Real Presence: Church body

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

"Where two or more are gathered in my name I am there."

Is the church just a symbolic body of Christ or the actual body itself?

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 27, 2004

Answers

*lump*

-- ~ (blump@brump.frump), November 27, 2004.

Chhttp://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Devastating_proof_that_New_M ass_invalid.html

Check this article on the Real Presence;

-- TC (Treadmill234@@south.com), November 27, 2004.


If you tried and had problems reaching it, here is part of it;

Recently, various writers have continued to assert that the change in the Traditional Formula of Consecration from “many” to “all” does not render the New Mass invalid. The heretic Bob Sungenis and his ridiculous arguments immediately come to mind. Unfortunately, people are still listening to these lying teachers and continuing to attend the New Mass as a result. In our material we have shown how, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, such a change does result in invalidity. We have demonstrated this simply by quoting the Council of Florence’s decree on the words of Consecration, in conjunction with Pope St. Pius V’s reiteration of those words and his statement that any change of meaning results in invalidity. However, there is, in our opinion, an even stronger and more devastating way to show why the use of “all” in place of “many” renders the New Mass invalid. We have never discussed it before in our material, so we present it now. Note: other writers have brought this devastating argument out and expanded upon it at length, but unfortunately their treatments of this are often very long and complex – so that, unfortunately, only those willing to read their long treatises and think about them in detail grasped the nevertheless devastating point of the argument. The following hopefully simplifies this argument – an argument which, in reality, is very simple – so that more people will internalize how it totally devastates any claim that the word “all” can validly replace “many” in the words of Consecration. This is by far the strongest argument on this particular matter.

In his famous Bull, Apostolicae Curae in 1896, Pope Leo XIII teaches:

“All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they effect and effect the grace which they signify.”

The Sacraments must signify the grace which they effect and effect the grace which they signify. If it does not signify the grace which it effects and effect the grace which it signifies, it is not a sacrament – period. So, what is the grace effected by the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist? The Council of Florence, the Council of Trent and St. Thomas Aquinas all teach the same on this matter.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” On the Eucharist, 1439: “Finally, this is a fitting way to signify the effect of this sacrament, that is, the union of the Christian people with Christ.”

Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 13, Chap. 2: “He (Christ) wished, furthermore, that this (the Eucharist)… be a symbol of that one ‘body’ of which He Himself is the ‘head’, and to which He wished us to be united, as members, by the closest bonds of faith, hope and charity…”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 73, A. 3: “Now it was stated above that the reality of the sacrament [of the Eucharist] is the unity of the mystical body, without which there is no salvation…”

As the Council of Florence, the Council of Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas and many other theologians teach, the grace effected by the Eucharist is the union of the faithful with Christ; in other words, the Mystical Body of Christ. Note: the grace effected by the Eucharist [the union of the Mystical Body] must be carefully distinguished from the Eucharist itself: the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

Since the union of the faithful with Christ/the Mystical Body is the grace effected by the Sacrament of the Eucharist – or what is also called the reality of the Sacrament (Res Sacramenti) or the grace proper to the Sacrament of the Eucharist– this grace must be signified in the Form of the Consecration for it to be valid, as Pope Leo XIII teaches. Okay, so we must look at the Traditional Form of Consecration and find where this grace – the union of the faithful with Christ – is signified.

The Traditional Form of Consecration as declared by Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence and Pope St. Pius V in De Defectibus is as follows:

FOR THIS IS MY BODY. FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.

Note again: we are looking for that part of the Form which signifies that the person who receives this sacrament worthily becomes united or more strongly united with Jesus Christ and His Mystical Body.

Do the words “FOR THIS IS MY BODY. FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD” signify the union of the faithful with Christ/the Mystical Body? No. They signify the true Body and Blood of Christ, which become present when this Sacrament is confected; but these words don’t signify the union of the faithful with Christ or the Mystical Body, which is the grace effected by the Eucharist. Again…

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” On the Eucharist, 1439: “Finally, this is a fitting way to signify the effect of this sacrament, that is, the union of the Christian people with Christ.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 73, A. 3: “Now it was stated above that the reality of the sacrament [of the Eucharist] is the unity of the mystical body, without which there is no salvation…”

Do the words “OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT” signify the union of the faithful with Christ/the Mystical Body? No. These words do not signify the Mystical Body either, but rather they contrast the temporary and prefiguring sacrifices of the Old Law with the eternal and propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Do the words “THE MYSTERY OF FAITH” signify the union of the faithful with Christ/the Mystical Body? No. These words signify the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as Innocent III teaches; they do not signify the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.

