Why does Jesus call Himself “Bread”?

Jay,

According to Catholic theology, why is it so important that we actually (as opposed to symbolically) eat Christ's flesh. How does this actual v. symbolic distintion create a closer relationship with God? And why would it be so important to God? I'm not meanig to down play this I am just curious.

If you interpret John 6:51-56 in this way doesn't this mean that if one has never taken the Eucharist that there is no life in them? "No life in you" I read as someone who is still unsaved. If this is the case, then this means that the Chruch's teaching about the unreached peoples of the world is incorrect. It also means that Protestants are not "separated brothers" but unsaved and going to hell.

If "No life in you" doesn't mean you are damned, in other words there are no consequences to not taking the Eucharist, then why is it the central point of the Catholic faith as the Pope has said?

Please reconcile these two teachings.

In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas--

Thing is, the Catholic teaching is the one consistently held by all of Christendom up until some time after the Reformation. Even Luther believed it for a time after he nailed his theses to the door. So the burden of proof is on you, not us. But I'll look at your points.

You say: "How does this actual v. symbolic distintion create a closer relationship with God?"

Hmm... Actually ingesting the body of God (Catholic view) versus ingesting a mere symbol of the body of God (Protestant view). Seems pretty clear how one would be more intimate than the other. Still obscure? Read on...

You say: "And why would it be so important to God?"

Because he came into nature to have union with us. He took on our form to be one with us. But he didn't stop there. He actually chose to remain with us as food so that He may nourish not only our souls, but also our bodies. At least, that is my speculation, since you're asking a question about what is in the Mind of the Lord that Paul wouldn't even presume to know the final answer (see: Romans 11:33-36)

Your next paragraph does present a quandry, doesn't it. Well, I suppose the answer will come at a future date. But there is no inconsistency for us to say: "There is a possibility of salvation outside the Church, though we don't fully understand how it happens" and saying "One must eat the flesh of the Son of Man to be saved." How God accomplishes salvation in those who have not received Communion is a mystery to us. Good thing God knows. Perhaps someone else can provide a better answer, but I see no inconsistency in the positions. Perhaps you are condemned for being Protestant, I don't know. Not my job to know.

Here's something for you to respond to, though. Those who heard Christ actually speak the words in their native Aramaic heard Him say "you must chew/gnaw on my flesh." And they questioned Him, saying in verse 60: "This is a hard teaching, who can accept it?" and Christ said, "Does this offend you?" And in verse 66 we see that many people who heard Him say this, and plainly understand His literal meaning STOPPED FOLLOWING HIM! Christ, seeing the exodus, didn't soften His words or say "no, I really meant it symbolically." He actually meant what they who heard Him say it thought He meant. It's the only place in the Gospels where followers actually stopped following Him due to a difficult teaching.

He lost followers when he actually spoke the words. Are you an heir of those who couldn't accept it back then?

The line from Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians about eating and drinking death upon oneself for not discerning the body and blood of Christ is especially tough to get around. Please explain how one can eat and drink death upon oneself for not discerning the body and blood of Christ, if it is merely a symbol and is not, in fact, the body and blood of Christ.

Stop trying to change the subject by tossing apparently contradictory Catholic doctrines. Please actually reconcile what is in the plain meaning of the Word of God, and was held by the historic Church as True.

Thomas,

Allow me to jump in...it's been awhile :-)

1) When we consider the reasons why it is so important for all Christians to receive the Eucharist we should first look to the "effects" of that reception:
a. The Eucharist, being Christ, cleanses and separates us from our "venial" sins
b. The Eucharist is the source of conversion and penance, again because the Eucharist is Christ.
c. Through reception we are fully united with Christ because we receive Him - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.
d. The Eucharist unites us with the heavenly liturgy.
e. The Eucharist unites us with fellow Christian in that we all receive the same Lord.
f. The Eucharist prepares us for eternal life (hence Jesus' words in John 6).
For even greater detail on the effects of the Eucharist click on this link:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Eucharist

2) In terms of Christ's mandate of "eating His Flesh" in order to have eternal life...it says what it says, keep in mind it was Jesus who said this not us. Think about this...would it have made any sense whatsoever for Jesus to have said this if the Eucharist was only a symbol and optional (as so many Protestant churches have made communion these days)? He put the emphasis on the necessary aspect of "eating His Flesh." The Catholic Church, as we have stressed in many articles on this blog, states:

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."

1384 The Lord addresses an invitation to us, urging us to receive him in the sacrament of the Eucharist: "Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

In Christ,
Joe

Thomas, concerning your phrase:
It also means that Protestants are not "separated brothers" but unsaved and going to hell

Keep in mind that in Catholic teaching (though it may be impossible in your theology - perhaps you could enlighten me), it is very possible to be in full and/or partial communion with the Church and yet go to hell. In fact, for a long time, many Catholics believed that hell was reserved for baptized Catholics (since they doubted the validity of Protestant baptism and believed that heaven and hell were both reserved for the baptized - Limbo being for the unbaptized).

So the teaching that those who reject the Catholic teaching on Eucharist are wrong on an issue important enough to affect salvation is consistent with the description of these people as "separated brethren".

As far as Protestants go, they may be acting in good faith when they reject Catholic teachings on the Eucharist. All Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, acknowledge that God's mercy can and does go beyond his formal promises (I believe the Protestant term for this is "uncovenanted mercies") especially in cases when people are acting in good faith.

So when Catholics understand John 3 and John 6 to say that baptism and eucharist are necessary for salvation, they acknowledge that God in his infinite mercy may be providing other unknown ways to be saved. The thief on the cross is one example of someone receiving salvation apart from normal baptism and eucharist. The thief on the cross, however, is also an example of perfect contrition as well: the thief acknowledged his sin, and trusted the Lord to be able to remember him. Though here is a question: was the thief asking Jesus to conduct some sort of memorial or was he asking Jesus to make him real and present in the Kingdom of God? Perhaps the former but Jesus clearly promised him the latter.

I would suspect (thankfully, it is not for me to judge) most Protestants are acting in good faith concerning their non-literal interpretation of the Eucharist. This is because I have heard of many Protestants who entered the Roman Catholic Church upon realizing that the Eucharist was the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. I have heard of no Protestants (except perhaps myself for a few years) who remained outside the Roman Catholic Church even though they believed in Transubstantiation.

Hey Guys,
Its been awhile but the topics never change. So to save time, I just cut and pasted from a similar post. The following is more or less a collage of prior debates on this topic

I point you to John 6:63
"The Spirit gives life; the FLESH counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are SPIRIT and they are life."

This coment is from Augustine:
"He that comes unto Me: this is the same as when He says, And he that BELIEVES on Me: and what He meant by, shall NEVER HUNGER, the same we are to understand by, shall NEVER THIRST. By both is signified that eternal fulness, where is no lack.
Again here is Augustine
"Let them then who eat, eat on, and them that drink, drink; let them hunger and thirst; eat Life, drink Life. That eating, is to be refreshed; but you are in such wise refreshed, as that that whereby you are refreshed, does not fail. That drinking, what is it but to live? Eat Life, drink Life; you will have life, and the Life is Entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and Blood of Christ shall be each man's Life; if what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in truth itself EATEN SPIRITUALLY, DRUNK SPIRITUALLY. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying, It is the Spirit that gives life, but the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life."

God Bless

Here is some more.

Augustine (Faustus 6.5): "while we consider it no longer a duty to offer sacrifices, we recognize sacrifices as part of the mysteries of Revelation, by which the things prophesied were foreshadowed. For they were our examples, and in many and various ways they all pointed to the one sacrifice which we now commemorate. Now that this sacrifice has been revealed, and has been offered in due time, sacrifice is no longer binding as an act of worship, while it retains its SYMBOLICAL authority."

Pope Gelasius of Rome in his work against Eutyches and Nestorius:
"The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. YET THE SUBSTANCE OR NATURE OF THE BREAD AND WINE DOES NOT CEASE. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries."
That is a pope who said this. Is this incorrect or was this an exception to papal infallibility??

