine in the 9th century. Catholics support this by a
literal view of Matthew 26:26-29. "Take eat; this is my body. For this is my blood of
the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
 
Consider these reasons why the bread and wine were symbols of Christ’s body and blood,
to be partaken in for remembrance purposes only, and that there was no material
conversion of the bread to the body, nor of the wine to the blood of Christ.
 
1. Jesus, after saying "this is my blood" in Matthew 26:28 also said "I will not drink
henceforth of this FRUIT OF THIS VINE" in Matthew 26:29, showing that the
grapejuice was STILL WINE and had not been changed to blood.
 
2. Jesus often referred to Himself in symbols. So why see Him as literal in a symbolic
context?
 
John 10:7 "I am the door." Did Jesus mean he was literally wooden? No.
 
John 14:6 "I am the way." Did Jesus mean he was literally a road? No.
 
John 15:5 "I am the vine." Did Jesus mean he was literally a tree? No.
 
John 8:12 "I am the light." Did Jesus mean he was literally a torch or a sun? No.
 
John 6:48 "I am the bread of life." Did Jesus mean he was literally a loaf of dough? No.
 
John 6:63 states clearly that Jesus was speaking spiritually, not literally: "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life."
 
Luke 22:19 states clearly that the Lord's supper is for remembrance purposes: "This do in remembrance of me." This is a metaphor, where one thing is said to be another thing because of it’s similarity. A metaphor is a figurative use of terms without indicating their figurative nature, for example, “he shall eat his words”.
 
3. The bread and wine did not become Christ's body and blood because:
 
a) Christ was still present with them. Christ would have had 2 bodies, one which died on the cross and one which did not.
 
b) To drink blood was forbidden in Acts 15:20,29 "We write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from BLOOD."
 
In Deuteronomy 12:16 "Only ye shall not eat the blood."
 
4. The tense of the Greek verbs "EAT" in John 6:50,51,52,53,54,56,57,58 is in the AORIST tense showing a ONCE-FOR-ALL, point action, that is NOT CONTINUAL.
 
The Biblical Lord's supper is to be a repeated event, and therefore has no saving merit. Roman Catholics are commanded to believe in transubstantiation because it was stated at the Council of Trent (11 October 1551) that this doctrine was essential for salvation. They pronounced curses on anyone who would deny it.
 
Paul the Apostle, in contrast, pronounced a double curse on anyone who preached a gospel different from the all sufficiency of Christ's death, burial and resurrection to save us from our sins. Galatians 1:6-9 puts a double curse on this "other gospel" of transubstantiation for salvation.
 
5. Before Christ ascended to heaven, He promised to come to us during the Church Age, NOT in the sacrifice of the MASS, but by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-18 as Comforter): "He shall give you another Comforter ... even the Spirit of truth ... I will not leave you comfortless: I WILL COME TO YOU.” Note: Christ will return to earth a second time visibly in glory. This is what is meant by 1 Corinthians 11:26 "For as oftenas ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death TILL HE COME."
 
Note: This means that Christ does not come literally and visibly as the wafer in the mass, but to the air as in 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17.
 
6. At the Council of Constance in 1415 it was agreed to withold the cup from the congregation lest the wine be spilt. However this contradicts 1 Corinthians 11:25-29 where ALL Corinthian believers drank of the wine: "Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup unworthily." v.27. Drinking the cup is mentioned six times in five verses. Transubstantiation is not a mystery, but an absurdity; not a difficulty but a contradiction.
 
Question: How then do we eat his flesh and drink his blood?
 
Answer: Through the WORD OF GOD.
 
John 6:63 "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
 
John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh."
 
John 5:24 "He that heareth my Word and believeth on him that sent me, has everlasting life."
 
The scribes who knew Jeremiah 31:31-34, "I will put my law in their inward parts", and
Jeremiah 15:16, "Thy words were found and I DID EAT THEM; and thy word was unto me
the joy and rejoicing of mine heart", understood the idea of receiving God's Word into one’s
inner being.
 
Peter got the message, while others planned to desert Jesus:
 
"Thou hast the WORDS of eternal life." John 6:68.
 
"Being born again ... by the WORD of God." 1 Peter 1:23-25.
 
Peter knew that Jesus was speaking about the WORD of God, and not about literal flesh
and blood.
 
Question: If this doctrine of transubstantiation only arose in the 9th century, and if it is so
necessary to Roman Catholic salvation, what happened to those who lived before the 9th
century not believing this doctrine? Did they all go to hell?
 
Question: What about the thief on the cross who repented and never took the wafer? Did
he go to hell? 
 
No! Jesus said he went to paradise.

MY introductory only REPLY {TO THE UNKNOWN PASTOR}

Dear friend is Christ,

With a bit of trepidation, I, God willing will reply to your LENGHTY 31points POST because it is the very bedrock; the very foundation of Catholicism; and hence Christianity. My trepidation stems from multiple rebukes on the length of my replies; without, I think; any consideration to the length of the POST I’m replying too; and the number of salient issues addressed and worthy of an informed-Catholic response.

So sit back and get comfortable; this will take me a few days; what with family obligations, OTHER Faith-teaching responsibilities & 31 points to fully address.

While God’s Truth requires that I respond, I would like to acknowledge the POSTERS effort; supported by what is supposed to be “facts.”

I shall attempt with God’s assistance to reply with a similar organization and provide ALSO the evidences that affirm Catholic Dogma.

To set the platform for our discussion, I share the following points for immediate reflection:

1.     Catholic Holy Communion; the Eucharist wrought by a recent theological term used to describe what takes place {Transubstantiation} is:

 

FROM God the Father

OF God the Son

BY God the Holy Spirit

 

2.     The issue at hand revolves around God’s TRUTH. For the sake of absolute clarity I therefore share the following about God’s TRUTHS.

 

a.    There cannot {it’s impossible} as Pope Benedict XVI explained the day he became Pope: “There cannot be your truth & my truth or there would be NO truth.”

b.    Father John A. Hardon S.J.; one of the most respected theologians of the 20th. Century taught this about God’s- truth: “TRUTH is the condition of grace; it is the source of grace; it is the channel of grace; it is the Divinely Ordained requirement of grace.”

c.     And as TRUTH is “The CRUX of the Matter”; I offer the following dictionary definition of “TRUTH” as the foundation of our discussions.

 

Dictionary Definition of “Truth”

1.    The true or actual state of a matter:

conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement

2.  a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like mathematical truths.

3. the state or character of being true.

4. actuality or actual existence.

5. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.

6. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.

7. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart   from and

transcending perceived experience:

8. agreement with a standard or original.

9.. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.

10. Archaic. Fidelity or constancy. End quotes

 

As in the past, I will number and address the [31] points that I feel merit a response

3       The Bible is a Catholic Church birthed book. It was the early Catholic Fathers who amidst much debate & guided by the Holy Spirit; selected the 46 OT books to be included. Then it was men known today {6 of them Apostles} who authored the entire NT. Again guided by that ever-present HS to His Church. Mt 28:18-20 {this is a separate discussion if you choose; I’m just laying my foundation here.}

So my new friend that is as much as I can offer for now. Know that you POST has been gratefully received and read; and that God willing I shall reply ASAP. I’m 73 and my bride of 50 years and I both have some health issues that require out-of-town doctoring; plus we are Blessed with four Great-grandkids; ages 5, 3 , 18mos and 4 months; who love to spend time with “Gramee and Popee”.  I will be working as time permits {as a priority} on your POST.

Easter Blessings and thanks for the opportunity and patience.

Patrick

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members *
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  176
  • Topics Per Day:  0.07
  • Content Count:  870
  • Content Per Day:  0.35
  • Reputation:   330
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/23/2017
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  01/22/1968

5 hours ago, Patrick Miron said:

 

As in the past, I will number and address the [31] points that I feel merit a response

 

And i will not respond. On the whole, i am done.

 

I am not good at dealing with brainwashed people.

 

5 hours ago, Patrick Miron said:

 

 

3       The Bible is a Catholic Church birthed book. It was the early Catholic Fathers who amidst much debate & guided by the Holy Spirit; selected the 46 OT books to be included. Then it was men known today {6 of them Apostles} who authored the entire NT. Again guided by that ever-present HS to His Church. Mt 28:18-20 {this is a separate discussion if you choose; I’m just laying my foundation here.}

 

I have addressed this point before and will not do so here. The catholic organisation mearly defined what IT would use as the Bible, NOT what the Bible IS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  194
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/12/2018
  • Status:  Offline

12 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

And i will not respond. On the whole, i am done.

 

I am not good at dealing with brainwashed people.

 

I have addressed this point before and will not do so here. The catholic organisation mearly defined what IT would use as the Bible, NOT what the Bible IS.

My friend, there is a difference in actually providing the evidence of one's positions; often supported historically; logically and biblically and being as you say: "brainwashed."