Do the words “WHICH SHALL BE SHED” signify the union of the faithful with Christ/the Mystical Body? No. These words denote true sacrifice.

The only words left in the Form of Consecration are: “FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.”

The remission of sins is necessary for incorporation into the Mystical Body, and remission of sins is an indispensable component of true Justification, by which one is fruitfully united to Jesus Christ. The words “for you and for many” denote the members of the Mystical Body who have received such remission.

Thus, we can see that the words “FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS” are the words in the Form of Consecration which signify the union of the faithful with Christ/the union of the Mystical Body of Christ – which is the grace proper to the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Now, if we look to the Novus Ordo Form of Consecration, do we find the Mystical Body/the union of the faithful with Christ [the grace proper to the Sacrament of the Eucharist] signified? Remember, the Form must signify the Mystical Body in order for it to be valid. Here is the form of Consecration in the New Mass or Novus Ordo:

This is my body. This is the cup of my blood, of the new and eternal testament. It shall be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.

Is the union of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ signified by the words “for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven”? No. Are all men part of the Mystical Body? No. Are all men part of the faithful united with Christ? No. We can see very clearly that the New Mass or Novus Ordo most certainly does not signify the union of the Mystical Body [the grace proper to the Sacrament of the Eucharist], and therefore it is not a valid sacrament!

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 1896:“All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they effect and effect the grace which they signify.”

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 1896: “That form cannot be considered apt or sufficient for a Sacrament which omits that which it must essentially signify.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence,: “…this is a fitting way to signify the effect of this sacrament, that is, the union of the Christian people with Christ.”

One does not have to say anything more… the New Mass is not valid!

It is very interesting to note that in all the formulas of Consecration in the Catholic Church, whether it be the Armenian Liturgy, the Coptic Liturgy, the Ethiopic Liturgy, the Syrian Liturgy, the Chaldean Liturgy, the Malabarese Liturgy, etc. the union of the faithful with Christ/the Mystical Body is signified in the words of Consecration. And no liturgy that has ever been approved by the Church has used the word “all” in the Formula of Consecration.



-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 27, 2004.


The words of the Eucharistic prayer refer only to the INTENT of Christ in shedding His blood. The Catholic Church teaches and has always taught exactly what Christ Himself stated at the Last Supper - that His blood was shed for ALL, so that ALL might receive remission of their sins and life everlasting. The fact that many individuals have rejected this gift in their personal lives does not lessen in any way the dogmatic truth that Christ died for ALL men, as is plainly and repeatedly stated in the Scriptures and in the consistent infallible teaching of His Church. This meaning of course has always been inherent in the wording of the prayer - "pro multis", literally "for the multitude", a clear adherence to Christ's own words, "for all men". This was always so clear that I didn't even realize some were misinterpreting it to their own ends. Only when certain modern theologians began propagating a heretical, exclusivist version of Christ's redemptive sacrifice, in direct contradiction to the teaching of the Church and the plain sense of Sacred Scripture, did the Church find it necessary to respond by changing the english wording of the prayer to more precisely reflect the unchangeable truth of Catholic dogma - that Christ shed His blood for ALL men. This was not a change in the meaning of the prayer. The prayer still states "pro multis", exactly as it always did. But the alternate english translation currently approved by the Church (one of at least 20 valid translations of the phrase), while expressing exactly the same concept, does so with greater clarity and precision, thereby avoiding the linguistic loophole which invites heretical interpretations. Regrettably, some nominal Catholics object to the more precise wording, presumably because they favor the heretical interpretation.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 27, 2004.

Luke,

The *church* is actually translated from Ecclessia which means a *called out body* or an assembly. In this case, we are talking about a called out body of believers...Christians. This body is both physical and spiritual.

