1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Holy eucharist

Discussion in 'Same Faith Debates' started by athanasius, Oct 6, 2006.

  1. athanasius

    athanasius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,573
    Ratings:
    +123
    I Created this forum to get a understanding about what Mr Writer believes about the eucharist. Bless his heart. He had asked me several questions about our Lord's real presence so I now open the floor to him for a new start and to begin the dialogue.

    Mr Writer, may our Lord be on both of our minds, hearts, and lips and may he bless us with true understanding and dialogue. Come Holy Spirit come. I dedicate this forum to our one Triune God.
     
  2. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    The resurrected Lord Jesus, embodiment of the Triune God (Col 2:9), became life-giving Spirit in resurrection (Jn 20:22), and He's both real (14:6), and present (Mt 28:20). Hence, His reality, His presence, and His real presence is nothing less than Himself, as the Spirit, of the Son, with the Father, in the spirits (Jn 3:6), of His saints (1 Cor 6:17). Without Whom, we, and even celebrations of His Table, are empty.

    Thanks A
     
  3. athanasius

    athanasius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,573
    Ratings:
    +123
    Hello and Peace to your Mr Writer

    Thank you for your statement. God bless you always. I pray that our dialogue may be fruitful to ourselves and other Christians. May the Lord be with us.

    You said:

    The resurrected Lord Jesus, embodiment of the Triune God (Col 2:9), became life-giving Spirit in resurrection (Jn 20:22), and He's both real (14:6), and present (Mt 28:20). Hence, His reality, His presence, and His real presence is nothing less than Himself, as the Spirit, of the Son, with the Father, in the spirits (Jn 3:6), of His saints (1 Cor 6:17). Without Whom, we, and even celebrations of His Table, are empty.

    Thanks A

    My response.

    I would politely and respectfully disagree with you about John 20:22. This verse to teaches that the Holy Spirit, the third person in the Holy Trinity, proceeds from the Son(We also believe he proceeds from the Father too), not that the son became a life giving spirit.

    The Holy Trinity has always been understood as God is one in his infinite substance or nature but he is 3 really disc-tint persons. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is not the 3rd person,Holy Spirit, but he is one in nature and substance with him. Likewise Jesus is not the Father, but he is con-substantial(One in being with), the Father.

    We Catholics and the ancient apostolic Fathers of the Church would also disagree with you over the Eucharist. Yes we Do agree that Jesus gives us his real “spiritual” presence of himself in our hearts. NO argument there. However the Eucharist to Christians(Both ancient and now a days) was always seen as not “merely” a spiritual presence.

    It is spiritual, but it more than just that. Why? Because the sacraments are the most personal ways we can in our human nature relate to God. We are not just spiritual beings. God made us both Body and Soul(Spiritual), Matter and form. So Christ instituted these real Sacraments as way of personally relating to us not just to our Spiritual side, but also in our human bodily nature.

    They are like divine hugs(something we can relate to in our bodily nature) from God in a real physical and Spiritual way . Jesus often provided his saving grace to people under Physical forms for this same reason. A good example of this would be when Jesus used Mudd and water to open the blind mans eyes(John 9:1-12) The eucharist is the equivalent of Marital intercourse because it is the most personal, beautiful, Physical, Spiritual, and closest way we can enter into communion with our Lord and saviour Jesus the King. Amen. This why he instituted the Sacraments using Material things, like bread and wine, and water.

    God uses the Physical because we are physical and God also uses the Spirit because we are spiritual. I should clear one thing up. We catholics teach that Jesus is Corporally, and sacramentally present in the Eucharist in a special way. A way that is different and more personal than him just being present in our hearts merely spiritually and out of remembrance.

    This is why we believe that Jesus instituted the eucharist giving himself, his Body and blood to us(Matt:26:26). I would teach it this way. We by our baptism and faith in christ are part of his Body the Church, which is the Family of God, the household of God (1 Tim 3:15).

    Now how do we know that we are the sons and daughters of our natural parents. Simple. we share their name(Last name) we sit at their table( for supper), we share the same flesh and blood(blood relations), and Our fathers Bride is our Mother.

    The same can be said for the Supernatural spiritual family. We know we are Christ’s because we share his name, through Baptism and faith we have put on the name of Christ or Christian(Gal 3:26), we sit at his table,the alter of communion(Heb 13:10, 1 Cor 10: 18-21) and we share in his flesh and blood in Communion (Matt 26:26) and his bride the Church (rev 12) is our Mother.

    So Jesus relating to us in a the fullest possible family sense really makes us part of his body in a intimate real way in the Eucharist. Some might say, you are what you eat. You are only the supernatural body of Christ because you eat the supernatural body of Christ(1 Cor 10:16-17).

