What contributions have Catholics made...

Show me where Jesus said 'this only a symbol of my body and blood'?

There were good reasons the disciples believed Jesus meant exactly what He said.

Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, hou have no life in you. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day.

Old Testament: They HAD to consume the Lamb.

I believe that the Eucharist was the New Bread of the Presence:
I believe Jesus has laid claim for himself and his followers, Just as David did, to the priesthood. (2 Samuel 6)
I believe Jesus is the New Temple his disciples will off the New Bread of the Presence.
I believe the New Temple: the temple is His body' (John 2:19-22)

Much I have listed is paraphrased front Brant Pitri research papter and can be found at:
www.BrantPitre.com

 

Brant Pitre is currently close yo publishing a book entitled 'Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist' which gives the reasons why the Jewish Christians recognized the Holy Eucharist was firmly grounded in the OT and why so many were willing to suffer martydom instead of re-canting their belief in Jesus True Body and Blood being present at all Eucharist celebrated at all times and all places.

DHK, I expect you will come back with your usual 'there is no such thing as the eucharist. I challenge you to read this book (to be published quite soon) and give your critique.

 

Lori...

Its not a streach at all, Lori. Its THE TRUTH.

When Jesus said "I am the door", do you believe that as He stood there he briefly turned into a physical DOOR...with hinges and a door knob?

And when Christ said we were to "eat" His body, people misunderstood and He corrected them by saying..."It is the Spirit who gives life. the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you are spirit, and they are life"

Jesus never ever said it was a symbol! (John 6: 63)

Yes, He did. John 6:63

We do not EAT Jesus Christ, Lori. Jesus is not a cracker, cookie or bowl of soup. We "partake" of Him through the ministry of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

I'm going to put this as gently as I can, but If you believe that you literally EAT Jesus, than later on in the day do you believe that you *eliminate* Him?

C'mon Lori. Dont let them lie to you.

 

Not necessarily. God used a pagan ruler Cyrus to bring the Jews back to their land and he used pagan "wise men" to be the first worshipers of Jesus. He used the false prophet Baalam to bless the Jews.

I am not equating the monks to the pagans, just making a point that your assumption/view has no solid ground biblically.

*I think the passage is quite clear; it represents belief in Christ. I have analyzed and posted on that passage on these threads at least 3 times.

From the NET Bible

If you read the passage, it is Jesus saying that one must believe in Him. Eating his body and drinking his blood is not literal - at that time, he was alive so clearly no one could do this. He equates this eating and drinking to belief in Him as the bread of life - which is the theme in John over and over. One must interpret in the context of the passage and the context of the book, and then the context of the NT and the context of the whole bible. God does not endorse cannibalism, which is what this is.

 

"I am the door and you are the branches are both written in metaphorical language. This IS my body, this IS my blood is not!

How big is your God? He manifest Himself in a tiny infant in Bethlehem born to a poor peasant girl. Can He not manifest Himself in bread and wine. BTW, I hope you will read the book by Brent Pitre that is being published. It may give you understanding on where Catholics are coming from. Isn't that what you want? What we REALLY believe and not just what you have been taught through lies like Jack Chick Publications, etc.

If you all have the goods on the Catholic Church, why is it necessary for so many contrived and made up lies (like Jack Chick) etc. to be published. Just stick to the truth.

 

There is no reason for Jesus to become bread and wine, especially since this is essentially a pantheistic idea, totally incompatible with the Bible.

The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was sufficient to pay for sins; there is no need for him to become wine and bread in order to be eaten/drunk. For what purpose? To believe in Him is life. There are so many statements of this in the NT that it would be impossible to copy them all here. This is the message of the passage in John 6 as well; Jesus is the bread of life, believing on Him is life.

 

'but If you believe that you literally EAT Jesus, than later on in the day do you believe that you *eliminate* Him?'

I'll put this a gently as I can. God can take care of Himself and when I humbly receive this prescious Treasure in the Eucharist I don't worry about how the Lord handles the ingested elements. I just know that I feed on Him in my heart by Faith and Thanksgiving.

 

John 6: For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Couldn't have made it clearer than that. Many of His disciples said: this is impossible to hear and LEFT Him. He didn't say 'oh, no, you misunderstood me, come back. I just meant you feed on me by faith.

 

Lori...

He is so big I dare not think of him being a cracker.

He is capable of anything, as He is God.

Its not a question of what Christ CAN do, but rather what IS true concerning Himself.

And it is NOT true that we literally, physically, EAT the Lord Jesus Christ. The scriptures, as I, Marcia, DHK and others are showing you, make clear that we do not partake of Christ in that way.

1st of all, I KNOW where Catholics are coming from, as I was a Catholic for the 1st 24 years of my life. And secondly, I have seen precious few Jack Chick tracts in my life. I've have seen them, but I dont get my convictions from Chick tracts, but rather from comparing what the Catholic Church actually teaches..(from the Catholics own writings, the Catholic Catechism, the Counsels, and the highly respected (by Catholics) Catholic Encyclopedia, etc etc) and comparing that information up against the truth found in the scriptures.