We exist physically on earth and Christ dwells within us and we do His will on earth. We are universal. We belong to Christ. He knows who each of us is. On that last day he will give a shout--a trumpet call..and we will be gathered...everyone who ever lived and belongs to Him will be called to Him...and He will establish us forever in His Kingdom of Heaven.

Until that time--His body is spiritual in the sense that we are not yet established as a physical church. We are known only by Him. In this life, we can reflect Him in us and we can be His servants...and people can usually tell who we are, though nothing is clear like it will be on that last day.

For now--His church is a spiritual body of believers., those born again by the Word. Baptised by the Holy Spirit and sealed as a child of God by faith in Jesus Christ.

Jesus said that His Kingdom is *not* of this world. So in that sense-- we cannot be found in a building., or in a city.

-- (faith01@myway.com), November 27, 2004.



Luke,

Good question. The theological discussion could fill volumes.

Personally, I would say both. The church is a symbol of Christ to the world. The light set on the hill. But the church is also the ordinary means for Christ to act in the world in a very real and tangible way.

If Christ lives within us, when we act in the world in His name, are we not in a sense acting as His body? His body was the way he communicated His grace to people when we walked the earth before His crucifixion. He touched people and spoke words and they were healed. He mixed mud with his spittle and spoke the word to heal the blind man. He healed the withered hand and forgave sins. He used the physical as both a symbol and a real way to love, heal, and spread His kingdom. After His resurrection, He physically breathed on the Apostles when He wished to impart the Holy Spirit to them and give them the power to forgive sins. We also act in His name to bring His grace to others, though in a different way. We are blessed to be participants in His mission that continues throughout time, until the end of time.

Of course, there is much more to it. I've only touched on it.

-- Andy S ("ask33342004@yahoo.com"), November 27, 2004.


The first conclusion, that the words of Christ do not pertain to the substance of the sacrament, is contrary to the Council of Florence, which declared:

The words of the Savior, by which He instituted this sacrament, are the form of this sacrament; for the priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For by the power of the very words the substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the substance of the wine into the blood; yet in such a way that Christ is contained entire under the species of bread, and entire under the species of wine.[4]

It is furthermore contrary to the teaching of Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei:

The unbloody immolation at the words of consecration, when Christ is made present upon the altar in the state of a victim, is performed by the priest and by him alone, as the representative of Christ and not as representative of the faithful.

The second conclusion, that the Church can change the substance of a sacrament, is contrary to the Council of Trent:

It [the Council] declares furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, with the exception of their substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them or for the veneration of the sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times, and places. [emphasis added] [5]

It is also contrary to the teaching of Pope Pius XII contained in Sacramentum Ordinis:

And for these sacraments instituted by Christ the Lord in the course of the ages the Church has not, and could not substitute other sacraments, since, as the Council of Trent teaches, the seven sacraments of the New Law have been all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord, and the Church has no power over the “substance of the sacraments,” that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign...

Concerning the form of the Holy Eucharist, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, promulgated by Saint Pius V, states:

We are then taught by the holy Evangelists, Matthew and Luke, and also by the Apostle, that the form consists of these words: This is my body; for it is written: Whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take and eat, This is my body.

This form of consecration having been observed by Christ the Lord has always been used by the Catholic Church. The testimonies of the Fathers, the enumeration of which would be endless, and also the decree of the Council of Florence, which is well known as accessible to all, must be here omitted, especially as the knowledge which they convey may be obtained from these words of the Savior: Do this for a commemoration of me. [Emphasis in original].

-- TC (Treadmill234@@@south.com), November 28, 2004.


the Church is the "mystical" body of Christ. see here:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P12MYSTI.HTM

esp paras 60 onwards for the meaning of "mystical".

in short, the real physical Body sits at the right hand of the Father and is present in the Blessed Sacrament.

the Church, however, is also not just some kind of gathering of persons bound by a code of ethics (such as Greenpeace), but has in fact a supernatural quality. [eg all the Sacraments necessary for spiritual health]

to quote: "....nevertheless that which lifts the [the Church] far above the whole natural order is the Spirit of our Redeemer who penetrates and fills every part of the Church's being and is active within it until the end of time as the source of every grace and every gift and every miraculous power...."

"MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI" is well worth a read by anyone interested in this subject, regardless of faith. so is "SATIS COGNITUM"

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 28, 2004.