God Bless

Some more of the same....

Is Jesus the bread of Life? Yes
Is Jesus the living Word? Yes
Did Jesus say that man cannot live of off manna(bread) but by the Word of God? Yes

However, I will quote Augustine again.
"The Lord Jesus, in the discourse which He addressed to His disciples after the supper, when Himself in immediate proximity to His passion, and, as it were, on the even of depriving them of His bodily presence while continuing His spiritual presence to all His disciples till the very end of the world...." (Augustine, John: Tractates 50, 92, 102, and 118).
Who is the bread of the Kingdom of God, but He who says, "I am the living Bread which came down from heaven?" Do not get your mouth ready, but your HEART(sounds spiritual eh?). On this occasion it was that the parable of this supper was set forth. Lo, we believe in Christ, we receive Him with faith. In receiving Him we know what to think of. We receive but little, and are NOURISHED IN THE HEART. It is not then what is seen, but what is believed, that feeds us. Therefore we too have not sought for that outward sense.
This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already. (Augustine John: Tractate 25:12).
It is WHAT IS BELIEVED that is eaten. Not so much the bread, but what is believed. CLEARLY as seen here, Augustine is showing that it is not so much eating the bread, but believing what that bread represents. Believe in Jesus and you have already eaten.
Luke 22:19-20 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."
His body was not given to us, it was given for us and the disciples were instructed to do this in REMEMBRANCE of Him.

God Bless

Are you really quoting Augustine? A man who wrote so much that few people grasp the totality of his writing, and was a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church? A man who accepted as indispensable the primacy of the pope and the infallibility of the Church's teachings?

Two things:

1) If you take the whole of Augustine's teachings, he certainly does believe in the True Presence in the Eucharist. Sure you can find a few passages that appear to say something contradictory.

2) Augustine wasn't the pope, nor was he the whole of the Church. So it's possible for him to be wrong. Not so the Church. Augustine would agree with that, no doubt.

So rather than selectively quoting folks, understand that the consistent, unchanging position of Christ's Church is that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist. And it was held as such throughout Christendom until some time after the Reformation.

Three more things:

1) Which is more important, the actual text of Scripture, or the words of Augustine?

(Yes, I know I'm treading toward deconstructing Augustine, but since neither you nor I are qualified to quote him with authority, I'm comfortable doing that. Besides, I know that, since he was Catholic, in the final tally, he'd be on my side in this. But I digress...)

Please address my points in regard to those who heard Him say those things in real time deserting Him because 'it was hard'... and Paul discussing eating and drinking judgement upon oneself for not discerning...

2) Just noticed the thing about Pope Gelasius. I'd have to see the original Latin, because it's possible it was a dissertation on the metaphysical reality of the Transubstantiated host, in which all accidents remain, but the essence changes. In shoddier translations it's possible to muss up a translation which renders words in a way that severely alters the meaning for such a discussion as ours.

3) "Do this in remembrance of me..." Begs the question "do WHAT in remembrance of me"? the WHAT is exactly what He had just done: change bread and wine into His body and blood and distribute it. He didn't say "symbolize" this or "mimic" this, or "pantomime" this in remembrance of me. He said DO this. Remembrance in no way requires that something be merely symbolic. Do we symbolize Thanksgiving dinner ever November in remembrance of that first Thanksgivine? No. We prepare and eat Thanksgiving dinner. The real thing. He gave us His body and blood. We continue to eat it in remembrance of Him, as ordered to do.

More to come, I'm sure...

Yes, it is about belief. It is about belief of the word you heard the priest say over the bread and wine. No other sense indicates that it is, in fact, the body and blood of Christ. Only the hearing is safely believed. And the belief in what it now IS is what makes it efficacious for you. If you eat the body and blood of Christ without discerning its presence, as Paul says in 1 Cor. 11, you've eaten and drunk death upon yourself. So, yes, Augustine is correct, that what you believe is of vital importance, but in no way implies that the actuality of the Presence is in question.

As for 6:63, Christ had finished the entire discourse on the Real Presence, and had just witnessed many of his followers desert Him because they refused to believe what he had plainly said regarding the necessity of eating His body and drinking His blood. At that point, verse 63 is a commentary by Christ on why those people didn't believe: they hadn't accepted the Spirit, the faith. They were still believing in the flesh they saw before them and in their own flesh. They did not allow themselves to accept that the Spirit also had power to affect things that might be hard, like eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. That was why he turned to the Twelve next and said "Shall you also go?" and Peter answered, "To whom shall we go, you have the words of life." And many speculate, based on Christ's rebuke "Yet one of you is a devil!" in verse 70, that the teaching of the REal Presence was what initially drove Judas Iscariot away and caused the betrayal. So denial of the True Presence has been happening since the beginning.

Those words in 6:63 in no way negate the entirety of the preceding verses which made it quite clear Christ meant something literal.

SandT,

Crowe makes a good point that I would like to reiterate and then take a step further.

Are you really quoting Augustine? A man who wrote so much that few people grasp the totality of his writing, and was a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church? A man who accepted as indispensable the primacy of the pope and the infallibility of the Church's teachings?

"And he was carried in his own hands." But, brethren, how is it possible for a man to do this? Who can understand it? Who is it that is carried in his own hands? A can be carried in the hands of another; but no one can be carried in his own hands. How this should be literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. For Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said, "This is My Body." For He carried that Body in His hands.
- Psalms, St. Augustine

I am mindful of my promise. For I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the Sacrament of the Lord's Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. The Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in the chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend His Body and Blood, which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins.

In Christ,
Joe

"That is a pope who said this. Is this incorrect or was this an exception to papal infallibility??" How wonderful! You read the popes! I am truly edified and impressed. Or, did you get this snippet from some anti-Catholic book or website? Assuredly, it is incorrect, in any or all of several meanings of "incorrect". Either it is a bad translation or a deliberate falsification (excuse me for being blunt, but Protestants have spent five centuries lying about Catholics), or it is a good translation and the pope was wrong. The pope was wrong? O, how could that be? Well, one who actually understands the Catholic faith would know that papal infallibility is very carefully circumscribed. And I have never, ever heard any reputable Catholic scholar say that the writings of Pope Gelasius I concerning the errors of Eutyches and Nestorious are infallible teachings.

Another point of clarification on papal infallibility. This does not mean that everything the pope says is infallible, it means that he is infallible under the following conditions:
1. He must speak "ex cathedra" (within his role as Pope)
2. He must intend his teaching to be infallible.
3. He must be speaking on a matter of faith or morals.

To date, only two dogmas have been proclaimed under "papal infallibility" (The Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption). Note that the sayings of Gelasius do not appear on this very short list.

Most of the infallible teachings of the Church have been proclaimed under the infallibility of an ecumenical council.

All,

It’s been awhile since I posted and I just now read everyone’s responses to me. Do you all read John 6:51-56 literally or not? It would seem that you pick and choose which parts to take literally and which parts not to. If read literally “No Life” means “no life” period. It doesn’t mean “no life except in certain circumstances”. This is a real contradiction, and I believe a valid point.

Crowe,

Your statement of “Stop trying to change the subject by tossing apparently contradictory Catholic doctrines.”

Sounds a bit like the statement “I am the great and powerful OZ. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”

Your statement “But there is no inconsistency for us to say: "There is a possibility of salvation outside the Church, though we don't fully understand how it happens" and saying "One must eat the flesh of the Son of Man to be saved."”

You truly don’t see the inconsistency here? God is the God of logic and reason. Even He cannot be contrary to His nature. Either He has made it so you are only saved through the sacraments of the Catholic Church or you can be saved by way of something else. Even God can’t make it be both ways.

I guess I am even more troubled by the whole teaching of the salvation of unreached people/protestants than I am of the Eucharist.

Broken Record,
Your statement “As far as Protestants go, they may be acting in good faith when they reject Catholic teachings on the Eucharist. All Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, acknowledge that God's mercy can and does go beyond his formal promises (I believe the Protestant term for this is "uncovenanted mercies") especially in cases when people are acting in good faith.”

