I just thought I'd share a nice song (based on John 6) that we sang in mass this morning. We sing it often for communion, and it's one of my favorites. David, I thought you might like the first verse and refrain, as John 6:44 seems to be one of your favorite verses.

"I am the Bread of Life / Yo Soy el Pan de Vida"

I am the bread of life, You who comes to me shall not hunger, You who believe in me shall not thirst No one can come to me Unless the Father draw him.

Refrain: And I will raise him up, And I will raise him up And I will raise him up On the last day

The bread that I will give Is my flesh for the life of the world And those who eat of this bread They shall life forever They shall live forever.

Unless you eat Of the flesh of the Son of Man And drink of His blood, and drink of His blood You shall not have life within you.

I am the resurection, I am the life, If you believe in me, Even though you die, You shall live forever.

Yes, Lord, I believe That you are the Christ, The Son of God, Who has come Into the World.

http://www.hymnprint.net/hp/files/asp/gif/RS_931-1.jpg

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 15, 2004

Answers

bump

-- (bump@to.top), August 15, 2004.

Here it is in Spanish with the musical marks (? I don't know what they're called).

Yo Soy el Pan de Vida

I would like to hear the Spanish one sometime.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 15, 2004.

Emily,

Thanks for sharing that song, it is one of my favorites as well.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), August 15, 2004.

This verse says it all., as it points to the cross:

"The bread that I will give Is my flesh for the life of the world"

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." John 3:16-18

"I am the bread of life, You who comes to me shall not hunger, You who believe in me shall not thirst. No one can come to me Unless the Father draw him."

God draws *all* men unto Himself by way of the cross....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 15, 2004.

I agree, Faith. Well said.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 15, 2004.

Did you hear about the little girl whose first communion was nullified because her wafer didn't have wheat in it?

If it turns into the flesh of Jesus anyway, why should it matter if it has wheat or not?

And if the girl has a bad reaction to a wheat wafer, doesn't that prove it doesn't fully transform into the flesh of Jesus?

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), August 17, 2004.

Max,

Remember, they say the cookie wasn't magically turned into Jesus yet. So all she ate was a *normal* cookie.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 17, 2004.

Oh, sorry, my mistake.

The cookie wasn't turned into Jesus because it was not made of wheat. That is the secret ingredient, wheat.

So the Roman church did not validate her communion because she ate a wheatless cookie.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 17, 2004.

I have asked the same about that particular bit of logic. Those issues are not necessarily a Catholic issue, but a Christian issue.

Has anyone made the attempt to present this issue (Wheat) in the Catholic Forum? I do recall the thread regarding the gluten problem. I also recall the Korean epidemic situation involving the communal drinking from the cup. So, what are the replies or answers to these issues?

And, David stop calling it a "cookie". Please show some respect for those who believe in the Holy Eucharist. I don't think that's too much to ask for. Is it?

................... ........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 17, 2004.

According to answers in the Catholic forum, Church doctrine says that the host "must" consist unleavend wheat flower.

There is aparently no way around this for someone with Celiac Sprue disease other than to take a very small partical of the consecrated host, (which is still the whole body of Christ) or take the wine.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), August 17, 2004.

Well then, that's the logical answer. Where does it say that a person must consume a wafer weighing a pound of wheat to a miniscule amount? The believer still partakes of the Holy Eucharist even if it is less than a gram of a gram. Does Christ still exist if He is weightless or volume-less? Of course!

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 17, 2004.

But, I wonder what would happen if the afflicted child were to partake of the Holy Eucharist as celebrated during mass? Would the child suffer adverse effects or not? Have any suffered at all? Or, are we just betting that the child will react with negative physical symptoms? Afterall, the Holy Eucharist is the body of Christ.

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 17, 2004.

I don't know that much about the Celiac disease. I believe there are degrees of severety. Some people don't know for quite some time that they have the condition.

I have always been alergic to peanuts. I have servived accidently eating them hidden in various foods on more than one occation. Some with this allergy (peanuts)wouldn't have. They stopped serving them on flights because the dust circulates and can kill some people with peanut allergy. Mine isn't so bad, but you never know.

THis family will have to be careful, and make sure the priest is aware of the condition so a minute piece could be given. Most priests are aware of this disease. The child probably knows enough about his condition to insist on a very small piece or to go to the wine if he is in a different parish where he isn't known.

This sounds like a very inconvenient affliction. I guess most are.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), August 17, 2004.

