Is the floor of Hell paved with the skulls of bishops?

Gloria Romanorum ^ | February 3, 2024 | Florentius

[Cronos]

And Jesus told the disciples to BELIEVE what Jesus was saying - that is, to eat, to GNAW ON the body and blood of Jesus.

The disciples who did not believe that this was the True Body and blood of Jesus, left Him.

You don’t believe the words of Jesus in John 6 either

[Cronos]

We're not moving between literal and symbolic at all.

The passage is where Jesus is saying LITERALLY and He repeats is -->

John 6:35 I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

Then Jesus REPEATS for a second time that this is LITERAL - John 6:48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

And now the crowd is openly rebellious - denying, like you deny, that this is for us to eat His body - 52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

And He REPEATS a third time : John 6:53 “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

At no point are we saying this is symbolic because Jesus clearly says this is to be taken literally

and that's what all the early Christians believed - that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus

[Cronos]

The Eastern Orthodox prefer to leave a lot of things as “a mystery” - which would be disconcerting to Calvinists.

However, the Eastern Orthodox believe in the True Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

[ealgeone]

Yet, we don’t one instance of Him actually offering real blood to anyone to drink while He was on earth. Not one. That alone should tell you your theology is incorrect.

It would also be a violation of the Law to consume blood. And it would contradict the ruling of the Council on blood. -

You see, Cronos, when you consult the full counsel of Scripture you can determine the meaning of a passage.

[ealgeone]

...and that's what all the early Christians believed - that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus

Nope. That is clearly not the case IF one reads all of the passages in the Bible dealing with this issue.

Do this in remembrance of Me.

[Trump_Triumphant]

My goodness...

[ealgeone]

Those are the facts.

[Cronos]

Of course we have the Last Supper as a clear case where He offered His real blood to drink while He was on earth.

Jesus clearly said in John 6 - and repeated twice - that the wine is His blood. He also said so at the last Supper.

[Cronos]

Finally - as I pointed out elsewhere, up to the 16th century virtually all Christians believed that the bread and wine truly becomes the body and blood of Christ.

If the Apostles, their disciples etc. - whether the St. Thomas Christians in southern India (separated from theCatholic Orthodox for 1000 years, or those in Assyria (separated from 240 AD) believed that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ.

If every single Christian before the 1600s believed that this is the True Body and Blood of Christ - why do you think that the 17th century innovation has more weightage?

[Cronos]

Actually, that is the case -- check your history and you will see that all the early Christians believed that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus.

John Norman Davidson Kelly a Protestant early church historian wrote

Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood

From the Church’s early days, the Fathers referred to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: “Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity” (ibid., 197–98).

“Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally” (ibid., 211–12).

=====

No Christian rejected the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist until Calvin came along - let me repeat that for you, eagleone - No Christian, early, medieval, whatever, rejected the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist until Calvin came along - so why do you persist with that modernist belief?

[ealgeone]

You’re moving your own goalposts from “all” to “virtually all” on this issue. We keep going you’ll be saying “most” or something along those lines.

As I’ve noted before, not one instance in the NT where His actual real blood was offered at the Lord’s Supper. Not. One.

Not one instance of any disciple or believer trying to capture His blood at the crucifixion nor trying to consume His actual flesh. Not. One.

What we see in Scripture denies Rome’s claims on this, and many other issues.

As one of your fellow RCs noted, the writings of the ECFs are not inspired. They are at best commentaries on what they think on the topic.

[ealgeone]

Of course we have the Last Supper as a clear case where He offered His real blood to drink while He was on earth.

Nope. All He had to do was to prick His finger and offer the disciples His actual blood.

He did not do this as that would have violated the Law regarding the consumption of blood.

The passage from Matthew on the blood.

27And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you;

28for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out (In the OT the blood was always poured out...never consumed. His blood would be poured out on the cross.) for many for forgiveness of sins.

29“But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (not blood, but fruit of the vine) from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

*****

An honest reading of the passage will in now way convince anyone the liquid in the cup was actual blood. And further, IF Rome is right on this He is drinking His own blood in this instance. A completely unbiblical position.

[Cronos]

The Last Supper was the institution of the Eucharist, essentially the first act of transubstantiation. In breaking bread and sharing the cup, the Twelve Apostles received the real body and blood of Christ.

The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself the guest and banquet, is both the partaker and what is eaten.

Christ first fulfilled what He required others to observe. For example, Christ instituted baptism by being baptized Himself, in the same way He would have instituted the Eucharist by partaking in the Eucharist Himself.

If you look at transubstantiation, however, I do not believe the term “literal” is going to be helpful for understanding. Transubstantiation is not something that occurs in nature — it is a way of describing how Christ is uniquely present in the Eucharist — the observable characteristics of the bread and wine remain (the “accidents”) but the inner reality of the bread and wine (their “substance”) changes into Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity. Nowhere else in nature or theology does such a change occur— it is unique to the Eucharist.

Note that eating the body and blood during the Eucharist is not the same as if someone hacked off a piece of meat off of Jesus’s earthly body and cannibalized his flesh.

[ealgeone]

Note that eating the body and blood during the Eucharist is not the same as if someone hacked off a piece of meat off of Jesus’s earthly body and cannibalized his flesh.

But that's exactly the argument you make from John 6. You've used the words chew and nash IIRC. You've said the Jews and His disciples understood it that way.

You've just contradicted your own position on this issue.

[ealgeone]

No Christian, early, medieval, whatever, rejected the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist until Calvin came along - so why do you persist with that modernist belief?

I've seen the "apologists" at Catholic Answers make the same sweeping statement regarding the dogmas around Mary you just made on this issue.

And both are patently false claims when one looks at ALL of the information available.

[ealgeone]

No Christian, early, medieval, whatever, rejected the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist until Calvin came along - so why do you persist with that modernist belief?

You might want to ask a mod to delete this statement along with your post regarding the Jews and how it was ok to make this wear special clothing in 1215.

You're reputation is falling into the Catholic Answers category....unreliable.