So the Catholic Church teaches that it does really matter what you believe as long as you are sincere about it? So it’s sincerity that actually saves and not the work of Christ? This seems to fly in the face of everything in Scripture. By the way I believe that you are only saved through faith in Christ and not by “uncovenanted mercies”. In other words, it does matter what you believe.

Joe,

Your statement, “In terms of Christ's mandate of "eating His Flesh" in order to have eternal life...it says what it says, keep in mind it was Jesus who said this not us.”

Then be consistent.

I guess the bottom line is if the Eucharist is as you say it is, then all non-Catholics by logical deduction are unsaved. Thus the Catholic position on the unsave is wrong. It's one or the other. Which teaching is correct?

What's funny is if you believe the exact opposite of these two teachings they are not inconsistent. ie It is Christ only who saves, and the statement of Christ in John 6 is a symbolic statement of this.

By the way, maybe Christ followers left not because He told them to gnaw on His flesh, but because He told them it was His way or the highway. Unfortunately why his followers left or Christ's reasonings why he said what he did we are not told, so we are all just speculating here.

In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas--

I'll try to elucidate the idea that salvation can come outside of membership in the Catholic Church.

Salvation comes from God. Nothing we do apart from his grace helps or detracts one iota. No belief, no deed, nothing is efficacious for salvation if it is not in cooperation with His grace.

Now. When the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, He gave us the ordinary, normative means of salvation: the ministry of the Church He founded and its sacramental life. Among those who have the opportunity to hear the teachings of that Church there is no life if those teachings are rejected. This, of course, begs all sorts of questions: were the doctrines explained well, did the hearer have adequate ability to grasp at them, other circumstances which only God can truly judge whether the person is culpable for rejecting His Truth.

Then there's the case of him who never had the opportunity to hear the name "Jesus Christ" or of anything Christian. Since God is all merciful and all just, and since that person, through no fault of their own, was unable in their lifetime to pursue the normal means of salvation, God would judge that person according to their conscience and their accomplishment at discerning the Truth via the "Light, which enlightens EVERY MAN that comes into this world." (John 1:9). So if Light enlightens EVERY MAN, then every man has something in them to go from. Those who have the normal means of salvation have an added responsibility since they have the normal means; those who have truncated means of knowing Truth are judged differently.

Do we understand exactly how God affects salvation in the blamelessly ignorant? No. Nor do we have to. But we know it is possible.

God is able to do that.

Now, one very important point to be careful on: This in no way yields to religious indifferentism. There is still only one Truth, and their is still only one Church that contains all Truth. There is no salvation outside the Church. The only ones who have possibility of salvation outside the normal means are those who are, shall we say, 'invincibly ignorant.' Not 'willfully ignorant,' but 'invincibly.' (This really is one of the most difficult doctrines to explain to someone who doesn't fully grasp the concept of the Church as Catholics view it.)

And something else...

Please, tell me where Christ said "My way or the highway." He said "Does this offend you?" They freely chose to abandon him.

But, to tell the truth, the choice really is "His way or the highway," because there can be only one Truth. So perhaps they did leave due to that choice. And since He plainly said, "You must gnaw on my flesh," and they clearly understood what He meant but could not accept it, they chose to leave. I don't see what your point in bringing that up is.

Crowe,

To explain what I wrote, Christ stated that there is no life in anyone who does not eat His flesh. Maybe they did in fact realize that Christ was speaking metaphorically (if he was) but the reason they left was because He stated that He was the sole source of salvation. Maybe it was the exclusivity of His statement which offended them. I don't know for we are not told why they left.

God is able to do whatever He wants with us for we are His creation. However He cannot both say that one is ONLY saved through the Church, and then say that there are other means to achieve salvation. This is a direct contradiction, and cannot be supported. From what I gather, this is what the Church teaches. If I'm wrong please correct me. This teaching also tends to quench the church's urgency in executing the great commission, which is the central purpose of its existance.

It states very clearly in the first chapter of Romans that we have enough knowledge from creation that we are without excuse. God can condemn each and every one of us, wash His hands of us, and still be just. WE are the one's who have rebelled and deserve death. There is nothing unjust in giving us what we have asked for. So to suggest that there are "blamelessly ignorant" people out there who God will somehow save outside His appointed plan is a fallacy. If this isn't true then its probably better if we do not tell anyone else about Christ and the church just goes away, at least then everyone would be blamelessly ignorant and would not be condemned to hell if they willfully and knowingly reject Him.

In Christ,

Thomas

Joe and Crowe,

THere is nothing being taken out of context. Gelasius clearly SAID
""The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. YET THE SUBSTANCE OR NATURE OF THE BREAD AND WINE DOES NOT CEASE. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries."

Second, this was rebuttal on Gelasius'part. Do you know what his rebuttal was against? Study and then get back to me.
This is clear. Nothing is taken out of text. You can accuse me of taking this out of text, but that is just a red herring to deviate from the fact that a pope...said....that the wine and bread...remain as wine and bread. THE NATURE OF THE WINE AND BREAD do not CEASE. Meaning, it never stops being wine and bread. Language and words are not that hard to understand.
God Bless

SandT wrote:

YET THE SUBSTANCE OR NATURE OF THE BREAD AND WINE DOES NOT CEASE. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries."
That is a pope who said this. Is this incorrect or was this an exception to papal infallibility??

If Gelasius was incorrect it would not contradict papal infallibility. Papal infallibility almost certainly does not apply to the case you mention. Papal infallibility requires three conditions to be met before it applies. Popes have, to date, used "papal infallibility" to proclaim dogma only twice.

If you want to discuss the possibility that the Church has infallibly denied the doctrine of Transubstantiation, perhaps you should try to find it in one of the ecumenical councils. That would remove the easy out of us Catholics saying "oh, but infallibility does not apply here".

Broken,

I am not surprised by your post. The pope is infallible when convenient for your argument. Once again we must have a misunderstanding with the use of words. I guess infallible does not mean infallible the way I know it. Woman does not mean woman. Brother does not really mean brother, all really doesn't mean all. So to make it easy, we will discard what Pope Gelasius said. Mind you, that was posted to illustrate that not all the early church fathers believed in transubstantiation, which has been argued on this site often.

God Bless

SandT,
Please point where in the Catechism it says the pope is completely infallible in every decision. I would be willing to accept any historical proofs as well.

You're making an argument based on your misconceptions, not on our beliefs.

God bless,
Jay

Thomas--

The entire topic of salvation outside the Church is a completely different topic and is what I meant when I said "don't change the subject."

I'll try to make this gentle:

YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

Clear? Good.

I'll admit that I am also not the most knowledgeable about how the Church teaches regarding this, but I'll put it this way: There is no salvation outside the Church. That is the constant, consistent teaching since the Apostles (along with the Real Presence, the Perpetual Virginity, the Assumption, the Imaculate Conception, the efficacy of works in salvation, etc.).

Now. If that is true, and it is true that non-Christians can also be saved ("non-Christians" defined as those who have never even heard of Christ or any of His Truth as such), then the breaking point, the thing that has to give, is the definition of "Church."

I'll stop there for now. Suffice to say, the protestant definition of 'church' and the Catholic definition of "Church" are two different things.

And the Catholic definition in no way leads to an abandonment of the Great Commission. But those are discussions to be had elsewhere.

Jay,

This is what you said in a previous post

"So what are the conditions in which we know the Pope is infallible? There are two:

• He must intend to speak infallibly (this is called “from the Chair of Peter”)
• It must be pertaining to faith or morals (he can’t speak infallibly on space travel for example)"

I guess the eucharist is not an issue pertaining to faith then? Is it Jay?
You have made it clear that the eucharist and transubstantiation is the true way to worship Christ. However Pope Gelasius said that the bread and wine remain bread and wine, rather than change into the actual flesh and blood of Christ.
The Eucharist is a sacrament and a key component of your faith.
So according to your own words Jay on a post made by you June 14, 2004....the pope is not infallible when it comes to issues of faith and morals. Maybe we have different definitions of faith as well...hmmm?