I know there was a group of nuns that developed an acceptable form of the host that contained all the necessary ingredients. It was supposed to be ok for people with celiac disease too. I think Andy posted a link about it one time.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 17, 2004.

Ok, I can't call it a cookie, but I can call it a wafer? Oh boy...

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 17, 2004.

The dictionary defines a cookie as a 'small flat cake' while it defines a wafer as a 'thin crisp cake'.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 17, 2004.

Really, when discussing religion with those whose faiths are not your own, or contain things you don't agree with, your point will be more seriously considered by the "opposition" if you use the proper terms. It puts you more or less on equal intellectual footing.

Actually this is true when discussing or debating any subject. Using the correct vocabulary and terms suggests you do know something about your opponents belief, or stance.

Gives you the creds you deserve!

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), August 17, 2004.

Ok Jim, I see your point.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 17, 2004.

So let me ask..,

Who really thinks that the bread Jesus actually served looked or tasted anything like the Catholic wafer?

I think the Jewish Matzah bread is more like what we should be eating- -and again., it's symbolic. If a child is allergic to it--then he/she., should be able to use something else to represent the Body...Hm? I think God would agree : )

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 17, 2004.

Faith,

For what its worth, I see your point and actually I agree with you. But it doesn't matter what I think. Its the way it is.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), August 17, 2004.

Oops got to bow out of the "symbolic" part. I kind of blew by that.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), August 17, 2004.

The elements had to be symbolic Jim..,

Otherwise., Jesus was eating and drinking Himself--and all that-- while still alive.

He said..,"Do this in remembrance of me."

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 17, 2004.

Ah yes! but will David see my point????? NO!. It wasn't the "cookie" word; it was your tone. But, I accept your apology, before you give it or don't, David.

I have seen the word "wafer" used in Catholic articles. I presumed it was ok to use that word.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 17, 2004.

Faith??

Faith??

Oh, Faith??

Here is a little insight I thought I'd pass along to the world.

Jesus did not eat or partake of the Last Supper. The Apostles did.

Scriptures don't say anything about Christ partaking of His body and blood. It is also theologically illogical for Jesus to partake. He is God!!

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 17, 2004.

Jesus said:

"I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

It sounds to me like it was Jesus' last supper. He knew He was going to die. There is no reason to think Jesus didn't participate in this Passover meal...

Notice that the element remains just that--an element. Jesus doesn't say He won't drink of the blood again until He drinks it anew in heaven-- He is speaking about wine. Otherwise--then we would have to think that Jesus will be drinking His own blood in heaven?*#%*?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 17, 2004.

David says:

"Ok, I can't call it a cookie, but I can call it a wafer? Oh boy..."

Actually, I have only heard it referred to as a cookie in Jack Chick tracts. Does Boettner call it a cookie?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), August 18, 2004.

If the Last Supper is to be accepted as symbolic, then let's identify the symbolism. The Old Covenant is replaced by the New Covenant.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 18, 2004.

Now for some reality...

Jesus Christ is Our Saviour.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 18, 2004.

rod..,

The Last Supper was very real.

The elements used to represent Jesus' body and blood were symbolic. The proof is that if they were literally Jesus' body and blood., how could Jesus have been standing there serving it up to His disciples?

Even if he didn't partake--which I believe he did--he was still alive and therefore could not have been serving His disciples His body and blood literally. They were symbolic elements pointing to the cross.

Even Jesus still refers to them in their natural element--saying that He will from now on--not drink of this wine again until He is with us in His kingdom at the end of this age....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 18, 2004.

Human logic will not work in this case--The Last Supper. The next question would then be, "How can Jesus come back from the dead?" That's impossible, but it happened.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 18, 2004.

rod..,

Can you try addressing the point--rather than creating another issue as a side-track?

You can't just shout *human logic* doesn't work--as a reason to believe in Transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation is more a human logic issue than simply believing the Bible's truth that the elements are symbolic.

We are discussing Scripture. And whenever you are at a loss--you always do this. It's called grandstanding.

Clearly Jesus mainstains the elements in their natural state...read it for yourself:

Matt 26:26-29

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body. Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 18, 2004.

Faith. It doesn't say that Christ partook of the Last Supper the way you are saying He did. Who is "grandstanding"? You present the human logic by saying Christ did partake. The Scriptures don't say that, you do. Who is "granstanding"? If we use your logic, we would have a difficult time explaining how Jesus resurrected. Much the same; we would have a difficult time explaining Transubstantiation in human logical thinking. It cannot be done. Who is "grandstanding"? I'm using your own logical excuse for putting stuff in Scriptures that ain't there.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 18, 2004.