    Christ shares in that intimate family union with us and we are his in the “fullest” sense when we partake of him in his real presence in the eucharist. Amen.

    Well my friend Mr writer I hope that helps explain why we Catholics believe what we do about the eucharist. I appreciate your good hearted and honest charitable questions that I know are done with sincere love for Christ and his truth. I have those same convictions. Amen. May the Holy Spirit guide us in this dialogue to understand our positions and change our hearts for his glory.
     
  4. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    3 John 20:22. the Holy Spirit, the third person in the Holy Trinity, proceeds from the Son.
    He duz

    he proceeds from the Father too
    He duz

    not that the son became a life giving spirit.
    The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. Wrote Paul

    The Holy Trinity has always been understood as God is one in his infinite substance or nature
    He is

    but he is 3 really disc-tint persons. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
    They are

    Jesus is not the 3rd person,Holy Spirit,
    To the contrary: They're one to the point of identity. Not to the point of nonexistence

    but he is one in nature and substance with him.
    He is

    Likewise Jesus is not the Father,
    Not in the sense of nonexistence, Modalism, or replacement. But in coinherence and God: the Son's called Eternal Father; and if you've seen the Son, you've seen the Father. Phillip

    he is con-substantial(One in being with), the Father.
    They are

    Jesus gives us his real “spiritual” presence of himself in our hearts. NO argument there.
    U mean the Son's Spirit?

    the Eucharist to Christians(Both ancient and now a days) was always seen as not “merely” a spiritual presence.
    The "Eucharist" isn't any presence. It's zero, or an idol, without Christ

    It is spiritual, but it more than just that.
    Thankin the Lord for and at His Table should be spiritual and Spiritual.
    Of course His Table's also physical bread, and physical wine

    Why?
    Becuz physical bread and wine r physical bread and wine

    the sacraments are the most personal ways we can in our human nature relate to God.
    To the contrary: God became man, and Christ became Spirit, to relate to you and i in our human nature directly, presently, anytime, and immediately.
    In addition: there appears 2 b no such thing as "sacraments" in the apostles' teaching

    We are not just spiritual beings.
    God became flesh

    God made us both Body and Soul(Spiritual),
    To the contrary: God made you spirit, soul, and body (Genesis 2:7; 1 Thes 5:23; Lk 1:35, 46, 47; 1 Cor 2:11-3:3; etc)

    So Christ instituted these real Sacraments...
    No offence dear Athanasius (i really mean that), but this sounds to me like gibberish

    ...as way of personally relating to us not just to our Spiritual side, but also in our human bodily nature.
    To the contrary: God became man; and that man, the last Adam, became a life-giving Spirit in resurrection who breathed His Spirit, Himself, as the Spirit, into His believers (1 Cor 15:45; Jn 20:22; 1 Peter 1:3).
    I realize you religion's alien to the Bible in several (not all) ways. But have u read it some, or read it simply?
    What do you think of what the New Testament says?


    They are like divine hugs(something we can relate to in our bodily nature) from God in a real physical and Spiritual way .
    If u mean that baptism includes a physical act, as does the Lord's Table, as does head covering in 1 Cor 11, as does anointing some ill with oil in prayer: then that's fair to say. Though neither's "divine hugs" complete. Nor are any of those things anything without faith and the Spirit in the spirit of the participant. In fact, as Paul the apostle wrote: "don't you know that your body's a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and you're not your own? Therefore glorify God in your body" (1 Cor 6:19-20)

    Jesus often provided his saving grace to people under Physical forms for this same reason. A good example of this would be when Jesus used Mudd and water to open the blind mans eyes(John 9:1-12)
    Mud and water there are signs. As John says. "This beginning of signs Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee and manifested His glory, and His diciples believed into Him/Many other signs also Jesus did before His disciples...these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name" (Jn 2:11; 20:30).
    In Jn 9's sign with the blind man, the ground signifies humanity. We were made from earth. The water (spit) out of Jesus' mouth signifies His living words. Which are spirit and life and give life. The Lord Jesus anointed the blind man with the mixture: signifiying His mingling Himself (God's Word) with whosoever receives Him, thru His word and Spirit. Then to wash = to obey the Lord, as in baptism, which the blind man did (obeyed)
     
  5. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    3 The eucharist is the equivalent of Marital intercourse because it is the most personal, beautiful, Physical, Spiritual, and closest way we can enter into communion with our Lord and saviour Jesus the King. Amen.

