|This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.|
Locked on 10/19/2013 5:52:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson, reason:
Skip to comments.Catholic Evangelization and the Role of the “Eucharist” in This End-Time Deception
Posted on 10/18/2013 11:50:16 PM PDT by jodyel
For those who are not aware of the Catholic Churchs New Evangelization program, let me provide a brief overview. The Catholic Church plans to establish the kingdom of God on earth and win the world to the Catholic Jesus (i.e., the Eucharistic Christ). This will be accomplished when the world (including the separated brethren) comes under the rule and reign of Rome and this Eucharistic Jesus.
The Eucharistic Jesus is supposedly Christs presence that a Catholic priest summons through the power of transubstantiation, the focal point of the Mass. Many Christians believe the Christian tradition of communion is the same as the Catholic tradition of the Eucharist. But this is not so. The Eucharist (i.e., transubstantiation) is a Catholic term for communion when the bread and the wine are said to be transformed into the very body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Catechism states:
In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.1
The host is then placed in what is called a monstrance and can then be worshiped as if worshiping Jesus Himself. The implications are tied directly to salvation itself. With the Eucharist, salvation becomes sacramental (participation in a ritual) as opposed to justification by faith in Christ alone, described in Galatians 2:16. While this mystical experience is a form of idolatry (as well as the very heart of Catholicism), there is a growing interest by evangelical Christians in this practice, particularly by the emerging church.
The Catholic Church leadership, concerned with apathy for the Eucharist within the Catholic ranks, is hoping to rekindle the amazement2 of the Eucharist through what is called their New Evangelization program.3 With a two-fold purposeto keep present Catholics and to bring evangelicals into the Catholic Churchchurch leadership has a plan to re-emphasize the Eucharist as the focus of the Catholic faith. By saying rekindle the amazement, they mean bring out the mystical, supernatural element of the Eucharist.
All Catholics are expected to worship the host (Eucharistic Adoration of the transformed wafer), and church leadership says it is anathema (to be accursed) to reject this teaching.
While it is true that during the Reformation and Counter Reformation, many who refused to believe in transubstantiation were tortured and executed for their faith in the Gospel, time has a way of forgetting the facts of history.
In April of 2003, the pope wrote an encyclical promoting the New Evangelization program for the purpose of rekindling amazement for the Eucharist.4 Then in October of 2004, John Paul II initiated The Year of the Eucharist as part of his evangelistic plan to bring the world to the Eucharistic Christ. Following his death in April of 2005, Pope Benedict XVI picked up Pope John Pauls mission immediately. He called the faithful to intensify devotion to the Eucharistic Jesus, and said the Eucharist is the heart of Christian life.5
The New Evangelization program plans to revitalize the Catholic faith by reigniting strong interest in the Eucharistic Jesus. It is not just the pope who is enthusiastic about thiscardinals, bishops, and priests all over the world are joining in to help with the mission. Something very significant is happening. Eucharistic adoration is becoming the foundation for the new evangelization of the Catholic Church.
In speaking of the popes view on the Eucharist, Protestant-turned Catholic Scott Hahn states:
The coming of Jesus Christ what the Greek New Testament calls his parousia is not simply some far-off event. It is his presence in the Eucharist. Fundamentalists reduce the meaning of parousia to Christs coming at the end of time; but for the first century Greek speakers the word meant presence. Catholic theology holds on to that original meaning.6
The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the Second Coming Catholic style. Unfortunately, many evangelical Protestants are not even aware of this.
While Eucharistic adoration contradicts biblical Christianity, a growing number of popular evangelicals (especially those leaning toward emerging spiritualities) seem to find no offense in such a doctrine. And with the increased acceptance of mysticism and an attraction to imagery within evangelical circles, it only makes sense that many evangelical Christians find nothing wrong with the Eucharist and Eucharistic adoration. Such acceptance, however, is neutralizing former evangelical resistance to all things Catholic.
