Transubstanciation

[themuzicman]

I heard a guy on PalTalk (which is precisely why I'm asking here) say that the Catholic church believes that Christ's body is literally broken again every time mass is given, and that the bread and wine literally become that broken body and blood as a renews sacrifice for sin.

Is this true?

Michael

[elysian]

I heard a guy on PalTalk (which is precisely why I'm asking here) say that the Catholic church believes that Christ's body is literally broken again every time mass is given, and that the bread and wine literally become that broken body and blood as a renews sacrifice for sin.

Is this true?

Michael

This is what I was taught, though I've been Lutheran longer than I was Catholic so spl_cadet or DRR would probably be able to clarify it in more depth than I. Lutherans don't go quite that far- we believe in the real presence- that Jesus is present in, under and through the bread and wine but it doesn't somehow turn into actual flesh and blood. Other Protestants view Communion simply as a "memorial meal" that we share as Jesus commanded, "in remembrance of Me."

[rocketman]

I heard a guy on PalTalk (which is precisely why I'm asking here) say that the Catholic church believes that Christ's body is literally broken again every time mass is given, and that the bread and wine literally become that broken body and blood as a renews sacrifice for sin.

Is this true?

Michael

The bread and wine do become Jesus' Body and Blood. However, while the substance is changed, the accidents (the appearance of bread and wine) remain. There have been documented Eucharist miracles where the bread and wine really do become flesh and blood at the Consecration.

The result is that the Eucharist, like all other Catholic sacraments, is a means of conferring grace and bringing us closer to God. It allows us to experience the hope and faith of Christ of one day reaching Heaven and becoming saints ourselves. It also gives us the strength to love God and others in our daily lives.

As to why, I could point you to a slew of Bible verses all related to Eucharistology, if you wanted me to. (Just don't feel like bringing them out if no one gives a hoot to what I say, and I have class in a bit, so my time is short.)

Lastly, as to the question of breaking His Body...the Sacrifice at the Eucharist is not a re-enaction of the Cross. We do not "re-crucify" Jesus every time we celebrate the Mass.

[themuzicman]

So, where do the pieces of His body come from? Is it his earthly body or his resurrected body?

Michael

[spl_cadet]

So, where do the pieces of His body come from? Is it his earthly body or his resurrected body?

Michael

From His resurrected body, which is simply a glorified earthly body.

[themuzicman]

But isn't that body finite?

[Jude3b]

Roman Catholicism is teaching members to partake in literal cannibalism:
"The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of the parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ." (The Catechism page 347 #1377).

When Jesus said, "Take eat: this is my body." He was not suggesting that they reach out and begin eating His literal body. To even suggest such is ridiculous. He was speaking spiritually about what He was about to accomplish on the cross. Notice how I Corinthians 11:24 ends: "... this do in remembrance of me." Observing the Lord's Supper is a remembrance of Christ's work at Calvary, not a reenactment. The same is true of Christ's blood: "in remembrance of me." (I Cor. 11:25 and Luke 22:19)

Why would the Roman Catholic religion rather have its members eating God than placing their faith in Him?

Roman Ca

[spl_cadet]

But isn't that body finite?

Wasn't there only a couple loaves of bread and a few fish?

[themuzicman]

But that was ultimately finite, too.

[spl_cadet]

But that was ultimately finite, too.

Because it was only used to feed the crowd. Had He so desired, it could have never ended.

[themuzicman]

So, Jesus' body is being multiplied so that it can be physically eaten...

[apologetics]

This is an amazing belief. Textually, it is obvious that Christ is speaking metaphorically and not literally. What is interesting about this RCC belief is that they believe that this is the actual resurrected body of Jesus Christ. However, when Christ said "...take, eat, this is my body," he was still in his pre-crucifixion body. Christ was giving them a piece of something that had yet to occur?

If we are to take a literal interpretation here, it is necessary to take a literal interpretation in all the other area in which Christ spoke. For example, in John 10:7, Jesus called him self a door, in John 10:11 he calls himself the good shepherd (and here I thought he had been a carpenter) and in John 15:1, Jesus calls himself a vine and in John 6:41, Jesus calls himself bread (was he rye? wheat? Then new parmesian oregeno at Subway? ;) )

It stretches credulity to the breaking point to suggest that the bread and wine taken in during communion is actually Christ's broken body and shed blood. How did the apostles take in a body and blood that had yet to endure what would be necessary for salvation?