The RCC did more than define what the Bible would USE; it IS Catholics who AUTHORED the entire New Testament. That my friend goes a very-LONG-way it explaining just exactly WHAT the Bible is {to be used for.

Easter Blessings,

Patrick

  • This is Worthy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members *
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  176
  • Topics Per Day:  0.07
  • Content Count:  870
  • Content Per Day:  0.35
  • Reputation:   330
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/23/2017
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  01/22/1968

i see catholics make statements and repeat them over and over again as if repeating oneself makes them correct.

 

If anyone other than Patrick wants to discuss the origins of the Bible, lets start a new thread.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  194
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/12/2018
  • Status:  Offline

On 5/6/2018 at 4:55 AM, KiwiChristian said:
ERROR OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION (1215 AD).
 
Definition: The whole substance of the bread and wine is converted into the actual and
real entire body and blood of Christ.
 
Answer: Radbertus first invented this doctrine in the 9th century. Catholics support this by a
literal view of Matthew 26:26-29. "Take eat; this is my body. For this is my blood of
the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
 
Consider these reasons why the bread and wine were symbols of Christ’s body and blood,
to be partaken in for remembrance purposes only, and that there was no material
conversion of the bread to the body, nor of the wine to the blood of Christ.
 
1. Jesus, after saying "this is my blood" in Matthew 26:28 also said "I will not drink
henceforth of this FRUIT OF THIS VINE" in Matthew 26:29, showing that the
grapejuice was STILL WINE and had not been changed to blood.
 
2. Jesus often referred to Himself in symbols. So why see Him as literal in a symbolic
context?
 
John 10:7 "I am the door." Did Jesus mean he was literally wooden? No.
 
John 14:6 "I am the way." Did Jesus mean he was literally a road? No.
 
John 15:5 "I am the vine." Did Jesus mean he was literally a tree? No.
 
John 8:12 "I am the light." Did Jesus mean he was literally a torch or a sun? No.
 
John 6:48 "I am the bread of life." Did Jesus mean he was literally a loaf of dough? No.
 
John 6:63 states clearly that Jesus was speaking spiritually, not literally: "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life."
 
Luke 22:19 states clearly that the Lord's supper is for remembrance purposes: "This do in remembrance of me." This is a metaphor, where one thing is said to be another thing because of it’s similarity. A metaphor is a figurative use of terms without indicating their figurative nature, for example, “he shall eat his words”.
 
3. The bread and wine did not become Christ's body and blood because:
 
a) Christ was still present with them. Christ would have had 2 bodies, one which died on the cross and one which did not.
 
b) To drink blood was forbidden in Acts 15:20,29 "We write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from BLOOD."
 
In Deuteronomy 12:16 "Only ye shall not eat the blood."
 
4. The tense of the Greek verbs "EAT" in John 6:50,51,52,53,54,56,57,58 is in the AORIST tense showing a ONCE-FOR-ALL, point action, that is NOT CONTINUAL.
 
The Biblical Lord's supper is to be a repeated event, and therefore has no saving merit. Roman Catholics are commanded to believe in transubstantiation because it was stated at the Council of Trent (11 October 1551) that this doctrine was essential for salvation. They pronounced curses on anyone who would deny it.
 
Paul the Apostle, in contrast, pronounced a double curse on anyone who preached a gospel different from the all sufficiency of Christ's death, burial and resurrection to save us from our sins. Galatians 1:6-9 puts a double curse on this "other gospel" of transubstantiation for salvation.
 
5. Before Christ ascended to heaven, He promised to come to us during the Church Age, NOT in the sacrifice of the MASS, but by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-18 as Comforter): "He shall give you another Comforter ... even the Spirit of truth ... I will not leave you comfortless: I WILL COME TO YOU.” Note: Christ will return to earth a second time visibly in glory. This is what is meant by 1 Corinthians 11:26 "For as oftenas ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death TILL HE COME."
 
Note: This means that Christ does not come literally and visibly as the wafer in the mass, but to the air as in 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17.
 
6. At the Council of Constance in 1415 it was agreed to withold the cup from the congregation lest the wine be spilt. However this contradicts 1 Corinthians 11:25-29 where ALL Corinthian believers drank of the wine: "Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup unworthily." v.27. Drinking the cup is mentioned six times in five verses. Transubstantiation is not a mystery, but an absurdity; not a difficulty but a contradiction.
 
Question: How then do we eat his flesh and drink his blood?
 
Answer: Through the WORD OF GOD.
 
John 6:63 "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
 
John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh."
 
John 5:24 "He that heareth my Word and believeth on him that sent me, has everlasting life."
 
The scribes who knew Jeremiah 31:31-34, "I will put my law in their inward parts", and
Jeremiah 15:16, "Thy words were found and I DID EAT THEM; and thy word was unto me
the joy and rejoicing of mine heart", understood the idea of receiving God's Word into one’s
inner being.
 
Peter got the message, while others planned to desert Jesus:
 
"Thou hast the WORDS of eternal life." John 6:68.
 
"Being born again ... by the WORD of God." 1 Peter 1:23-25.
 
Peter knew that Jesus was speaking about the WORD of God, and not about literal flesh
and blood.
 
Question: If this doctrine of transubstantiation only arose in the 9th century, and if it is so
necessary to Roman Catholic salvation, what happened to those who lived before the 9th
century not believing this doctrine? Did they all go to hell?
 
Question: What about the thief on the cross who repented and never took the wafer? Did
he go to hell? 
 
No! Jesus said he went to paradise.

 

MY REPLY {TO THE UNKNOWN PASTOR} Whom I assure that it will take far less to read this lengthy reply than it did to research and prepare it.

Dear friend is Christ,

John.10:25 “Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness to me; [37] If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; [38] but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."

 With a bit of trepidation, I, God willing will reply to your LENGHTY 31points POST because it is the very bedrock; the very foundation of Catholicism; and hence Christianity. My trepidation stems from multiple rebukes on the length of my replies; without, I think; any consideration to the length of the POST I’m replying too; and the number of salient issues addressed and worthy of an informed-Catholic response.

Why is this discussion about post Reformation beliefs and not “just” Catholic beliefs and practices?

It is because the numerous Protestant sects are step-children of Catholicism which predates the reformation by about 1,500 years; in which Christ One God; One Faith through One Church were already firmly established worldwide. The bible; a Catholic book in its Canon, content and teachings date back to the end of the 1st, Century when the only “Christians” were Catholic-Christians.

Because the Eucharist {which is the HEART of the issue of “Traunsbstanuation”} is the bedrock; the foundation; the very underpinning of Christianity. No CATHOLICS= no Christians. Martin Luther; considered by many as the Father of the Reformation, was an apostate Catholic Monk. So my response will, God willing, provide sufficient evidence to verify Catholic beliefs and practices.

From the Catholic Catechism:

1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life."134 "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch.{sacrifice}

1407 The Eucharist is the heart and the summit of the Church's life, for in it Christ associates his Church and all her members with his sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving offered once for all on the cross to his Father; by this sacrifice he pours out the graces of salvation on his Body which is the Church

This is true because the Eucharist IS “Really, Truly and Substanually” the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ Himself in Person; the very same Jesus who Suffered and died on the Cross for us; in a RE-presentation {NOT a mere “representation”; no, it is a RE-presentation of that actual death and Sacrifice being made present time and time again, throughout the world, until the end of time. Mt 28:20

Catholic Holy Communion is the now GLORIFIED Body, Blood, Soul; the entire Divine- Jesus in Person. No longer confined by laws of nature, physics, and beyond even scientific understanding. It is both a Mystery and a Miracle.

 God’s Truth requires that I respond, I would like to acknowledge the POSTERS effort; supported by what is presented to be “facts.” Will they hold up under scrutiny?

I shall attempt with God’s assistance to reply with a similar organization and provide ALSO the evidences that affirm Catholic Dogma.

To set the platform for our discussion, I share the following points for immediate reflection:

1.    Catholic Holy Communion; the Eucharist wrought by a recent 13th Century theological term used to describe what takes place {Transubstantiation} is:

 FROM God the Father

OF God the Son

BY God the Holy Spirit

 2.    The issue at hand revolves around God’s TRUTH. For the sake of absolute clarity I therefore share the following about God’s TRUTHS.

 a.    There cannot {it’s impossible} as Pope Benedict XVI explained the day he became Pope: “There cannot be your truth & my truth or there would be NO truth.”

b.    Father John A. Hardon S.J.; one of the most respected theologians of the 20th. Century taught this about God’s- truth: “TRUTH is the condition of grace; it is the source of grace; it is the channel of grace; it is the Divinely Ordained requirement of grace.”

c.     And as TRUTH is “The CRUX of the Matter”; I offer the following dictionary definition of “TRUTH” as the foundation of our discussions.

 

Dictionary Definition of “Truth”

1.    The true or actual state of a matter:

conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement

2.  a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like mathematical truths.

3. the state or character of being true.

4. actuality or actual existence.

 5. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.

6. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.

7. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart   from and

transcending perceived experience:

8. agreement with a standard or original.