In Doug Pagitts book Church Re-imagined, he describes his initial attraction to rituals associated with the Eucharist:
The first day of Lent this year brought the first Ash Wednesday gathering in our churchs history and in mine . Until this point, Ash Wednesday had not been part of my Christian faith experience. Not only had I never applied ashes to anyones forehead, but I had also never had them applied to mine. After this experience I wondered how I could have celebrated 19 Easters as a Christian without this tremendous experience.7
Scot McKnight, another emerging church influencer and the author of The Real Mary and The Jesus Creed, in referring to an Anglican service, McKnight speaks of the Eucharistic focus. He states:
[T]he point of an Anglican gathering on a Sunday morning is not to hear a sermon but to worship the Lord through the celebration of the Eucharist First some scripture readings and then the sermon and then some announcements and then the Eucharist liturgywith everyone coming forward to kneel and participateâpubliclyin the body and blood.8
McKnight says that the Eucharist profoundly enables the grace of God to be received with all its glories and blessings.9 No doubt, McKnight will have an impact on those in the emerging church movement, and his views on the Eucharist will rub off. He has been a popular speaker at many events including Willow Creeks Small Group Conference and the National Pastors Convention. Both of these events have reached the postmodern generation.
The late Robert Webber was very influential in closing the gap between Eucharistic adoration and the evangelical church. A document he authored called A Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future states: We call for a renewed consideration of how God ministers to us in Eucharist.10 Two well-known evangelical publishers, Baker Books and InterVarsity Press (both of which now publish emerging church authors) sponsored the document as did Christianity Today. The AEF, which the document is called, is endorsed by various emerging church leaders such as Brian McLaren who calls it a preaching resource that emphasize[s] the importance of Advent or Lent.11
Participants of the AEF include numerous Christian seminaries like Bethel Seminary in Minnesota, Dallas Theological Seminary, and pastors from many different denominations including Nazarene, Wesleyan, Mennonite, Reformed, and Baptist.
To those who traditionally havent had much ritual in their lives (i.e., Protestants), the ambience of the Mass would have great appeal because of its religious novelty thus the interest in the Eucharist by those who promote contemplative spirituality. And for many Catholics, the Mass (where the Eucharist is presented), in, and of itself, is not a mystical experience. However if the contemplative dimension is added, one actually can enter the mystical realm. On the surface, this phenomenon seems complex, but once we begin to understand mysticism, it all makes sense. Within the contemplative prayer realm, the meditator is actually getting in touch with a spiritual power or force. Combining the tradition of the Eucharist, which appeals to many raised in the Catholic Church, with the relatively recent explosion of contemplative practice, the Catholic Church sees this as a way to recover its robust state of previous decades.
Right now, some may be asking, is the physical presence of Jesus held inside the elements of the Eucharist? Or as some evangelicals and emergents have suggested, is there a special presence and power in the Eucharist? The answer to both is a resounding no! Jesus Christ indwells the heart of every person who is born again and who belongs to Him by faith through grace. He promises never to leave or forsake us, meaning that His presence is in our lives at all times. We are not required to partake in a ritual to experience His presence, nor is He confined in benign, lifeless wafers and wine (or juice). As Jesus said:
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit [spiritual as opposed to physical], and they are life. (John 6:63, emphasis added)
Jesus said this in response to his disciples confusion over His statement my flesh is meat indeed (vs. 55). Paul adds further clarity in writing to the Romans that all we need to do is call upon the true Jesus, and He is there:
But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:8-13)
At this point, we see the great chasm that separates Catholicism from the light of the Gospel a light the reformers saw, for which many of them gave their lives. They recognized that participation in the sacraments is not what saves people.
The Catholics New Evangelization is no small issue. Darkness has fallen over the Christian church the same way an avalanche sweeps down a mountain. Every day new unsuspecting victims are being swept away and buried. And the role the emerging church plays in bringing this about is something that should alarm every discerning Christian.
To read more about the emerging church, read Roger Oaklands expose, Faith Undone.
WUERL: A new morning with Pope Francis
Notes: 1. Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1374, page 383.6 2. H. J. Schroeder, The Canons and Decrees of The Council of Trent (Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, 1978), page 79, Canon 1. 3. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The New Evangelization (http://www.ewtn.com/new_evangelization/Ratzinger.htm). 4. Zenit: The World Seen From Rome, Why the Pope Would Write an Encyclical on the Eucharist: To Rekindle Amazement, cited April 17, 2003, http://www.zenit.org. 5. Pope Benedict calls on faithful to intensify devotion to Eucharistic Jesus, http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=3686. 6. Interview with Scott Hahn, Eucharist in the Pontificate of Benedict XVI (Pontifications, June 12, 2005, http://web.archive.org/web/20070209234229/http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=940). 7. Doug Pagitt, Church Re-Imagined, p. 103. 8. Scot McKnight, An Anglican Service (Jesus Creed blog, http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=2258 link no longer online). 9. Scot McKnight, Turning to Jesus, (Louisville, KY: Westminister John Knox Press, 2002 edition), p. 7. 10. Robert Webber, A Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future (Online at: http://www.aefcall.org/read.html. 11. Brian McLaren, The AEF Document as a Preaching Resource (From the AEF Call website: http://www.aefcall.org/documents/TheAEFDocumentasaPreachingResource_000.doc).