This comes from what I've read from answers at the Catholic forum:

Because Jesus is God, and God operates outside of time and space, the fact that Jesus was present at the last supper does not preclude his presence as God in the bread and wine.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), August 18, 2004.

Besides, God can be where He wishes regardless of our human logical flaws.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 18, 2004.

rod..,

Jesus says he will not drink of the vine from now on--until he drinks of it again in His Father's Kingdom--

Clearly--He was revealing that He was about to be crucified--which is why that meal was His Last Supper..we can surmise that He did partake.

But even if He didn't--we can see in the Scripture that Jesus retains the elements in their true state of being bread and wine.

If this wine is literally blood--and even if Jesus didn't drink it at His Last Super--can we assume then, that He'll be drinking His own blood in His Father's Kingdom??

Concentrate on Jesus' words...

I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 18, 2004.

"Concentrate"? I love it when I'm boxed in with the little kindy kids. Of course, Faith, I do concentrate.

Have you considered the idea that vine and fruit may not mean those things literally? Could Jesus be alluding a Himself and God in Heaven when things are completely new. Just like the Holy Eucharist that is no longer bread.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 18, 2004.

Faith to rod: "You can't just shout *human logic* doesn't work--as a reason to believe in Transubstantiation. "

Yes I can. Human logic doesn't work, sometimes. That is why we must have faith. How in the world can we explain God with human logic? God is so much more beyond our logic to even attempt to explain Him. But, we can believe in Him and have faith in Him. We can warm our little hearts and minds by studying all that history and traditions have to offer. It may even help us get that faith going. But, ultimately we are gonna just have to believe those things that are impossible to believe. Why? because God expects us to be like little kids and just believe. That's why.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 18, 2004.

So let's try that on for size:

I tell you, I will not drink of this Jesus of the God from now on until that day when I drink Jesus and God anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

I don't think it flows well.....

Come on rod--clearly--Jesus is revealing His pending crucifixion-- which satifies the old covenant and brings in the new....

Those who trust in Him and His sacrifice to save them from their sin-- to be the substitutionary sacrifice in their place...,will be in heaven with Him at the time that He establishes His Kingdom.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 18, 2004.

The Holy Eucharist is all about accepting Christ as our Saviour. Yes, it is done in rememberance of Him; His sacrifice for all who accept him as Saviour is our Salvation. And, those who accept Him shall have eternal life with Him in Heaven. We are to accept Him on earth. One day we will be in Heaven with God, anew. That's my concentrated understanding of the Last Supper. Everything else can be debated or doctrinalized by anyone's logic.

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 18, 2004.

The Holy Eucharist is all about accepting Christ as our Saviour. Yes, it is done in rememberance of Him; His sacrifice for all who accept him as Saviour is our Salvation. And, those who accept Him shall have eternal life with Him in Heaven. We are to accept Him on earth. One day we will be in Heaven with God, anew

You are so right, rod! Here is a prayer that has been recommended for those who wish to visit Christ in the Eucharist. I think whatever a Christian's belief about the Eucharist really being Christ or not, that we can agree with the intent.

O God, we believe You are here. We adore and love You with our whole heart and soul because You are most worthy of all our love. We desire to love You as the Blessed do in Heaven. Flood our souls with Your spirit and life. Penetrate and possess our whole being utterly, that our lives may only be a radiance of Yours. Shine through us, and be so in us, that every soul we come in contact with may feel Your presence in our soul. Let them look up and see no longer us, but only Jesus!

Believing the Eucharist to be Christ is partially about trust in Christ's promise to be with us to the end of the age. It's partially about believing the words He spoke in Scripture when human logic and reason contradicts the reality of what He says.

Folks can say Catholics believe Christ to be present in the form of bread and wine when He is not. But faith and love for Christ is what belief in the Eucharist and the Real Presence of Christ is all about for Catholics.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 18, 2004.

I think the objection, Andy..

....Comes due to the "alleged" miracle of Transubstantiation., in that the wafer itself--which is eaten at Mass--is worshiped as Christ Himself.

Pope John Paul II approves enthusiastically of perpetual adoration of these wafers....establishing exposition of the Blessed Sacrament in St. Peter's in 1981...he said:

How great is the value of conversation with Christ in the blessed sacrament.. There is nothing more consoling on earth, nothing more powerful fpr advancing along the road to holiness.

Doesn't this sound too much like idolatry?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 18, 2004.

