"I Wasn't Fed as a Catholic!"

May 9, 2013 | 26 comments

I was never fed in the Catholic Church.

How many times have you heard a former Catholic say this? When I was an Evangelical Christian it was probably the most common response I heard from Catholics when asked why they had left the Church. The sad truth is that most of these lapsed Catholics were never properly catechized, so they became easy targets for Protestants who were only too eager to help them abandon the sacraments and join a church that "feeds you God's Word, the Bible."

These Catholics had absolutely no idea that the Eucharist they had been receiving for years was truly the body and blood, soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ. They had no idea that the "real meat for the soul" was not good preaching, or praise and worship, but Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, the true "bread of life." Because if they had truly understood and believed the Church's teaching on the Eucharist, that it's not a symbol, but is Christ himself—body, blood, soul, and divinity, under the appearance of bread and wine—they would not had become such easy pickings for Protestant evangelists, or for the secular world for that matter. Who could leave the Church knowing that this precious Bread of Life that we receive at each Mass nourishes us with the love that redeems us, Jesus Christ himself? I say it would be impossible!

That was in the1970s. Fast forward to 2013. I think it's safe to say things have not changed too much on the catechetical front. Catholics are still leaving the Church in droves and the average pew Catholics continue to be poorly catechized. For many in the pew, receiving Communion every Sunday is viewed as perfunctory and meaningless. Vatican official Archbishop Nicola Eterovic acknowledges this problem when he says:

The major challenge are the Christians, especially those who were baptized, but not sufficiently catechized.

So, what to do? First, be not afraid! I can't tell you how many calls and emails I receive from Catholics who are afraid of their own priest. Granted, the priest in question is usually less-than-orthodox, but no matter, he is their shepherd; if approached in a respectful and charitable manner, the intimidation factor will decrease, and he just might hear you. When I asked one recent caller why she was so afraid to approach her priest about a serious liturgical abuse concerning the Eucharist, her answer was simply "I'm afraid he won’t talk to me again." Some gentle encouragement moved her in the right direction and she ended up speaking with the priest. It may help to remember Psalm 56:11:

In God have I put my trust, I will not be afraid; what can man do unto me?

Another caller was upset when she discovered her son's Catholic elementary school teacher was discussing homosexual behavior in his history class. Up until that moment, this young boy didn't know anything about the homosexual lifestyle. This boy went home upset at what he heard. Clearly his innocence had been violated. Since she had already spoken with the teacher about other issues, I recommended she speak with the principal about this last offense. Her answer was, "He knows but he doesn't see it as a real problem." I encouraged her to contact a professional who would see it as a real problem and would help her resolve the issue. In that situation, the words of Pope Paul VI come to mind:

It would be useful if every Christian and every evangelizer were to pray about the following thought: men can gain salvation also in other ways, by God's mercy, even though we do not preach the Gospel to them; but as for us, can we gain salvation if through negligence or fear or shame—what St. Paul called "blushing for the Gospel"—or as a result of false ideas we fail to preach it?

Second, get involved in your parish. Parishes are places where a person receives instruction on searching for the truth, where faith is nourished and strengthened and where the Christian message and God's plan for humanity and the world is communicated. Look for ways to strengthen catechesis in the parish. Involvement in RCIA or CCD can do so much good. Many RCIA programs churn out poorly catechized Catholics, who, after they're received into the Church or confirmed, they still see no evidence or insufficient evidence for the Catholic faith. Nor do they have a clear understanding about what is happening on the altar at Mass when the words of consecration are pronounced. It's not long before receiving Holy Communion every Sunday is viewed as perfunctory and meaningless. The next step is out the door, unlikely to return.

John's Gospel famously begins:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:).

If anyone tells you that he was never fed with the Word of God when he was Catholic, show him this verse and gently explain that he was fed as a Catholic—with Scripture, yes, but first and foremost with Christ himself, the Word of God incarnate, in the Eucharist.


