For Prots - What Does Eat Flesh And Drink Blood Mean

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1542399' date='May 25 2008, 09:30 PM']Woot! Yeah she is amazing! I love her.
And dude, madame V, I agree with you about this thread and not having any disagreements! How rare!

[/quote]


[quote name='BG45' post='1542423' date='May 25 2008, 09:42 PM']Madame V, did I just agree with you in my head? How strange...but I did. It's a good feeling, maybe it'll happen more often. [/quote]



Who knew Kujo could be so prophetic when he said Phatmass was changing! My goodness!

[Deb]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1542856' date='May 26 2008, 01:14 AM']does it really matter whether people take it literally or not? if they take it symbolically, isn't that a lot like a baptism of desire? technically, there is no holy water on your head, but since you want there to be, it counts as the same. (my loose understanding of desire baptism). thus even though it is not being taken literally, it is being taken just as seriously, and to the same effect.

[b]Yes, it does make a difference to Catholics if you take it literally or not. If you receive without believing that it is the true body and blood of Christ, you are receiving unworthily. When you receive, you are professing that you believe in the Catholic faith and that you are in communion with everyone in the Church. You are not taking it as seriously, nor are you receiving the graces from it because it is being taken unworthily. Big difference in effect. [/b]


on another note, regarding how protestants take different parts of the bible literally and otherwise, does catholicism take EVERYTHING in the bible seriously, literally and obey it? cause i seem to remember some weird arcane stuff in there that no one really takes seriously. now what makes the catholic choice of stuff to follow so much more reasonable than any others?

[b]Catholics do take everything in the bible seriously but, you have to be able to know the bible, all of the bible in order to even begin to understand what any part of it means. There are things in the old testament that are no longer followed because Jesus the Christ established a new convenant. You have to know things like that. The reality is, the bible was created by divine inspiration and is CATHOLIC. There is no other bible. There may be other religions that decided to remove parts of the bible, change the words and toss whatever they didn't like. Bottom line is the bible Catholics use is the same bible they have been using since it was established and all other bibles were changed by men who wanted to do their own thing. It has nothing to do with what is more reasonable, but, what is the Truth. You can't read the bible and not realize that Jesus was really talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. That is born out by the earliest teachings. You can't read Acts and not know this. Protestants toss out anything they don't want to use even if it is as clear as the light of day. I have just never figured out why? Jesus said that many who call, Lord, Lord, would not be coming to heaven through him. Big difference between real and symbolic. [/b]

and to my vague protestantism, i dont subscribe to any particular mindset, (partially because i dont know enough about any one, to choose it) but my cobbled together religion does contain a lot of teachings and practices in catholicism (that i have heard of or picked up in my time here), but i still wholly disagree with enough parts of the religion as a whole, that i couldn't "force" myself to forget or change those parts and convert to catholicism. and to madame V, its not because being a protestant is easier either. that seemed pretty insulting to say that an entire religions only reason for existence is by straight convenience. neither would i agree that it is all based on being anti catholic, though it may have started that way. it seems the height of arrogance to reduce all of the protestant faiths and believers be in a petty rebellion against your own.

[b]The only reason there ever was so much anti-Catholicism was to keep those in other branches of religion from wandering too close to the true religion, discovering the truth and leaving for the truth. Scott Hahn was told as a child to never enter a Catholic Church because it was a cult and if you went in one, they would not let you leave. As an adult, he entered a Catholic church and could not believe what he found. Of course, he is now Catholic. Satan's greatest goal is to destroy the church that God founded on this earth, The Catholic church and his biggest weapon is division. He scored big time when Luther jumped but, the Catholic church cannot be destroyed. It has the word and the life and the truth as its protector and guide.
[/b][/quote]

[BG45]

Well since Deb brought up that it does make a difference as to whether one views the Eucharist and a symbol or not...some quotes.

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again... Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyreans)

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

"Christ has declared the cup... to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies. 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?" (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies Book V)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: 1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.'"