    To the contrary: he who's joined to the Lord's one spirit (1 Cor 6:17). Wrote Paul. Which certainly can and should encompass His Table. And His Table is the summit of the church meetings, corporately. But to say or suggest that union of highest union with Christ is limited to only His Table meeting is a gross disservice to Him. As the apostle Paul wrote in Philippians 1: "To me to live is Christ."
    Additionally, the Passover itself was a 7 day feast. Signifying that believers should (and of course can) eat Christ 24/7. Of which, of necessity, the precious meeting around His Table, should itself be a sign.
    Lastly: to suggest that Christ incarnated, lived, died, resurrected, ascended, and poured HImself out so that men's highest contact of Him would be to cannibalize Him outwardly is both grossly errant, foolish, ineffective, and utterly missing His point. In fact, it's even idolatrous (cf Jn 6:63; Mark 7:18-23; Heb 13:9; etc)

    God uses the Physical because we are physical and God also uses the Spirit because we are spiritual.
    I guess u can say that. But iz kinda missin the point. God created us with a spirit because He IS Spirit (Zech 12:1; Job 32:8; Jn 4:24; etc) and God became physical because we are physical (Gen 2:7; Jn 1:14; etc)

    I should clear one thing up. We catholics teach that Jesus is Corporally, and sacramentally present in the Eucharist in a special way.
    I understand. It's a kinda teachin o' literal cannibalism. And complete nonsense.
    No offence

    This is why we believe that Jesus instituted the eucharist giving himself, his Body and blood to us(Matt:26:26).
    Jesus gave his body and blood in His crucifixion. So that any who want can a) be forgiven by Him. And b) thus be cleansed to receive His Spirit. Like John wrote of His pierced side: "Out flowed blood and water" (19:34).
    Of course neither the Lord nor apostles ever used the term "eucharist" to specifically name His Table (as Paul did the terms "Lord's Table, Lord's Supper"). Not that there's anything wrong with it in itself.
    Rather, the Lord instituted His Table for the reason He explicitly stated that He instituted His Table: "Do this in remembrance of Me" (Lk 22:19).
    In other words as a memorial. And sign. Not because He is absent totally. He's not. He's present wherever 2 or 3 gather in His name. He's with His all the days until the consummation of the age. He's INSIDE His believers.
    But He's absent physically.
    As He said: I'll by no means drink of this product of the product of the vine anymore until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God" (Mk 14:25).
    Lastly, Jn 6, way before He instituted His Table, shows that eating Christ is a matter of spiritual, and daily life. And's in no way limited to only the event, time, or practice of His Table outwardly


    how do we know that we are the sons and daughters of our natural parents. Simple. we share their name(Last name) we sit at their table( for supper), we share the same flesh and blood(blood relations), and Our fathers Bride is our Mother.
    That iz a matter of "knowledge." As u write. But, to use your illustration also: even if you were to share not your biological parents' name and sit not at their table (God forbid): you're still their biological child


    his bride the Church (rev 12) is our Mother.
    Amen dear brother Athanasius. U 'n i r brothers. At the same table and in the same family. The church. That's how Hippolytus and Methodius (to name two) applied Rv 12


    you are what you eat. You are only the supernatural body of Christ because you eat the supernatural body of Christ(1 Cor 10:16-17).
    You're absolutely right, Athanasius. As Paul wrote of the supernatural Christ and His supernatural body:
    "the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit" (1 Cor 15:45b)


    Christ shares in that intimate family union with us and we are his in the “fullest” sense when we partake of him in his real presence in the eucharist.
    Christ really incarnated, died, and resurrected to be real and present and really present. He needs no other body, incarnation, reincarnation, nor "transubstantiation" to do this, nor to be eaten. One's sufficient. As He (and His apostles) said: "The flesh profits zero. It's the Spirit who gives life" (Jn 6:63; 2 Cor 3:6; 1 Cor 15:45). This's the reality and point of the Lord's Table. And this is which the actual elements of His Table represent. They are not it. He is. Only He is Himself. And His Body. Not a third body

    May the Holy Spirit guide us in this dialogue to understand our positions and change our hearts for his glory.
    Amen. Take care
     
  6. athanasius

    athanasius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,573
    Ratings:
    +123
    Dear in Christ Mr writer,

    Thank you for your protestant defense of this doctrine. We Catholics would disagree respectfully and charitably with much of what you said.

    You said:
    The "Eucharist" isn't any presence. It's zero, or an idol, without Christ

    My answer:

    The eucharist to a Catholic is Christ so the eucharist is not “Without Christ” in any sense. I am not sure how you got that idea my brother

    You said:

    To the contrary: God became man, and Christ became Spirit, to relate to you and i in our human nature directly, presently, anytime, and immediately.
    In addition: there appears 2 b no such thing as "sacraments" in the apostles' teaching

    My answer:

    Your right, God became man in Christ Jesus to relate to us in human nature directly, presently, and anytime. But the question is how Christ applies that relationship to us. He does it in many ways, through spiritual prayer, faith, trust in him and he applies it to us in the most real and intimate form in the Eucharist where we are at union with him at both the upper room and Calvary and present to us today.The sacraments definitely are in the bible, and the eucharist is one of them.