Peggy Frye is a staff apologist at Catholic Answers.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pocket Edition
The official Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pocket Edition, clearly spells out the Church's beliefs on: - Love and marriage - Children - God, creation, humanity, life, death, and the afterlife - Mary, the Church, the saints, and the sacraments - And much, much more

Comments by Catholic.com Members

#1  Perry White - Thomson, Georgia

Dear Peggy, Maybe you can explain how Christ in his body extended a piece of bread and said "Do this in remembrance of me". Was it his body he was offering? Since his body was right there it could be confusing. Perhaps you fail to understand that Christ did not institute a magical moment where a cracker is changed into God, but instead a time where we use symbols to remember His sacrifice. It is funny that when He says this is my body Catholics see a cracker turned to flesh, but when the Bible says Mary had brothers, Catholics look for cousins. If we wish to know God we "feed" on His word. If we wish to remember His death we have communion and avail ourselves of the memory device that symbols bring. In Acts 2:42 the church continued in 1. Apostles Doctrine. 2. Fellowship, 3 Breaking of Bread and 4. Prayer. Catholics reverse the order and take a memorial and turn it into a pagan rite in which you basically are reduced to worshiping a wafer. At least that's what I deduce from hearing a priest advise someone to pray kneeling before the "blessed sacrament". If a cracker has that kind of power why don't you carry one in your pocket all the time?

August 13, 2014 at 12:49 pm PST
#2  Michael Rogala - Chicago, Illinois

This idea of "transubstantiation" has been debated for centuries. Volumes have been written pro and con. It's a big question . . . not only theological, but philosophical as well. And for the Roman Church philosophical underpinnings are very important. The issue of "transubstantion" depends on Aristotelian categories. If one doesn't subscribe to those categories . . . then it doesn't make sense.

However, I don't think the Real Presence is an issue of "sense". It is accepted on Faith. And that is not unusual for Catholics, Protestants, Jews, or Muslims, or any of the great faiths of the world. Some things are accepted on Faith . . .and to try and justify them by reason is futile.

For me the Real Presence, just "is". It makes a difference in my life . . . doesn't make me "sin-free", but it enriches my life and countless others in ways that are difficult to explain.

I might also say the same for the Word. Catholics ignored the saving Presence of God in the Bible for a long time. Vatican II brought about a change.

At Mass we hear the salvific Word of God . . . and then we see the action of God in the Eucharist that flows from the Word. Hope that helps a bit, Perry.

August 15, 2014 at 9:14 pm PST
#3  Perry White - Thomson, Georgia

Michael

True enough, it is a big question. I also agree that faith is the operative principle but it needs to be backed up by reason. God's reason. If the Bible says we are to trust that Christ has saved us upon our acknowledging Him then we accept it on faith. Same for many other issues. We run into difficulties when an organization or a person makes claims not backed up by Scripture and then says....trust me I am right.

The big issues where we disagree are the ones that are not biblically based. Viewing the issues through the philosophy of Aristotle to have it make sense can be addressed from the Bible. Colossians 2:8. The catholic church claims doctrines which it twists scripture to prove. The christian faith has doctrines which it gets from scripture and are worked out from there.
It really shouldn't be that hard for us to know what is truth. Start from the Word of God and work out. Therefore, if the wafer is the real presence then there should be some clear statement to that fact in scripture. If we wish to use reason, then we will not see Jesus extending a piece of bread and saying Take eat this is my body broken for you and think he means his actual body. He was right there. It makes perfect sense to say Take eat this represents my body. When forming doctrine it is necessary to have more than one verse pulled out of context to do so. There will be other verses that make it clear.
When you say the real presence "just is" you are relying on your feelings. What if my feelings say otherwise? Where do we go now? You can go to the magisterium if you wish but I am going to the Word of God. It is not found there. Nor is there an example of anyone ever doing it.
Try as they might, there is no clear proof for much of catholic doctrine, which is why even Tim Staples won't give me a verse to prove his position but says, go buy my book and we will talk. He needs to weave a philosophical web to prove his points.
Oh well..... Have a great day!

August 20, 2014 at 7:20 am PST
#4  Alonso Salcedo - Anthony, Texas

Paragraph 1376 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states,

The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation (CCC, 1376).
Because they are the presence of Christ himself, Catholics worship and adore the elements.

The Mass contains a series of rituals leading up to the Lord's Supper which also contains a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ. Furthermore, transubstantiation states that the substance of the elements are miraculously changed even though their appearance is not. In other words, the bread and wine will appear as bread and wine under close scientific examination, but the true substance is mystically the Body and Blood of Christ. Synonymous with transubstantiation is the doctrine of the Real Presence. Where transubstantiation is the process of the change, the real presence is the result of that change. In other words, the doctrine of the real presence states that the bread and wine contain the actual presence of Christ in bodily form as a result of the process of transubstantiation. Roman Catholicism states that the incarnation of Christ itself, where Jesus was a man but contained an invisible divine nature, is analogous to the the doctrine of the real presence.