[spl_cadet]

So, Jesus' body is being multiplied so that it can be physically eaten...

Yes, though I wouldn't phrase it that way.


Textually, it is obvious that Christ is speaking metaphorically and not literally.

Really?
Jesus: "Eat me!"
Jews: "What are you smoking?!"
Jesus: "Eat me!"
Jews: "Whatever man."

The witness of Scripture and the Church Fathers is that it is literal.

Or do you think that the Roman rumor of cannibalism was simply pulled from their collective rears? :ahem:


However, when Christ said "...take, eat, this is my body," he was still in his pre-crucifixion body. Christ was giving them a piece of something that had yet to occur?


1. God, being outside of time and space, can turn it into His post-resurrection flesh if He so chooses.
2. It is quite possible that the first Eucharist was of His non-glorified flesh.


For example, in John 10:7, Jesus called him self a door, and in John 15:1, Jesus calls himself a vine

Yes, and at no point do people think he really is saying that He's a door or vine. They do however make that "mistake" when He says to eat Him and then, unlike all the other times He is taken wrong, He does not "correct" them, but instead repeats what He said.


in John 10:11 he calls himself the good shepherd (and here I thought he had been a carpenter)

And here I thought He actually was our Shepard :ahem:


and in John 6:41, Jesus calls himself bread (was he rye? wheat? Then new parmesian oregeno at Subway? ;) )

Blasphemy is a stupid tack to take.


How did the apostles take in a body and blood that had yet to endure what would be necessary for salvation?

The same way Enoch and Elijah were taken to a Heaven who's door wasn't open yet.

[Jude3b]

"The witness of scripture and the church fathers is that it is literal" Not! No it is Not!

There wasn't even any Roman Catholic church fathers until the 3rd or 4th century AD and certainly the Apostolic church fathers did not believe in Cannibalism and the scriptures forbid it.

[spl_cadet]

"The witness of scripture and the church fathers is that it is literal" Not! No it is Not!

There wasn't even any Roman Catholic church fathers until the 3rd or 4th century AD and certainly the Apostolic church fathers did not believe in Cannibalism and the scriptures forbid it.

“From the Eucharist and the prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.” St Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7.

“The food that has been made the Eucharist by the prayer of His word, and which nourishes our flesh and blood by assimilation, is both the flesh and blood of that Jesus Who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, Apology 1,66.

[apologetics]

1. God, being outside of time and space, can turn it into His post-resurrection flesh if He so chooses.
2. It is quite possible that the first Eucharist was of His non-glorified flesh.

cadet, this is horrible reasoning. You base these statments on what? Wishful thinking? If you are going to hold an opinion, fine, but please back it up with something resembling evidence. There is absolutely NOTHING in the Bible to support the RCC's claim that the bread and the wine actually become the blood and flesh of Christ. You have the words of Christ, which have been taken literally, to form this doctrinal belief. However, the ironic thing is that you wish to take other areas of "literal" speack metaphorically and symbolically. Hermaneutically, this is frightening.

"It is quite possible...." HUH? So, Christ gave the bread and wine to his apostles in a non-glorified state, but somehow we are to believe that it became something other than it originally was? Communion represents the broken body and the shed blood for the complete remission of sins. How could the first communion have meant this when the body had yet to be broken and the blood had yet to be shed if we are truly to believe that it is as the RCC says. This makes NO sense.

Yes, and at no point do people think he really is saying that He's a door or vine. They do however make that "mistake" when He says to eat Him and then, unlike all the other times He is taken wrong, He does not "correct" them, but instead repeats what He said.

Contexually wrong. Firstly, we must remember that the apostles were not even convinced that Christ was the Son of God when they ate with Christ that night. If they were convinced, would they have scattered? Would Peter have denied him three times? Wouldn't they have been sitting outside his tomb waiting to greet him on the third day?