Ian;

That is a geat encyclical and number 14 and 22 especially caught my attention. The oneis on eht one baptism andd this one ##22 shows why JP and his bishops preach heresy.

22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered—so the Lord commands—as a heathen and a publican.[19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

-- TC (Treadill234@@south.com), December 01, 2004.


The translation to "for all", was by a protestant minister, Joachim Jeremias. That alone makes for doubt. He is no friend of the Catholic Church, and what is more startling, is that they accepted his work. Seems they wanted that change no matter what

-- TC (Treadmill234@@south.com), December 01, 2004.


TC.,

This disturbs me:

The unbloody immolation at the words of consecration, when Christ is made present upon the altar in the state of a victim, is performed by the priest and by him alone, as the representative of Christ and not as representative of the faithful.

Christ is no longer a victim. He paid the price once. Repeating that sacrifice over and over again denies the suficiency of His one time sacrifice at Calvary. Why do you think the cross was not effective enough for all time?

Would you stand before Jesus today and say, "I'm sorry, Lord, that we kept on calling you down to the altar to recrucify you--it's just that we didn't think that your original sacrifice was fully sufficient and we were afraid it didn't have the power to save us past, present, and future. We didn't think you had us covered!"

The Catholic practice of the Sacrifice of the Mass is not very different from the sacrificial system used before Christ, where the Jews had to keep on sacrificing their offerings over and over again because those sacrifices could never fully cover their sin and had to be renewed and done over and over again. But Christ changed all of that and He is no longer a victim--but He sits at the right hand of God the Father..,and He will return for those of us who are waiting for Him.

Jesus established the Lord's Supper in remembrance of Him. He said that every time we celebrate that meal--which was originally the Passover meal, celebrated once a year--we should *remember* Him. Christians have taken this seriously, and we should. But it is done in remembrance. This Supper is not what saves us or forgives our sin. Faith in Jesus and the cross is what saves us.

Hebrews 9:11-28--The Blood of Christ

When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood.

When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep." In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a man- made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

AMEN~



-- (faith01@myway.com), December 03, 2004.


Faith; Are you also one who walked way after these words; That is too hard a saying; Faith I know you are deeply rooted in your beliefs, but being sincere can also be sincerely wrong.

Who Said: "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 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 him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." The New International Version

-- TC (A@b.com), December 03, 2004.


Yes TC., but by these words is meant something much deeper--spiritual truth. It has to do with faith. Eating Jesus= feeding on the Word. It means that when we fill ourselves up on His truth, when we believe-- which He compares to eating and drinking Him--we are saved. We are saved by His sacrifice at Calvary--where He gave Himself. We celebrate communion to remember that.

That's why it continues:

verse 61-64

Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 03, 2004.


Think about it TC,

What is it that Jesus knew from the begining that some would not believe? That He was a loaf of bread? I don't think so...

They would not believe that He was Messiah God who came down from heaven.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 03, 2004.


He changed 5 loaves and 2 fishes into enough to feed 5000. He could not change bread and wine into His body and blood? Faith you have to live up to your name.

-- TC (a@b.com), December 03, 2004.


Faith emphasizes the following scripture passage:

the flesh counts for nothing.

So what you are saying is that Jesus's flesh counts for nothing? He hung on the cross for nothing? After all, his flesh was on the cross, and now you suggest that his dying on the cross did no good.

Interesting.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 03, 2004.


Yeah, you can't say "flesh counts for nothing" and apply that to Christ... unless you're some sort of neo-gnostic that denies the significance of the Word becoming flesh.

The initial question that started this thread is whether the Church is the Actual Body of Christ, not whether bread is Body in the Eucharist.

The two topics ARE linked, though.

If you accept that the physical Church is the Body of Christ, you must also accept that the bread which becomes physically one with the Church is also part of the Body of Christ.

But, to answer the first question, YES! the Church is the Actual Body of Christ, His Holy Bride. Christ and His Bride are One. This is a Mystery, as Saint Paul confessed, but we must accept it.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), December 04, 2004.


As for discussion of the Eucharist, perhaps we could redirect it? Here are some other places we discussed it:

Question for Emily

John 6:63 - Does Jesus Flesh Profit Nothing?... (Catholic board)

I may be wrong, but I don't think this was the original intent of the thread starter (Luke) who is not even Catholic.