Some of the verses used to substantiate this teaching are the following:

Matt. 26:28, "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins."
John 6:52-53, "The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat? 53 Jesus therefore said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.'"
1 Cor. 11:27, " Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord."
Can we conclude from the above verses that the Communion Supper actually involves the change of the elements into the mystical Body and Blood of Christ? Let's take a look.

First--there is no indication that the words were meant to be literal

Nowhere in scripture do we find this teaching. We see scriptures refer to the elements as the body and blood, but we also see Jesus clearly stating that the words He was speaking were spiritual words when talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." (John 6:63). He did not say they were literal words; that is, He did not say that they were His actual body and blood.

But, a Catholic might object and say that Jesus clearly said, "This is My blood . . . " and "This is my body . . . " This is true, but Jesus frequently spoke in spiritual terms: "I am the bread of life," (John 6:48); "I am the door," (John 10:7,9); "I am the resurrection and the life," (John 11:25); "I am the true vine," (John 15:1), etc. In the context of John 6, Jesus is telling His disciples that they must eat His body and blood (John 6:53). He clearly says He was speaking in spiritual terms, " . . . the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." (John 6:63).

Second--the elements of the communion supper were still referred to as bread and wine

After The institution of the communion supper, both the elements were still referred to as bread and wine.

"And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom." (Matt. 26:26-29).

After Jesus said, "This is my blood," (Matt. 26:28), he said, "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Fathers kingdom," (Matt. 26:29). Why would Jesus speak figuratively of His blood as "the fruit of the vine" if it was his literal blood? He called it wine.

"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup." (1 Cor. 11:23-28).

If the elements were changed and were really the body and blood, then why does Paul refer to the element of bread as bread and not the literal body of Christ?

Third--there is no indication the disciples thought the elements changed

There is no indication in the biblical accounts of the Last Supper that the disciples thought that the bread and wine changed into the actual body and blood of Christ. Are we to believe that the disciples who were sitting right there with Jesus actually thought that what Jesus was holding in his hands was his literal body and blood? There is no indication that they thought this.

Fourth--there is no indication the disciples worshipped the elements

We see no indication at all that the disciples worshipped the elements. The adoration of the Eucharist is practiced during the Mass. Catholicism says, "Moreover, the Catholic Church has held firm to this belief in the presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist not only in her teaching but in her life as well, since she has at all times paid this great Sacrament the worship known as "latria," which may be given to God alone."1 Where is the worship given the sacrament by the disciples anywhere in the New Testament? It is not there.

Fifth--the supper was instituted before Jesus' crucifixion

The Mass is supposed to be a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ. Therefore, according to Roman Catholic theology, the bread and wine become the broken body and shed blood of Christ and are, somehow, the crucified body and blood of Christ.. But how can this be since Jesus instituted the Supper before He was crucified? Are we to conclude that at the Last Supper, when they were all at the table, that when Jesus broke the bread, it actually became His sacrificial body--even though the sacrifice had not yet happened? Likewise are we to conclude that when Jesus gave the wine, that it became His actual sacrificial blood--even though the sacrifice had not yet happened? That would make no sense at all.

Sixth--the Roman Catholic view is a violation of Levitical law

The Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist requires the participant to eat human flesh and drink human blood. Remember, Roman Catholicism teaches that the bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. Essentially, this amounts to cannibalism. What does the Scripture say concerning this?

"For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off." (Lev. 17:14).
Notice that the scripture says that you are not to eat the blood of any flesh. It would certainly appear that the Roman Catholic view is in contradiction to the Old Testament scripture since it advocates the eating of the blood of Christ. To the RCC it is not just symbolic; it is the actual eating and drinking of the body of Christ.

Some Roman Catholics respond by saying that Jesus had instituted the new and everlasting covenant in which the sacrificed body and blood of Christ was reality. Therefore, because it was a new covenant, it was also the sacrificed body and blood. But this cannot work because the new covenant could not yet be instituted until after the death of Christ as the Scriptures state.

"And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it." (Heb. 9:15-16).

