This is my body or represents my body?

[Simons]

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is a pre-denominational Catholic?

To be precise, I am not questioning what Ignatius and Martyr had to say….rather I am questioning any interpretation of their words that claims that they (or either one of them) believed in a real bodily presence. What in their words would require them to believe that a change of substance had occurred, as opposed to believing that upon consecration the symbols share in the reality of the thing that they symbolize?

As for the realistic language used in John 6, there the Jews asked, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”….and that is a question Jesus never answered except that:

a. he had already repeatedly stressed that eternal life was received by those that believed in him; and

b. then he stressed that eternal life was received by those that ate his flesh.

It seems rather obvious that he was (metaphorically) equating belief in him with eating his flesh.

Further, I don’t think John’s use of “trogo” helps the Catholic interpretation. How many billions of times have individual Catholics received the Mass? And in those billions and billions of attempts at “eating his flesh” has a single Catholic ever actually “trogo-ed” his flesh (as that verse declares to be necessary)? No, never, not even once. Catholics have trogo-ed bread and wafers (grinding them to mushy crumbs), but never has a Catholic ever actually “trogo-ed” the flesh of the Son of Man and so, according to those words of Christ, no Catholic would have life within him/her…that is, if you want to take “trogo” literally and not figuratively.

 

[Arch Stanton]

What is that .

pre split.... the tree trunk

 

[Arch Stanton]

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is a pre-denominational Catholic?

Is this post for me or all Catholics?

Thanks

 

[Arch Stanton]

To be precise, I am not questioning what Ignatius and Martyr had to say….rather I am questioning any interpretation of their words that claims that they (or either one of them) believed in a real bodily presence.

Ignatius of Antioch​

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Though the 'accidents remain' [no cannibalism].

Further, I don’t think John’s use of “trogo” helps the Catholic interpretation.

It does when you see Christ doubling down as opposed to explaining that He is speaking symbolically.

How many billions of times have individual Catholics received the Mass?

Interesting that you would say that.... I will add this -- why would Christ institute a Church and have His believers make such a critical error for over one thousand five hundred years before a correct understanding?

 

[Simons]

Ignatius of Antioch​

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

As I have pointed out earlier in his Letter to the Romans Ignatius stated: I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

For that sentence I don’t interpret the “is” to mean “is literally incorruptible love” and, as such, I don’t feel obliged to take the “is” of “the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” to mean “the Eucharist is literally the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ”

Though the 'accidents remain' [no cannibalism].

and that is why I would say that your interpretation is not a literal interpretation. A literal interpretation would mean cannibalism would be involved. On the day of the bread of life discourse only two interpretations would have been available to Jesus’s audience: a figurative interpretation (as put forward by Augustine), and a literal interpretation (which would result in cannibalism). One can piece together a proper figurative interpretation by reading the whole text and noting that belief and eating the bread of life both achieve eternal life. One can also properly reject cannibalism. What one cannot do is arrive at the understanding of a transubstantiationial eating of his flesh…. That understanding required the application of Greek philosophy and an accretion from centuries of pious imagination.

It does when you see Christ doubling down as opposed to explaining that He is speaking symbolically.

there is no rule that states that God cannot double down on a figure of speech and for the reasons stated immediately above it is not the symbolic understanding that demands an explanation.

I will add this -- why would Christ institute a Church and have His believers make such a critical error for over one thousand five hundred years before a correct understanding?

that is a valid question. However, for reasons stated in previous posts I would not agree to the 1500 year time span. I would also note that today more than half of those who identify as Catholic hold to a symbolic understanding….those two things being said, I would add that question to the other questions I have concerning God’s plan for salvation, such as:

1. Why did he only send prophets and scripture to an insignificant tribe in the middle east?

2. Why did he wait so long to send his Son?

….or, regarding doctrine:

3. Why didn’t Jesus condemn slavery? Or

4. Why would the Church of Rome condemn usury as immoral only to later operate a Vatican bank that both pays and charges interest?

It seems that God’s concept of timeliness does not match mine.

 

[Mr GLee]

pre split.... the tree trunk

Believers look to the unseen things of God the root or foundation David in the Psalms replied if mankind destroys the foundation what could the believer do , . . . . Hide?

Matthew 13:6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root,(life force) they withered away.