    You said;

    No offence dear Athanasius (i really mean that), but this sounds to me like gibberish

    My response:

    No offense taken Mr Writer. However what sounds like gibberish to you was clearly and unanimously taught by all the Father s of the church for the first 900 years. They read scriptures and preached and some of them knew the apostles and they had no problem teaching the Eucharist really was the body and blood of Christ.

    You said:

    I realize you religion's alien to the Bible in several (not all) ways. But have u read it some, or read it simply?
    What do you think of what the New Testament says?

    My answer

    Ahh, Ok I shall pray for you. This is what I mean by being inflammatory and insulting. This is not very Christian in attitude of you to say such things to me. I will not keep debating you Mr writer if your going to insult my religion and my knowledge of the bible. I do not do that to you.

    We may disagree on interpretation and Authority but one thing both of our churches have in Common is that we believe that the scriptures are the God breathed inspired Word of God. We do read them. We are taught them. I have read the New testament. We even haver New testament bible scholars that teach and write commentaries in my religion.

    However historically I would say that the Church didn’t come from the Bible, the bible came from the Catholic church. So yes we Catholic would say we historically wrote the new testament, copied it, preserved it, preached on it, and declared its canon.

    You said
    though neither's "divine hugs" complete. Nor are any of those things anything without faith and the Spirit in the spirit of the participant

    My response

    The Catholic church agrees with you. We must have a living faith in Christ and we emphasize the spiritual too. We do not teach that we should go to the eucharist blind hearted. When we go to any sacrament we must examine our conscious and give thanks to the Lord for these gifts of the sacraments.

    You said:

    But to say or suggest that union of highest union with Christ is limited to only His Table meeting is a gross disservice to Him.

    my answer

    We Catholics and the Catholic Church do not teach that Christ is limited only to his table. I am sorry I confused you. He is with us in our hearts, he is with us in prayer, but in the eucharist he is with us in a special way different from those. He is with us corporeally and sacramentally and really in a spiritual but not just spiritual way. It is the equivalent of Marital intercourse. In intercourse you give you total self, your body and all to your wife for intimate and life giving union with her.

    Christ Jesus in the eucharist gives us(the Church, his bride) his total self, body and blood soul and divinity under the form of bread and wine(Matt 26:26) for intimate and life giving(John 6:51) union with us.

    You said:

    Lastly: to suggest that Christ incarnated, lived, died, resurrected, ascended, and poured HImself out so that men's highest contact of Him would be to cannibalize Him outwardly is both grossly errant, foolish, ineffective, and utterly missing His point. In fact, it's even idolatrous (cf Jn 6:63; Mark 7:18-23; Heb 13:9; etc)

    my response

    Well it is very interesting that you used the phrase “poured himself out” because when describing the eucharist, Our lord says thats exactly what he did. Consider Matt 26:26-28

    “And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; ? for this is my blood of the covenant, which is POURED OUT for many for the forgiveness of sins”.

    So yes, that is exactly what Jesus himself said at the last supper in regards to the eucharist. As far as your concern with cannibalizing Jesus. Well its interesting that you said that too. The early Pagans(1-2 Centuries) used to think that Christian fathers were cannibalizing when they received the eucharist too.

    Jesus did not teach us to cannibalize him but he did teach us to eat the eucharist which was his very flesh and blood(Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-21; John 6:48-58; 1 Cor 10:16-22; 1 Cor 11: 23-31). We catholics do not teach cannibalism when teaching the eucharist.

    Cannibalism denotes actually eating, metabolizing, and digesting natural human flesh. If Jesus told his apostles to eat his body and then began to rip off his arm and flesh and tried to give it to them this way, then it would be cannibalism. We do not digest and metabolize Christ body like normal food because it isn’t his body in the natural order its his body in the supernatural order, a miracle.

    We teach that Christ gave us his real Body and blood under the form or appearances of bread and wine. There is nothing like this in nature it is a profound mystery of faith. Catholic answers answered this better than I could. There website is www.catholic.com Here is what they had to say

    “ Q: Your doctrine of the Eucharist sounds like cannibalism. ?

    A: Catholics don't believe Jesus' presence in the Eucharist is such that the consumption of the Host entails cannibalism. Christ's body and blood aren't present naturally, but supernaturally, under the appearances of bread and wine. This mode of presence rules out cannibalism. It's accurate to say that while Christ's presence is real and substantial, the mode of consumption, the way in which we eat his body and drink his blood, is, in a sense, spiritual (though not merely symbolic).