Until the Demo-Coms shut it down because it will interfere with the “collective” the US is a free country to express your view points. Particularly when it’s divisive and creates friction between opponents.
The host is then placed in what is called a monstrance and can then be worshiped as if worshiping Jesus Himself.
THE CONSECRATED HOST IS CHRIST THE BODY AND BLOOD.
Who wouldn’t want to meet God? and yet we can with the Eucharist. Jesus is with us, but we need to listen and accept HIS presence.
“THE CONSECRATED HOST IS CHRIST THE BODY AND BLOOD.”
So why does Christ eat and drink Himself?
1) He gives thanks, breaks the bread, declares it is His body: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.(1Co 11:24)
2) After he had supped, He offers the cup, which He calls His blood: After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. (1Co 11:25)
3) After calling it the blood of the covenant, with the cup still in hand, He calls it this fruit of the vine which He would not drink AGAIN until reunited with the Apostles in heaven, either indicating He was about to drink it, or had just drank it: for 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 again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers kingdom.
And where is your sacrament of water necessary to receive eternal life, since the Jews did not speak in metaphorical language ever?
J”esus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.”
Right on, brother!
Gotta show the peeps where they be going wrong!!
If that is the closest you ever get to Jesus, then you don’t know what you are missing.
I just attended Mass at Westminster Cathedral in London. I didn’t receive communion because I am not Roman Catholic, but I noticed they were only distributing the host to communicants, without offering the cup to drink from as well. When did that become practice?
You are one sick puppy.
Ping for later
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
And then the Gospel adds a telling narrative detail.
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
What happens then? Does Jesus say 'Oh no! I only meant it symbolically'?
No he does not:
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
And how did the disciples take this?
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
Christ meant what He said. He gives us His literal Body and Blood as food for our salvation. He is not using metaphor. He is not speaking symbolically. His words leave no doubt of His meaning.
And then we have the final fact that many of His disciples left Him because of this 'hard teaching'.
If Jesus had somehow meant His words about His Body and Blood to be taken symbolically or metaphorically - wouldn't He have explained this to the disciples before they abandoned Him?
But Jesus stood by His words. He meant what He said - we must eat His body and drink His Blood.
The bread and wine offered by the priest in the Mass become Christ's Body and Blood. His real presence, which we eat and drink in obedience to His words.
After mass some of Christ's real presence - His Body and Blood - is reserved in a tabernacle. This can be found at the back of the Church or in a special side chapel. There will be a lit candle nearby to indicate His presence.
Whenever you pass a Catholic church it's good to remember that God Almighty, the Creator of the World, is literally, tangibly present there.
You can shortcut all this controversy and hard teaching by going to be with Him. Kneel before the tabernacle. It is like the very Ark of the Covenant, multiplied across thousands upon thousands of churches by the unbounded Mercy of God.
Seek God there, and let Him speak to you.
Well, well, well...thanks!!
Nice to see you again, Arturo!
Nope, spiritual and that is why one cannot understand these passages without the Spirit living inside them.
Christ lives in no Catholic church, my friend, but until you are born again you will never know or understand that.
Good luck to you.
Their meaning is astonishing and shocking. So shocking that many of Christ's disciples could not bear them., They ended up leaving Him - hopefully not for ever.
Let us therefore put aside any doubt that Jesus meant the shocking and unbelievable thing that He did say - that He would give His very self to us as food.
“Brother, these words of Christ are plain. They are like rocks rolled on top of us. We need no exquisite spiritual sensibility to tease out their hidden meaning.”
Indeed, lets read them plain, like Augustine:
Commenting on these following verses:
“Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”
They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? For He had said to them, Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life. What shall we do? they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent. This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. (Augustine, Tractate 25)
Catholics always beat the drum on reading these things literally, and yet they can’t literally read a few verses down when Christ explains how one might eat and drink Him.
I also notice none of the Catholics in this thread have explained why Christ ate and drank Himself, if what they say is true, or why they do not have a sacrament of blessed water that they should drink which is necessary for eternal life.