God is my idol? Hmm.....I don't exactly see any problem with God being our idol.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 18, 2004.

Hi Faith,

When Christ was here on earth, he appeared to be just a man. If I were to travel back in time and see Him, I would adore Him as God. Some of the Jews around me would probably think I was worshipping a man (that's what He looks like) and call me an idolator. In fact, if I told them Jesus was God, they would laugh and scoff at me as a fool. They would probably make fun of my faith.

I suppose if you don't believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist that in your point of view it would be idolatry. But in the heart of any Catholic who is a true believer in the Eucharist, we are worshipping Christ, not a wafer. I know that when God sees my heart in Eucharistic adoration that He sees my love for His son. The whole idea is to take time out of your busy day to focus on Jesus and to sit in silence adoring, giving thanksgiving, and loving Christ. This is good advice for any Christian. If you don't believe in His Real Presence, you can do this at home instead.

If you don't have the same belief in the Eucharist that Catholics do, the worst you can say is that we are adoring Christ in front of a piece of bread. But you can't say we are committing idolatry when our hearts are focused on Christ.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 18, 2004.

That sounds right to me, Andy.

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 18, 2004.

No rod..,

The idol is the wafer...sheesh!!

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 18, 2004.

Well Andy..,

That is exactly what we do in our Communion service. We adore Christ-- we worship Him and we believe He is with us. We just don't believe He is a piece of bread--or that the bread is His body in the literal sense.

We believe Christ is always with us.....spiritually.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 18, 2004.

Faith,

That is exactly what we do in our Communion service. We adore Christ-- we worship Him and we believe He is with us.

Praise the Lord for that! It's awesome that you adore Him and love Him.

We just don't believe He is a piece of bread--or that the bread is His body in the literal sense.

We don't either. We don't believe He is a "piece of bread" or that the "bread is His body." Jesus isn't made of bread. The key point is that we don't believe what we see is bread anymore. Sure it looks, feels, and tastes like bread, but it isn't bread anymore. Our bodies even think it's bread. A scientist could do a full analysis on it and say it's identical to bread.

But we believe it is Jesus. Not just His body, but all of Him. His body, blood, soul, and divinity. Hard to believe, I know. It defies human senses and all human logic. Looking at the Eucharist in a carnal way, all you would see is bread.

"This is an hard saying; who can hear it?"

But seeing the Eucharist in faith, we know and believe it to be Jesus, who humbles Himself to take that form for our sake.

We believe Christ is always with us.....spiritually.

So do we. The Eucharist is so much more, though. It is not just Jesus in a spiritual sense. It is the "total" Jesus. Body, blood, soul, and divinity. If you think about it, Jesus' resurrection shows He isn't just spirit, but also body. Doubting Thomas touched his wounds. Jesus ate fish. Yet, he also walked through walls with His glorified body. Why is it so hard to believe that He could take the form of bread and wine in order to be with us totally, not just in the spiritual sense?

I don't expect you to believe, or accept any of this to be true.

All I ask at this point is that you try to understand that Catholics are not worshipping bread. In faith, we do not see bread anymore We see Jesus Himself.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 18, 2004.

But Andy.., Jesus's resurrected body was not made of flesh and blood. He was made of flesh and bone.., because no blood can enter heaven. Jesus' blood has been poured out. Our resurrected Lord's Body does not contain blood.

The fact that the Catholic Church is reconstituting the Body of Christ into it's precrucifixion state--means that you are recrucifying Christ over and over again on your altars.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 18, 2004.

Faith,

The fact that the Catholic Church is reconstituting the Body of Christ into it's precrucifixion state--means that you are recrucifying Christ over and over again on your altars.

When did I say the Eucharist is Jesus' body in it's "precrucufixion" state? If anything, I talked about Christ after the Resurrection. I'm sorry if you got that impression but it's totally false. That is not what Catholics believe.

Also, I don't see where you got the idea that Catholics believe we are re-crucifying Christ. What did I say that left you with that idea? If anything, because we believe the Eucharist to truly be Christ, we are careful to approach Him in a worthy manner. That's why we believe we must not partake of the Eucharist if we are unrepentant sinners who have commiteed grave sin. The last thing any Catholic would do is "re-crucify" Jesus. He already died once, how can anybody crucify Him again? I don't understand where you got this from.

A few posts ago you were accusing Catholics of committing idolatry by giving undue reverence to bread, even though we believe it is not bread, but Christ. Now you're accusing Catholics of recrucifying Christ in the same Eucharist you said we gave undue reverence to. I'm confused. When did I say we treat the Eucharist with anything but reverence?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 18, 2004.