    When the host is consumed, the physical process of eating affects only the accidents of bread, not the substance of Christ's body and blood, which are beyond our power to injure.?Catholics, then, truly unite themselves spiritually to Christ who is really, substantially present, and they do so in a way which involves the bodily act of eating, even though the physical aspects of this process affect only the sign or accidents of bread.”?

    I hope that helps. I understand that many people have a problem with this. Heck when Jesus told his apostles he would give them his flesh and blood to eat many of his followers had a problem with this. They would say “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”(John 6:52). For many the eucharist was a “Hard saying that couldn’t be endured”(John 6:60).

    They walked away eventually rejecting Jesus because of his eucharistic teachings(John 6:66). Will you walk away in denial too? Are will you follow Peter who accepted this doctrine on faith(John 6:68). Will you walk away from the historic Christian outlook attested to by all the fathers and never questioned in the early church?

    Remember just like believeing in the eucharist, many people had a heard time believing that Jesus was God. Many would look at him and say he is Palestinian Jew, how can he be the creator of the universe, the Logos? But indeed God did humble himself to come to us under humble and simple forms and appearances. The Eucharist is Jesus who comes to us again under another humble form, the form of bread and wine. Amen.


    You said

    Jesus gave his body and blood in His crucifixion

    My answer:

    Yes he did, Amen! Now he gives us the same Body and blood under the appearances of bread and wine as a sharing in his once for all sacrifice(1 Cor 10:16-18). He applies his sacrifice to us this way because he is the typological fulfillment of the Jewish passover Lamb(John 1:29).

    You said:

    of course neither the Lord nor apostles ever used the term "eucharist" to specifically name His Table

    My answer:

    Catholics and other christians use the term eucharist to describe the Lord supper for this reason; The word eucharist in Greek means “Thanksgiving”. Jesus when he had the last supper “Gave thanks”(Matt 26:27). We believe that the Eucharist is Jesus. Jesus to Catholics is our Thanksgiving. We give thanks to the Father for the Son and his sacrifice and his real presence in the eucharist. I hope that helped.

    You said:

    "Do this in remembrance of Me" (Lk 22:19).......But He's absent physically.

    my response:

    It is more than just a mere memorial. the Jews would actually see passover as transcending time and would believe that they really take part in it when they celebrated it although it was historically years ago that it happened. It was far more than a mere memorial as the word itself has deeper meanings in their culture. Jesus fulfilled this.

    So we transcend time when we celebrate the eucharist and we actually take part in the sacrifice of the Cross through the sacrifice of the upper room which he gave us his real body and blood under the form of bread and wine.


    this post was too long and must be continued on th next post. See my next post as a continuation:
     
  7. athanasius

    athanasius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,573
    Ratings:
    +123
    here is e continuation

    You said

    Jesus gave his body and blood in His crucifixion

    My answer:

    Yes he did, Amen! Now he gives us the same Body and blood under the appearances of bread and wine as a sharing in his once for all sacrifice(1 Cor 10:16-18). He applies his sacrifice to us this way because he is the typological fulfillment of the Jewish passover Lamb(John 1:29).

    You said:

    of course neither the Lord nor apostles ever used the term "eucharist" to specifically name His Table

    My answer:

    Catholics and other christians use the term eucharist to describe the Lord supper for this reason; The word eucharist in Greek means “Thanksgiving”. Jesus when he had the last supper “Gave thanks”(Matt 26:27). We believe that the Eucharist is Jesus. Jesus to Catholics is our Thanksgiving. We give thanks to the Father for the Son and his sacrifice and his real presence in the eucharist. I hope that helped.

    You said:

    "Do this in remembrance of Me" (Lk 22:19).......But He's absent physically.

    my response:

    It is more than just a mere memorial. the Jews would actually see passover as transcending time and would believe that they really take part in it when they celebrated it although it was historically years ago that it happened. It was far more than a mere memorial as the word itself has deeper meanings in their culture. Jesus fulfilled this. So we transcend time when we celebrate the eucharist and we actually take part in the sacrifice of the Cross through the sacrifice of the upper room which he gave us his real body and blood under the form of bread and wine.

    you said:

    Jn 6, way before He instituted His Table, shows that eating Christ is a matter of spiritual, and daily life.

    My answer

    Yes indeed the first part of that chapter does reveal eating christ in a symbolic way, meaning having faith. However, the next section of that chapter in John and the whole context of the next section of that chapter make it clear that Jesus also command us to really eat his flesh and really drink his blood in a real way, in other words we would need to receive him in the eucharist. We are to eat by believing and eat by really receiving and eating his body and blood, We will get to this more when I have time i have alot of studying to do now.