Worldwide lithium shortage showing up again, Joydel? Haven’t you got anything to do healthier than attacking fellow Christians? Guess attacking atheism or Islam is riskier.
I will pray for you.
Christ instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist - the Bread and Wine becoming His Body and Blood - at the Last Supper.
However He did not institute a sacrament of drinking Living Water.
If He had, we would certainly carry it out. But He didn't, so we don't.
(In passing, we could certainly regard Baptism as being a sacrament of living water, but we don't drink it).
Just to remind the thread about the institution of the Eucharist, and to show its provenance in the early Church.
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."
If any corroborating evidence were needed, St Paul speaks about the Eucharist in Corinthians.
And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.
Which I quote at length because it shows that the Eucharist was celebrated in the extremely early Church.
In summary: Christ didn't only command us to eat His Body and drink His Blood: He also commanded us to re-enact the Eucharist.
However He didn't command us to carry out a specific sacrament where living water is drunk.
This other matter - about Christ effectively eating His own Body and Blood at the Last Supper?
Why would that be a stumbling block? After all, He is giving us His own living Body and Blood to eat and drink.
If God can so deploy Himself that He is eaten, whole and entire, by millions of people at the same time, why would the concept of God becoming reunited with Himself be some extraordinary contradiction?
Rather it says something about the Real Presence. He is present at a thousand altars at once - but that isn't to be thought of a thousand different Christs. It is all Him. And at the same 'time' He is seated at the right hand of the Father.
Guys, sorry to leave the thread but I must be off to stand vigil.
Please pray for an end to abortion, and may God bless us all.
In the year 2000, we learned that a mantra-style meditation coupled with a mystical spirituality had been introduced to the evangelical, Christian church and was infiltrating youth groups, churches, seminaries, and Bible studies at an alarming rate.
In the spring of 2002, we began Lighthouse Trails Publishing with the hope of exposing this dangerous and pervasive mystical paradigmsix months later we published our first release, A Time of Departing by Ray Yungen.
As we learned more about contemplative spirituality (also known as the spiritual formation movement), we came to realize it had entered the church through a number of avenuesWillow Creek, Purpose Driven, and the emerging church just to name a few of the more prominent ones.
Because the premise of this spirituality is both pantheistic (God is all things) and panentheistic (God is in all things), thus refuting the gospel message of the Cross, we are compelled to address this issueLighthouse Trails Publishing and our research ministry, Lighthouse Trails Research Project, are here as a service to the body of Christ.
Though you choose to post a typical anti-Catholic piece (been done to death), yet the site as a whole claims to have a different emphasis.
It is interesting to read THIS PAGE to learn how Focus on the Family, John MacArthur and Charles Stanley have all gone off the rails. Perhaps posting of some of that might stimulate some interesting discussion. The current thread will surely be the same old, same old that has been gone over ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
Some priests offer both the consecrated wine and bread, some only the consecrated bread. If you have one “waifer” or a speck of or three hundred, you have Jesus within you, so bread and wine or just bread, you have Jesus within you.
The main thing is - The Dude said it - unless you gnaw on my flesh and drink my blood....”
Note - this is what is post-bible labelled for communication purposes “transubstantiation” meaning change in substance - from bread and wine to consecrated bread and wine, as Jesus did, and it is Jesus Christ in his body, his blood, his soul, his eternal divinity (it’s ALL Jesus, Jesus’ ALL). BUT it still has the look, taste, smell, of bread and wine (it’s a faith mystery, like belief in God).
So Jesus did what it says at the Last Supper in the bible and ate/drank it, just as he was baptized with the Holy Spirit by John, to show us that we ought do it to follow Him.
You did not receive communion out of respect for God, your church and I trust the Catholic church. One must be free of mortal sin to receive, hence confession must be available to the recipient(in addition to being baptized a Christian with the HS). To receive Him with a mortal stain is to incur severe judgement upon oneself, and the Church doesn’t wish that on anyone, Catholic or non-Catholic, of course. We pray for those (Catholics are ignorant sinners often) who receive unworthily and thus offend Jesus, including ourselves should we do so while still deceiving ourselves of having committed such a sin...hence, all the more need for the availability of confession after! Born again in Christ each time we drop to our knees and fully repent, because of His Mercy alone.
Catholics are not Christians...sorry to burst your bubble.
“ad nauseum, ad infinitum”
And yet you still refuse to hear.