Root, , "underground, downward-growing part of a plant

A denomination is a family Abraham made up of two His father a Amorite and mother a Hittite

Ezekiel 16:45Thou art thy mother's daughter, that lotheth her husband and her children; and thou art the sister of thy sisters, which lothed their husbands and their children: your mother was an Hittite, and your father an Amorite

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them

When more than one family' gathers together you could it the gathering of uniting of nations .

 

[Arch Stanton]

As I have pointed out earlier in his Letter to the Romans Ignatius stated: I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

For that sentence I don’t interpret the “is” to mean “is literally incorruptible love” and, as such, I don’t feel obliged to take the “is” of “the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” to mean “the Eucharist is literally the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ”

and that is why I would say that your interpretation is not a literal interpretation. A literal interpretation would mean cannibalism would be involved. On the day of the bread of life discourse only two interpretations would have been available to Jesus’s audience: a figurative interpretation (as put forward by Augustine), and a literal interpretation (which would result in cannibalism). One can piece together a proper figurative interpretation by reading the whole text and noting that belief and eating the bread of life both achieve eternal life. One can also properly reject cannibalism. What one cannot do is arrive at the understanding of a transubstantiationial eating of his flesh…. That understanding required the application of Greek philosophy and an accretion from centuries of pious imagination.

there is no rule that states that God cannot double down on a figure of speech and for the reasons stated immediately above it is not the symbolic understanding that demands an explanation.

that is a valid question. However, for reasons stated in previous posts I would not agree to the 1500 year time span. I would also note that today more than half of those who identify as Catholic hold to a symbolic understanding….those two things being said, I would add that question to the other questions I have concerning God’s plan for salvation, such as:

1. Why did he only send prophets and scripture to an insignificant tribe in the middle east?

2. Why did he wait so long to send his Son?

….or, regarding doctrine:

3. Why didn’t Jesus condemn slavery? Or

4. Why would the Church of Rome condemn usury as immoral only to later operate a Vatican bank that both pays and charges interest?

It seems that God’s concept of timeliness does not match mine.

As the new manna, the Eucharist can and is literal although the accidents still remain. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to understand?

Justin Martyr​

We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

 

[Simons]

As the new manna, the Eucharist can and is literal although the accidents still remain. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to understand?

​

Well, for starters all physical things (such as flesh, blood, a body etc.) derive their substance from the presence and organization of their accidents. As such, if the accidents of the bread remain (unchanged), then the bread's substance also remains. Further, if no accidents of a body are present, then the substance of a body cannot be present. It is as rational as claiming that priests can create a square that has only three sides.

Here is a bit more from Justin Martyr:

There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands…. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

And this food is called among us eukaristia [the eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” (First Apology, 65-66)​

So, from that:

Justin’s Eucharistic rite started off with bread, wine and water (first emboldened bit)

It is still bread, water and wine after it is blessed and when it is received by the congregation (second emboldened bit)

Although it is still bread, wine and water it is no longer just common bread, wine and water (third emboldened bit)

….as such, no change of substance in Justin Martyr’s view…but (it is very likely that) for him the bread was no longer common bread because as a good symbol, after consecration the bread shared in the reality of Jesus’s body (now in heaven).

Please also keep in mind that Justin Martyr also refuted charges of cannibalism that were made against Christians:

For I myself, too, when I was delighting in the doctrines of Plato, and heard the Christians slandered, and saw them fearless of death, and of all other-things which are counted fearful, perceived that it was impossible that they could be living in wickedness and pleasure. For what sensual or intemperate man, or who that counts it good to feast on human flesh, could welcome death that he might be deprived of his enjoyments…. Second Apology, 12.​

Notice how he argued that a person who ate human flesh (a slanderous thing) could not welcome martyrdom. Also, note he has no need to qualify the dismissal and explain that although Christians do indeed eat human flesh as charged, it is not an evil cannibalistic eating that takes place, but rather Christians gnaw on the flesh of Christ in a transubstantiational eating.