Therefore we can conclude that the Levitical law was still in effect because the new covenant had not yet been established. So, the Roman Catholic position would have Jesus himself violating Old Testament law by having the disciples drink the blood--if it were literal blood.

Yet another response is that in Mark 7:19 it says, "'because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?' (Thus He declared all foods clean)." The problem with this response is that it tends to set scripture against scripture and doesn't really address the issue of Leviticus 17:14 and the particularly relevant comments by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:19-20 also forbidding the eating of blood. Therefore, it seems that Jesus was declaring all animals were clean in the sense that they do not defile a person. Again, in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, James the apostle gives instructions and said, "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." (Acts 15:19-20). Some say this refers only to animal blood. But if that is so, then "all foods clean" (ref. Mark 7:19) would have to include animal blood. But, that doesn't make sense in light of the instruction is still to abstain from drinking blood.

Seventh --it is a violation of the incarnation

The biblical doctrine of the incarnation states that the Word which was God and was with God (John 1:1), became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). This "became flesh" involves what is known as the hypostatic Union. This is the teaching that in the one person of Christ are two natures: divine and human. That is, Jesus is both God and man at the same time, and He will forever be God and man.

Furthermore, by definition, for Jesus to be human, He must be located in one place. This is the nature of being human. A human male does not have the ability to be omnipresent. He can only be in one place at one time. To say that Jesus in His physical form is in more than one place at a time is to deny the incarnation. That is, it denies that Jesus is completely and totally a man--since a man can only be it one place at one time. Therefore, to say that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ is to violate the doctrine of the incarnation by stating that Christ is physically present all over the planet as the mass is celebrated. This is a serious problem and a serious denial of the true and absolute incarnation of the Word of God as a man.

But, did not Jesus say in Matt. 28:18-20 that He would be with the disciples always--even to the ends of the earth? Is this not a declaration that Jesus will be physically present everywhere? No, this is not what is stated.

The answer is found in the teaching of the communicatio idiomatum. This is the teaching that the attributes of both the divine and human nature are ascribed to the single person of Christ. It does not mean, however, that anything particular to the divine nature was communicated to the human nature. Likewise, it does not mean that anything particular to the human nature was communicated to the divine nature. It means that the attributes of the divine nature are claimed by the person of Christ. Therefore, Jesus is omnipresent--not in His human nature but in His divine nature.

To make this more clear, let's look at some verses that illustrate the communicatio idiomatum:

John 17:5, "And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was."
John 3:13,"And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man."
Please notice that in these two verses, Jesus lays claim to the glory that He had with the Father before the foundation of the world. He also claims to have descended from heaven, but how could these be true since He is a man? The answer is that the attributes of the divine nature are claimed by the person of Christ. Therefore, the person of Christ could claim to have glory with the Father and could claim to descend from heaven. But we know that the man Jesus, in the flesh, did not exist until His conception. Furthermore, this means that the two natures of Christ are distinct, yet they are in Union in the one person of Christ (the hypostatic union). It further means that the attributes of the divine and the attributes of the human are not transferred to one another--the divine does not become localized and the human does not become infinite. If this were the case, then the nature of the divine and the nature of the human will be violated. Therefore, we can see that for Jesus to be a man, He must retain the attributes of humanity. This means that He must be localized, and it means He cannot be physically omnipresent. If He were, by definition He would not be a man. But the Roman Catholic position is that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ, and this violates the doctrine of the incarnation. Therefore, transubstantiation cannot be the correct teaching of Scripture.

Eighth--the Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice of Christ

The Bible tells us:

"By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. (Heb. 10:10-14).
In the Roman Catholic Mass, there is a sacrifice of Christ. In other words, in the ceremonies, is a reenactment and an actual sacrifice of Christ per the Mass. This is an obvious contradiction to the Scriptures which teach us that Christ died once for all, and that by the one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. It does not state in the Word of God that the sacrifice of Christ must be repeated in order to forgive us of our sins or somehow help us to maintain our salvation by the infusion of grace. The fact that Christ died once and the sacrifice occurred once is proof that it is sufficient to cleanse us of our sins. We connect with the sacrifice of Christ by faith--not by a ceremony.

Conclusion

It should be obvious to anyone who believes the word of God that the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is not biblical. For the reasons listed above, we urge that Roman Catholics recognize that Jesus Christ died once for all, and that there is no need to participate in a ritual where His re-sacrifice is practiced.