9.. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.

10. Archaic. Fidelity or constancy. End quotes

 As in the past, I will number and address the [31] points that I feel merit a response

3      The Bible is a Catholic Church birthed book. It was the early Catholic Fathers who amidst much debate & guided by the Holy Spirit; selected the 46 OT books to be included. Then it was men known today {6 of them Apostles} who authored the entire NT. Again guided by that ever-present HS to His Church. Mt 28:18-20 {this is a separate discussion if you choose; I’m just laying my foundation here.}

 FROM Father John A. Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary:

TRANSUBSTANTIATION. The complete change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood by a validly ordained priest during the consecration at Mass, so that only the accidents of bread and wine remain. While the faith behind the term was already believed in apostolic times, the term itself was a later development. With the Eastern Fathers before the sixth century, the favored expression was meta-ousiosis "change of being"; the Latin tradition coined the word transubstantiatio, "change of substance," which was incorporated into the creed of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The Council of Trent, in defining the "wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and the whole substance of the wine into the blood" of Christ, added "which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation" (Denzinger 1652). After transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe; they are sustained in existence by divine power. (Etym. Latin trans-, so as to change + substantia, substance: transubstantiatio, change of substance.) END QUOTES

 

The CORE issue here, it seems to me is: CAN GOD LIE?

 

John 17: 17-20 [17] Sanctify THEM in truth. Thy word is truth. [18] As thou hast sent me into the world, I also HABE ALSO SENT THEM into the world. [19] And FOR THEM do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in {MY} truth[20] And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through THEIR word shall believe in me”

What this teaches is that today’s RCC has Jesus Himself; in Person, as the warranty of Her teachings in-their- fullness on Faith and on Morals to be factually Christ Truths. No other church or faith can make & evidence this claim except the RCC

Mt. 10: 1-4 “[1] And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. [2] And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, [3] James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, [4] Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him[5] These twelve Jesus sent: ….” Verse #8: {YOU!} “[8] Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you received, freely give.” 

 The Eucharist and the PROCESS required to affect it is both a Mystery and a Miracle {actually 2-simutanious miracles; defined as follows:

The normal expression for the practice of Religious beliefs is termed “faith.” This is a precisely correct definition; and is exactly what our God demands, commands and expects of all adherents.

God’s reason for this expectation is faultless: If everything God commands, expects and requires of us was logically discernable by human-logic-alone; the number of Pride-led sins would be exponentially incalculable..

Definition of mystery

plural mysteries

1a : a religious truth that one can know only by revelation and cannot fully understand 

·        the mystery of the Trinity

(1) : any of the 15 events (such as the Nativity, the Crucifixion, or the Assumption) serving as a subject for meditation during the saying of the rosary 

(2) capitalized : a Christian sacrament; specifically : eucharist

(1) : a secret religious rite believed (as in Eleusinian and Mithraic cults) to impart enduring bliss to the initiate 

(2) : a cult devoted to such rites

2a : something not understood or beyond understanding : enigma

·        The mystery of his disappearance has never been solved.

b obsolete : a private secret

c : the secret or specialized practices or ritual peculiar to an occupation or a body of people 

·        the mysteries of the tailor's craft

d : a piece of fiction dealing usually with the solution of a mysterious crime 

·        Reading mysteries was her favorite pastime.

3: profound, inexplicable, or secretive quality or character 

·        The mystery of her smile END QUOTES {MWD}

 Definition of miracle

1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs 

·        the healing miracles described in the Gospels

2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment 

·        The bridge is a miracle of engineering END QUOTES

 

As in the past, I will number and address the [31] points that I feel merit a response.

INORDER TO SET THE FRAMEWORK FOR THIS DISCUSSION I SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING:

FROM THE CATHOLIC ENCYCOPEDIA: “Transubstantiation

Before proving dogmatically the fact of the substantial change here under consideration, we must first outline its history and nature.

(a)         The scientific development of the concept of Transubstantiation can hardly be said to be a product of the Greeks, who did not get beyond its more general notes; rather, it is the remarkable contribution of the Latin theologians, who were stimulated to work it out in complete logical form by the three Eucharistic controversies mentioned above, The term transubstantiation seems to have been first used by Hildebert of Tours (about 1079). His encouraging example was soon followed by other theologians, as Stephen of Autun (d. 1139), Gaufred (1188), and Peter of Blois…End Quotes

 To further aid this discussion of enlightenment; permit me to share the definition of the term; for those who may not yet be familiar with it.

FROM FATHER JOHN A. HARDON’S CATHOLIC DICTIONARY: Fr. was among the most esteemed theologians of the 20th. Century.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION. The complete change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood by a validly ordained {Catholic or Orthodox}priest during the consecration at Mass, so that only the accidents of bread and wine remain. While the faith behind the term was already believed in apostolic times, the term itself was a later development. With the Eastern Fathers before the sixth century, the favored expression was meta-ousiosis "change of being"; the Latin tradition coined the word transubstantiatio, "change of substance," which was incorporated into the creed of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The Council of Trent, in defining the "wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and the whole substance of the wine into the blood" of Christ, added "which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation" (Denzinger 1652). After transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe; they are sustained in existence by divine power. (Etym. Latin trans-, so as to change + substantia, substance: transubstantiatio, change of substance.) END QUOTES

It seems prudent to point out at this early juncture, that I am not a theologian {as I suspect the author of this POST might well be {?}. I am only a trained Catholic Apologetic’s teacher, with many years of experience.

FROM OUR CATHOLIC CATECHISM:

1345 As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families. St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:

 

On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.

The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.

Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: 'Amen.'

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent. ….END QUOTES

Before getting into the points raised and to be discussed; permit to briefly amplify a statement I made in my opening reply: “it {transubstantiation} is the very bedrock; the very foundation of Catholicism; and hence Christianity.”

The Bible is a “work” of the RCC; NOT the Church a “work” of the Bible; which BTW, is a Catholic Birthed book. {If you disagree; PLEASE share the evidence of your belief.}

Here for your edification are testimonies of the EARLY RCC Church Fathers on belief in the “Real Presence”…

REAL PRESENCE. The manner of Christ's presence in the Holy Eucharist. In its definition on the subject, the Council of Trent in 1551 declared that "in the sacrament of the most holy Holy Eucharist is contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ" (Denzinger 1636, 1640). Hence Christ is present truly or actually and not only symbolically. He is present really, that is objectively in the Eucharist and not only subjectively in the mind of the believer. And he is present substantially, that is with all that makes Christ Christ and not only spiritually in imparting blessings on those who receive the sacrament. The one who is present is the whole Christ (totus Christus), with all the attributes of his divinity and all the physical parts and properties of his humanity. (Etym. Latin realis, of the thing itself; extramental + prae-esse, to be at hand, to be immediately efficacious.) See also SACRAMENTAL PRESENCE.

Father John A. Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary

Testimonies of the Fathers:

I take no pleasure in corruptible food or in the delights of this life. I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who is the seed of David; and for drink I want his Blood which is incorruptible love. -St. Ignatius to the Romans 7:3 {98-117 AD}

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 (transmutation) of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus. – St. Justin Martyr First Apology 66 {100-130 AD}

We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it. – Origen Against Celsus 8:33 {185 -232 AD}

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? – St. Irenaeus Against Heresies 4:33–32 {Died 202 AD}

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? – St. Irenaeus Against Heresies5:3 {Died in 202 AD}

You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ….When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body:  St. Athanasius Sermon to the Newly Baptized {296-373 AD}

Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, ‘do show the Lord’s Death.’ – St. Ambrose On the Christian Faith 4, 10:125 {374-397 AD}

He did not say, ‘This is the symbol of My Body, and this, of My Blood,’ but, what is set before us, but that it is transformed by means of the Eucharistic action into Flesh and Blood.” – Theodore of Mopsuestia Commentary on Matthew 26:26 {350-428 AD}

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. – Theodore of Mopsuestia Catechetical Homilies 5:1 {350-428 AD}

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God’s. ‘This is my body,’ he says. This word transforms the things offered. – St. John Chrysostom Against the Judaizers 1.6 {347-407 AD}

The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread10. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s Body.” – St. Augustine Sermons 234:2 {conversion in 354-386}

You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, consecrated by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what the chalice holds, consecrated by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. Through those accidents the Lord wished to entrust to us His Body and the Blood which He poured out for the remission of sins. – St. Augustine Sermons 227 {conversion in 354-386}

The bread again is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ – St. Gregory of Nyssa Sermon on the Day of Lights or on The Baptism of Christ {Died around 385 AD}

Rightly then do we believe that the bread consecrated by the word of God has been changed [Gr., metapoieisthai] into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was bread in power, but it has been sanctified by the dwelling there of the Word, who pitched his tent in the flesh. The change that elevated to divine power the bread that had been transformed into that Body causes something similar now. In that case, the grace of the Word sanctified that Body whose material being came from bread and was, in a certain sense, bread itself. In this case, the bread “is sanctified by God’s word and by prayer”7, as the Apostle says, not becoming the Body of the Word through our eating but by being transformed [Gr., metapoiumenos] immediately into the body by means of the word, as the Word himself said, ‘This is my Body.’ …He shares himself with every believer through the Flesh whose material being [Gr., sustais] comes from bread and wine . . . in order to bring it about that, by communion with the Immortal, man may share in incorruption. He gives these things through the power of the blessing by which he transelements [Gr., metastoikeiosas] the nature of the visible things [to that of the Immortal]. – St. Gregory of Nyssa The Great Catechism 37 {Died around 385 AD}

He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood? – Ibid. 22.2

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. – St. Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures 19:7 {Died 386 AD}

The Fourth Lateran Council in AD 1215 also declared:

Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood…4

 On the topic of the Eucharist, the Council of Trent declared:

If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema. – Session 13, Canon I

So the fact this this belief dates back to the Apostles themselves which we will biblically evidence in this document is indisputable. It was this precise belief and understanding that led for so many early Catholic-Christian to offer their lives rather than DENY this Gift of Jesus Himself.