Christ's comments about this being his body have to be understood in the context of the apostles understanding of the situation they found themselves in at that moment.....not days later. Christ was picking up bread that the apostles would have understood to be completely symbolic of what Christ was speaking at that moment.

Christ said many things that on the surface appear to have been literal. A great example is Matthew 21:21: And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen.

Now, are we to understand this literally? Are we really able to uproot a mountain and cast it into the sea? Of course NOT!

As Adam Clarke states in his commentary on this verse: "He that has faith will get through every difficulty and perplexity; mountains shall become molehills or plains before him. The saying is neither to be taken in its literal sense, nor is it hyperbolical: it is a proverbial form of speech, which no Jew could misunderstand, and with which no Christian ought to be puzzled."

The final line is of paramount importance here: "which no Jew could misunderstand." The apostles would have understood what Christ was speaking of and it would not have been taken literally.

A literal interpretation is some area and not others cannot be supported unless it falls into the context of the passage. The RCC's belief in transubstantiation cannot be adequately supported. Period. And in fact, Luke 22:19 speaks directly AGAINST the RCC's claim. Christ makes it painfully obvious that they are to take the bread and the wine in rememberance of him. If communion was the literal eating of Christ's flesh and the drinking of Christ's blood, would not he have taken the chance here to explain this? He did not and actually stated that it was an important, but symbolic gesture.

[kosh]

Hi everybody,

Just to clear the air, i'm not a Catholic, but, of all things, a fundamentalist! And through my research in the last few months i have to say i've come to agree with the RCC.

i used to have the classic Protestant position until i ran across so many passages in the fathers that directly and unequivocally say it is the Real Presence. How it happens, i don't know yet, and i don't know if i accept the whole Catholic accidence and substance thing. But i do know that the early church did believe it was literal.

Ignatious of Antioch was a direct disciple of John, handpicked to be the bishop of his city. i frequently cite him as calling Christ "our God" in Trinity discussions, using him as proof that the early church did believe in the Trinity. Now the issue was that i also found that quote spl_cadet used, that the gnostics are heretical because, among many other things, they don't accept the literal presence.

One of my big problems with the church had always been that they used roundabout explanations to avoid literal interpretation of many Biblical passages.

Why, though? Why would this be in some sense true? Those i know who hold to this belief, who truly believe it to be the Real Presence, have such touching experiences with communion. Touching the Lord, taking in His Spirit and strength, metaphorically receiving Christ as Savior, this is a profound spiritual occurrence. It strengthens thier faith, binds them closer to the Lord.

A tree is known by it's fruit. i have only seen good fruit in this practice, so i have come to agree with the Catholics on this one.

[Jude3b]

"A tree is known by its fruit" - (by a former "fundamentalist who now believes RCC)

Last night on Nightline - it was stated that thousands of children have been sexually abused by Roman Catholic priests, right here in the United States.
These same priests also teach Roman Catholic members to partake in literal cannibalish, which is what a literal understanding of Transubstantiation turns out to be.

Better pay attention to the fruit test, because the fruit of Romanism is rotten!

[kosh]

Dear Jude 3b,

Peace, brother.

Let me be the first to say that the media grossly attacks anything hinting of Christianity, not to mention Catholicism!

We protestants have our wackos too. Remember Swaggart? You cannot use the actions of any one person, any group of people, any group of thousands to stereotype and judge a larger church. The Christian church overall is in terribly bad shape, just look around you. 80% of mainstream church-goers don't even have a personal committment to the Lord! But we can't judge our entire faith on human actions and weaknesses.

i'm not condoning what the priests did. i'm not saying the bishops should have hidden the truth. They were wrong, sinful, even evil for what they did.

But since when has God's Truth ever depended on man's holiness? Look at all those times Israel was wayward! Did God abandon them? No! Not even in this age has he abandoned this people that rejected God's Christ (Rom. 11)!

Jesus even said his followers should listen to the corrupt Pharisees on account of their Mosaic authority (Matt. 23:2, 3)! Now we could debate whether or not the RCC has the authority it says it does (i don't believe it does), but that's immaterial. What matters is that the Lord has never depended on human righteousness for His plan.

Brother, if you're angry, attack the individual criminals who perpetrated such acts; don't ignorantly blame the innocent.