Irenaeus seemed to hold a similar view to the one I just described for Justin:

For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. Against Heresies 4:18:5​

….it is still bread, just not common bread. Also, Irenaeus, like Martyr also addressed the charge of cannibalism (that was made against Christians):

“For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practiced] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. …. (Fragment 13)​

Note how Irenaeus’s explanation of the false charge of cannibalism is attributed to slaves misunderstanding that the elements of the Eucharist were actually flesh and blood. Again, please note that there is no qualification or clarification such as: “…the elements of the Eucharist are only the substance of flesh and blood without any accidents thereof being present and it is the absence of such accidents that defeats the charge of cannibalism”.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Well, for starters all physical things (such as flesh, blood, a body etc.) derive their substance from the presence and organization of their accidents. As such, if the accidents of the bread remain (unchanged), then the bread's substance also remains.

and yet we see people walking on water, rising from the dead, having sight with mud on the eyes, etc.

When I say the 'accidents remain', that just means it still looks like the host. Do you not believe Christ could do this? Did Christ fool His Church for the first one thousand five hundred years?

Note how Irenaeus’s explanation of the false charge of cannibalism is attributed to slaves misunderstanding that the elements of the Eucharist were actually flesh and blood.

Do you note that Irenaeus was a Catholic Bishop and had heard from Polycarp?

 

[Mr GLee]

As the new manna, the Eucharist can and is literal although the accidents still remain. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to understand?

Justin Martyr​

We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

I would offer.

In the parable "drink blood, eat flesh" it reveals the spiritual understanding as the mysteries of God. Mysteries made known

Parables are designed to teach us how to walk by invisible things of our Father. ( faith to faith). In that way the spiritual unseen understanding must be compared to "like parables"

In that way parables enrich the gospel like with Johnathon when sought after by his father and ate honey strengthening him in his doubts to finish his work

1 Samuel 14:27Then said Jonathan, My father hath troubled the land: see, I pray you, how mine eyes have been enlightened, because I tasted a little of this honey.

David imprisoned and in doubt. The Holy Father gave David a thirst for hearing the gospel .The Father sent three apostles (three represent the end of a matter), they drew living water from the well, near the in gate, In the city of bread (to represent flesh)

They brought water to represent the work of the Holy Spirit, through transubstantiation changing H20 into blood.

Blood like water both represent the invisible work of the Holy Spirit. David poured it out knowing it was reserved for the demonstration of the Son of man Jesus, of the cross

2 Samuel 23:16-18King James Version14 And David was then in an hold, and the garrison of the Philistines was then in Bethlehem.15 And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well(living water ) of Bethlehem,(city of bread ) which is by the gate!16 And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought(transubstantiation?) it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men.1ee

"Drink blood eat flesh" The Holy Spirit pouring out His own Spirit life on dying flesh mankind in jeopardy of his own Spirit life . blood the gospel

Without parables Christ spoke not

Literalize it an abomination Cannibalisms It must be poured return the clay it was formed from the field of clay

c

 

[Simons]

and yet we see people walking on water, rising from the dead, having sight with mud on the eyes, etc.

Yes, in all those cases we see exactly what was happening....we weren't told "look a man is raised from the dead!" and yet we are left looking at a corpse still lying in the grave....and that inconsistency isn't made right with this explanation: the substance of a dead corpse is gone and the substance of a live person is there beneath, behind etc. of the element of the corpse

When I say the 'accidents remain', that just means it still looks like the host. Do you not believe Christ could do this?

Do what? Nothing has happened, except now a claim is made that a transformation has occurred. So yes, Christ can do nothing and allow men to make stuff up.

Did Christ fool His Church for the first one thousand five hundred years?

He didn't fool his Church....its some of its members fooled themselves and still do

Do you note that Irenaeus was a Catholic Bishop and had heard from Polycarp?

yes and perhaps....but the error here does not lie with Irenaeus, but lies with those who try to force a real bodily presence into his understanding of the Eucharist

 

[donadams]

this is the New Testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you? Lk 22:20

For in this way of speaking one sees clearly that what is in the cup must be the blood, not wine, since the wine has not been shed for us, but the blood.

Thks

 

[Simons]

Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matt 26:27-29 NIV)

For in this way of speaking one sees clearly that what is in the cup must still be wine, not blood.

 

[Mr GLee]

pre split.... the tree trunk

Between limbo /purgatory sufferings and wondering with no end in sight ?And that of those born again by the living seed (Christ) Receiving the end salvation of our new born again souls from the first hearing of His labor of love or work of faith .