Now on to your 31 points

[1] Definition: The whole substance of the bread and wine is converted into the actual and real entire body and blood of Christ.

 REPLY:

I have included two fuller more detailed and worthy of this august dialog definitions above.

[2]Answer: Radbertus first invented this doctrine in the 9th century. Catholics support this by a literal view of Matthew 26:26-29. "Take eat; this is my body. For this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

 REPLY:

I’m not sure where you obtained your information but the Catholic Encyclopedia shares this information {the variance is a small matter}:

“The scientific development of the concept of Transubstantiation can hardly be said to be a product of the Greeks, who did not get beyond its more general notes; rather, it is the remarkable contribution of the Latin theologians, who were stimulated to work it out in complete logical form by the three Eucharistic controversies mentioned above, The term transubstantiation seems to have been first used by Hildebert of Tours (about 1079). His encouraging example was soon followed by other theologians, as Stephen of Autun (d. 1139), Gaufred (1188), and Peter of Blois…End Quotes

[3a]Consider these reasons why the bread and wine were symbols of Christ’s body and  blood, to be partaken in for remembrance purposes only, and that there was no material conversion of the bread to the body, nor of the wine to the blood of Christ.

 [3b] 1. Jesus, after saying "this is my blood" in Matthew 26:28 also said "I will not drink henceforth of this FRUIT OF THIS VINE" in Matthew 26:29, showing that the grapejuice was STILL WINE and had not been changed to blood.

 REPLY:

Here is Mt. 26- 29 [26] And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. [27] And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this[28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. [29] And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father”

Explanation from Catholic Apologetics site:

Ver. 29I say unto you . . . fruit of the vine; Arab., juice of the vine, &c. S. Austin (lib. de Consens. Evang. iii. 1), and from him Jansen and others, are of opinion that Matthew intimates that Christ spake these words after the Eucharistic Supper. Let us here consider the following objection. The fruit of the vine is wine produced from it, pressed from its grapes; therefore in the Eucharistic Chalice there is not the Blood of Christ, but only wine sprung from a vine.” I answer, the pronoun this in this fruit, &c., does not signify exactly that wine which was in the consecrated Chalice, but in general the wine upon the table, from which the cup was filled, which was used both at the Passover and at the consecration of the Eucharist. Secondly, the Blood of Christ may be called wine, as the Body of Christ is called bread by S. Paul, on account, indeed, of the substance of bread and wine, as it was before consecration, and because of the species of bread and wine which remain after consecration. In truth, the species themselves, or the accidents of the wine, are rightly called the fruit of the vine, because they are produced by the vine. Thirdly, as all kinds of food, both by Scriptural and common usage, are often called bread, because it is the staple of all food, so in like manner is any kind of drink called wine, especially by the Italians, Syrians, and others. ……

Christ intended, therefore, by these words only to signify that He, from henceforth, would not sup with His disciples after the accustomed manner; but that this was His last supper, after which He was about to be taken and put to death. Wherefore here, as proceeding to die, He bids the Apostles His last farewell. Wherefore these words do not refer to the Eucharistic Chalice, which does not contain the fruit of the vine, in the sense of wine, but the Blood of Christ, into which it has been changed by consecration. This is the opinion of Jerome, Bede, and many others. END QUOTES

 HAYDOCK’S COMMENTARY

Verse 29  I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine. In St. Luke, (xxii. 15, 16,) Christ said to his disciples; I earnestly desired to eat this Pasch with you before I suffer; (or this paschal sacrificefor I say to you, that, from this time I will not eat thereof, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. These expressions seem to import no more, than that it was the last time he would eat and drink with them in a mortal body. And if, as some expound it, Christ, by the generation of the vine, understood the consecrated cup of his blood, he might call it wine, or the fruit of the vine; because he gave them his blood under the appearance of wine; as St. Paul calls the body of Christ bread, because given under the appearance of bread. (1 Corinthians xi. 26.) (Witham) --- Fruit of the vine. These words, by the account of St. Luke, (xxii. 18,) were not spoken of the sacramental cup, but of the wine that was drunk with the paschal lamb. Though the Sacramental cup might also be called the fruit of the vine, because it was consecrated from wine, and retains the likeness, and all the accidents, or qualities, of wine. (Challoner) --- As St. Paul calleth the body of Christ bread, so the blood of Christ may still be called wine, for three reasons: 1. Because it was so before; as in Genesis xi. 23, Eve is called Adam's bone; in Exodus vii, Aaron's rod devoured their rods, whereas they were not now rods but serpents; and in John ii, He tasted the water made wine, whereas it was now wine not water. 2. Because the blessed Eucharist retaineth the forms of bread and wine, and things in Scripture are frequently called from their appearance; as Tobias v, the archangel Raphael, is called a young man; and Genesis xviii, three men appeared to Abraham; whereas they were three angels. 3. Because Jesus Christ in the blessed Sacrament is the true bread of life, refreshing us in soul and body to everlasting life. (Bristow) --- Drink it new, after a different manner most wonderful and hitherto unheard of, not having a passible body, but one clothed with immortality; and henceforth no longer in need of nourishment. Thus he brings to their minds the idea of his resurrection, to strengthen them under the ignominies of his passion, and eats and drinks with them, to give them a more certain proof of this grand mystery. (S. Chrysostom, hom lxxxiii.) END QUOTES

 [4]. Jesus often referred to Himself in symbols. So why see Him as literal in a symbolic

context?

 John 10:7 "I am the door." Did Jesus mean he was literally wooden? No.

 John 14:6 "I am the way." Did Jesus mean he was literally a road? No.

 John 15:5 "I am the vine." Did Jesus mean he was literally a tree? No.

 John 8:12 "I am the light." Did Jesus mean he was literally a torch or a sun? No.

 John 6:48 "I am the bread of life." Did Jesus mean he was literally a loaf of dough? No.  

 REPLY

Five different AUTHORS of the Bible {3 of them Apostles} share their personal Testimony in the NT.  … Of the Five; Matthew and Paul gave their lives in belief & in defense of this Doctrine; John tried too, but was saved miraculously from being Boiled in Oil. Peter and James whose RECORDED testimony does not cover this, ALSO gave their lives’ as Martyrs in belief of this reality.

 Later I will discuss John and Paul’s testimony in greater detail.

 Take careful NOTE of this fact:

In the above examples Jesus {our Perfect unerring GOD} uses the term: I AM in each of these examples; all of which are metaphorical; BUT in the Consecration passages Jesus does not JUSY- say; “I am”… BUT clearly articulates: THIS IS MY BODY & THIS IS MY BLOOD; literal expressions; clearly NOT metaphorical.

 [5]John 6:63 states clearly that Jesus was speaking spiritually, not literally: "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life."

 REPLY

I will address this here to stay in the Q & A format; but will address it further when we discuss John Six with “bookends” later on.

 John 6:63-64 Douay Bible:  [63] If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? [64] It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

 Douay Bible explanation: “[63] "If then you shall see": Christ by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; and at the same time correct their gross apprehension of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and consequently not suffer it to be as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.

[64] "The flesh profiteth nothing": Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man's flesh, that is to say, man's natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ's flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us.

[64] "Are spirit and life": By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain. END QUOTES

MY INSERT HERE: when I read this passage, my mind goes to John 4:23-24:

 [23]But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him. [24] God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth.

 Jesus is speaking of His to be {TIME DOES NOT EXIST FOR GOD} …GLORIFIED BODY…. All of John 6 is about man’s salvation and God’s desire to have a very active role; indeed the MOST ACTIVE ROLE in it; as it is Jesus in Person. So when He speaks of “spirit and life”; He IS speaking of Spirit {Himself} and Life {our eternal life through Him literally.