Two trees stood next to each other; one led to life, the other to death. We took the one with death. Does that mean the other tree (the Tree of Life) had fruit of death as well?

This saying only applies to individual people and teachings. If Catholic Eucharist is true then it should be so regardless of whether certain priests are molesting children.

i'm sure you're going to disagree with me again, but that's your right. i try to be honest with myself and my arguments and speak the Truth in Love. i can do no more.

[FormerFundy]

This is what I was taught, though I've been Lutheran longer than I was Catholic so spl_cadet or DRR would probably be able to clarify it in more depth than I. Lutherans don't go quite that far- we believe in the real presence- that Jesus is present in, under and through the bread and wine but it doesn't somehow turn into actual flesh and blood. Other Protestants view Communion simply as a "memorial meal" that we share as Jesus commanded, "in remembrance of Me."

This was one of the really hot debate points of the reformation. The RCC held to transubstantiation, the bread and wine is transformed into the body and blood of Christ; the Lutheran's who held to consubstantiation, the literal body and blood is present "in, with, and under" the bread and the wine, Calvinists who held that there is a spiritual presence in the elements but not a physical one and finally the Anabaptists who held that there is no presence at all but is strictly symbolic.

As someone has noted, the Catholic and Lutheran view require the physical body of Christ to be ubiquitious.

[Jude3b]

Swaggart visiting a Prostitute, is not comparable with 5,000 Roman Catholic priests sexually abusing thousands of children. Glad it wasn't one of my children, because I would not have been as gracious as our court system will be to them.

[spl_cadet]

cadet, this is horrible reasoning. You base these statments on what?

Theology 101 for the first answer and the second was simply a plausible second answer.


There is absolutely NOTHING in the Bible to support the RCC's claim that the bread and the wine actually become the blood and flesh of Christ. You have the words of Christ, which have been taken literally, to form this doctrinal belief. However, the ironic thing is that you wish to take other areas of "literal" speack metaphorically and symbolically. Hermaneutically, this is frightening.

I take it literally where the context requires it to be literal, such as in the case of John 6.


"It is quite possible...." HUH? So, Christ gave the bread and wine to his apostles in a non-glorified state, but somehow we are to believe that it became something other than it originally was?

Yeah. Sortof how Christ's body (as will ours) was glorified.


Communion represents the broken body and the shed blood for the complete remission of sins. How could the first communion have meant this when the body had yet to be broken and the blood had yet to be shed if we are truly to believe that it is as the RCC says.

As I said, it was simply a possible second answer. Not the one I'd take though.


Contexually wrong. Firstly, we must remember that the apostles were not even convinced that Christ was the Son of God when they ate with Christ that night.

Judas certainly wasn't, but the others were :tongue:


If they were convinced, would they have scattered? Would Peter have denied him three times? Wouldn't they have been sitting outside his tomb waiting to greet him on the third day?

Certainly plausible if you're scared silly, which does tend to happen when your leader and friend gets crucified.


Christ's comments about this being his body have to be understood in the context of the apostles understanding of the situation they found themselves in at that moment.....not days later.

Right. Which is why I referred to John 6.

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.


Now, are we to understand this literally? Are we really able to uproot a mountain and cast it into the sea? Of course NOT!

And just how many of His listeners there took him literally?



As Adam Clarke states in his commentary on this verse: "He that has faith will get through every difficulty and perplexity; mountains shall become molehills or plains before him. The saying is neither to be taken in its literal sense, nor is it hyperbolical: it is a proverbial form of speech, which no Jew could misunderstand, and with which no Christian ought to be puzzled."

The final line is of paramount importance here: "which no Jew could misunderstand." The apostles would have understood what Christ was speaking of and it would not have been taken literally.

So why did all the Jews "misunderstand" Jesus?
Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.


If communion was the literal eating of Christ's flesh and the drinking of Christ's blood, would not he have taken the chance here to explain this?

Not if He had already gone over it sometime beforehand.