Will keep repeating it till some of you get it....the Spirit that is.
Been hearing it for years - Same stuff, different pile.
But, discovering that Charles Stanley is going “emergent / mystical” - Now THERE’S something completely different.
I wish the thread poster would take his/her brand of evangelism to the Middle East.
For the last time, those who habitually simply paste links rather than an argument (not merely in supplement them) or post articles but do not engage responders, are hardly worthy of responses. .
Actually for a long time that was almost completely the practice of RCs here, who have turned FR into a Catholic news and apologetics service, advertizing elitist Rome as the one true church and often attacking Prot beliefs (search the RF), then complaining when challenged.
But i think the article lacks depth and is kind of a hit piece.
Oh, it only does so when needed to conform to RC doctrine. But consistent with believing that the Lord was speaking literally at the Last Supper, so that He was in the stomach of the disciples at the same time as He sat before them - and these kosher simply consumed their Lord, with not a word of characteristic query or protest (cf. Acts 10:9-16) - then David also engaged in transubstantiation.
For after 3 of his mighty men obtained water of the water of the well of Bethlehem which David longed for, "he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord" saying, "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." (2 Samuel 23:15-17)
Here water can be said to have turned into blood like as at the last supper, if we are to take such literally.
Moreover, by consuming their Lord the entire church is, in turn, substantiated into bread: "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." (1 Corinthians 10:17)
For Israel became a lion who ate and drank men:
"Behold, the people shall rise up as a great lion, and lift up himself as a young lion: he shall not lie down until he eat of the prey, and drink the blood of the slain." (Numbers 23:24)
And of-course rather than the apostles understanding the Lord's words at the LS as being consistent with Hebrew use of metaphor, they not only believed David turned water into blood but that when Jeremiah proclaims, "Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart," (Jer. 15:16) then this also was literal, and thus they meekly submitted to chewing the flesh of their master.
Likewise when Ezekiel is told, "eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel" (Ezek. 3:1), or (in a phrase most similar to the Lord's supper) John is commanded, "Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it" (Rev. 10:8-9 )
Or when the fearful Israelites exclaimed that the Promised Land was a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; or when Joshua exhorted the Israelites, Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us (Num. 13:32; 14:9)
For David himself faced cannibals,
"When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell." (Psalms 27:2) Instead, those who believe in transubstantiation and the claims made for it have "eaten the fruit of lies." (Hos. 10:13)
As for John 6, those who came for physical food were rebuffed by the Lord telling them to "labor for meat which endureth unto everlasting life," which "labor" being defined is "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." (Jn. 6:27,29)
And which is entirely consistent with John, in which believing on the Lord Jesus is how one obtains eternal life. (Jn. 3;16,6; 5:24, etc.)
And in which the Lord is referred to by many metaphors:
In John 1:29, He is the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
In John 3, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal (vs. 14, 15).
In John 4, Jesus is the living water, that whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life (v. 14).
In John 5, Jesus is the Truth whom a "shining light" bore witness to (vs. 33,34).
In John 6, Jesus is the bread of God which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. ..that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day (vs. 35,40). This bread is called His flesh, which I will give for the life of the world (v. 51). And as He is the living bread, and the life of the flesh is in the blood, so the soon to be crucified Christ is metaphorical bread and blood.
In John 10, Jesus is the door of the sheep,, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep, that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly vs. 7, 10, 11).
In John 12, He is the LORD who Isaiah saw high and lifted up in glory, when Isaiah uttered the prophecy which as given in its fulfilled sense in Jn. 6 (Is. 6:1-10; Jn. 12:34b-50). To God be the glory.
In John 15, Jesus is the true vine. Thus the use of metaphors in Jn. 6 to denote believing and living by the Word of God, and most essentially Christ, is consistent theologically, culturally and and grammatically, whereas eating something to gain eternal life is distinctively pagan. The Jewish passover did not impart life, and Jesus analogy in Jn. 6 was not to the passover, but the miraculous bread from Heaven, which gave physical life, which corresponds to spiritual life under the New Covenant.
That believing/receiving the Lord via the gospel of the crucified Christ in their innermost being and living by His words in faith is what "eating and drinking" refers to is seen by the fact that NOWHERE did anyone receive life in themselves by physical consumption, (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:8) but by believing.