    You said:

    He needs no other body, incarnation, reincarnation, nor "transubstantiation" to do this, nor to be eaten. One's sufficient. As He (and His apostles) said: "The flesh profits zero. It's the Spirit who gives life" (Jn 6:63; 2 Cor 3:6; 1 Cor 15:45). This's the reality and point of the Lord's Table. And this is which the actual elements of His Table represent. They are not it. He is. Only He is Himself. And His Body. Not a third body

    my answer;

    Your right. He doesn’t “Need” no other body. the eucharist isn’t another body, its the same Body of Christ but only under different form, the form of bread and wine. Christ Jesus Chooses to give us himself this way at the eucharist. Simple. Yes indeed the flesh by itself profit s zero. But it isn’t just his flesh he gives us. Jesus doesn't just tell us to rip off a piece of his flesh. We need to have the whole christ,Body blood Soul and divinity(Spirit). This what jesus gives us and he clears this up when he says of the eucharist

    “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life”(John 6:63)

    We receive Jesus in faith not only in spirit but also in the real flesh and blood of the Eucharist which is the whole Christ, not just a piece of his flesh.

    well i hope this helps Mr writer. I do appreciate your dialoging with me but again if you are going to use harsh words or inflammatory statements about my church or faith or Biblical knowledge or religion I will not dialogue with you because that is not how the Holy Spirit wants us to dialogue. I do hope you have a good night and may the Peace of our Common Lord be with You. Tomorrow I will answer you comments on the Marian forum.

    Speaking the truth of Christ Catholic church in Love,
    Athanasius
     
  8. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    The eucharist to a Catholic is Christ so the eucharist is not “Without Christ” in any sense. I am not sure how you got that idea my brother
    Mebbe cuz i'm not a Catholic (thank Christ)

    God became man in Christ Jesus to relate to us in human nature directly, presently, and anytime. But the question is how Christ applies that relationship to us. He does it in many ways, through spiritual prayer, faith, trust in him and he applies it to us in the most real and intimate form in the Eucharist where we are at union with him at both the upper room and Calvary and present to us today.The sacraments definitely are in the bible, and the eucharist is one of them.
    The word "sacrament" is from the Latin "sacramentum." As in Jerome's Bible. It is the Latin word for "mystery." As in "great's the mystery of godliness/This mystery's great but I speak with regard to Christ and the church" etc in the NT. Paul writes of Christ the sacrament (mystery) of God. Of the church, the mystery (sacrament) of Christ. The Lord Jesus, His apostles: no one in the Bible calls any of Catholicism's sacraments "sacraments (mysteries)". Except courtship and marriage by Solomon in Proverbs. Baptism is not a mystery. It's a commandment. An obedience and act of faith. The Lord's Table is not a mystery. It is a sign. It is not a recreation of God. God is uncreated. God cannot be created. That is a gross and distorted blasphemy. It is not a transubstantiation of Christ. Christ has only one physical body. And it is not a dead, lifeless, speechless, sightless, motionless, insensate, nonresponsive, idol on a table. Nor is Christ so stupid, or so helpless, to become insensate or an idol. That also's blasphemy

    what sounds like gibberish to you was clearly and unanimously taught by all the Father s of the church for the first 900 years.
    That's a misrepresentation, Mr Athanasius. Which's a polite way of saying: a deceit. You shouldn't practice that. For instance, Augustine wrote that "eating Christ isn't that which's pressed by the teeth." Neither did the apostles nor Lord teach such foolish gibberish as Transubstantiation

    Ahh, Ok I shall pray for you. This is what I mean by being inflammatory and insulting. This is not very Christian in attitude of you to say such things to me.
    By asking if u, and encouraging u to, read the Bible, read it simply; and asking you what you think it means, as in any of the passages i've written for u in our little discussion on this exact topic so far?
    I can't think of a more Christian thing to recommend to you, nor you to me.
    Thanks
     
  9. Booko

    Booko Deviled Hen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    18,516
    Ratings:
    +1,369
    ********* MOD POST *********

    Just a friendly reminder folks, to keep this debate clean and in line with the forum rules, especially this one:

    4.) While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or inflammatory posts. We will allow faith to be debated and discussed by a member only when there is no hostile, rude, or insulting opinion of another's faith. The same applies to international conflicts; hostile, rude or insulting opinions of one of the sides to an international conflict will not be allowed. These restrictions to an open debate or discussion also apply to material linked and/or quoted from another site. Our decision is final in these matters.

    Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
     
  10. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    7 Yes he did, Amen! Now he gives us the same Body and blood under the appearances of bread and wine
    What "appears" to be bread and wine is..................bread and wine

    The word eucharist in Greek means “Thanksgiving”. Jesus when he had the last supper “Gave thanks”(Matt 26:27).
    Paul, in 1 Thes 5:18, wrote "In everything give thanks." Therefore, everything in a Christian's life should be eucharist

    we transcend time when we celebrate the eucharist and we actually take part in the sacrifice of the Cross through the sacrifice of the upper room which he gave us his real body and blood under the form of bread and wine.
    Jesus gave His real body on His cross. Metaphorically He gave His body at their last supper. I'm glad u transcend time. But Jesus doesn't need to. He's present

    Yes indeed the first part of that chapter does reveal eating christ in a symbolic way, meaning having faith.
    By faith one doesn't eat Christ symbolically. Rather one receives Christ the person personally. Because He's risen

    However, the next section of that chapter in John and the whole context of the next section of that chapter make it clear that Jesus also command us to really eat his flesh and really drink his blood in a real way, in other words we would need to receive him in the eucharist.
    To the contrary: The Lord was talking about Himself. Directly. Not His Table. Which He didn't establish until the night before His death.
    Additionally, to eat His flesh and drink His blood in a real way is to eat and drink Him, who is a life-giving, present, Spirit (1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:17; Jn 20:22; 6:63). Since He is, and He gives, Reality, and He is and He gives the Spirit of Reality (Jn 14:6, 17)

    the eucharist isn’t another body, its the same Body of Christ but only under different form, the form of bread and wine.
    To the contrary: God incarnated in the form of, and Jesus is, and looks:
    human.
    Additionally He's alive. Which one can tell by motion, by speaking, and by sensation.
    He doesn't "appear dead." He's risen

    Jesus doesn't just tell us to rip off a piece of his flesh.
    Nor does He create Himself physically again. Rather: "the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit" in resurrection (1 Cor 15:45).
    He's risen

    We need to have the whole christ,Body blood Soul and divinity(Spirit).
    The whole last Adam became the whole life-giving Spirit.
    If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes into Me, as the Scripture said, out of his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water. But this He said concerning the Spirit, whom those who believed into Him were about to receive; for the Spirit wasn't yet, because Jesus hadn't yet been glorified. Jn 7:37-39.
    His blood was shed. It is not recreated. He's animated by the Spirit now. Not by human blood (1 P 3:18).

    “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life”(John 6:63)
    Very good

    We receive Jesus in faith not only in spirit but also in the real flesh and blood of the Eucharist which is the whole Christ, not just a piece of his flesh.
    To the contrary: That which's born of the Spirit is spirit. The flesh's of "no avail" (Jn 3:6; 6:63)

    if you are going to use harsh words or inflammatory statements about my church or faith or Biblical knowledge or religion I will not dialogue with you because that is not how the Holy Spirit wants us to dialogue.
    If you are going to label asking and recommending you (and i) read the Bible "harsh words and inflammatory statements about...your church, faith, Biblical knowledge, or religion" as u did above; then please: don't debate or dialogue with me.
    Thanks Athanasius

    I do hope you have a good night and may the Peace of our Common Lord be with You.
    Bless you my brother
     
  11. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    for being Wonderful
     
  12. athanasius

    athanasius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,573
    Ratings:
    +123
    Dear IN Christ Mr writer

    The Lord be with you. I have politley ask you not to be inflammatory to me or my faith. I have been repsectful to you since I have repented a while ago. Saying things that are mean in spirit is not what Jesus wanted. I am going to stop debating you becuase it has become clear to me that you seem very angry and insulting to my faith and my opinions.

    I would have dialoged with you futher about Our Lords presense in the eucharist if you would not have made staments about my church and faith being "gibbersih" and how you say "thank Christ your not a Catholic" etc. This is just rude, intolerable, and undeserving of you since you are a member of the Body of Christ.

    Please know that I am praying for you and still consider you a brother in Christ even though you appear to be anticatholic to the core.
    Speaking the truth in love about Jesus Catholic church,
    Athanasius
     
  13. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    12 you seem very angry and insulting to my faith and my opinions.
    To the contrary: i agree and am happy extremely w/ your faith in Christ. I disagree w/ several of your opinions.
    And i'm still saddened, especially when we both quote Bible verses to each other, and purport to respect it, that you're "inflamed and insulted" (post 6) by my asking how you read it (4). Tho i realize that any debate or contradiction in religion, of one another's opinions, by definition can be "inflammatory."