[Jude3b]

John 6:53-54 does appear to teach cannibalism, which would justify the Roman Catholic teaching of Transubstantiation, however if you read the entire passage in context, the meaning becomes clear. Right before making that statement, Jesus said:
"... For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:33-35).
This teaching is consistent with the rest of Scripture. Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body. The Lord goes on to further clarify:
"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life..." (John 6:40).
Again, Jesus points out that eternal life comes through believing in Him. When the Lord's disciples murmured at His words, Jesus explained:
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63).
Jesus was talking spiritually, not physically. He was explaining, all life comes through faith in Him, not eating His body.
Nowhere else in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism (transubstantiation).

[apologetics]

John 6:53-54 does appear to teach cannibalism, which would justify the Roman Catholic teaching of Transubstantiation, however if you read the entire passage in context, the meaning becomes clear. Right before making that statement, Jesus said:
"... For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:33-35).
This teaching is consistent with the rest of Scripture. Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body. The Lord goes on to further clarify:
"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life..." (John 6:40).
Again, Jesus points out that eternal life comes through believing in Him. When the Lord's disciples murmured at His words, Jesus explained:
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63).
Jesus was talking spiritually, not physically. He was explaining, all life comes through faith in Him, not eating His body.
Nowhere else in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism (transubstantiation).

Jude,

excellent point and a proper exegetical examination of this passage. The RCC would have done well centuries ago to view the entire passage and to read each verse within its proper context.

Context is key to any reading of any scripture. This is why proof-texting is such a perilous process.

Coupled with your presentation of John 6, Christ's own words in Luke slam the door on this topic. Jesus stated "do this in rememberance of me. ANYTHING we do that is in REMEMBERANCE of anything is symbolic. The fact this has slipped past so many for so long is shocking.

Cadet:

Your reasoning for your statement:

"God, being outside of time and space, can turn it into His post-resurrection flesh if He so chooses"

...is NOT Theology 101. It is wishful thinking and it begs the question. God did it because as God he can do anything. The real question is NOT if he can.....it is DID he. Contextually, the Bible says no.

[spl_cadet]

Jude,

excellent point and a proper exegetical examination of this passage. The RCC would have done well centuries ago to view the entire passage and to read each verse within its proper context.

Millenia ago actually. The Early Church Father's did believe in the Real Presence. Or perhaps the Gnostics were right and the Eucharist wasn't truly the Body and Blood of Jesus? :ahem:

And a proper exegetical view would explain why the Jews, who couldn't possibly have misinterpreted Him according to you, thought that He told them to eat Him. The Catholic view does that. Your's does not.


Context is key to any reading of any scripture. This is why proof-texting is such a perilous process.

Coupled with your presentation of John 6, Christ's own words in Luke slam the door on this topic. Jesus stated "do this in rememberance of me. ANYTHING we do that is in REMEMBERANCE of anything is symbolic. The fact this has slipped past so many for so long is shocking.

Yet this symbol can damn someone for partaking of it unworthily according to Scripture :ahem: Pretty powerful symbol.


Cadet:

Your reasoning for your statement:

"God, being outside of time and space, can turn it into His post-resurrection flesh if He so chooses"

...is NOT Theology 101. It is wishful thinking and it begs the question. God did it because as God he can do anything. The real question is NOT if he can.....it is DID he. Contextually, the Bible says no.

Please explain how it is not truly the Body and Blood of Christ if:
1. Christ is our Passover Lamb
2. Passover required that you eat the lamb.

[apologetics]

Millenia ago actually. The Early Church Father's did believe in the Real Presence.

Prove this statement! Please provide us the documented proof of all the "Early Church Father" that believed that the bread and wine were actually the body and blood of Jesus.

And a proper exegetical view would explain why the Jews, who couldn't possibly have misinterpreted Him according to you, thought that He told them to eat Him. The Catholic view does that. Your's does not.

Once again.....please provide the evidence of all the first century Jews who believed that this was actually Christ's body and blood. You make the statements, it's time to back it up with something.....

Yet this symbol can damn someone for partaking of it unworthily according to Scripture :ahem: Pretty powerful symbol.

It "damns" them? As in a "mortal" sin? Again.....proof from the scriptures is what I'm looking for....

Please explain how it is not truly the Body and Blood of Christ if:
1. Christ is our Passover Lamb
2. Passover required that you eat the lamb.