Therefore in explaining His words in Jn. 6, the Lord states in Jn. 6:57, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57)
And rather than the Lord physically consuming some transubstantiated flesh the Father in order to live by Him, what this means is that "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)
Therefore the Lord said, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34)
"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)
As for spiritual effects from the physical properties of food, "meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse." (1 Corinthians 8:8)
In addition, transubstantiation, in which the substance of bread and wine is said to be "really" changed, so that the bread and wine become the Lord's body and blood, though the sensory aspects of the earthly elements remain the same, is contrary to the miracles which the Lord and His followers did. The water actually became wine in John 2, and it tasted like it, and sick people who were supernaturally made well knew it, and it was apparent, (Acts 3) but such was not by transubstantiation as defined by Rome. Nor is this the case in regeneration, which creates a new heart.
Moreover, no where in the Lord's multitudinous miracles do we see anything approaching Him being literally physically in two places at once.
...... "I will pray for you"
Insult, then "prayer for you". Right.
[ahem] Havent you got anything to do healthier than attacking fellow Christians?
St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)
Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1)
They [i.e. the Gnostics] 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 the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)
Everyone should notice that Ignatius, taught the faith at the feet of the Apostle John, says the Eucharist is the Body of Christ.
now, scoffers come along and deny this central belief of the Christian Faith.
but wait, i think i read somewhere that these scoffers would come.......
(Incidentally, nowhere else in Scripture is "eating flesh and drinking blood" used as a metaphor for faith. It's used in a couple of places as a metaphor for a crushing military defeat.)
Why did he issue this particular strange discourse at Passover, exactly a year before the Last Supper? Why did he not explain himself to the Apostles, instead asking plaintively, "Will you, too, go away?"
When you can answer all of these questions, I'll grant that your "spiritual" interpretation doesn't just sweep the passage under the rug. Until then, I'll stick with what all Christians knew and cherished for the first 16 centuries of the Christian era.
In the final analysis, you don’t get to decide whether Catholics are Christians or not. God makes that call, and you aren’t him. Sorry to burst your bubble.
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [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 Saviour, 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. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone.This was the teaching and practice of the early Church, the same Church that gave us the canon the the Scriptures. It is either trustworthy in both or in neither.
It's completely in keeping with the central miracle of Jesus' life, the Incarnation, in which a peasant carpenter from an obscure Roman province is -- according to Christian belief -- supposed to be Eternal God incarnate ... contrary, as you say, to sensory experiences.
The water actually became wine in John 2, and it tasted like it,
See the link on the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano posted above.
Moreover, no where in the Lord's multitudinous miracles do we see anything approaching Him being literally physically in two places at once.
So? Miracles don't require precedent.
But the lithium deficient just wrote that Catholics aren’t Christians, so your point is moot. To further that concept, he/she threw down the gauntlet with the thread proclaiming such.
Obviously, you missed the point.
Were you being sarcastic? If so my appologies. I’m off my game lately.
***In the year 2000, we learned that a mantra-style meditation coupled with a mystical spirituality had been introduced to the evangelical,***
I remember reading back in the late 1960s of some Liberal seminary students being given LSD while reading the Bible to “enhance” their “understanding” of the Bible.
I don’t think it worked to enhance it as I see what the Lib churches have become.
No where in any of the accounts of the Last Supper does it say that Jesus ate or drank what He gave the Apostles.
By what definition do you make such an absurd claim?
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?”
He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve. [John 6: 49-71]
As far as that "insult them-- but pray for them" biz goes, it can be a two-way street (more than one party or individual doing the same or similar enough) leaving either or both guilty of some hypocrisy.
Since there is that element to it, you were in part correct in saying the point was moot, but in my view, only half-way to "moot", since being in disagreement or having taken offense at what another says, does not justify going for the "getting personal" route, then saying "oh, but I.." (you know, me, the guy who just insulted you, but is somehow super-spiritual and "righteous" nonetheless and God will really really listen to me no matter how much a hypocrite I may be-- yeah, that guy) "...will be praying for you" (isn't that special?). Lot's of sarcasm in that last, but none of it aimed at you personally...
So as far as that goes, it should be I that apologizes to you. I do thank you kindly for your consideration.
As to the point being fully moot however, most of what I did was just return the choice of words to see how well they fit, and if they were comfortable, doing so for as much for blandly generic-like demonstration of the principles involved hoping to get the message across -- maybe don't do it or say it *quite* like that, rather than offering my comment as more personalized critique or judgement. Discussing the message, and the form of it, rather than the messenger...