1357 We carry out this command of the Lord by celebrating the memorial of his sacrifice. In so doing, we offer to the Father what he has himself given us: the gifts of his creation, bread and wine which, by the power of the Holy Spirit and by the words of Christ, have become the body and blood of Christ. Christ is thus really and mysteriously made present.

1358 We must therefore consider the Eucharist as: - thanksgiving and praise to the Father;
- the sacrificial memorial of Christ and his Body;
- the presence of Christ by the power of his word and of his Spirit.

Edited May 27, 2008 by BG45

[thessalonian]

I see there is alot of posting by Catholics here but as I said I don't want this to be a discussion of the Catholic view because I see a dichtomy in John 6 that I haven't seen discussed before that I don't believe protestants, particularly of the Once Saved Always Saved variety have an answer for. When we go down the path of what we believe and start defending it this problem does not surface. So I am hoping some non Catholics will come on this thread and express their view.

[Jesus_lol]

right ahead of you there, though i didnt really have a view on it before checking it out just now.

[Deb]

I don't think you will get a response from non-Catholics because most do not know why they do not believe, just because they were taught not to believe.
If they actually try to locate something to discount the true presence, they can't. So, I bet you get nothing.

[LouisvilleFan]

I gave a Protestant response a couple pages ago, but for that matter you can go to Relevant Magazine or some other mostly-Protestant message board and find a lot of good answers. Believe it or not, intelligent Protestants who are practically experts on Church history and tradition do exist.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1543300' date='May 26 2008, 11:34 AM']Sounds like relativistic, wish-washy, we'll get some truth from anywhere we can because we're desperate kind of approach. Not that I think turning to the Eucharist is desperate...but thinking pop & chips are the Eucharist becaus its convenient is desperate.

Peace.[/quote]
Indeed. Though a friend of mine (who knows of these people... who "jammed" in a P&W session w/ them) said they might be close to becoming Catholic. I think they might have a long way to go, but we can only hope.

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1543369' date='May 26 2008, 12:18 PM']Interesting.[/quote]
Quite.

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1546496' date='May 28 2008, 02:38 PM']I gave a Protestant response a couple pages ago, but for that matter you can go to Relevant Magazine or some other mostly-Protestant message board and find a lot of good answers. Believe it or not, intelligent Protestants who are practically experts on Church history and tradition do exist.[/quote]

So do we count those knowledgable protstants as material heretics? Do we even count them as protestants? lawl

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1546560' date='May 28 2008, 04:09 PM']So do we count those knowledgable protstants as material heretics? Do we even count them as protestants? lawl[/quote]

I leave that to the Church to decide. Their beliefs are reasonable, as are their oppositions to the Catholic Church. I prefer to simply affirm that they are fellow Christians.

[Jesus_lol]

good answer!

[jeffpugh]

I concur.

So... I need to bring more prots to PM. This thread is going slow.

[Deb]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1546496' date='May 28 2008, 02:38 PM']I gave a Protestant response a couple pages ago, but for that matter you can go to Relevant Magazine or some other mostly-Protestant message board and find a lot of good answers. Believe it or not, intelligent Protestants who are practically experts on Church history and tradition do exist.[/quote]


I am talking about a Protestant response that actually shows, via scripture and tradition something to back up their heretic belief that the flesh and blood of Jesus is not truly present in the Eucharist.

[Jesus_lol]

so you want someone to use the same evidence as you used, but to try and prove a different point? doesnt really work. they and i have both read the passages you are referring to, but in the non catholic world it doesn't really make as much sense to be taken so literally.

as a roman catholic, who is taught that church policy is basically divine, perfect in every way, of course you will be more likely to read these and agree with them.

but i would like to hear some more explanations of everyones view that don't so much hinge on "Pope said this, Pope is right, this is right" cause those arguments are great and all, but if you dont believe in papal infallibility, like me and and just about everyone who isnt catholic, then they dont really hold water. so follow them back to the root, why does the pope believe the way he does?

so what i am saying is, if you agree perfectly with the churches stance(why not?) then post their reasons for believing the way they do.