Are you positive that the two attributes listed above are necessarily correlative? The eating of the lamb must follow the slaughter of the lamb? Let's see how you prove that one.

Also, lets see you provide textual evidence that all attributes of the passover lamb are inherently within Christ. Or, is it that Christ's death on the cross represents a end to the OT sacrificial system. But I am anxiously awaiting your evidence that this meant that Christ's actual body must them be "eaten."

Cadet, you make lots and lots of assertions, but you rarely seem willing to provide any sort of proof for your statement. Now you are being given a chance to do this with all the statements made in your last post. Certainly, since your hold these opinions, each one must have Biblical support, right?

[spl_cadet]

Prove this statement! Please provide us the documented proof of all the "Early Church Father" that believed that the bread and wine were actually the body and blood of Jesus.

I'll prove that all of them believed that it is the actual Body and Blood of Jesus when you prove that each and every one of them believed in the Trinity.

Now then, I've already posted a few quotes in this topic showing that the ECF's believed in the Real Presence. I suggest you go back to that post.


Once again.....please provide the evidence of all the first century Jews who believed that this was actually Christ's body and blood. You make the statements, it's time to back it up with something.....

John 6:52
Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"



It "damns" them? As in a "mortal" sin? Again.....proof from the scriptures is what I'm looking for....


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


Are you positive that the two attributes listed above are necessarily correlative? The eating of the lamb must follow the slaughter of the lamb? Let's see how you prove that one.

With the exception of the timeless sacrifice of Christ, it always has been necessary to kill the lamb before you can eat it.


Also, lets see you provide textual evidence that all attributes of the passover lamb are inherently within Christ. Or, is it that Christ's death on the cross represents a end to the OT sacrificial system.

1 Corinthians 5:7
For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.


But I am anxiously awaiting your evidence that this meant that Christ's actual body must them be "eaten."

Exodus 12:8
That same night they are to eat the meat [of the Passover lamb]

John 6:53
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.


Cadet, you make lots and lots of assertions, but you rarely seem willing to provide any sort of proof for your statement

I operated under the assumption that you were biblically literate and would read through earlier posts of mine in this topic. Bad assumption.

[apologetics]

I'll prove that all of them believed that it is the actual Body and Blood of Jesus when you prove that each and every one of them believed in the Trinity.

Imagine this.....

John 6:52
Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

Reading a few....even a few...of the better commentaries on the bible should be enough to convince ANYONE that what Christ is speaking of here is NOT his literal flesh. If you really believe that Christ meant his actual flesh, then you have to believe Christ was in error when he said "Do this in REMEMBERANCE of me.

Since you seem incapable of looking up anything outside of RCC dogma, I post the following for your benefit:

Matthew Henry's commentary on John 6:52:

(v. 52): They strove among themselves; they whispered in each other’s ears their dissatisfaction: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Christ spoke (v. 51) of giving his flesh for us, to suffer and die; but they, without due consideration, understood it of his giving it to us, to be eaten, which gave occasion to Christ to tell them that, however what he said was otherwise intended, yet even that also of eating of his flesh was no such absurd thing (if rightly understood) as prima facie—in the first instance, they took it to be. [2.] It has been wretchedly misconstrued by the church of Rome for the support of their monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation, which gives the lie to our senses, contradicts the nature of a sacrament, and overthrows all convincing evidence. They, like these Jews here, understand it of a corporal and carnal eating of Christ’s body, like Nicodemus, ch. 3, 4. The Lord’s supper was not yet instituted, and therefore it could have no reference to that; it is a spiritual eating and drinking that is here spoken of, not a sacramental. [3.] It is misunderstood by many ignorant carnal people, who hence infer that, if they take the sacrament when they die, they shall certainly go to heaven, which, as it makes many that are weak causelessly uneasy if they want it, so it makes many that are wicked causelessly easy if they have it. Therefore, (2.) Let us see how this discourse of Christ is to be understood.