 HAYDOCk’S’ Commentary:

Verse 63 
If then you shall see, &c. Christ, by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; at the same time, correct their gross apprehension of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and consequently not suffer it to be, as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth. (Challoner) --- The sense of these words, according to the common exposition, is this: you murmur at my words, as hard and harsh, and you refuse now to believe them: when I shall ascend into heaven, from whence I came into the world, and when my ascension, and the doctrine that I have taught you, shall be confirmed by a multitude of miracles, then shall you and many others believe. (Witham) END QUOTES

 [6] Luke 22:19 states clearly that the Lord's supper is for remembrance purposes: "This do in remembrance of me." This is a metaphor, where one thing is said to be another thing because of it’s similarity. A metaphor is a figurative use of terms without indicating their figurative nature, for example, “he shall eat his words”.

 

My new-friend your understanding here is incorrect…. “Do THIS in memory of ME” is: [1] DIRECT COMMAND [2] A transference of the Power & Authority to do THIS. Paul: 1st Cor, 11:23-24 “ [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.”

 Haydock’s Commentary on verses 23 -24

Verse 23 

I have received from the Lord. That is, by revelation from Christ, as well as from others, who were present with him, that which also I delivered to you by word of mouth, &c. Here he speaks of the holy sacrament itself, of the words of consecration, as the evangelists had done, and of the real presence of Christ's body and blood. --- Which shall be delivered for you. In the common Greek copies, which is broken for you, to wit, on the cross. --- You shall shew the death of the Lord. As often as you receive, it shall be with a devout and grateful remembrance of his sufferings and death for your sake. He puts every one in mind, that whosoever shall eat this bread, (ver. 27.) so called from the outward appearances, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall, by such a sacrilege, be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. And (ver. 29.) that he eateth, and drinketh judgment, or condemnation to himself, not discerning the difference betwixt celestial food and other meats, and not considering it to be truly the body of the Lord. See St. John Chrysostom, hom. xxvii. If the words of our Saviour, this is my body, &c. were to be understood in a metaphorical and figurative sense only, is it probable that St. Paul, writing twenty-four years afterwards, to the new converted Gentiles at Corinth, would have used words, which full as clearly express a true and real presence of Christ's body in the eucharist, without one word to signify that this was to be understood in a figurative sense only? (Witham)


Verse 24 

…, a native of Spain, and a priest, who flourished under Constantine the Great, about the year 329, has left us the life of Christ in hexameter verse, where speaking of the institution of the eucharist, he says, "Christ taught his disciples, that he delivered to them his own body;" and when he gave them the chalice, "he taught them that he had distributed to them his blood: and said, this blood remits the sins of the people: drink this, it is mine." (Bibl. Max. P. P. T. iv. p. 74) Discipulos docuit proprium se tradere corpus,

Edocuitque suum se divisisse cruorem.

Atque ait: Hic sanguis populi delicta remittit:

Hunc potate meum END QUOTES

 

[7a]3. The bread and wine did not become Christ's body and blood because:

 [7b] a) Christ was still present with them. Christ would have had 2 bodies, one which died on the cross and one which did not.

 REPLY: For GOD time does not exist; everything, past, present and even the future are constantly present to Him/

 

[7c] b) To drink blood was forbidden in Acts 15:20,29 "We write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from BLOOD."

 REPLY

 [29] That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye well. 

 Haydock’s  Commentary[29] "From blood, and from things strangled": The use of these things, though of their own nature indifferent, was here prohibited, to bring the Jews more easily to admit of the society of the Gentiles; and to exercise the latter in obedience. But this prohibition was but temporary, and has long since ceased to oblige; more especially in the western churches END QUOTES

My friend what your sharing here is a “faith-PRACTICE.” Practices ARE changeable; while neither Doctrine nor Dogma’s are not in their CORE teachings.

 

[7d] In Deuteronomy 12:16 "Only ye shall not eat the blood."

 REPLY

See above explanation

 

[8a] 4. The tense of the Greek verbs "EAT" in John 6:50,51,52,53,54,56,57,58 is in the AORIST tense showing a ONCE-FOR-ALL, point action, that is NOT CONTINUAL

 REPLY

Interesting take here. But it is still incorrectly understood. “Do THIS in memory of ME “is continue; while “take and EAT” is singular per person & per times repeated.

 

 

[8b] The Biblical Lord's supper is to be a repeated event, and therefore has no saving merit. Roman Catholics are commanded to believe in transubstantiation because it was stated at the Council of Trent (11 October 1551) that this doctrine was essential for salvation. They pronounced curses on anyone who would deny it.

 REPLY

“OK” and?

“No saving merit”????? It is; IT IS Jesus Christ in Person & receiving Him {OUR GOD} is to have “no merit” … exactly HOW does THAT work out my friend?

 

[8c] Paul the Apostle, in contrast, pronounced a double curse on anyone who preached a gospel different from the all sufficiency of Christ's death, burial and resurrection to save us from our sins. Galatians 1:6-9 puts a double curse on this "other gospel" of transubstantiation for salvation.

 

Gal. 1: 6-9[6] I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. [7] Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.”

REPLY

My new friend; this is and WAS NO “new Gospel”; it is testified too by Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, John 6, PAUL 1st. Cor 11, and Jesus Himself.

 

[9a] 5. Before Christ ascended to heaven, He promised to come to us during the Church Age, NOT in the sacrifice of the MASS, but by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-18 as Comforter):

 REPLY

Partially correct: I suspect you’re missing Mt. 28:20:  [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU: and behold I am with YOU ALL DAY’S, even to the consummation of the world.”

 

[9b] "He shall give you another Comforter ... even the Spirit of truth ... I will not leave you comfortless: I WILL COME TO YOU.” Note: Christ will return to earth a second time visibly in glory.

 REPLY:

Once again partially true. Christ will come again in Glory; which does NOT contradict His being Here NOW in Catholic {and Orthodox} Holy Connunion.

 

[9c] This is what is meant by 1 Corinthians 11:26 "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death TILL HE COME."

 REPLY

I’m still amazed that Protestants just don’t get it. NOT surprised; just amazed.

 Rom.9: 18 “What then are we to say? Is there injustice on the part of God? Of course not! For he says to Moses: "I will show mercy to whom I will, I will take pity on whom I will." So it depends not upon a person's will or exertion, but upon God, who shows mercy. “

Rom. 9:15 “For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

Job.17: 4 “Since thou hast closed their minds to understanding, therefore thou wilt not let them triumph.

 2nd. Cor. 4:3-4 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God.

 

AND NO! I AM NOT SAYING THAT PROTESTANTS CANNOT BE SAVED; ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT AS SIMPLISTIC or “assured” AS POST REFORMATION “FATHERS” HAVE INVENTED” & propagated.

 

[9d] Note: This means that Christ does not come literally and visibly as the wafer in the mass, but to the air as in 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17.

 REPLY

This is the kind of purely human- logic that results from NOT being granted the necessary graces to rightly and or fully understand God’s WORDS. {See 2 Cor 4 above}.

1 Thess. 4: 16-17 16] Then we who are alive, who are left, shall be taken up together with them in the clouds to meet Christ, into the air, and so shall we be always with the Lord. [17]Wherefore, comfort ye one another with these words.

REPLY

This has ONLY “End Times” application and does not apply to what takes place currently and UNTIL the End Times.

 

[10a] 6. At the Council of Constance in 1415 it was agreed to withhold the cup from the congregation lest the wine be spilt.

 REPLY

Your research is impressive, even if not fully understood. Once again my new friend, you’re speaking of a Church PRACTICE which is changeable. But this point  does warrant further explanation.

 We believe that the “Entire Christ” is Really, Truly and Substanually Present in every drop of the Consecrated wine & every crumb of the Consecrated {Transubstanuated} bread & wine; both having become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. Hence Catholic Holy Communion CAN BE under either species alone; or both; STILL being just the One Jesus Christ. {Mystery anyone?}

 

[10b] However this contradicts 1 Corinthians 11:25-29 where ALL Corinthian believers drank of the wine: "Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup unworthily."

 

REPLY

Another well researched evidence. But I just explained this in REPLY 10a.

 [10c] v.27. Drinking the cup is mentioned six times in five verses. Transubstantiation is not a mystery, but an absurdity; not a difficulty but a contradiction.

 REPLY

Oh how easy it is to slander what one fails to grasp. My friend we are discussing Divine; Heavenly THINGS with very mortal minds. We are discussing a Mystery wrapped up in two Miracles. Our pride deduces that we CAN determine the correct answer, despite these obstacles: Isaiah 55:6-96] Seek ye the Lord, while he may be found: call upon him, while he is near. [7] Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unjust man his thoughts, and let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God: for he is bountiful to forgive[8] For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. [9] For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.” 

 

[11a] Question: How then do we eat his flesh and drink his blood?

 REPLY: I just answered this above

 

[11b] Answer: Through the WORD OF GOD.