Edited May 29, 2008 by Jesus_lol

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Deb' post='1548063' date='May 29 2008, 09:56 AM']I am talking about a Protestant response that actually shows, via scripture and tradition something to back up their heretic belief that the flesh and blood of Jesus is not truly present in the Eucharist.[/quote]

A Protestant response will be based on Scripture alone ;-)

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1548116' date='May 29 2008, 11:13 AM']but i would like to hear some more explanations of everyones view that don't so much hinge on "Pope said this, Pope is right, this is right" cause those arguments are great and all, but if you dont believe in papal infallibility, like me and and just about everyone who isnt catholic, then they dont really hold water. so follow them back to the root, why does the pope believe the way he does?[/quote]

Excellent point.

[Deb]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1548116' date='May 29 2008, 10:13 AM']so you want someone to use the same evidence as you used, but to try and prove a different point? doesnt really work. they and i have both read the passages you are referring to, but in the non catholic world it doesn't really make as much sense to be taken so literally.

as a roman catholic, who is taught that church policy is basically divine, perfect in every way, of course you will be more likely to read these and agree with them.

but i would like to hear some more explanations of everyones view that don't so much hinge on "Pope said this, Pope is right, this is right" cause those arguments are great and all, but if you dont believe in papal infallibility, like me and and just about everyone who isnt catholic, then they dont really hold water. so follow them back to the root, why does the pope believe the way he does?

so what i am saying is, if you agree perfectly with the churches stance(why not?) then post their reasons for believing the way they do.[/quote]

Just FYI, I was just confirmed at Easter Vigil. I went to a Catholic Church when I was young but, was out of the church for 35 years. I never ever believed in the real presence. I did not determine that because the church said so because there are lots of Catholics who don't believe that. I came to that conclusion after being given the gift of faith and the gift of understanding and reading scripture. I came to that conclusion after reading the works of the early church fathers. It could not have been any clearer.
Last, the Lord makes it very obvious to me every time I receive the Eucharist that I am receiving him. As this pertains to personal revelation and supernatural experiences, it really wouldn't convince anyone except those who have known me my entire adult life. I was very very anti-Catholic. Now, I go to daily mass. I know what I get from a worthy reception of the Eucharist.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1548116' date='May 29 2008, 09:13 AM']as a roman catholic, who is taught that church policy is basically divine, perfect in every way, of course you will be more likely to read these and agree with them.

but i would like to hear some more explanations of everyones view that don't so much hinge on "Pope said this, Pope is right, this is right" cause those arguments are great and all, but if you dont believe in papal infallibility, like me and and just about everyone who isnt catholic, then they dont really hold water. so follow them back to the root, why does the pope believe the way he does?[/quote]

Firstly, I wouldn't ever use the word 'policy' to describe the Church's capacity to dogmatically define something. 'Policy' just doesn't have the right connotation. It might be the Church's policy to exclusively provide Pepsicola products to visitors to the Vatican...I would hardly think that this would mean that the Magisterium is trying to somehow declare that the laity should only drink Pepsi and that Coca Cola is wrong.

Anyway, I think it is fallacious for your line of reasoning to get hung up on the papal infalliblity issue. Eucharistic theology predates the modern conception of the papal persona. I mean the early chuch fathers mostly quoted are [i]not [/i]popes. The New Testaments passages cited are not written by popes. The councils quoted may have had papal input, but the authority rested on the council to decide the ultimate formulations on the philosophical reality of the Eucharistic Transformation.

The Eucharist is NOT a Pope issue. It is a ongoing Catholic Issue that forms the deepest mystery of the Fatih...and despite the popular Protestant view in the last 150 years since Papal Infallibility...not every Catholic issue is a Pope issue...even if Popes since Vatican I have continued to talk about it.

Sorry to be snappy...I just get frustrated when important Catholic issues are obscured by straw man Pope arguments...