[1.] What is meant by the flesh and blood of Christ. It is called (v. 53), The flesh of the Son of man, and his blood, his as Messiah and Mediator: the flesh and blood which he assumed in his incarnation (Heb. 2:14), and which he gave up in his death and suffering: my flesh which I will give to be crucified and slain. It is said to be given for the life of the world, that is, First, Instead of the life of the world, which was forfeited by sin, Christ gives his own flesh as a ransom or counterprice. Christ was our bail, bound body for body (as we say), and therefore his life must go for ours, that ours may be spared. Here am I, let these go their way. Secondly, In order to the life of the world, to purchase a general offer of eternal life to all the world, and the special assurances of it to all believers. So that the flesh and blood of the Son of man denote the Redeemer incarnate and dying; Christ and him crucified, and the redemption wrought out by him, with all the precious benefits of redemption: pardon of sin, acceptance with God, the adoption of sons, access to the throne of grace, the promises of the covenant, and eternal life; these are called the flesh and blood of Christ

There is a ton that you really should read from Henry....

John Gill's commentary on John 6:52-53:

The Jews therefore strove among themselves…
Fell to cavilling and disputing one among another; some understanding Christ, and others not; some being for him, and vindicated what he said; and others being against him, and who were the majority, objected,

saying how can this man give us his flesh to eat?
which is to be understood, not physically, but as morally impossible and unlawful; since, with the Jews, it was not lawful to eat the flesh of any creature alive, and much less the flesh of man; for the Jews understood Christ of a corporeal eating of his flesh, being strangers to a figurative or spiritual eating of it by faith, in which sense he meant it. ...The "flesh" and "blood" of Christ do not design those distinct parts of his body; much less as separate from each other; nor the whole body of Christ, but his whole human nature; or Christ, as having united a perfect human nature to him, in order to shed his blood for the remission of sin, and to offer up his soul and body a sacrifice for it: and the eating of these is not to be understood of a corporeal eating of them, as the Capernaites understood them; and since them the Papists, who affirm, that the bread and wine in the Lord's supper are transubstantiated into the very body and blood of Christ, and so eaten: but this is not to be understood of eating and drinking in the Lord's supper, which, as yet, was not instituted; and some, without participating of this, have spiritual life in them now, and will enjoy eternal life hereafter; and all that partake of that ordinance have not the one, nor shall have the other: and besides, having a principle of spiritual life in the soul, is previously necessary to a right eating of the supper of the Lord. These words, understood in this sense, once introduced infants to the Lord's supper; as misinterpretation of (John 3:5) brought in the baptism of them. But the words design a spiritual eating of Christ by faith. To eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, is to believe that Christ is come in the flesh, and is truly and really man; that his flesh is given for the life of his people, and his blood is shed for their sins, and this with some view and application to themselves: it is to partake of, and enjoy the several blessings of grace procured by him, such as redemption, pardon, peace, justification… and such a feeding upon him as is attended with growth in grace, and in the knowledge of him, and is daily to be repeated, as our corporeal food is, otherwise persons have no life in them: without this there, is no evidence of life in them; not such live as feed on sinful pleasures, or on their own righteousness; only such that believe in Christ are living souls; and without this there is nothing to support life; everything else that a man eats tends to death; but this is what will maintain and preserve a spiritual life; and without this there is no just expectation of eternal life; but where there is this, there is good reason to expect it, and such shall enjoy it: some copies and versions read, "ye shall not have life in you"; eternal life.

I am very familiar with what the more respected Biblical commantaries say about this subject. I would be very interested what the RCC commentaries say about this and how they harmonize a cannibilistic viewpoint with the totality of scripture. Why don't you find at least two and post them. I would be very happy to read them.

With the exception of the timeless sacrifice of Christ, it always has been necessary to kill the lamb before you can eat it.

1 Corinthians 5:7
For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

Exodus 12:8
That same night they are to eat the meat [of the Passover lamb]

John 6:53
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

What I asked for was evidence that Christ was viewed in the exact same way as the actual lamb eaten at passover. Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians does not even come close to satisfying what I requested. The symbolic nature of Christ as the lamb sacrificed at passover is obvious and stated by Paul, however, you have attempted to make this verses say more than it really does. Once again, more one verse supports for a supposed central RCC doctrine. Imagine that....

I operated under the assumption that you were biblically literate and would read through earlier posts of mine in this topic. Bad assumption.