 REPLY

This is an excellent point. There is an issue of “immediate significance” {theologically speaking here}, as both the WORD of God and GOD are one and the same. A significant difference CAN be interjected though when the WORD of God is not rightly; or perhaps just not fully comprehended. In the Transubstanuated Bread & Wine though; the Real and Total Jesus is ALWAYS Present; only our degree of worthy reception alters the amount of Grace offered to us.

 

[11c] John 6:63 "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

 

REPLY

John 4: 24 specifically & precisely teaches US that “GOD IS A SPIRIT”; and we all hold that Jesus in THE Life: John.14: 6 “Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” So this verse teaches that {Jesus} God is the way to Salvation

  

[11d] John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh." {AMEN!}

 

REPLY

John 1: 1-5[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. [4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [5] And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.”

 [1e] John 5:24 "He that heareth my Word and {actually & correctly} believeth on him that sent me, has everlasting life." {Conditionally!}

 Peter got the message, while others planned to desert Jesus:

 

REPLY

 ahhhh, actually Peter deserted Jesus in His Time of Need {Peter later repented and was forgiven. John 21: 11-17}; it was John who did NOT desert Him {John 19:25-27.}

 

[13] "Thou hast the WORDS of eternal life." John 6:68.

 

REPLY: {AMEN!}

John 14: 26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you”

Matt. 7:24"Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock

Acts 20: 28-30 [28] Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.[29] I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. [30] And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.”

John 10:16[16] And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd. 

Eph. 2: 20 “[20] Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone”

Eph. 4:1-5 “[1] I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, [2] With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. [3] Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace[4] One BODY {CHURCH} and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling[5] One Lord, ONE FAITH, one baptism.”

Mt. 28:19-20 “ [19] Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost[20] Teaching them to observe ALL THINGS whatsoever I have commanded YOU: and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Luke.10:16 "He who hears YOU hears ME, and he who rejects YOU rejects ME, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

 

[14] "Being born again ... by the WORD of God." 1 Peter 1:23-25.

 

REPLY

1 Peter 1: 23-25[23] Being born again not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible, by the word of God who liveth and remaineth forever. [24] For all flesh is as grass; and all the glory thereof as the flower of grass. The grass is withered, and the flower thereof is fallen away. [25] But the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this is the word which by the gospel hath been preached unto you.”

Here my new friend is what THIS means:

John 3:5 [5] Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to theeunless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

The Reformation Fathers built an entire religion {actually an ever-growing multiplicity of them} around this 1:Peter 1:23-25; and in that process ignored; denied; and rewrote {at least in its right understanding; GOD’S Bible.

It was a clever; by clearly errant act.

2 Peter 1: 16-21 [16] “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. [17] For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased," [18] we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. [19] And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. [20] First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, [21] because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

 

Douay Bible Explanation: 20 "No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation"... This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise.”

This my new friend is WHY God; Yahweh and Jesus wisely and knowingly choose Just ONE:

One True God

One True Faith

One True “chosen people” Exo. 6:7 which Jesus Perfected with “MY Church” Mt 16:18; notably singular. And as ALL “churches” are self-identified by their freely chosen set of faith beliefs; we can and MUST understand that One TRUE God; Faith and Church are a reality manifested in today’s RCC.

 

[15] Peter knew that Jesus was speaking about the WORD of God, and not about literal flesh and blood

REPLY

And you know this HOW? Peter is a Martyr for this VERY Faith belief. Peter was the most unabashed person in the NT. If He didn’t believe this; SURELY He would have said so……. OH! He DID!

John 6: [56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. ….. & [66] And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. [67] After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. [68] Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? [69] And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. [70] And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.”

 

[16] Question: If this doctrine of transubstantiation only arose in the 9th century, and if it is so necessary to Roman Catholic salvation, what happened to those who lived before the 9th century not believing this doctrine? Did they all go to hell?

 

REPLY

FROM THE CATHOLIC ENCYCOPEDIA: “Transubstantiation

Before proving dogmatically the fact of the substantial change here under consideration, we must first outline its history and nature.

(b)           The scientific development of the concept of Transubstantiation can hardly be said to be a product of the Greeks, who did not get beyond its more general notes; rather, it is the remarkable contribution of the Latin theologians, who were stimulated to work it out in complete logical form by the three Eucharistic controversies mentioned above, The term transubstantiation seems to have been first used by Hildebert of Tours (about 1079). His encouraging example was soon followed by other theologians, as Stephen of Autun (d. 1139), Gaufred (1188), and Peter of Blois…End Quotes

Of NOTE though is that THIS BELIEVE as evidenced at the front of this document dates BACK to the Apostles and the Early Catholic-Christian Church.

 

 

[17] Question: What about the thief on the cross who repented and never took the wafer? Did he go to hell? 

 

REPLY

No and you know this. Like the OT Leaders such as Abram, Moses, Arron, Jacob, the worthy Judges, Kings and Prophets; Saint Joseph, John the Baptist and uncounted SCORES of others; they attained Heave AFTER the Ascension of Jesus.

 

But THAT does not address your REAL point. Some of the language in John 6 is Metaphorical; and much of it is LITERAL. Christ expression of “eternal life” for “all” who partake of Catholic {& Orthodox} Holy Communion are to be taken metaphorically AND CONDITIONALLY on not dying with ANY unremitted; unforgiven Mortal sins. 1 John 5:16-17 & John 20:19-23

 

[18] No! Jesus said he went to paradise.[/QUOTE] 

 

REPLY

YEP! He received the Baptism of DESIRE and hence his Soul was instantly made spotless and he DID attain heaven; BUT only after Christ Resurrection.

 

New friend, I will conclude this REPLY with an explanation of John 6 and 1st Cor. 11.

 

 

 

 

 

Believe in the works that I do!

 

John.10

1.    [25] Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness to me; [37] If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; [38] but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."

John.15

2.    [24] If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father.

John.14

3.    [11] Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves.[12] "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father.

Catholicism is NOT the only way to attain heaven; BUT

1.    It is the surest way because it is Christ Way

 

2.    Because of the Seven Sacraments; notable to THIS discussion including Sacramental Confession of sins {Christ Way}; The Most Holy Eucharist: JESUS IN PERSON; and the Last Rites which as the NORM include Sacramental Confession IF the patient is able; either way; the effects of this Sacrament is to perfect the Soul just like Baptism and make that Soul immediately Heaven ready.

 

3.    Because the Bible IS a Catholic-birthed book and we have the Catholic Magisterium to insure RIGHT understanding of it; we have in His WORD the inside track. Amen!

 

 

 

THE BIBLE AFFIRMS and CONFIRMS TRANSUBSTANUSTION

ACTS 14:22 “And when they had ordained to them priests in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed”

Titus 1:5 “ [5] For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee”

John 2:1-11 - Two days later (after Nathanael, or Bartholomew, had been called by Jesus to be one of his disciples) there was a wedding in the Galilean village of Cana. Jesus' mother was there and he and his disciples were invited to the festivities. Then it happened that the supply of wine gave out, and Jesus' mother told him, "They have no more wine."

"Is that your concern, or mine?" replied Jesus. "My time has not come yet."

So his mother said to the servants, "Mind you do whatever he tells you."

In the room six very large stone water-jars stood on the floor (actually for the Jewish ceremonial cleansing), each holding about twenty gallons. Jesus gave instructions for these jars to be filled with water, and the servants filled them to the brim. Then he said to them, "Now draw some water out and take it to the master of ceremonies", which they did. When this man tasted the water, which had now become wine, without knowing where it came from (though naturally the servants who had drawn the water knew), he called out to the bridegroom and said to him, "Everybody I know puts his good wine on first and then when men have had plenty to drink, he brings out the poor stuff. But you have kept back your good wine till now!" Jesus gave this, the first of his signs, at Cana in Galilee (the second is healing the official's dying son later in John 4:43). He demonstrated his power and his disciples believed in him.”

Matthew 14: 13-21[15] And when it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying: This is a desert place, and the hour is now past: send away the multitudes, that going into the towns, they may buy themselves victuals.

[16] But Jesus said to them, They have no need to go: give you them to eat. [17]They answered him: We have not here, but five loaves, and two fishes. [18] He said to them: Bring them hither to me. [19] And when he had commanded the multitudes to sit down upon the grass, he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitudes. [20] And they did all eat, and were filled. And they took up what remained, twelve full baskets of fragments. [21] And the number of them that did eat, was five thousand men, besides women and children.”

Mark 8:1-10 - ….Jesus called the disciples over to him and said, "My heart goes out to this crowd; they have been with me three days now and they have no food left. If I send them off home without anything, they will collapse on the way - and some of them have come from a distance."

His disciples replied, "Where could anyone find the food to feed them here in this deserted spot?"

"How many loaves have you got?" Jesus asked them.

"Seven," they replied.

So Jesus told the crowd to settle themselves on the ground. Then he took the seven loaves into his hands, and with a prayer of thanksgiving broke them, and gave them to the disciples to distribute to the people; and this they did. They had a few small fish as well, and after blessing them, Jesus told the disciples to give these also to the people. They ate and they were satisfied. Moreover, they picked up seven baskets full of pieces left over. The people numbered about four thousand. Jesus sent them home, and then he boarded the boat at once with his disciples and went on to the district of Dalmanutha.”