 

Eating blood was forbidden by God.

De*12:23 Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.


Jesus would have never commanded something that was against the Law.


He was not speaking of eating literal blood as that would be sin. He was speaking spiritually.

 

God can, and God does take care of Himself.
And when you take the "Eucharist" you don't need to worry about how the Lord handles the ingested elements, because HE doesn't!

This age old belief of the RCC is very much like cannibalism if taken literally. But since the one taking it really believes it is flesh and blood when it isn't, the common person in today's society would label you a sociopath. Truly believing bread is flesh and ought to taste that way, when indeed it is only bread--someone needs a break! Describe it to a doctor, he will say you need help. Yet this is what the RCC believes. It is not what the Apostles believed, nor what Christ taught. He was not a lunatic.

 

My comments referencing my asterisking above:

*So?

**Ditto

***Agreed to an extent re the Church becoming more 'worldly'. But that doesn't make it apostate, anymore than the rather wordly character of many western denominations today makes them apostate. And persecution of heretics didn't really get going until after the end of the 4th century; up until then Christians were still being persecuted, albeit by Arian rather than pagan Emperors.

****Incorrect: the differentiation between clergy and laity happened much earlier - certainly by the time of Cyprian of Carthage (fl. 250s), as his writings demonstrate, and arguably it can be traced in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (fl. 107).


*****Also incorrect: clerical celibacy in the western Church was only mandated from the 11th century, much later than the period we're talking about, and of course it has never been mandated in the east (bear in mind we're talking about just one Church in the 4th century). You - or rather, the chap you quote - may be getting this confused with the rise of episcopal celibacy but, again, this has far more to do with the rise of monasticism, which again predates Constantine (although, ironically perhaps, was fuelled by the perception of the growing worldliness of the post-Constantinian Church referred to above).

 

What has any of the above got to do with Constantine?

 

Interesting. This puts you at loggerheads with DHK. When do you say it did come into existence?

 

Read any Aquinas?

 

I'm sure you are aware that one of the most common accusations against the early Christian Church was that it was engaging in cannibalism. Apparently their liturgies were not emphasizing (as so many Baptist Churches do) that people are not consuming anything but a symbol of the Lords body. Yet many were persecuted and even but to death for the crime of cannibalism.

I bet they were reading the words Jesus used at the institution of the Lords's supper and not adding the words (its only a symbol) to the original text. Yet, with all this persecution and accusations that even led to death you never read of any of the saying 'you don't understand, we only mean it as a symbol of the Lords body and blood. Imagine that! Even to imprisonment and death.

 

Do Catholics put babies in a loaf of bread and pass it around and eat it? Also I'm wondering if Catholics engage in incest?

 

Are you serious?

 

Earlier - Matt asked for some specifics on what the RCC had incorporated from paganism --

Among the RC quotes given was this one

"[b]the more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantinian era, with its features borrowed from paganism, enhanced the image of the minister[/b] as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became the rule rather than the exception, for infants could not be preached to. "

To which we get this non-impressive less-than-compelling response from Matt.

The RC historian I quote - is a little better known as both a Catholic historian and an author than Matt - so for now I will continue quoting Bokenkotter instead of Black. No disrespect intended.

in Christ,

Bob

 

John 10 - Jesus said "I am the door" not "A door symbolizes me" - but he expected the listener to "figure that out anyway".

John 6 Jesus said
51 "" I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.''
He did not say "Some day in the future AFTER the cross My FLESH WILL be bread".

STILL nobody "took a bite out of Christ" - not even Pope Peter.

It was then that Christ EXPLAINED the illustration saying that it is His WORD that has eternal life - it is His WORD that is to be eaten.

Notice that in John 6 the faithFUL disciples get the point of illustration with bread saying back to Christ "YOU have the WORDS of life".

The faithLESS disciples of John 6 are stuck on the much-too-literal idea " regarding flesh and bread --
52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, ""How can this man give us His flesh to eat?''


In Matt 16 Christ chastises the disciples for taking the symbol of bread TOO literally.

Matt 16
9 ""Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand[/b], and how many baskets full you picked up?
10 ""Or the seven loaves of the four thousand,[/b] and how many large baskets full you picked up?
11 ""How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?[/b] But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.''
12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching[/b] of the Pharisees and Sadducees

It is facinating to me that the Matt 16 problem still persists today.

The WORD is symbolized by BREAD - starting all the way back in Deut 8:3.

Jesus appeals to that same illustration in John 6 - showing that HE is the living bread that came down out of heaven.

John starts his entire gospel off on that subject of the WORD become flesh and coming down - and living among us.

It is a consistent theme of the Bible - and yet it keeps getting missed!!

What a shocker.

in Christ,

Bob