God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), December 04, 2004.


Not really, and I haven't contributed on it either =)

But, when I asked this, I knew that the topics overlap in a way. They are similar, so I'm not displeased with the way this one has turned out.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), December 04, 2004.


It's a spiritual thing Max..

For now....

And in the end--the flesh does count for nothing. Jesus wasn't speaking of His sacrifice as counting for nothing though. He was refering to the difference between the material and the spiritual.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 04, 2004.


>It's a spiritual thing Max..<

Of course it's a spiritual thing, Ms. Faith... When the Physical Body of Jesus was resurrected on Sunday morning, it was the MOST AMAZING spiritual event ever!!!

I presume you do believe in the physical Resurrection of our Lord's Body. If not, I'm afraid your faith is vain.

>And in the end--the flesh does count for nothing. <

In the end, the flesh which was Resurrected will be the same flesh that I will someday, if I am ever blessed with the opportunity, kiss with my resurrected lips when I bow myself down to the Lord's feet in the Kingdom.

You speak of "spiritual" as if it has nothing to do with the physical.

You forget that Christ came to redeem that which was lost - which truly includes our mortal bodies which will someday be transformed into life-dominated bodies rather than the death-dominated bodies that we possess now.

And to get back to the main point, the Body of Jesus is as real and physical as His Bride... What is He coming back for? Something imaginary? Or something Real? The Bride is Real and Physical and will be raised and glorified when Christ returns.

It isn't going to be a virtual reality event or something invisible as some imagine. It's be more real and physical than we could ever imagine "real" and "physical" to be.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), December 05, 2004.


>Jesus wasn't speaking of His sacrifice as counting for nothing though.<

Which only proves the point made that the scripture you quoted CANNOT be applied to every instance that flesh or body is spoken of...

>He was refering to the difference between the material and the spiritual.<

However you choose to stumble off of the main point, you must come back and admit that the Resurrected Body of the Lord is true and Real, and so is His Bride, the Church.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), December 05, 2004.


Max--

You are the one stumbling off-topic. We aren't talking about the reality of His Body or of His Church--which is His Body.

We are talking about the "bread from heaven" and whether or not this verse in John 6 qualifies the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the belief that we are literally eating His Body when we eat the bread.

I say that Jesus' meaning was not that at all--but it was deeper and more spiritual. When we "come to Him" and "believe in Him"-- represented by "eating" and "drinking"--we will never hunger or thirst--spiritually speaking.

Because we come to Him and believe in Him we will live forever. It isn't because we participate in the Lord's Supper that we are saved. The Lord's Supper reminds us of the deeper truth which is that Jesus poured out His life at Calvary-- for ours, and that by believing this we are saved.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 05, 2004.


>We aren't talking about the reality of His Body or of His Church--which is His Body.<

I was taking things back to the original post, which had to do with the physical reality of the Church being His Body...

And yes, the bread and wine are truly the body and blood of Christ and not just symbols. This has been the belief of the Church from the beginning... not just the Roman Catholic branch.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), December 05, 2004.


When Jesus said "The flesh profits nothing, my words are spirit and truth . . ." he was NOT saying that his flesh means nothing, but rather was pointing out that those who believe his message are being led by the spirit, and those who do NOT believe are in the flesh, and it is THAT that profits nothing.

It would be quite the thing for Jesus to say his flesh means nothing when it was his precious flesh and blood that he offered on Calvary for the atonement of our sins.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 05, 2004.


I agree with you Gail--100 percent. Though I am sure we come to different conclusions anyway.

I don't think that John 6 ever had anything to do with His literal flesh. I think that Jesus was preparing His hearers for the sacrifice at Calvary that He was about to make.

The elements represent coming and believing as John clearly establishes long before he moves into the analogy of the bread and wine.

John speaks of them never being hungry or thirsty--long before he introduces the idea that the bread equals *coming* and the wine equals *believing.*

How were these listeners to understand that they would never hunger or thirst again if they came to Jesus and believed? Clearly the message is spiritual.

Even after John finally brings in the elements--we all understand that we will never hunger or thirst spiritually speaking, right?