Faith,

Would you tell me where you got the idea that Christ's resurrected body has no blood? I never heard of that before.

Thanks.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 18, 2004.

Andy--

You said that the wafer is Jesus body and blood--so it has to be a pre-crucifixion state because Jesus' resurrected body did not contain blood. We know this because no blood may enter heaven--according to Scripture. Blood is corruptable--and nothing corruptable may enter heaven.

"I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed-- in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory." 1 Corinthians 15:50-54

Andy--

Why do you think they call it the Sacrifice of the Mass?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 18, 2004.

Faith-"The idol is the wafer...sheesh!! "

A very fine point was made earlier. The man called Jesus was actually God. He took on human form. We did not idolize the man. We worship God through His Son.

Some people worship God through the Bible. It isn't the book they worship, yet what they say sure does sound like idol worship-- "...because the Bible tells me so..." When it shoud be--"...because God tells me so..." So, I can understand how non-Catholics would get confused and start equating those misunderstandings with pagan worship and practices. I see many SUVs rolling around with little fish decals on their bodies and windows. Do they worship fish? Of course not. What to the uniformed spectator, yes it does look rather fishy.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 19, 2004.

"What to the uniformed spectator, yes it does look rather fishy."

Huh?? I think my medication kicked in. That should have been:

"But, to the uninformed spectator, yes, it does look rather fishy."

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 19, 2004.

Hi Faith,

You said the Eucharist is Christ's body in a "precrucifixion" state, I didn't. If this is what you think, then I can understand why this would be a barrier to understanding that the Eucharist could really be Christ Himself.

The term "Sacrifice of the Mass" refers the once for all sacrifice Jesus performed about 2000 years ago in atonement for our sins. I still don't see how this is recrucifying Jesus. It is not the "Re- Sacrifice of the Mass".

"I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,

This passage also says "flesh." According to your interpretation, that means Christ's body wasn't real. I think that's what Jehovah's Witnesses believe.

I think you're adding a meaning to this passage that isn't meant to be there. Read all of 1 Cor 15. Paul discusses our resurrected bodies as being different. The flesh and blood he refers to is the corruptible flesh and blood of our current bodies, not the glorified body that is incorruptible.

Blood is corruptable

Corruptible in what sense? Isn't it we who are corruptible because of our sinful nature? This is a silly example I know, but it's not like I can drain my body of blood and then expect to get into heaven because I've removed everything that is corruptible from my body. I guess I don't understand what you mean by blood by itself being "corruptible." What are your refeneces for this idea?

--and nothing corruptable may enter heaven.

Amen to that sister Faith! That is God's truth. I'm not saying you agree with the teaching, but this is the basis of the Catholic teaching on Purgatory. I don't want to get into that right now though.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 19, 2004.

How do you reconcile the doctrine of the Eucharist with the fact that Scripture declares Christ will not be physically present on the earth again, until his second coming? Moreover, Christ is physically in heaven and cannot be in more than one place at a time because he is a man with a physical body.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 19, 2004.

Hi David,

Great questions all. Don't know that I have an answer for everything. Maybe one of my Catholic cohorts can help me out when I start straying into unknown territory.

the fact that Scripture declares Christ will not be physically present on the earth again, until his second coming

What passages are you referring to here?

Christ is physically in heaven and cannot be in more than one place at a time because he is a man with a physical body.

But being God, He's not bound by the same laws of physics that we are, even with a physical body. Walking through walls is evidence of that. My question is why can't He be in more than two places at once, since He's God.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 19, 2004.

When Jesus says "I am coming soon" in Revelation, this is imminent. His reference must be to the Eucharist, because that is his only imminent return. We know that this reference cannot refer to Jesus' second coming, because God tells John to leave the book open, don't seal it up because it will be fulfilled soon. Whereas in Daniel, when God gives a revelation, he told Daniel to close it up and seal it because it's not happening for a long time. But it was only 400 years later. Since it is now 2,000 years later and Jesus has not yet returned to end the world, Catholics understand that "I am coming soon" refers to the Eucharist.

Sorry I could not look up the references or explain this in more depth. I am getting ready to leave for college tomorrow. I learned this stuff from my mom, and she got this information from Scott Hahn. If you'd like to look into this in more depth, check out his stuff. I know he has a series on the book of Revelation.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), August 19, 2004.

Woah...Emily, sorry, you lost me..