God Bless

SandT--

Hmm... How 'bout you give me a citation for that rather than forcing me to finger through the copious writings of one of the most prolific writers in Catholic history.

Short of that, I'll agree that it's not taken out of context and I'll not go the same tack as the others who went toward "well, it wasn't an infallible statement."

Here's what I'll say: I'll bet, without doing research, that what he was rebutting was a misconception about the accidents changing during Transubstantiation. Some through the years have argued that when the words of Institution are spoken, the nature, the material of the bread and wine change into flesh and blood. Gelasius was most likely arguing, rightly, that the chemical composition, the material, the "accidents" (in the metaphysical sense), do not, in fact, change. It's still wheat flour and water. It's still fermented grape juice with alcoholic content. If arsenic were put into the wine, it's still there after Consecration.

What changes is the essence (again, in the metaphysical sense.) The essence, the ultimate reality, of that which the priest holds in his hands, has been obliterated and replaced by the essence of the body and blood of Christ. But, if were tested, it would still return results consistent with bread and wine.

that, most likely, is what Gelasius I was talking about.

In Christ,
Crowe

Thomas--

Really, that's the an extreme of sophistry.

"We don't know why they left"?

After reading the second half of John 6, how could they have left for any reason EXCEPT that they could not accept the new teaching He had just given them. It isn't like someone let out a massive fart. No one said "only people who have blue eyes have a chance at salvation." Christ said, "You must chew on my flesh." They said, "This is a hard teaching, who can believe it?" Christ said, "Does this offend you?" AND THEY LEFT. What kind of exegesis inserts another meaning into why they left? What other interpretation brings something into the text that isn't there or takes things out that are?

There is no other reason to be gleaned for their departure. They left because they could not accept that they had to eat his flesh, which is food indeed, and drink his blood, which is drink indeed, for life.

In Christ,
Crowe

Hey SandT--

You would do well to read your own words.

You quoted Jay when he said "The pope must intend to speak infallibly."

Then you COMPLETELY IGNORED that point in the rest of your assault on Jay's point.

Again, it is possible that Gelasius was not intending to be speaking ex cathedra in that instance. If he was not, then what he says in that instance, even if it is on a matter of faith and/or morals, is NOT NECESSARILY infallible.

In Christ,
Crowe

SandT and Thomas--

I've done a lot of answering, including on topics that weren't the subject of this thread.

Your turn, on the salient points.

Explain, as Jay points out in the original post, how one can die for not discerning the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, if it is not there? After all, that is what Paul says in 1 Cor. 11:23-29.

Please explain how Paul is wrong, or, failing that, explain how his words mean something else aside from what they plainly appear to mean.

Hmm... I don't like my own wording. It leads to an ambiguity that isn't in fact there.

I said:

"Again, it is possible that Gelasius was not intending to be speaking ex cathedra in that instance. If he was not, then what he says in that instance, even if it is on a matter of faith and/or morals, is NOT NECESSARILY infallible."

I should not have said "NOT NECESSARILY." I should have said, "NOT to be taken as."

And that is the heart of the matter. The pope's words, even if not ex cathedra (and therefore not infallible), when they're on a matter of faith and/or morals, are to be considered with due consideration as his position warrants. His position as an exceptionally learned man who is intimately involved in the life of God's Church, and a deep man of prayer. Now, if we had a pope like some of the past who were less-than-stellar men, their non-ex cathedra words should also be given the "due" consideration. But that "due" would be very different than the due that John Paul II commands.

For instance. John Paul II, in an encyclical of a while back, wrote that there is no way women will ever be ordained priests in the Catholic Church because the Church doesn't have the authority to do so. The priesthood is an intrinsically male institution. It is so because of the deeper realities about the sexes. John Paul II elucidated some of the reasons and said that there is no way the Church could ever ordain a woman because, even if the rite was performed on a woman, the matter would be incorrect so the sacrament would not take place. Just as a Christian marriage would not occur between two men, or a baptism would have no effect on a dog, Holy Orders would have no effect on a woman and she would not be a priest (priestess?) because she is a woman. End of story.

But John Paul II did not invoke the Chair of Peter in making this statement, so it is not to be taken the way Pius XII's infallible definition of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin was to be taken.

The best example I can think of to illustrate the difference is the way the canon of Scripture was established. The canon was set down at a series of regional African councils at the end of the fourth century. It was not done at a council of the whole Church, which is what is required for such things to invoke the protection of infallibility: every Catholic bishop must be present. The canon was sent to pope Damasus, who approved it, but did not convene a global council, nor did he invoke Papal Infallibility. The actual, definitive, no joke, iron-clad action that established the canon of Scripture as God's Truth was the action at the Council of Trent, in response to the Reformers tossing a bunch of books. The Church didn't see the necessity of doing it prior to then because no one really questioned it. But once a question was raised, they elevated the teaching to more than a generally accepted list with the pope's approval.

I will not write any more on in this thread on any of the new topics I raised here. If the authors of this site so choose, they can make a new thread and toss that red meat to the hounds itching to tear into me in a new post.

If you would like to take issue with me off this thread, email me at crowethm (at) yahoo (dot) com

In Christ,
Crowe

Crowe,

You said, “I'll try to make this gentle: YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. Clear? Good.”

I thought the whole point of this webcite was for Catholics to hold the Candle of Truth out to the World. If I have no clue about this then please enlighten me. If you can not, then don’t accuse me as being the one without a clue.

You said, “I'll admit that I am also not the most knowledgeable about how the Church teaches regarding this, but I'll put it this way: There is no salvation outside the Church. That is the constant, consistent teaching since the Apostles (along with the Real Presence, the Perpetual Virginity, the Assumption, the Imaculate Conception, the efficacy of works in salvation, etc.). Now. If that is true, and it is true that non-Christians can also be saved ("non-Christians" defined as those who have never even heard of Christ or any of His Truth as such), then the breaking point, the thing that has to give, is the definition of "Church. I'll stop there for now. Suffice to say, the protestant definition of 'church' and the Catholic definition of "Church" are two different things.”

Unless you define Church as including in its membership the entire world then you are still being inconsistent. If you do define the Church in this way, then you have no Biblical basis for doing so. I thought the Church must by necessity be a physical structured organization with a Pope and a hierarchy of bishops and priests and laymen. Please tell me what the Church means, or does it mean different things in different contexts. I would very greatly like to have a “clue” regarding this topic.

You said, “And the Catholic definition in no way leads to an abandonment of the Great Commission. But those are discussions to be had elsewhere.”

Why not here and why not now? We can take this to another posting that is more appropriate, but the questions will remain the same.

You said, “Really, that's the an [sic] extreme of sophistry. "We don't know why they left"? After reading the second half of John 6, how could they have left for any reason EXCEPT that they could not accept the new teaching He had just given them. It isn't like someone let out a massive fart. No one said "only people who have blue eyes have a chance at salvation." Christ said, "You must chew on my flesh." They said, "This is a hard teaching, who can believe it?" Christ said, "Does this offend you?" AND THEY LEFT. What kind of exegesis inserts another meaning into why they left? What other interpretation brings something into the text that isn't there or takes things out that are? There is no other reason to be gleaned for their departure. They left because they could not accept that they had to eat his flesh, which is food indeed, and drink his blood, which is drink indeed, for life.”

We know that the followers left because of a hard teaching. We do not know specifically what hard teaching that was. We can conjecture what teaching it may have been, but that I am afraid is all we can do. It may very well have been the fact that they didn’t want to eat Christ’s flesh. An equally valid hard teaching may have also been the fact that Jesus was claiming to be the only way to God. Why must the reason for their leaving by necessity be the one teaching, and absolutely cannot be the other? If you want to call this sophistry then go ahead and do so. The issue remains as it is.

You said “Explain, as Jay points out in the original post, how one can die for not discerning the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, if it is not there? After all, that is what Paul says in 1 Cor. 11:23-29. Please explain how Paul is wrong, or, failing that, explain how his words mean something else aside from what they plainly appear to mean.”