If it were to be hard and fast irrevocable judgment (rather than just instructional) then there is enough rope laying around to hang most of us, myself included.
Another poignant use of Perpetual Adoration is as perhaps the premiere alternative to the mass media's monopoly of our time and manipulation of our minds, especially through television and personal computers. When exploring this subject on his popular EWTN show, Life on the Rock, host Jeff Cavins talked about how many people (Catholics included) sit in front of a TV and/or computer several hours a day. First, the proliferation of stations due to cable and satellite dishes increases our television choices making it harder to turn the set off. Secondly, the use of remote control allows us to watch (if not comprehend) several shows at one time. Our mind is literally flooded with images until the shows practically overwhelm our senses and our ability to find any goodness or truth or beauty in what we are viewing. Similarly, browsing endless websites, entering random chat rooms, or spending hours on computer games can eventually lead us to deny the necessity to bear witness in the real world, if not the belief of His Real Presence in it.Tom intereviewed Frs. Fanelli and Lane in the late 90s, and whereby Fr. Fanelli started up the first Adoration Chapel in Cook County, Chicago, in 1986, there are now over 200. I've spent many hours in Adoration throughout the years, myself, and if I'm not filled with the Holy Spirit while there, I don't know what it is that makes me more tolerant and patient (after I leave), if only for a few hours or days. In other words, there's a discernible difference [a peace] in one's attitude after spending time with Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. It's undeniable, and can only be experienced (or understood) by one who attends, with the belief that Christ is Truly present. http://www.therealpresence.org/chap_fr.htm
By contrast, the eyes of a soul who often looks upon the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament see not random images, but a single Light. Unlike television viewing, where the TV dominates the exchange, in Eucharistic Adoration there is constant communication, the Lord listening as the soul speaks, then the soul listening as the Lord responds. And while many agnostic computer experts dream of capturing time and space by literally plugging us (complete with tiny microchips in our foreheads) into the "Net," Fr. Hardon in his article "Prayer Before the Blessed Sacrament," explains that "The prayer before the Eucharist believes that time is erased by the miracle of the Real Presence, and so is distance and space." Computer technology may lead you to believe that through the information highway man can someday conquer the world, but faith in Christ's Death and Resurrection, strengthened by belief in the Real Presence convinces us that Christ already has. --Tom O'Toole
In an ontological sense, yes they do. Certainly God can do as He pleases and we should expect to be surprised by His miracles. But we know we have seen a miracle why? Because it falls within the precedent of what a miracle *is.* All of the miracles in Scripture, from front to back, that involve God's intervention in the material world, are discernible to the observers by physical inspection. The alleged Eucharistic miracle would be the sole exception.
So one must ask, why do miracles occur at all? Why does God do them? Because they testify of Him. They show His power. They are, in the final analysis, a form of communication, certifying to us that God is real, and is the absolute sovereign ruler of all things, and is intimately concerned with us personally. A supposed miracle that does none of these things fails in its central reason for being. It falls short of what all other true miracles have been.
Now some may object that some miracles are spiritual in nature, and I would agree, taking for example the miracle of being born again by an act of God, being carried from spiritual death to spiritual life. But even those miracles change the life of the recipient in obvious, discernible ways. The demoniac encounters Jesus and goes from being a chain-breaking wild man to a calm and thoughtful disciple of Christ. This change was so discernible it frightened the community into asking Jesus to leave. They were terrified of such obvious, visible power.
So again, even the so-called purely spiritual miracles are of the same precedent. They testify in some discernible way to the power of God, as a witness of God to the people of God, and even to the unbelieving.
Either way then, whether physically or spiritually, the alleged transubstantiation event fails the definition of what a miracle is. Rather, as it appears from it's very late appearance, transubstantiation seems more akin to a telling the emperor he has clothes, only he cannot discern them in any way, so he must trust the tailor at all costs, even if he must defy his own God-given sensory apparatus in the process. By which the tailor gains spiritual power over the poor naked emperor.
This is all such a far cry from the simplicity of the Gospel, which Christ said was accessible to even a child, and I would dare say I know of no children who could at all grasp Aquinas' inversion of substance and accidence to arrive at transubstantiation (let alone most adult readers here), but I can name you several children who can grasp what it means that they were sinners for whom Jesus died, and who have no trouble understanding His love for them through a regular and reverent remembrance of His sacrifice for them.