Andy,

You must remember that Jesus, though one person, still has two distinct natures, and being a man is part of that. So the "He is God...time doesn't apply" argument really doesn't hold much water.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 19, 2004.

Let me tag on to Emily's post here. The Gospel of Matthew finishes with:

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

I know this verse can also be interpreted as "I am with always spiritually," but it fits in nicely with Emily's comments here.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 19, 2004.

David,

I think I follow what you're saying, but I disagree. I think you are putting limits on Christ by saying He must follow the laws of physics because He has a human nature. Having a human nature does not limit Him to that nature, as we know it to be. As much of a human nature He has, He is still divine. It sounds like you're limiting Christ's body to the laws of physics as we know them. If that is so, then how did He walk through the wall when the disciples were gathered? Thomas touched His wounds and saw that he had a real body.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 19, 2004.

A couple more examples to illustrate my point is Christ walking on water and His transfiguration.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 19, 2004.

the resurection also violates the law of physics and is probably just as hard to believe as the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), August 19, 2004.

Now, do you understand what I meant about our human logic not being capable of explaining those mysteries of faith, Faith? I wasn't "grandstanding".

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 19, 2004.

James,

No, the "real" presence is hard to believe because it is not found in scripture.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), August 19, 2004.

Well, I don't recall Jesus ever including the Gentiles in the Salvation plan. Scriptures doesn't mention that. St. Paul does. Where did St. Paul get his doctrines? Not, Scriptures, entirely.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 19, 2004.

rod.., Paul's letters are Scripture.

But God offered His salvation to the Gentiles in the Old Testament...

Isaiah 42:6-7

I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles., to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.

**************

1 John 2:2 tells us:

Jesus Christ is "the atoning sacrifice for our (believers/church) sins.., and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."

John was addressing believing Jews/Christians-- and this letter was sent as a pastoral letter to Gentile congregations.

Clearly salvation is ofered to all people in all the world.....according to Scripture.., the our refering to Christians and the world being the unsaved.....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 19, 2004.

I find it interesting that the dispute over the Real Presence is primarily a western phenomenon. Eastern Christians are almost universal in their belief in the real presence. For example, some protestants argue that the real presence was a doctrine created in 1215 by the Fourth Lateran Council. However, the orthodox split off in 1054 and they believe in the real presence. Therefore, we must keep in mind that the protestant viewpoint is clearly in the minority.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), August 19, 2004.

I think the real presence of Christ is true--and it is something that all Christians agree about. The difference comes in just how Jesus is present with us. The catholic Church believes He is hold up in a piece of bread--other Christians think He is present spiritually.

The Bible tells us that even when just two or three are gathered in His name in prayer--Jesus is with us.

Jesus promised that He would be with us until the end of the age-- however, I believe that He is with us spiritually.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 19, 2004.

Emily--

When Jesus said he is coming soon., in the book of Revelation--this is a vision that John receives about the end-times.

When Jesus returns--He will be in all His glory--not in a piece of bread. And it will not be a secret presence--for all the world will see Him and every knee will bow.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 19, 2004.

Andy..,

You said

The term "Sacrifice of the Mass" refers the once for all sacrifice Jesus performed about 2000 years ago in atonement for our sins. I still don't see how this is recrucifying Jesus. It is not the "Re- Sacrifice of the Mass".

If I am not mistaken.., the Mass is a re-sacrificing of Christ. The priest actually calls Christ down on the altar--and He is re-offered back up to God. It is much like the Jewish practice of sacrificing for the forgiveness of sins--on a continual basis.

The Church will say that it is a non-bloody offer. But you can't have it both ways--either the host is merely bread and a non-bloody sacrifice--or it is the literal body and blood of Christ and therefore a bloody sacrifice--even though you can't see the blood.

But the book of Hebrews tells us that the jews had to re-offer sacrifice over and over again.., because their sacrifices could never be sufficient in taking away sin. It also tells us that Jesus is the once for all time sacrifice and that no other sacrifice is needed.

"I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, This passage also says "flesh." According to your interpretation, that means Christ's body wasn't real. I think that's what Jehovah's Witnesses believe.

No Andy--the Bible simply says that flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom--but we know that flesh and bone can--because Thomas stuck his hand in the side of the resurrected Jesus and Jesus said, See--I am not a ghost--I am flesh and bone.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 19, 2004.

Faith says:

"The catholic Church believes He is hold up in a piece of bread-- other Christians think He is present spiritually."