Why must the cup and bread be the literal body and blood? Can’t a symbol of a thing be just as powerful? Can’t God pass judgment on someone for taking a symbol of something in an unworthy manner? In ancient Israel, was God literally present in the Arc of the Covenant more so than He was anywhere else? Was it because he was physically present, more so than anywhere else, in the Holy of Holies that He killed priests who came to Him in an unworthy manner? Or were the Arc and the Holy of Holies a powerful symbol of His presence with Israel? I think that to suggest that God can be in one place more so than in another is to claim that God really isn’t omnipresent. In other words this was a symbol God of presence, and He killed priests just as readily.

You said, “I will not write any more on in this thread on any of the new topics I raised here. If the authors of this site so choose, they can make a new thread and toss that red meat to the hounds itching to tear into me in a new post. If you would like to take issue with me off this thread, email me at crowethm (at) yahoo (dot) com”

I don’t know why you have such a problem with posting about parallel issues to the one originally posted. This is done on this webcite all the time. If you’d like we can find a post which is closer to the issue at hand, but I think it would be beneficial to let all read what we have written, rather than doing it offline.

In Christ,

Thomas

P.S. Even if I were to believe that the cup and bread somehow become the literal body and blood, which I do not, where does that get us? Why is it only the Catholic Church's communion that becomes the literal body and blood? Why not any other church that has communion? Does there need to be a magic ritual or magic words said to change these items? Can only priest do this? If so where is that in the Bible? Is it even a necessity that one believe that it is so in order for it to be so? Maybe we are all taking in Christ's literal body and blood, but we protestants just don't know it.

My point in saying you have no clue is that you are making arguments from what you think is the Catholic teaching. But you're arguing a straw man. What you think is the teaching isn't really the teaching; I'm doing my best to show it to you, so I am, in fact, holding that candle out to you. Part of holding out a candle, though, is dispelling darkness. In this case, the darkness is stubborn.

I will not argue salvation outside the normal means of salvation because it is a development, three or four steps down the path of Truth, that assumes certain understandings. You dispute the basic fundaments, so trying to discuss that doctrine with you would be pointless. We need to clear up basic things (like the question of the Authority of the Church versus seat-of-the-pants religiosity that Sola Scriptura enables) first.

But neither of those directly play into the Real Presence. The thing about Catholic Doctrine is that all of it is a tightly wound ball, layer upon layer of Truth that is all interconnected and plays into each other. None of it can be considered without having implications for everything else. Because of that, a strict intellectual discipline is required when discussing it to avoid going into the other issues. They are more than parallel, as you call them; they are intertwined in a unity of infinite density.

And then you say this:

"We know that the followers left because of a hard teaching. We do not know specifically what hard teaching that was. We can conjecture what teaching it may have been, but that I am afraid is all we can do. It may very well have been the fact that they didn’t want to eat Christ’s flesh. An equally valid hard teaching may have also been the fact that Jesus was claiming to be the only way to God. Why must the reason for their leaving by necessity be the one teaching, and absolutely cannot be the other? If you want to call this sophistry then go ahead and do so. The issue remains as it is."

Really, are we reading the same Bible? I know your forbears in faith cut out a few books, but John was left intact, right? Christ said something along the lines of "there is no way to the Father except by Me" numerous times but in none of those instances do followers leave Him. Yet, peculiarly, in this chapter, after Christ says, in about six different ways, "you must eat My flesh and drink my blood," to which they first responded, "How can He give us His flesh to eat and His blood to drink?" then, when He stated it again: "you must eat My flesh and drink My blood," They said "THIS is a hard teaching." Then left when He persisted and didn't back down. There was no shift in "which teaching" they disputed anywhere except in your mind. I can't say anymore. If you continue to insist on something else, it's the hardness of your own heart and your own pride disputing that which was the consistent teaching of the Apostles, Paul, all the early Fathers (including Jerome, whom protestants love to quote), etc., up until the Reformation. Even Henry VIII and Luther accepted it through their rebellions.

"Why must it be the literal body and blood?" Hmm... How 'bout "Because God, while on earth, told us so." That's a good enough answer for me.

Can a symbol be as powerful as the real thing? Tell you what: symbolize Thanksgiving dinner next year and eat that symbol. Come up with some way to pretend to cook and eat a turkey, stuffing, cranberry sauce, etc., and tell me if it's as fulfilling as the Real Thing. I'd wager not. How could eating mere bread and wine, which you imagine to be Christ's body and blood be in any way similar or equal to actually ingesting the Body and Blood of Christ Himself? Doesn't reading those words and the conviction I have in writing them give you pause to imagine what it feels like to kneel there and receive what IS the body and blood of Our Lord? A mere symbol might give you an emotional boost and make you think nice thoughts, but c'mon... this is God having union with you mentally, spiritually, AND PHYSICALLY! That's awesome to consider! Yes, it matters mightily. And that is why Paul said, If you take it unworthily, without discerning what IT IS (not what it "symbolizes."), you eat and drink death upon yourself.

Your line about the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy of Holies isa red herring because of the nature of the covenant and the Jewish religion. Everything about the Jewish faith was symbolic or merely physical. God was present in the Burning Bush, but did not reside there for all time. God was present spiritually in the Ark of the covenant, as He was in all believers, as he was in the Holy of Holies, but he was not PHYSICALLY present. In the person of Christ, God became man, THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH and dwelt among us. This was the fulfillment of Judaic customs and practices. God made man. God in the flesh. God having union with His creation, not just spiritual union, but physical union: union on our plane of existence, not merely on his.

The sacrifice which results from that incredible, unfathomable union must necessarily be likewise as revolutionary. Thus it is. It is God's flesh. Not merely a symbol.

God is not "more present" in the Eucharist than He is anywhere else, but He is physically present, not just supernaturally.

The reason only Catholic Communion is truly transubstanitated is because of the continuing sacramental nature of the priesthood and the belief in the efficacy of matter in the accomplishment of salvation. Protestants reject that works matter in salvation; that pouring water does anything in baptism; that the bread and wine actually change; that oils for annointing have any effect; etc. They reject that the matter, well, matters, so the change doesn't happen.

Paul thought it mattered. And he thought it changed.

Crowe,

"What changes is the essence (again, in the metaphysical sense.) The essence, the ultimate reality, of that which the priest holds in his hands, has been obliterated and replaced by the essence of the body and blood of Christ. But, if were tested, it would still return results consistent with bread and wine."

Ok, so the soul and essence of Jesus is what becomes of the bread. Now essence and flesh are 2 different things.
Now there are rules to when the Pope speaks infallibly..even when on faith and moral issues. Sorry, but it all sounds like a cop out. Trying to stand on the Catholic dogma is hard, but standing on the WOrd of God...thats easy.
Maybe I am taking your words out of context, why don't we simplify things then.
Does the bread and wine, turn into flesh and blood of Christ after you digest it? A simple yes or no will do.

PS- You can do a google search and see for yourself why Gelasius said what he said...instead of assuming or guessing.

God Bless

Yes, in the metaphysical sense -- that is, in the ultimate reality of what it is -- it become flesh and blood. The chemical composition does not change, but the essence, the basic nature of what it is in the grand scheme of God's plan, changes. Is that impossible for God? To separate the ultimate reality of a thing with its physical, natural attributes? If so, how do you account for the human soul? Can you test it with scientific methods or observe it with your senses? If not, then what separates us from the animals in the grand scheme of things? "Essence" and "accidents" are plainly different things. That you don't grasp it doesn't make it untrue.

Of course there are conditions by which we can know when the pope is speaking infallibly and when he's not. To not have such safeguards, to not delineate the form and the method by which the faithful can know that the pope intended for a statement to invoke the protection of the Holy Spirit (a protection the Church as a whole has invoked since the time of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15), would be irresponsible and wreckless.