Matthew 26: 26] And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. [27] And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this[28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.”

Mark 14:17- 24 “  [22] And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. [23] And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. [24] And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.”

Luke 22:[19] And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. [20] In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

Douay Bible explanation: [19] "Do this for a commemoration of me": This sacrifice and sacrament is to be continued in the church, to the end of the world, to shew forth the death of Christ, until he cometh. But this commemoration, or remembrance, is by no means inconsistent with the real presence of his body and blood, under these sacramental veils, which represent his death; on the contrary, it is the manner that he himself hath commanded, of commemorating and celebrating his death, by offering in sacrifice, and receiving in the sacrament, that body and blood by which we were redeemed. END QUOTES

[31] And the Lord said:to Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: [32] But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren END QUOTES

Paul 1st Cor. 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. {Sleep  here means self -imposed Eternal Hell}

Douay Bible explanation: [27] "Or drink": Here erroneous translators corrupted the text, by putting and drink (contrary to the original) instead of or drink.

[27] "Guilty of the body": not discerning the body.  This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, even to the unworthy communicant; who otherwise could not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemned for not discerning the Lord's body.

[28] "Drink of the chalice": This is not said by way of command, but by way of allowance, viz., where and when it is agreeable to the practice and discipline of the church. END QUOTES

Many years ago now, I wrote a Lesson for my free Internet Ministry entitled: “John 6 with Bookends.” Below is the significance of this critical to TRUTH observation.

THE ASTOUNDING BIBLE EVIDENCE THAT PROVES CHRIST “REAL PRESENCE” / TRANSUBSTANUATION…

John 6 With Bookends revisited:

John 5: …[5] And there was a certain man there that had been eight and thirty years under his infirmity. [6] Him when Jesus had seen lying, and knew that he had been now a long time, he saith to him: Wilt thou be made whole? [7] The infirm man answered him: Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pond. For whilst I am coming, another goeth down before me[8] Jesus saith to him: Arise, take up thy bed, and walk. [9] And immediately the man was made whole: and he took up his bed, and walked. And it was the sabbath that day. [10] The Jews therefore said to him that was healed: It is the sabbath; it is not lawful for thee to take up thy bed.

John 5: [21] For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and giveth life: so the Son also giveth life to whom he will[22] For neither doth the Father judge any man, but hath given all judgment to the Son. [23] That all men may honour the Son, as they honour the Father. He who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, who hath sent him. [24] Amen, amen I say unto you, that he who heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath life everlasting; and cometh not into judgment, but is passed from death to life. [25] Amen, amen I say unto you, that the hour cometh, and now is, when the dead {spiritually}shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live

John 5: [36] But I have a greater testimony than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to perfect; the works themselves, which I do, give testimony of me, that the Father hath sent me[37] And the Father himself who hath sent me, hath given testimony of me: neither have you heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. [38] And you have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him you believe not. [39] Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me. [40] And you will not come to me that you may have life.”

 

John 5: [41] I receive glory not from men. [42] But I know you, that you have not the love of God in you. [43] I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive[44] How can you believe, who receive glory one from another: and the glory which is from God alone, you do not seek? [45] Think not that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that accuseth you, Moses, in whom you trust.” {Manna in the wilderness for 40 years and hundreds of thousands of Jewish people.}… Exod.16: 8 “And Moses said, "When the LORD gives you in the evening flesh to eat and in the morning bread to the full, because the LORD has heard your murmurings which you murmur against him -- what are we? Your murmurings are not against us but against the LORD."


John 7 {the other bookend}

John 7: 16-18 [16] Jesus answered them, and said: My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.[17] If any man do the will of him; he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. [18] He that speaketh of himself, seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, he is true, and there is no injustice in him.”

John 7: 24-25 “[24] Judge not according to the appearance, but judge just judgment. [25] Some therefore of Jerusalem said: Is not this he whom they seek to kill?”

John 7: [31] “But of the people many believed in him, and said: When the Christ cometh, shall he do more miracles, than these which this man doth?”

John 7:39 “[39] Now this he said of the Spirit which they should receive, who believed in him: for as yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”

 

John 6 {parts of it} 45-70 “ [45] It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.

[46] Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. [47] Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life[48] I am the bread of life[49] Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. [50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat[54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen {Truly Truly}I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you[55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

Douay Bible explanation [54"Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood": To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live forever. End Quotes

This IS a mixed metaphor: Eat MY Flesh and Drink MY Blood is literal; “live forever” is highly conditional; but doing so is the greatest single source of grace available to humanity in the history of the entire world.[PJM]

[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him{VERSE #57 THIS EXPLAINS PRECISELY WHAT DOES TAKE PLACE IN CATHOLIC HOLY COMMUNION} [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. …..  [61] Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? [62] But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? [63] If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before[64] It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. {SEE JOHN 4:23-24} [65] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

John 4:23-24[23]But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him. [24] God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth.”

Douay Bible explanation[63] "If then you shall see": Christ by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; and at the same time correct their gross apprehension of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and consequently not suffer it to be as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.

[64] "The flesh profiteth nothing": Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man's flesh, that is to say, man's natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ's flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us.

[64] "Are spirit and life": By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain. END QUOTES

[66] And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. [67] After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him[68] Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will YOU also go away? [69] And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. [70] And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.” END QUOTES

So my new friend, to DENY Transubstantiation IS to literally DENY GOD! You do so in ignorance, pride, and prejudice at very great risk. SO THE ANSWER TO THE FOUNDATION QUESTION: CAN GOD LIE" IS NO!  But man's PRIDE Can lead to a lack of right understanding and a lack of FAITH in what God can do; and is willing to do; to conditionally-save humanity HIS WAY.

Easter Blessings,

Patrick

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  194
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/12/2018
  • Status:  Offline

 

[1] How can we prove that the Eucharist is the body of Christ? [2] Is it cannibalism to say it’s Jesus flesh and blood? I know it isn’t myself but that’s the question my mum asked 

Allow me to answer the second part first:

No it is not cannibalism; although that is precisely what some of the followers of Jesus was teaching thought, and therefore abandoned him as being a lunatic.

John 6:47-57 “[47] Amen, amen {MEANS: TRULY; TRULY} I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. [48] I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. [50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven[52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world[53] The Jews therefore strove {argued} among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you[55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. [56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed[57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.”  {Which is precisely what does take place in Catholic Holy Communion…. So mum’s question is a good one.} …..

1 For God time does not exist; past, present and future are ALL present to God all of time.

2 The Jesus we receive Catholic Holy Communion is the NOW GLORIFIED Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus {NOT the corporal Body, and Blood}

It is nevertheless the Real Jesus; Body; Blood; Soul and Divinity {the ENTIRE Christ.}

3 This article gives a brief and lucid explanation which I will expand greatly upon.

4 Now let’s skip to enf and the REST of the story.

John 6: 67-70 “ [67] After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. {Deserted; abandoned Him} [68] Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? [69] And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. [70] And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

5 So now we can see that the necessary ingredient,{missing from those who LEFT Jesus; is} “Faith which comes from accepting Gods free OFFER of grace necessary to believe that which is not logically comprehensible; which is NOT to say that it cannot be proven.

The Eucharist {Real Presence} is actually two back to back miracles and a Mystery which I will explain.

“FAITH. The acceptance of the word of another, trusting that one knows what the other is saying and is honest in telling the truth. The basic motive of all faith is the authority (or right to be believed) of someone who is speaking. This authority is an adequate knowledge of what he or she is talking about, and integrity in not wanting to deceive. It is called divine faith when the one believed is God, and human faith when the persons believed are human beings. (Etym. Latin fides, belief; habit of faith; object of faith.)”…From Father John A. Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary

Rosemarie, do you know what Divine Providence is?

Divine Providence

“Traditional theism {belief in just one God} holds that God is the creator of heaven and earth, and that all that occurs in the universe takes place under Divine Providence — that is, under God’s sovereign guidance and control. According to believers, God governs creation as a loving father, working all things for good. Moreover, it is said, God is an absolutely perfect being. He is, first of all, omniscient or all-knowing: he knows of all truths that they are true, and of all falsehoods that they are false, whether they pertain to past, present or future. And God’s knowledge does not change. Nothing is learned or forgotten with him; what he knows, he knows from eternity and infallibly. Second, God is omnipotent or all-powerful: anything that is logically possible, he can do. Finally, God is perfectly good: in all circumstances he acts for the best, intending the best possible outcome””

My personal definition is a bit different. God is on our side so anytime He can be of assistance He just jumps right in. {I have personally experienced this often in my Ministry.} Below is an example; I just now sat down to begin my reply to you, and discovered that I had just received a new e-mail. I’m sharing it with you because it is ONE of the proofs that we can put forward. {Hence: Divine Providence}

Choose: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord

Readings for August 19, 2018

Proverbs 9:1-6
Psalm 34
Ephesians 5:15-20
John 6:51-58

“Christ either deceived mankind by conscious fraud, or He was Himself deluded and self-deceived, or He was Divine. There is no getting out of this trilemma. It is inexorable.”
-Mark Hopkins, Lectures on the Evidences of Christianity, 1844

This threefold choice of Jesus’ divinity, later advanced in the writings of CS Lewis (and, more recently for the podcast viewing public, Fr. Mike Schmitz), says we must choose whether Jesus is a liar, lunatic, or Lord. Because he lays claim to being the Son of God, and because he asserts authority to forgive sins, and because he offers himself as “true food,” he cannot simply be a good teacher, a kind and loving religious leader, or an ecclesial role model.