Finally, because the sacrifice of Christ was once for all, it is sufficient to save us; and we do not need to maintain our salvation by our efforts or by our participation in the Lord's supper. It is not a means of grace that secures our salvation or infuses into us the grace needed that then enables us to maintain our salvation by our works. Instead, we are made right before God by faith.

"being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;" (Rom. 3:24).
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (Rom. 3:28).
"For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness," (Rom. 4:3).
"For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith." (Rom. 4:13).
"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1).
"that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved;" (Rom. 10:9). - courtesy of CARM -Matt Slick

October 7, 2014 at 5:58 pm PST
#5  Perry White - Thomson, Georgia

Excellent work Alonso!

October 11, 2014 at 12:13 pm PST
#6  elias Lucero - vallejo, California

This is all copied and pasted:
St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr's crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."

-"Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

"I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed."

-"Letter to the Romans", paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons."

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

. Why did the jews leave when jesus said to eat his body. More importantly, why didn't Jesus call them back. As You can see in John 6 Christ refers to his body as bread and visa versa and his blood as wine and visa versa about twelve times. Thus there was no confusion between the two because he uses them interchangeably. The apostles understood him perfectly so they stayed, who else would they go to? Besides jesus literally told them to gnaw on his flesh, not in the "eat" sense of the word as was common, but he used the term "trogo" which means to chew or gnaw. If I told you to eat my body because it is food, you would take it to be literal, but maybe you take it metaphorically for some reason. Then I say to chew on me, or to gnaw on my flesh. Uhhh... thats kinda graphic and doesnt leave much room for interpretation. Finally the claim you make must mean that the church christ established had it very wrong for 2000 years and is heretical. (sidenote. If it is heretical than the bible may or may not be a reliable source because it would have been put together by a bunch of people who believed in cannibalism). The proof is in the puddin, or should I say, the flesh.

October 24, 2014 at 9:51 pm PST
#7  Perry White - Thomson, Georgia

Elias
Who is St Evodius? I thought the RCC said St Linus was next? And then St Snoopy I suppose since no one knows who any of these guys are....

Question for you regarding your puddin. When Jesus said unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, was it Before or After He had instituted the Lord's Supper?

You might like to read this:http://bible-study-online.org/jesus_christ_atonement/?page_id=38

I take it metaphorically because I understand the English language. Christ said many hard things to separate the true from the fake followers. It is completely ridiculous to believe that Jesus wants us to chew or gnaw his flesh. Why don't you chew on this thought? I mean for you to think about it, not masticate it in case you are confused.

Obviously Christ does not want to start a cannibalistic cult so therefore using logic guided by the sense of the text, it is a SYMBOL of something. What could it be????

I Cor 11:26 For as often as you EAT THIS BREAD and DRINK THE CUP, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27Whoever, therefore, EATS THE BREAD OR DRINKS THE CUP of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28Let a person examine himself, then, and so EAT OF THE BREAD and DRINK THE CUP.

There's your puddin.

October 29, 2014 at 7:12 am PST
#8  elias Lucero - vallejo, California

St. Evodius was indeed Ignatius' successor. Linus was one of the early popes, not a bishop of Antioch which was what Evodius and Ignatius were.

It was before he instituted the Lord's supper. As a matter of fact he was referring to the lords supper when he said that, which is why the 12 did not eat the body and the blood (or cracker and grape juice) until the lords supper.

John 6 52-52
52 (6-53) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 (6-54) Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
Amen, Amen , I too understand English. Don't take this statement symbolically either, I really do mean that I understand English.

He does not come to us in a bloody form. He is heavenly bread.

1 cor. 11:29
For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
To discern what. A symbol. What more does one need to understand a cracker and grape juice as a symbol than someone just telling him it is a symbol. Rather, one who does not trult discern the body of christ in the food and drink eats judgment on themselves.

Also, when paul uses the words interchangeably, they are used interchangeably because they are the same thing. How can the bread be anything other than what he refers to it as before "the body of christ". Im sure if he meant it metaphorically, him or jesus, or any of the apostles that taught this to ignatius and such whould have said "this is a symbol of the body of christ". There must have been a deep discinnect between the early church and the apostles who carried on the tradition.

I like that last line.