Sorry if this all "sounds like a cop out." But fact is, you're still the one disputing the consistent understanding of Christendom from the Apostles, through Paul, through all the Fathers, through history, up until Luther and some others after him decided they didn't want to believe it all any longer. So you can call it a cop out all you want, you're still the one standing athwart history shouting "I'm not listening!"

Please, again, tell me how Paul's clear meaning in 1 Cor. 11:23-29 is other than the Catholic understanding that the bread and wine does indeed become the body and blood of Christ.

Crowe,

You're right, I do feel that it is a cop out. As for you reference, I believe Paul said to do this in remembrance of Christ. He also mentions that all who break bread PROCLAIM THE NAME OF THE LORD. A proclamation the Christ is Lord.
As for all the "metaphysical" stuff...Paul makes no mention of it. It sounds like Paul did say quote Christ saying to do this in remembrance of Him. And that all who do it, proclaim the name of the Lord...sounds like another metaphor.

God Bless

First, never forget that the final determination of Truth does not rely upon whether or not you think it makes sense. So your "cop out" sense matters not a whit. Prove me wrong, don't discount it out of hand because it doesn't jive with your preconceived notions.

Second, so what if Paul doesn't talk about the metaphysical stuff? Is your faith in the words of Paul, or in the Truth of God? If the Truth of God is that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, but it's not explained precisely how, then any attempt by us to understand it is just that, an attempt by us. Aquinas is the one who explained the metaphysics of it all in the most depth. If you have issue with that understanding, take it up with the Angelic Doctor himself.

Third, How does "proclaim the name of the Lord" negate "if you eat this without discerning the Body and Blood of Christ you eat and drink death upon yourself"? One can proclaim the name of the Lord and believe Christ is Lord all day, but if you don't discern the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, you're eating and drinking death upon yourself.

Fourth, as i stated earlier in this thread, "Do this in remembrance of me" doesn't mean "symbolize this in remembrance of me," nor does it mean "think about me while you go through the motions of what I'm doing," nor does it mean "merely act out what I am doing." It means "DO THIS in remembrance of me." Which begs the question, "Do WHAT?" Well, if you take the words of Christ at the Last Supper, which Paul refers to, the "WHAT" is "Take, eat this IS my body...Take, drink this IS the cup of my blood." Neither Paul nor Christ gave any indication that the "DO THIS" part of "Do this in remembrance of me" meant anything apart from doing exactly what Christ had done -- which was change the bread and wine into His body and blood. Doing something "in remembrance" in no way immediately, necessarily, inexorably means "symbolize."

Oh, since it appears this thread is about to be permanently "archived" -- though i have the link to it on my site so I'll be able to get to it -- I will take this opportunity to offer all here in this spirited discussion a very Merry and Blessed Christmas.

May the blessings of the mystery of the Incarnation inspire your mind to seek deeper Truth and fire your heart to seek a deeper union with God.

Tom Crowe

Crowe,

The excuse that Gelasius was not speaking with papal infallibility is a cop out. I was not even addressing the issue of the Eucharist directly. At the Eucharist, you believe that Christ actually comes down into the bread and wine. At least that is what your other counterparts on this thread have described. Can you find Paul or anyone saying that Christ comes down from Heaven into the bread and wine?
No.

YOu said
"Do we symbolize Thanksgiving dinner ever November in remembrance of that first Thanksgivine? No. We prepare and eat Thanksgiving dinner. The real thing. He gave us His body and blood. We continue to eat it in remembrance of Him, as ordered to do."

Yes we eat Thanksgiving dinner, but what is the point of Thanksgiving. Is it not a celebration of the dinner between the Native Americans and Pilgrims? When we have TG dinner, do we make peace among ourselves? NO. WE are simply having TG dinner in remembrance of the initial peacemaking dinner.
Back to issue at hand, I already have explained with the Bible, the reason why the bread and wine is symbolic. You can scroll above and see for yourself. However, can you find Paul or anyone saying that Christ descends from heaven and into the bread each time we partake in commnion? You won't be able to. The only way that a concept like that exists is due to man's creativity. Going beyond what is written.

GOd Bless and Happy Holidays

It's not a cop out. You just don't get it. Your ignorance does not render it untrue.

If the Real Presence is solely the creativity of man, then Paul was a very creative man indeed...

"For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself." 1 Cor. 11:29

I don't see how that can mean other than "The Lord God is physically present in this bread and wine and woe to he who does not discern that presence but partakes in it anyhow."

Paul doesn't need to explain exactly how it happens. It happens. Paul believes that it does. John the Beloved believed that it happens (we know that because he wrote his gospel toward the end of the first century, well after Paul had written 1 Corinthians, well after the Real Presence had been believed for many years already. Yet John the Beloved didn't quell this belief, he fed it -- divinely inspired, no less -- by giving the text in the sixth chapter of his gospel that is most explicit in presenting the teaching.

Did John explain exactly how it happens? No. Didn't need to.

Do you or I understand exactly how God does anything? I would say not. Why does it have to be explicitly explained how God accomplishes this in order for it to be True? You're grasping at straws. It happens. We can know that because it has been the consistent teaching since the beginning -- it even predates the writing of the New Testament texts, let alone the disastrous notions of Sola Scriptura.

You know, the nature of the Trinity was much disputed and many, many people denied that the Holy Spirit was divine for a long time. No where is the exact nature of the Trinity explained in Scripture (in fact, the word "Trinity" appears no where in the Scripture). But we believe that because the bishops of the Church, when it was disputed, invoked the protection of the Holy Spirit. And, the entire brouhaha about the nature of the Trinity was argued and resolved prior to the canon of Scripture being established -- so there wasn't even a Bible, per se, for people to hang their prideful hats on.

Yes, we have TG dinner. We do exactly what the Pilgrims and Indians did in remembrance of them. There is no symbolism involved. We don't think about a turkey as we're eating baloney. We don't think about stuffing while we're gnawing on stale crusts of white bread. We eat exactly what they did. There is no symbolizing the meal.

Just so, we eat exactly what the Apostles ate at the Last Supper. Do we "recrucify" Christ? No. The sacrifice is not repeated.

I'm going to stop that line now because it goes down a theological rabbit hole that would only confuse you more.

Here's how I'll close: the problem with protestant theology, as I've hinted at a few times, is the prideful, self-centered doctrine of Sole Scriptura. You wanna talk about coming up with a doctrine that has NO basis in Scripture?

Go ahead and toss the verses at me about 'profitable' for rebuke, teaching, yadda, yadda, yadda... There are a few others that Protestants hang their hats on. Nothing in Scripture can be used to support Sola Scriptura for a number of reasons, but the primary reason is because there wouldn't be a Scriptura if Truth only came from Scriptura.

God gave us a Church, not a Scriptura. The Church gave us the Bible, after it determined that such a definitive compilation of Inspired texts would be a good thing to have. Yes, God Inspired them, but He didn't drop the Bible, leather-bound and gold-embossed out of the sky. He didn't drop a table on contents. He didn't appear one last time and dictate anything and seal it with his signature. There were copious first-century writings which the Church sifted through and determined which were "God-breathed" and which weren't. So through the ministry of the Church, God gave us the Bible.

You've been interpreting all these verses on your own and based on your own preconceived notions and in such a way that they support what you want to be true. You can't accuse me of the same thing, because I have history and Tradition (yes, that hateful word) on my side. My positions are the consistent position of Christendom since the Ascencion. My arguments are not my own, they are the consistent defense of these doctrines through nearly 2000 years.

In contrast, denial of the Real Presence as a serious argument within Christianity goes back only about 500 years. Read the original sources of the Fathers -- not just the selective quotations you get in your anti-Catholic tracts.

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understandings." Proverbs 3:5-6

"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." -- Henry Cardinal Newman

Also, I notice that you can't bring yourself, even in this clearly Christian space, to automatically say "Merry Christmas," opting instead, whether consciously or not, to say "Happy Holidays."

If you don't even believe Christ's birth deserves to be recognized as such at this time of year, then you need to attend to far more fundamental spiritual issues than trying to prove Catholics wrong about doctrines you so plainly don't understand.