At the Last Supper--Jesus holds the bread and wine and says that these elements are his body and blood. Yet--clearly we must concede that these things couldn't possibly be his body and blood *literally* speaking, as Jesus was alive and well at the time that He held these things up and said this *is* my body....

Jesus was pointing to something much deeper.....and it isn't canabalism.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 06, 2004.


You are right, Faith, it is deep, deeper than either of us can even fathom!

And I would agree with you on the aspect of cannabalism were it not for the fact that certain disciples left Christ who recognized what he was saying and couldn't abide by it.

The mystery of the Eucharist is as deep as the teachings of the Holy Trinity. The idea that God would condescend to allow himself to be partaken of in the Holy Eucharist is staggering!

The Lamb's Supper, the Marriage Feast of the Lamb -- what a glorious thing I experience at mass! I don't know exactly how to explain it theologically, but I know it's true. I have experienced the power and glory of receiving Christ in a unique way ONLY during the time of communion. It is like for that few moments we actually AND LITERALLY touch the DIVINE! Physically touch the majesty on high. We escape the madness of our world and enter behind the veil to the Holy of Holies.

One time several months ago, I was in the small rural town in which I live, and the news came on that Nicholas Berg had been beheaded. My heart was so heavy for the war and for this poor man, and I heard the Lord beckon me to the chapel. So there I went. I sat down praying for the Mr. Berg and his family. I heard in my heart-of-heart's these words "I am HERE!" It STARTLED me! When I looked up I realized it was Perpetual Adoration day and Christ was exposed in the monstrance. I tell you, Faith, that experience knocked me off my laurels.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 06, 2004.


I realize that your experience is very real to you. But I think it is because of spiritual truth. Protestants have similar experiences and stories.

Sometimes though--and I am not saying this is the case for you--but sometimes I think that deception can be as convincing and powerful.

I think what really matters is what is in the heart. God knows our hearts.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 06, 2004.


If it were a deception, that would mean that Satan was the author if it, since he is the father of all lies.

What possible benefit could it be to the kingdom of Satan to convince people for over 2,000 years that the Lamb's Supper is truly the body and blood of Christ?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 06, 2004.


I think that it doesn't take much to mislead someone away from the truth, Gail.

Consider *mediums* who work feverishly to convince us that they are in contact with our dearly departed loved ones. Many people think they have had some sort of closer when they think they actually had a chance to say goodbye to or hear from someone who died. You may ask, "What could that hurt?"

But the answer is that if we choose to believe Satan's lies--it means we don't believe the Word of God--and that could mean our very salvation.

The same is true with respect to the doctrine of Transubstantiation-- it denies the sufficiency of Christ. It says that His one time sacrifice was not good enough.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 06, 2004.


The Church teaches that Christ died once for all. We believe that Christ's sacrifice is eternal NOT that he dies again and again and again at every mass.

As to mediums channeling 'spirits' of loved ones, the answer is apparent in that it leads people to believe that "all souls go to heaven."

Gotta run,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 06, 2004.


1. The Papally approved teachings of an Ecumenical Council of the Church with regard to faith and morals are infallible. Therefore, they cannot contain error. The teachings of Vatican II are filled with errors - there are clear contradictions of previous Councils, which were protected by infallibility. THEREFORE: Vatican II was not a Council of the Catholic Church. Yet, those defending the Vatican II sect will state that the "Holy Spirit inspired these new things." Let us remind them what THE Vatican Council (1870) stated:"The Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith â€|" (Enchiridion Symbolorum, No. 1836). In the Coronation Oath, the Pope swears, "I vow to change nothing of the received tradition and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach, to alter (change), or to permit any innovation therein."

-- TC (Festoctober@msn.com), December 06, 2004.

Exactly Gail..,

As to mediums channeling 'spirits' of loved ones, the answer is apparent in that it leads people to believe that "all souls go to heaven."

That is why this sugar-coated deception is so very dangerous....

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 06, 2004.


Faith

did you really read Mystici Corporis from start to end?!?!

i'm impressed! it takes ages to read!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 08, 2004.


Did I claim to read that, Ian? I can't remember saying that....

I am sure I did not read it, though I have access to it on the internet., as should we all.

What's your angle?

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.


mea culpa, Faith.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 08, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