In this Sunday’s Gospel passage from John, Jesus says “I am the Bread of Life,” which seemed an acceptable enough analogy after thousands of Jews were fed with a few barley loaves. But Jesus becomes more pointed, saying “the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world … my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”

Wait … what? Jesus crosses the line from a happy metaphor about bread and delves into a bit of … lunacy, right? I mean, it sounds a bit like cannibalism. Did he mean what he said?

Apparently, he did. “As a result of this [teaching], many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.” (John 6:66) And when the disciples left, there is no scriptural reference to Jesus calling everyone back, saying “hold on, hold on. What I meant to say was …” And that is why I, as a Catholic view the Eucharist not only as a symbol or an analogy, but as Jesus’ true food containing the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

Given the threefold choice between liar, lunatic, or Lord, the disciples who stopped following Jesus chose “lunatic.” The religious leaders of his day chose “liar.” To them, claiming to be the Son of God and claiming to have the power to forgive sins was blasphemy. I choose “Lord.” Whether touched by wisdom or, conversely, accepting of my simplicity, I know and believe that Jesus is the Messiah and Lord, the Son of the living God sent by the Father in expiation for my sins. I know and believe this because I see the workings of Christ’s Gospel every day. I know and believe this because I see his love, undeserved, poured out before me. And I know and believe this because I count myself as blessed to “taste and see the goodness of the Lord” even in this broken world (or, rather, especially in this broken world.)

As a believer, I would be both a lunatic and a liar to go back to my former way of life. Jesus is Lord and I want to live as he taught because I crave the living bread he offers me. I choose to accompany him on this earth so that I can be in full communion with him in glory. Join with me. “Glorify the Lord with me, let us together extol his name.”

Jesus, I know and believe you are the Christ, my Lord and savior. I accept the bread you offer and will drink of the cup so that I can be with you in paradise. In thanksgiving for your mercy on me, a sinner, I will forever sing your praise. Amen END QUOTES

This IS my favorite topic; and I have written extensively on it. So I can offer you a few options. Would you like the short course of the Lengthy course? {You’re call.}

In answer to mum’s great question; here are some basics

1.    God in order to BE God cannot lie

 

2.    Five different and separate authors of the New Testament give their personal testimony and then three of them witnessed it with their very Life. {Matthew, Paul and John whom they tried to BOIL in Oil which Jesus saved him from}, and Mark and Luke.

 

3.    It is important to know that the Entire Christ is PRESENT in both the Consecrated Host alone, and OR the Consecrated Cup of Wine/Blood, and in ANY, even the tiniest part of each.

 

4.    The original term for the Eucharist was: “Breaking of the Bread” and the Bible evidences that the Early RC Church which was at first called “The Way” fully accepted, believed and practiced this Faith-Belief; many too who gave their lives as martyrs, which GREATY spurred the growth of the early Church: If so many were willing to GIVE their life as testimony; then it MUST BE TRUE.

 

ACTS 2:41-43[41] They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. [42] And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.[43] And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all.”

Acts.9: [2] “and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem”

Acts.24: [14] “But this I admit to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the law or written in the prophets”

5.    Here are the five Bible passages:

 

Matt.26 Verses 26 to 28 [26] Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." [27] And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; [28] for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

          Mk. 14: 22-24 “[22] And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and           broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body." [23] And he         took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank       of it. [24] And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

          Lk. 22:19-20Luke.22 Verses 19 to 20 [19] And he took bread, and when he          had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body   which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." [20] And likewise the        cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new          covenant in my blood”

          John 6:47-57[47] Amen, amen {MEANS: TRULY; TRULY} I say unto      you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. [48] I am the bread of     life. [49] Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are       dead. [50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if      any man eat of it, he may not die. [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven[52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever;       and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world[53] The          Jews therefore strove {argued} among themselves, saying: How can this       man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I           say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you[55] He that eateth my flesh, and       drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last      day. [56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink   indeed[57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me,         and I in him. 

Paul 1st. Cor, 11:23-30 “[23] 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, [24] 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." [25] 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." [26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. [27] 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. [28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. [29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. [30] That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.” {Spiritually: self- condemned to HELL}

6.    A sixth evidence is Eucharistic Miracles: Check out this site.

7.    The Eucharist is:

8.     

FROM the Father

OF the Son

BY the Holy Spirit

The process is termed either the Consecration and or Traunsbstanuation:

There are two consecutive miracles that take place before OUR VERY EYES {of faith}.

At the very Instant of the change {1} the priest is turned into “Alter Christus” {literally, another Christ} by the Holy Spirit; then it is the PRIEST empowered by God who actually changes with THESE WORDS, what WAS bread in the Entire Jesus {“This Is MY Body”}; then again the cup of what WAS wine {“This Is MY Blood”} into the very Blood of Jesus.

If one doubts this READ Matthew 10: 1-8

It is to be noted that by Christ intent, not everything commanded to be believed is logically or scientifically provable. THE PRACTICE OF RELIGIONS is commonly termed “ones “Faith”; precisely because “faith” in our God is the very ROOT of our religion.

 

9.    This belief is the very FOUNDATION of Catholicism {and no Catholicism + no Christianity}. From Our Catechism:

I. The Eucharist - Source and Summit of Ecclesial Life

1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life."134 "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch." {sacrifice}

1327 In brief, the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith: "Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking."

10.ADDING TO THIS MYSTERY

Even Jesus/ God can only die one time: therefore Christ Original Sacrifice is what is celebrated and RE-presented {NOT “represented}; Re- presented.

 

What are we saying here?

We are saying that mysteriously and miraculously at every Mass though out the World; it is the original Sacrifice on Calvary that is made PRESENT in our midst; time and time again in time immortal. ….What an AWESOME God we have!

If this information is in any way insufficient; please let me know. I have written very much on this topic and don’t wish to overwhelm you or mum so early in our friendship. But God and I ARE on your side.

God Bless you both; I LOVE questions,

Patrick

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  6
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  907
  • Content Per Day:  0.20
  • Reputation:   382
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/03/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  07/07/1866

I didn't read back thru this thread to see if this question has been asked. What does your father do with the left over bread and wine after the service?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  18
  • Topic Count:  165
  • Topics Per Day:  0.07
  • Content Count:  3,997
  • Content Per Day:  1.58
  • Reputation:   2,607
  • Days Won:  15
  • Joined:  04/29/2017
  • Status:  Offline

While I am at variance with Transubstantiation, I am Bullinger/Brucer (symbolic but has spiritual effects but is not the literal body and blood of Christ), I do know where Catholic theologians got the idea for Transubstantiation : 

“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 yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.” (Joh 6:54-56). 

I personally think Jesus elaborated on this cryptic verse at the Last Supper, “And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” (Luke 22:19-20). I also  believe John 6:54-56 was literally fulfilled via Jesus’ scourging and death on the cross, “Then Pilate had Jesus flogged with a lead-tipped whip. 2 The soldiers wove a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and they put a purple robe on him. 3 “Hail! King of the Jews!” they mocked, as they slapped him across the face. 33 But when they came to Jesus, they saw that he was already dead, so they didn’t break his legs.34 One of the soldiers, however, pierced his side with a spear, and immediately blood and water flowed out.” (John 19:1-3, 33-34). This was His body torn to pieces and His blood poured out for our sins. 

———————————

Bullinger is one of three views:

1. Transubstantiation

2. Symbolic (only symbolic, called Zwingli view)

 3. Bullinger, it’s Symbolic but has Spiritual effects.

I believe Scripture supports Bullinger’s case:

 “27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged.32 But when we are judged by the Lord, Thenwe are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.” (1 Corinthians 11:27-32). 

For people to have gotten ill and Eve died proves it’s not only symbolic like Zwingli said. However, Transubstantiation is ruled out in my view by Luke 22 ans John 19. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

  • Group:  Catholic
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  94
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  827
  • Content Per Day:  0.41
  • Reputation:   67
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  09/26/2018
  • Status:  Offline

I would welcome a debate on the 6th Chapter of John.  Please dont cut and paste lengthy articles that no one reads.  Let's have a person to person discussion.....as if without computers or smart phones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...