Which one is the good teaching master today as Lord ?

Law of the fathers dying mankind or l law of the one eternal Holy Father. Christ. . . . . our spiritual head .

 

[Arch Stanton]

So yes, Christ can do nothing and allow men to make stuff up.

His Church [that you deny] is the pillar of truth though.... also, the wisdom of God is made known through His Church.

Who to believe ... you or Christ's Church?

 

[Mr GLee]

His Church [that you deny] is the pillar of truth though.... also, the wisdom of God is made known through His Church.

Who to believe ... you or Christ's Church?

I would say we believe the invisible head Christ, the husband of the bride or church .

Christ in us .

Who is your head that works in you ?

Colossians 1: 27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:. . .His glory not dying mankind the church

Do you have Christ's love working in you .or Peter?

There simply is no defense against all things writen in the law and prophets .Sola Scriptura the pillar of Christ's labor of love as it is written .

Philippians 2:13King James Version13 For it is God (not Peter our brother in the Lord ) which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. (Not Peters or our sister in the Lord Mary's good pleasure)

 

[Bob Carabbio]

This is my body or represents my body?​

Obviously it REPRESENTS Jesus' BODY, and BLOOD as a REMEMBERANCE as Jesus said. Roman Catholic victims have a fatally FLAWED concept of how salvation works, and have no concept of what the Bible says

Oh - and we're not "Cannibals".

Did you know that cannibals won't eat CLOWNS because they taste funny??

 

[Mr GLee]

I would offer this....

Lk 10:16 Whoever listens to you listens to ME. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.

That would be great if the Son of man dying mankind Jesus was God(father) that we must listen to .

Protestants do not have a Peter the Pope.

They obey the loving commandment (sola scriptura) to call no man on earth Holy Father, Holy See, our vicar of Christ, Emperor of Rome, the chief of apostles e.t.c.

We listen to the invisible father Christ the husband of the bride or church. Just as Jesus the Son of man, Peter and Mary did

 

[Simons]

His Church [that you deny] is the pillar of truth though.... also, the wisdom of God is made known through His Church.

You have incorrectly identified my denial. What I deny is that your Church = His Church (which is the pillar and foundation of truth). There are many reasons for that denial, but here are few such reasons for a start:

Five times in the NT (Matt 20:25, Mark 10:42, Luke 22:25, 2 Cor 1:23-4, and 1 Peter 5:3) a form of leadership that “Lords it over” its subjects is considered. In all three synoptic gospels, Christ said it wasn’t to be that way with his disciples. In contrast, the Papacy has often typified a “lord it over” style of leadership. It is, after all, a consideration of Papal history that inspired the observation that ““power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I can only wonder why I should view the Catholic Church as the church that Christ founded when its style of leadership has often been the opposite of what Christ required.

In the gospel of John it is recorded that Christ said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders.” In contrast, the Papacy, used forgeries and force to carve for itself a kingdom of this world. Popes went to war to expand and hold this kingdom. I can only wonder why I should view the Catholic Church as the church that Christ founded when, for centuries, its determination to hold a temporal kingdom is exactly what Christ rejected.

The author of 1st Timothy refers to the church as "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). A few verses earlier, directions were provided for what characteristics an overseer of that church must possess. On many occasions and for long periods of time, the Catholic Church totally disregarded these directions when selecting its overseers, and in particular its overseer of Rome. By its conduct the Catholic Church clearly taught that these scriptural directions could be totally disregarded. Why should I view the Catholic Church as the church that is the pillar and foundation of truth when it hasn’t followed the scriptural requirements for that church?

If a church is going to claim to be the one true church, then it should be nearly incontrovertible. It shouldn’t be something that you have to hold your nose to swallow.

Who to believe ... you or Christ's Church?

Who to believe ... your Church (which has repeatedly gone against the requirements laid out in scripture) or Christ's Church?

 

[Arch Stanton]

You have incorrectly identified my denial. What I deny is that your Church = His Church (which is the pillar and foundation of truth).

There was only one church at the time with truth.... the universal/catholic [according to the whole] church. There is a warning though --

1Jn2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number. [One Church, One Faith, One Baptism, No Divisions, No Other Gospel, One Shepherd]