You are laughable. I am very Biblically literate. What I was doing was seeing how your were going to support your claims. You used the obvious ones....and held true to your RCC roots....making the text say more than it really does when they are viewed within their proper contexts. I have read through all your posts and you have used the same flimsy, pretextual passages in each one. Why would I have expected more here. You are able to recite the proof-texts used by the RCC, the problem is, is that you are not able to see how wrong you are.

[themuzicman]

(The sabbath was the sign of the OT covenant, and was purely symbolic, but they were put to death for violating it.... Another powerful symbol!)

[spl_cadet]

Imagine this.....

A lovely non-response :ahem:


Reading a few....even a few...of the better commentaries on the bible should be enough to convince ANYONE that what Christ is speaking of here is NOT his literal flesh.

Interesting. You've replaced the pope with Biblical commentaries :ahem:

Biblical commentaries do not an argument make.


If you really believe that Christ meant his actual flesh, then you have to believe Christ was in error when he said "Do this in REMEMBERANCE of me.

Not at all. It's a command: "Eat this, which is My Flesh, and remember Me (and My Sacrifice)."


I am very familiar with what the more respected Biblical commantaries say about this subject. I would be very interested what the RCC commentaries say about this and how they harmonize a cannibilistic viewpoint with the totality of scripture. Why don't you find at least two and post them. I would be very happy to read them.

Why don't you go do so, since you are the only one interested in Biblical commentaries here?


What I asked for was evidence that Christ was viewed in the exact same way as the actual lamb eaten at passover. Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians does not even come close to satisfying what I requested. The symbolic nature of Christ as the lamb sacrificed at passover is obvious and stated by Paul, however, you have attempted to make this verses say more than it really does.

John 1:29.


You are laughable. I am very Biblically literate.

Then quote Scripture in your own defense.

[spl_cadet]

(The sabbath was the sign of the OT covenant, and was purely symbolic, but they were put to death for violating it.... Another powerful symbol!)

The Sabbath was not purely symbolic. It was a day consecrated unto the Lord, and was so quite literally.

[themuzicman]

If you read carefully, it is a symbol of the day God rested after 6 days of creating the universe. It is the sign of the OT covenant.

Just as communion is the sign of the NT covenant.

The sabbath doesn't literally become the day that God rested after creation, and the communion doesn't literally become the body and blood of Christ.

Both are powerful signs and symbols in each covenant.

Michael

[apologetics]

Interesting. You've replaced the pope with Biblical commentaries

I don't buy what the pope says. I don't by the inerrancy of his pronouncements. The history of papal pronoucements is quite entertaining and should leave anyone who has given this subject even a cursory glance with the opinion that he is simply another fallible human. However, I understand that the RCC sees it differently. This says volumes.


Biblical commentaries do not an argument make....Why don't you go do so, since you are the only one interested in Biblical commentaries here?

Nice dodge! I'll give you another chance. Give me a nice sampling of the writing of the early church fathers to support the RCC's position.[/QUOTE]

Then quote Scripture in your own defense.

You mean proof-text with one verse texts? No thanks. I'll leave that to you. You have proven to be a near Master! You fail to find anything else to support your position, but I'll grant that you can single-verse proof-text!

[spl_cadet]

I don't buy what the pope says. I don't by the inerrancy of his pronouncements. The history of papal pronoucements is quite entertaining and should leave anyone who has given this subject even a cursory glance with the opinion that he is simply another fallible human. However, I understand that the RCC sees it differently. This says volumes.

Mind listing statements which are ex cathedra under the Vatican 1 definition which disprove the infallibility of the pope?


Nice dodge! I'll give you another chance. Give me a nice sampling of the writing of the early church fathers to support the RCC's position.

“From the Eucharist and the prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.” St Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7.

“The food that has been made the Eucharist by the prayer of His word, and which nourishes our flesh and blood by assimilation, is both the flesh and blood of that Jesus Who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, Apology 1,66.




Irenaeus


"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).

Want more?


You mean proof-text with one verse texts? No thanks. I'll leave that to you. You have proven to be a near Master! You fail to find anything else to support your position, but I'll grant that you can single-verse proof-text!

Translation into normal speak:
Nope, can't defend my position. But I can rant!