MERRY CHRISTMAS. May this anniversary of birth of the Word into our world give you a new birth of Faith.

Crowe,

Back to the TG analogy....when we have TG dinner, do you make peace with your family? No. Yes, we eat a real turkey(oven cooked or deep fried, yes we eat yams and even have pumopkin pie for desert. The point is that the focus and purpose of the dinner was to demonstrate peace between the pilgrims and native americans. When we have TG dinner, we are celebrating that moment. However, unless you constantly have strife with family and friends, we are not making a truce.

As for the last supper, one must know the text. Christ always used metaphors. Without repeating myself, we know that Christ is the Word of God, because that is what Scripture says. Christ also made a direct comparison between manna and the word of God. Bottom line, with Christ, we will have true life, eternal life. Through Christ, we have healing and victory. Christ is the nourishment we need. Christ is the unblemished lamb that was sacrificed on our behalf so that we may be reconnected back to the heavenly father. Our life line is our Father in heaven. Our connection is Chist. The sacrifice is his flesh. Yet Christ was ore than flesh. He was a teacher. He gave instructions. What Christ spoke was definitely the word of God. What he taught was definitely the word of God. Through his teachings and following the way He lived...though we all will come up short...is the way to have true life. Christ is the word. Christ spoke the word of God. This is the real food.

You said
"For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself." 1 Cor. 11:29

I don't see how that can mean other than "The Lord God is physically present in this bread and wine and woe to he who does not discern that presence but partakes in it anyhow."

I don't see how this says that Christ is physically present in the bread and wine. Honestly.

However if we back up a few verses from that point, in 1 Cor 11:23

"For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that 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 death of the Lord until he comes."
I don't see how this does not mean remembrance Crowe.

Now if you do proclaim the name of the Lord, you must discern the Lord's body. Examine the transgressions that we commit which is the reason for the sacrifice of His body. That is why Paul says that a man must examine himself before partaking in the communion. Look and discern if your are following the will of God. Look and see if you truly care about your fellow man or if you are simply about your pride. Discern whether your as humble as our Lord. Are you forgiving. Are there things that you are doing wrong. Without discerning these things, you surely will have no life, because you will not go about acknowledging your sin. Without acknowledging your sin, they will not be pardoned. The wages of sin is death. Now, if we are honest and upon examination we seek forgiveness and correction of our sin, we will be forgiven. We will constantly fall short of God's glory(For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.") (Romans 3:23).
Yet we must honestly seek correction and forgiveness.
So when we partake in communion, at our church we pray. As do you at yours. We pray and focus on what Christ did for us. We focus on Him. We pray that He removes from us what He dislikes, and give us the strength to turn away from sin. We pray that God's will and His will alone be done. We also thank Him for all that He has done.
AS for the Sola Scriptura remark. There definitely are examples where the WRITTEN word was used as the final say. The Bible definitely does say do not go beyond what is written. I could go on and on...but you can easily look on other threads for the discussion. I will end my discussion here, I feel that I have said all that I can say. Wishing you and your family a MErry Christmas and a Happy New year:)

God Bless

SandT,
This is silly. A question: how many people have died at your church because they accept a symbolic communion unworthily?

You are simply finding a way to ignore the reality of Scripture. Why would the apostles "devote" themselves to the breaking of bread if it's merely ritual?

Paul didn't say you would eventually die, he said you would actually get sick and die for eating the bread unworthily. There's no room to claim this is merely symbol.

Also, please point out another metaphor in the Bible that could kill us in a similar way. (Hint: there isn't one. In fact, there's not a single metaphor in the Bible that could kill us).

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

"This is silly. A question: how many people have died at your church because they accept a symbolic communion unworthily?"

No one has ever died on the spot per say. Yet, if one does not truly examine themselves, they will be ignorant to the things in their life that is not of God. For example, a person can be a prideful individual, the type who never wants to admit they are wrong. If this person does not acknowledge this, this sin will not be corrected. So even though this person can partake in communion, without the close self examination, the sin will not have been bought before God. It is kind of like ignoring an infected wound on your body. If you look at yourself closely and acknowledge this wound, you can discuss it with a physician and work towards the direction of being healed. Jesus is the almight physician...and the wages of sin is death. When we partake in communion we commune with the Lord. We with His spirit examine all our faults and shortcomings, then can the Almighty proceed to work in us.
But if you ignore that wound, you can get sick or die.

"Paul didn't say you would eventually die, he said you would actually get sick and die for eating the bread unworthily. There's no room to claim this is merely symbol."

Paul did not say you would get sick and die. He said the you would drink and eat judgement on yourself. Then he proceeds to say that is why some of you are weak and sick and a number are asleep. If one does not examine the temple(your body) that belongs to God, how can you expect God to work in you. If you are not truthful with yourself, then you must be living or accepting a lie.
Your sin or situation will not get better. Kind of like that wound.

"Also, please point out another metaphor in the Bible that could kill us in a similar way. (Hint: there isn't one. In fact, there's not a single metaphor in the Bible that could kill us). "

The wages of sin is death. IT is not so much eating the bread, but the ignornance of one's sin that will kill them.

God Bless and Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and your family Jay.

Thomas wrote:
P.S. Even if I were to believe that the cup and bread somehow become the literal body and blood, which I do not, where does that get us? ... Maybe we are all taking in Christ's literal body and blood, but we protestants just don't know it.

Very good question, in fact for many years I did believe in Transubstantiation (because I was unable to find a more coherent interpretation of the Scriptures) but believed as you say "protestants just don't know it".

When I realized that this would mean that Protestants were failing to discern the Body of the Lord at their celebrations of the Lord's Supper and thus drinking judgement on themselves, I began to believe that God restricted the miracle of Transubstantiation to communities that believed in it (as an act of mercy).

At this point, I also realized that this is why Roman Catholics deny communion to Protestants - so as not cause them to eat and drink judgement upont themselves. I then returned to the Roman Catholic Church. Returning to the Roman Catholic Church has enriched my marriage beyond my imagination especially when it comes to understanding the meaning of headship and submission in marriage.

Well, SandT, it all boils down to your interpretation and which word you put the emphasis on versus the interpretation I've been explaining. So long as this discussion remains on reading the Bible and using it to support preconceived notions, we're at a stalemate. And therein lies the fundamental error of Protestantism: you're not going to argue me into your camp, and I'm not going to argue you into mine.

And that (as such Catholic-protestant discussions always do) takes us inexorably to the question of Authority. Why should I accept your interpretation and why should you accept mine? Would Christ have given us a book that is so easily misunderstood? But that proposition is never addressed honestly in Protestant vs. Protestant discussion because there is nothing for protestants aside from my reading of the Bible vs. yours. When such a major disagreement arises, and the Bible's verses have been culled and cooked and twisted and re-read and cross-checked, and the disagreement persists, there's nothing more to do because no active teaching agent -- no arbiter -- is accepted. The Bible remains passive. It sits there saying exactly what it said when the argument began, and says that same thing when the impasse is reached. Why would Christ say the Church is to be ONE and then give us such a confusing and easily-misunderstood book?

Thing is, He didn't. In fact, Christ didn't give us a book at all. He gave us a Church. Founded on Peter and the Apostles. I'm not surprised you don't want to go down that road, because it precedes the Bible as the Inspired Word of God. But it is the only argument left to have since any argument on individual doctrinal points will devolve to the same impasse as that reached above on the Real Presence.

You said that there are plenty of times where the written word is used as final. Major problem with that: the "written word" used by Christ and the Apostles was the OLD Testament, not the New. When Paul says "All Scripture is God-Breathed and useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking, etc... so that man may be complete," first, he said Scripture is USEFUL, not wholly sufficient -- which implies that Scripture is not all that is necessary -- and, second, the Scripture to which Paul was refering was, again, OLD TESTAMENT. There was no New Testament at that point because he was still writing part of what became the NT, and much of it (John's Gospel, most notably) had not yet been written.