So what you are saying is that the Eastern Orthodox believe that the Eucharist is symbolic?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), August 19, 2004.

Faith

The Prophets and the self-proclaimed Apostle may have stated that the Gentiles are included in the Kingdom of God, but Jesus did not say this. Jesus was on earth to proclaim the Kingdom of God to the Jews--the Chosen People. St. Paul made it his mission to include the Gentiles. Yes, I would agree that it was God's will to include all the people of the world. But, the Gentiles were like "dogs" and "pigs" who did not need to hear what Jesus was teaching. The doctrines that include the Gentiles were surmised later and included in Scriptures. Yes, St. Paul's epistles are considered Scriptures, but after the fact that Jesus walked the earth.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 19, 2004.

No rod..,

Jesus reveals that he is the Good Shepherd of more than just the Jews...

John 10:14-17

"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me--just as the Father knows me and I know the Father--and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again."

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 19, 2004.

Was it the Samaritan woman who did not deserve to eat the bread from the table as she was called a dog? It was her faith that turned Jesus toward her. The Apostles were instructed not to enter the Gentiles' towns. Jesus was here to bring the Jews into the Kingdom of God. The Gentiles were to come later, but evidently after the Resurrection. You can interpret the sheep and pen either way, but it isn't clear. Jesus doesn't say "Gentiles". St. Paul does. I could interpret "sheep" to mean the poor in faith who were also those Jesus taught--Jews. Those of the "other pen" would then mean the Pharisees, Sadducees, and richly others--Jews. There were two classes or status in the Jewish society. But, Samaritans....Gentiles were not part of that redeeming society--the Jews. Again, those outcasts were later included after the Resurrection.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 19, 2004.

I do have faith that Jesus knew what He was doing by focusing on His Chosen People. Have a look out what we have today. All people who accept Christ as their Saviour are children of God. I guess one would have to start where it counts and then watch the domino effect until His second coming.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 19, 2004.

Faith,

-If I am not mistaken.., the Mass is a re-sacrificing of Christ. The priest actually calls Christ down on the altar--and He is re- offered back up to God. It is much like the Jewish practice of sacrificing for the forgiveness of sins--on a continual basis.

You are mistaken. Christ is eternally present at the right hand of the Father. When the bread and wine become Jesus, He is also still at the right hand of the Father (I know, it defies logic and takes faith to believe). In the form of bread and wine He is presented to the Father by the priest, but He is not re-crucified. The priest doesn't nail the bread to a piece of wood.

In the Jewish practice, animals were constantly slaughtered as blood atonement for the people's sins. Because Christ's sacrifice was once and for all He is not re-sacrificed in the Mass. The Mass makes Christ's sacrifice present for us because we couldn't be in Jerusalem in 33 AD. His sacrifice is represented in the Mass, not reaccomplished like in the Jewish ceremony. The Jewish ritual performed the sacrifice again and again and had to be reaccomplished because it could not wash away all sins. Christ's one time sacrifice washes away all sin once and for all. There is a difference between re-presentation of and re-doing the sacrifice.

If you believe that your sins are washed away by the bood of Christ, then how is this accomplished for you? You weren't present at Calvary to wash yourself in His blood. Somehow, His one time sacrifice accomplished in 33 AD is applied to you. Are you recrucifying Christ when this happens?

-The Church will say that it is a non-bloody offer. But you can't have it both ways--either the host is merely bread and a non-bloody sacrifice--or it is the literal body and blood of Christ and therefore a bloody sacrifice--even though you can't see the blood.

It is unbloody because Christ is not recrucified. His sacrifice is complete. The Eucharist is His body, blood, soul, and divinity, but His blood is not shed again for our sins. That was done on Calvary.

-But the book of Hebrews tells us that the jews had to re-offer sacrifice over and over again.., because their sacrifices could never be sufficient in taking away sin. It also tells us that Jesus is the once for all time sacrifice and that no other sacrifice is needed.

Amen to that! It is God's truth.

No Andy--the Bible simply says that flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom--but we know that flesh and bone can--because Thomas stuck his hand in the side of the resurrected Jesus and Jesus said, See--I am not a ghost--I am flesh and bone.

You're misinterpreting this passage Faith. It's inconsistent with the chapter from Hebrews you quoted. Paul tells us in Hebrews that...

Heb 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

And later...

Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Paul tells us the holy place Christ entered by His blood is heaven...