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1548116' date='May 29 2008, 09:13 AM']so you want someone to use the same evidence as you used, but to try and prove a different point? doesnt really work. they and i have both read the passages you are referring to, but in the non catholic world it doesn't really make as much sense to be taken so literally.

as a roman catholic, who is taught that church policy is basically divine, perfect in every way, of course you will be more likely to read these and agree with them.

but i would like to hear some more explanations of everyones view that don't so much hinge on "Pope said this, Pope is right, this is right" cause those arguments are great and all, but if you dont believe in papal infallibility, like me and and just about everyone who isnt catholic, then they dont really hold water. so follow them back to the root, why does the pope believe the way he does?

so what i am saying is, if you agree perfectly with the churches stance(why not?) then post their reasons for believing the way they do.[/quote]
While others have done a good job answering this, you might start out with Scripture - starting with John 6. Note that many of Jesus' disciples left Him over this "hard teaching" ("Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it?"), a rather drastic measure if Christ was merely using metaphor.
And also note that Christ does not call them back to explain that this was only a figure of speech, but rather asks the Apostles if they too will leave him.

Also see 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 concerning the Eucharist:[quote]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 show the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 [b]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.[/b][/quote]
Pretty strong words if the Eucharist is only symbolic.

Edited May 30, 2008 by Socrates

[jeffpugh]

Don't forget St Paul's writings when he said that one who drinks and eats of the Eucharist eat and drink judgement on themselves. Strong for a symbol.

[Jesus_lol]

thanks to SMM and socrates for the replies!


[quote name='Veridicus' post='1548803' date='May 29 2008, 09:02 PM']Firstly, I wouldn't ever use the word 'policy' to describe the Church's capacity to dogmatically define something. 'Policy' just doesn't have the right connotation. It might be the Church's policy to exclusively provide Pepsicola products to visitors to the Vatican...I would hardly think that this would mean that the Magisterium is trying to somehow declare that the laity should only drink Pepsi and that Coca Cola is wrong.

Anyway, I think it is fallacious for your line of reasoning to get hung up on the papal infalliblity issue. Eucharistic theology predates the modern conception of the papal persona. I mean the early chuch fathers mostly quoted are [i]not [/i]popes. The New Testaments passages cited are not written by popes. The councils quoted may have had papal input, but the authority rested on the council to decide the ultimate formulations on the philosophical reality of the Eucharistic Transformation.

The Eucharist is NOT a Pope issue. It is a ongoing Catholic Issue that forms the deepest mystery of the Fatih...and despite the popular Protestant view in the last 150 years since Papal Infallibility...not every Catholic issue is a Pope issue...even if Popes since Vatican I have continued to talk about it.

Sorry to be snappy...I just get frustrated when important Catholic issues are obscured by straw man Pope arguments... [/quote]


i dont think you quite got what i was trying to say. firstly, sorry if policy isnt the right word, i hardly meant it in a legal sense of the word, or seriously enough to get in a twist over it.

the Eucharist isnt about the pope. i was simply stating that explaining the eucharist as "thats what the church thinks, and since i dont question the church, that is what i think" doesnt really work if you actually do question the church, (like everyone this article is aimed at, really). most catholics have a better understanding of their beliefs than simple uninformed faith, just as most protestants have a better reason than "this is what catholics beleive, and catholics are always wrong"

i am not saying that that is the sole reason for the Eucharist being the way it is, but some people here and elsewhere dont get anymore specific than that.

i have nothing against the catholic stance, and i dont even really disagree with it. i dont want to be offensive, but i couldnt care less for arguments on either side that dont go deeper than "because he said so"

Edited May 30, 2008 by Jesus_lol

[Alycin]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1548980' date='May 30 2008, 12:32 AM']i have nothing against the catholic stance, and i dont even really disagree with it. but without being offensive, but i couldnt care less for arguments on either side that dont go deeper than "because he said so"[/quote]


If the "he" were Jesus, would it make a difference?