    staments about my church and faith being "gibbersih"
    To the contrary: i've yet to call Catholicism "gibberish" here.
    In post 8 i made the conclusory statement: Transubstantiation's "foolish gibberish." Which i humbly apologize 2 u and request your forgiveness 4. Even though your creation of, and introduction to, your thread (your post 1) explicitly read:
    "I Created this forum to get a understanding ABOUT WHAT MR WRITER BELIEVES..."
    (Emphasis added.)
    I'd never call faith gibberish, and I'm aware u believe Jesus is God, God's Son. I thot that u'd've said that Transubstantiation, just like nonTransubstantiation, isn't determinative of whether u 'n i're regenerated or not---Izn't element of the common faith. No matter how much one of us might believe it or the other reject it. But if it's "your faith," then pleze accept my sincere apology.
    In post 4 i responded to your:
    3 So Christ instituted these real Sacraments...
    By writing: "No offence dear Athanasius (i really mean that), but this sounds to me like gibberish."
    Meaning, if u can hear me out: according to the way Latin Bibles use the Latin word "sacrament(um)": there'ss no such thing as what u appear to mean in the NT. Much less "Christ instituted."
    As i tried to get into in post 8. Mebbe i shoulda jus written in response to your 3: "i dunno what you're talkin about"

    and how you say "thank Christ your not a Catholic" etc. This is just rude, intolerable, and undeserving of you since you are a member of the Body of Christ.
    I disagree w/ u. U, in 6, made the statement that u weren't sure how i, a noncatholic, got a noncatholic idea. I'd o' thot u realized i'm noncatholic, and that may be where i got sum noncatholic ideas. I do thank Christ i'm not a Catholic. That's neither rude, "intolerable," nor "underserving of me" in the least. Just like if u thank Him u're Catholic------isn't rude 2 me

    Please know that I am praying for you and still consider you a brother in Christ even though you appear to be anticatholic to the core.
    Thank you, Athanasius.
    What is "anticatholic"?
    What's "the core"?
     
  14. Baerly

    Baerly Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    431
    Ratings:
    +13
  15. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +953
    What a poorly researched article. Truly awful stuff.

    To truly understand the sacramental nature of Catholicism, you simply need to grasp that a sacramental perspective "sees" the divine in the human. The infinite in the finite, the spiritual in the material, etc...... For Catholicism, therefore, all reality is sacred.

    From the article:
    Correct.
    Catechism of the Catholic Church #1229 From the time of the apostles, becoming a Christian has been accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages. This journey can be covered rapidly or slowly, but certain essential elements will always have to be present: proclamation of the Word, acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, profession of faith, Baptism itself, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and admission to Eucharistic communion.

    ....blah, blah, blah..... sheesh. You've got a Roman Catholic right here... you could at least ask me to explain things to you instead of linking to some bogus anti-Catholic website.

    Come on... be different .... actually try to have an adult, Christian conversation with me... it would be a nice change.

    Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us! :D
    Scott
     
  16. !Fluffy!

    !Fluffy! Lacking Common Sense

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,215
    Ratings:
    +331
    Perhaps you would do us the favor of citing and repudiating the facts contained therein for our enlightenment, rather than characterizing the entire article this way.
     
  17. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +953
    I began to.... just a sample with showing the gross errors in the baptism portion... anything particular you had a question about?

    Your brother in Christ,
    Scott
     
  18. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    37,390
    Ratings:
    +5,744
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    I agree with Scott. That article grossly misrepresents the sacraments of the Church and puts them in a uniquely "Restorationist" perspective, not consistent with Holy Tradition.
     
  19. Baerly

    Baerly Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    431
    Ratings:
    +13
    One thing yall must undersand is when the so called holy traditon contradicts the plain new testament will of God we (the church of CHRIST) will side with the New Testament every time instead of your holy traditons. The reason is because your holy traditions are contrary to the New Testament teachings of God (1Tim.1:3) (Gal.1:6-9).

    The reason you do not agree with what the article teaches is because it is totally base upon the word of God (the bible) and not any traditions at all outside of the bible.

    The bible says (it) is going to be what judges us on judgment day (John 12:48). I will stick with the word of God (the bible). in love Baerly
     
  20. Baerly

    Baerly Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    431
    Ratings:
    +13
    My friend,if I wanted to spread Catholic Church holy tradition I would have asked you or someone else on this site to speak to us on the matter. But my intent was to show where the Catholich Church holy traditions go totally against the bible (the word of God).I am sure you were not going to show us the differences,nor tell us WHY someone changed the doctrine,something the bible says NOT TO DO according to (1Tim.1:3 (Gal.1:6-9) (1Peter 4:11).

    I really did like the idea the lady brought up about refuting the article point by point rather than characterizing it the way you did. in love Baerly
     
Loading...