Heb 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

Christ is the Eternal High Priest. He makes the blood offering for us with His own blood. He enters into heaven by His blood. Paul was making an analogy here between the Jewish High Priest and Christ. The way I read this, the Jewish High Priest entered the Holy of Holies only after being purified by the blood of the animals and made an offering of that blood to God in the Holy of Holies. Christ made the blood atonement for our sins with His blood. He enters heaven (the Holy of Holies) by His blood as atonement for our sins. I don't get the idea from Hebrews that blood cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, but that blood is required to enter the kingdom of hraven. It is only by Christ's blood that we are allowed to enter.

So what about your "flesh and bone" scenario?

The entire passage referring to flesh and bone is:

Luk 24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

Luk 24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

Luk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

The apostles thought he was a spirit, a ghost without form. He told them to touch him and see that he was solid, not spirit. What parts of the body are solid? Flesh and bone, of course. This passage says nothing about blood. It does not say explicitly say whether Christ's body had blood in it or not, so you can't draw the conclusion that because it doesn't say flesh and "blood" that there is no blood present in Christ's body. In the context of this passage, "bone" makes more sense to say than "blood". To me, flesh assumes the present of blood, but that's just me.

I easily could have missed something because I'm no expert in the Bible or Jewish sacrifice. So let me know if I did. I'm just going off of what I'm reading in Scripture and what I know the meaning of the Mass to be from the Catechism.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 20, 2004.

I can't respond now--I am just checking in., but am heading to the beach : )

See ya all on Wednesday : )

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 20, 2004.

Have a safe trip and a good time!

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 20, 2004.

Andy..,

The Bible says that Jesus poured out His blood at Calvary. He therefore., did not enter heaven with blood in His body. Blood may not inherit the kingdom.

I know that the priest does not nail the wafer to a piece of wood..Lol!

But--I read these words of John O'brien, in his popular work *The Faith of Millions*.., and I think, "Do Catholics really understand what is being done on the altar?"

From the mouth of John O'Brien:

"When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim.

Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altars as the eternal Victim for the sins of man--not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest's command."

I mean--yikes!! Andy., what do you make of that? I am disturbed by these comments of his. Is O'Brien simply going beyond what is really taught by Roman Catholicism?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 25, 2004.

John O'Brien sounds like another one of those Hislop disciples.

So, O'Brien believes in Transubstantiation? Or, is he twisting the nature of the Holy Eucharist? Laugh out loud!!

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 25, 2004.

John O'brien is a Catholic priest...his book is available for your pleasure...published by "Our Sunday Visitor"

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), August 25, 2004.

Faith,

I do think that Fr O'Brien's description is too poetic and leaves an impression that goes beyond what is taught by Catholicism. If I could ask Fr O'Brien what exactly he meant by these words, I bet he would agree that he did NOT mean to imply that:

1. Christ leaves heaven (that he is not present in heaven anymore, only on the altar).

2. That it is by the power of the priest that Christ becomes present on the altar.

3. That Christ is "recrucified" as the perfect Victim again and again.

I think he's using poetic language to describe the consecration, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the re-presentation of Christ's once for all sacrifice for us to the Father.

To show you I'm not making this stuff up, here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church states about the Mass:

1330 The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection.

The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used, since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.

1337 The Lord, having loved those who were his own, loved them to the end. Knowing that the hour had come to leave this world and return to the Father, in the course of a meal he washed their feet and gave them the commandment of love. In order to leave them a pledge of this love, in order never to depart from his own and to make them sharers in his Passover, he instituted the Eucharist as the memorial of his death and Resurrection, and commanded his apostles to celebrate it until his return; "thereby he constituted them priests of the New Testament."

1340 By celebrating the Last Supper with his apostles in the course of the Passover meal, Jesus gave the Jewish Passover its definitive meaning. Jesus' passing over to his father by his death and Resurrection, the new Passover, is anticipated in the Supper and celebrated in the Eucharist, which fulfills the Jewish Passover and anticipates the final Passover of the Church in the glory of the kingdom.

1341 The command of Jesus to repeat his actions and words "until he comes" does not only ask us to remember Jesus and what he did. It is directed at the liturgical celebration, by the apostles and their successors, of the memorial of Christ, of his life, of his death, of his Resurrection, and of his intercession in the presence of the Father.

1353 In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit (some liturgical traditions put the epiclesis after the anamnesis).

In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ's body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.

1354 In the anamnesis that follows, the Church calls to mind the Passion, resurrection, and glorious return of Christ Jesus; she presents to the Father the offering of his Son which reconciles us with him.

Anything contrary to the above is not Catholic teaching.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), August 26, 2004.