You may say "well, now that we have the New Testament, those words of Paul apply to the New Testament as well." Fine. Where'd you get the New Testament? Since neither Paul, nor Peter, nor John, nor anyone else (that includes Christ) wrote down a "Table of Contents" or gave us a list of requirements for inclusion in the New Testament, how do you know which first-century writings are to be included in that volume?

It's nonsensical to say people read the books in question to decide which were Inspired and which weren't -- even where Peter says Paul's writings are Inspired isn't much help because there's no guarantee that Peter's writing of that is Inspired. And the thing in Revelation about not taking anything out of what is written (apart from being a proof against "once saved, always saved") only applies to Revelation since John wrote it in that book and in no other (remember, none of the Inspired writers realized they were writing letters that would eventually be included in this compendium called the "Bible" so, that which they wrote in their several writings cannot be applied to the other authors' writings -- cross-referenced, sure, but not applied in the way one would imply by applying John's "do not remove" to the rest of the Bible).

There were many, many first-century writings floating around in those first 360 years after the Ascencion, most of which did not get included in the canon. Why not? How do you know the Gospel of Thomas, or the Shepherd of Hermas, or the Didache, or the Acts of Paul, or the Epistle of Clement was not also Inspired? There was much talk about them being included in the canon through the first 360 years of Christianity, but they were not included when the bishops of the Catholic Church met and established the canon... If the bishops could speak for God then, and you accept their determination (you must because you base so much on the canon they established), why or when or how did they lose that authority and privilege?

Every time you open the Bible and accept it as the Inspired Word of God, you proclaim the Authority of the Catholic Church as God's instrument on earth to determine His Truth.

God Bless

Well, SandT, it all boils down to your interpretation and which word you put the emphasis on versus the interpretation I've been explaining. So long as this discussion remains on reading the Bible and using it to support preconceived notions, we're at a stalemate. And therein lies the entire error of Protestantism: you're not going to argue me into your camp, and I'm not going to argue you into mine.

And that (as such Catholic-protestant discussions always do) takes us inexorably to the question of Authority. Why should I accept your interpretation and why should you accept mine? Would Christ have given us a book that is so easily misunderstood? But that proposition is never addressed honestly in Protestant vs. Protestant discussion because there is nothing for protestants aside from my reading of the Bible vs. yours. When such a major disagreement arises, and the Bible's verses have been culled and cooked and twisted and re-read and cross-checked, and the disagreement persists, there's nothing more to do because no active teaching agent -- no arbiter -- is accepted. The Bible remains passive. It sits there saying exactly what it said when the argument began, and says that same thing when the impasse is reached. Why would Christ say the Church is to be ONE and then give us such a confusing and easily-misunderstood book?

Thing is, He didn't. In fact, Christ didn't give us a book at all. He gave us a Church. Founded on Peter and the Apostles. I'm not surprised you don't want to go down that road, because it precedes the Bible as the Inspired Word of God. But it is the only argument left to have since any argument on individual doctrinal points will devolve to the same impasse as that reached above on the Real Presence.

(Continued in next comment...)

(nothing continued)

D'Oh...

The comment posting was acting up, wasn't posting the comment with the normal due speed, so I thought my comment was too long. So I broke it up to post the first half, noticed that didn't post quickly either... so gave up, saved the comment on my computer to try again at another date....

Well, I see the entire comment did post after all.

and no one has yet responded. Fair 'nuff, I'll try back later.

Crowe,

You are right...it does boil down to who you believe is authoritative. You believe in the authority of the church...I believe in the authority of God's Word aka the Bible. Does that mean I do not believe in oral traditions? No. However it does mean that if an oral tradition does not measure up to the Bible, it is invalid. Such things as prayers to Mary or Saints, or Mary's sinlessness or Immaculate conception...not Biblical.
Now with your belief these doctrines are fine because the RCC interpreted and rationalized these doctrines under the assumption that they are led by the spirit.

2 Cor 11:4
"For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him."

First let us talk about the early church. The early church can be found clearly in the Bible. Paul as apostle is supposed to do, help build up churches in various areas. So the early church includes the Galatians and the Corinthians.

In Galatians Paul writes in shock on how quickly the Galatians were turning to a different gospel. In Galatians 1:8 Paul says
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one WE(Paul and Apostles) preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!"

Paul repeats himself the following verse
"As we have already said, so now I say again:If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"

This is so vital that as you saw above, Paul reiterates himself to the Corinthians.

So the question is, what did Paul and the apostles preach?
As far as written records, there is no account of Paul, or any apostle including Peter, preaching about prayers to saints or Mary, Mary's immaculate conception, the grace of Mary, the sinlessness of Mary or infant baptism.
Either you believe that Paul and other apostles talked about these items even though there is no written record of it, or you don't believe that Paul talked about these items ever.
I do not believe that Paul or any other Apostle ever talked about the above mentioned items. Nor did they write about it. Therefore they did not preach it, and therefore it is not valid.
Despite what Paul said, why do you believe and accept these things to be true?
Do you believe that Paul passed these items down orally??
I know you believe in the authority of the RCC but Paul said, even an angel....preaching something else should be eternally condemned.
It is logical to assume that Paul means that anything different or new to what "we have preached" is not God's truth.

God Bless

But, SandT, don't forget that you are ignoring Biblical passages in order to make your point. For example, the Bible calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of Truth." You argue that the Bible is this pillar. The Bible says we learn "the manifold wisdom of God" through the Church. You have personally decided the Bible is where we get this. St. Paul told us we must obey his teachings, both written and oral. Yet you refuse to obey what isn't written. The Bible says that all generations will call Mary "blessed" and yet you ignore her.

Also, the Bible tells us to go to church on Saturday and never changes it to Sunday. Yet you accept this as "truth" (the apostles changed it). The Bible never teaches the reality of the Trinity, yet you accept it. I would guess your church has a popular election for pastors. Where is this in the Bible?

But all this boils down to one ultimate problem: Sola Scriptura is not Biblical. Period. If Christ wanted us to base our faith on the Bible, rather than the Church, why did He form a Church in Matt 16:18 instead of saying "I want a book to be written"? Why didn't He at least name those whose writings should be included? Why didn't He write at least a chapter? These questions should haunt you, because Christ acted like He could care less if a book was ever written. He never even suggested it should be written.

Why? Because He formed a Church led by the Holy Spirit that would decide this later. As Christ said, there is much He wanted to teach us, but we were not ready so it would come later. Through the Church.

Where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura? Nowhere. In fact, it's anti-Biblical. I challenge you to read the writings of the early Church. You'll be stunned by how clearly Catholic they are (and how much the Catholic church looks like the descriptions they give).

God bless,
Jay

PS - we've written several articles that show the early Church of the Bible is very Catholic. For example, the "dedicated" themselves to the "breaking of bread." And they handed down the "seat" of Judas Iscariot to Matthias. Oh, and Mary was present at the major events. Interesting that you ignored these Scriptures.

SandT--

You immediately went back to the Bible to prove points and question things Catholic. You missed the entire point of my attack.

I'm attacking your very right to use the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. What I am stating is that you, as one who does not accept the God-given authority of the Catholic Church to be the promoter and defender of God's Truth on earth, have no recourse to the Bible.

I trust I'm making myself clear: You cannot base any arguments on the Bible because you deny the authority upon which those several writings were determined to be "God Breathed."

You can question where Catholics get the Biblical evidence for this doctrine or that doctrine all day, but when you do, you're using a tool -- the Bible -- that humanity only has because the Catholic Church, invested with divine protection from error on teaching of Truth, invoked that protection to establish the canon. So each and every time you refer to the Bible as the Authority of God, you are accepting that the bishops of the Catholic Church had the authority to speak for God when they established that table of contents.

Only Catholics have the heritage of the Bible. You may have co-opted it, but it is not yours to build a church on. The Church was built on Peter and the Apostles.

In Christ

SandT - I think I accidently deleted a comment you made. If so, I apologize profusely, please add it back when you get a second.

I'm still working out the kinks on the new Movable Type version.

God bless,
Jay