October 31, 2014 at 11:26 am PST
#9  elias Lucero - vallejo, California

bishops were and are ordained by popes

October 31, 2014 at 11:28 am PST
#10  elias Lucero - vallejo, California

St. Peter founded a church in Antioch as well

October 31, 2014 at 11:29 am PST
#11  Perry White - Thomson, Georgia

Elias
Sorry for the long cut and paste below but it is interesting. It shows that RCs and Protestants have completely different views on communion.
It shows that Catholic doctrine has changed over the years and is not the once given infallible faith.
It also is interesting that catholics are told to "eat the body and blood of Christ" but you weren't allowed to drink from the cup. I find that odd don't you? It is so important for catholics to do this but the church wouldn't let you do it. Go figure.

Quote from Reasonable Faith.com

That does not exhaust the importance of the Eucharist (or the Lord’s Supper) for Catholics, however, because there is another very important facet of their doctrine that needs to be emphasized and that is the doctrine of the Eucharist (or the Mass) as a sacrifice which is offered to God. In early church history the church father Irenaeus, who was the Bishop of Lyons, characterized the Lord’s Supper as a thank offering which believers offer to God. It is an offering of thanksgiving to God for what he has done. During the third century after Christ, however, in the West the view of the Eucharist as a rite of thanksgiving began to give way to the belief that this was a propitiatory or expiatory sacrifice offered to God. You will remember when we talked about the Doctrine of Christ, we looked at the work of Christ and we saw that Christ’s atoning death is a propitiation for our sins. That is to say, it satisfies the wrath and the justice of God. Christ offers his life to God as a fulfillment of the demands of God’s justice. It is also expiatory in the sense that it cleanses us of sin. In the Catholic Church, the doctrine developed that when the Mass is celebrated and the body and blood of Christ are present there they are offered to God as a propitiatory or expiatory sacrifice for our sins.

This doctrine became codified as Catholic doctrine at the Council of Trent during the Counter-Reformation – the response to the Protestant Reformation. This Council met for a number of years between 1545 and 1563 and came to codify standard Catholic doctrine over against Protestantism. At the Council of Trent, the church affirmed that indeed the body and blood of Christ are present in the Eucharist. The bread and the wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ, but in addition to that the church also said that the body and blood are both present in each element. So when you drink the wine, it is not simply the blood of Christ that you partake of, you also partake of the body of Christ in the wine. Similarly, if you eat the bread you take not only the body of Christ but the blood of Christ as well. Under each element there is a communion with both the body and the blood of Christ. Therefore the church declared that laymen should take the bread only and not drink the cup. That was reserved for the priests. Laypeople only get to participate in eating the bread. But there is no harm done to them because in taking the bread you get both the body and the blood of Christ.

In the 22nd session, chapter 2 of the Council of Trent[1], the Council declared that “the same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross.” In other words, it is the same Christ who shed his blood on the cross who is offered in the Eucharist (in the Mass).[2] Then it was a bloody manner in that he shed his blood on the cross. Now we don’t see the blood; it is present there but it is offered in a different manner to God. It declared that the sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory; that is to say, it satisfies the demands of God’s wrath and justice. The only thing different between the sacrifice that is offered in the Mass and Jesus’ original sacrifice is just the manner of offering. It is a different manner of offering but the sacrifice is the same.[3] Back then Christ offered himself to God but now he offers himself via the priest. The priest consecrates the elements, and God turns them into the body and blood of Christ, and Christ offers himself via the priest. So the Council of Trent declares that the Mass is offered for sins and punishments not only of the living but also of the dead who may not yet be fully purified.[4] The reference here is to those who are in purgatory – people who have died but who are not yet sufficiently purified to go to heaven. So the Eucharist can be offered on behalf of their sins as well. So the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice offered to God which is propitiatory for sins and punishments of both the living and the dead.

In Canon 1 of the Council of Trent, the council says that the Mass is a “true and proper sacrifice” which is offered to God. In Canon 3, the Council says the sacrifice of the Mass is not only of “praise and thanksgiving” nor is it “a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross,” it is a “propitiatory sacrifice.” So this is a direct repudiation of Protestant views. The Lord’s Supper is not a mere commemorative meal where you remember Christ in his death and sacrifice, nor is it a sacrifice of thanksgiving such as Irenaeus contemplated. Rather, the Mass is offered to God as a propitiation for sins and punishments.

This doctrine was further unfolded at the Second Vatican Council during the 1960s (aka Vatican II). In the declaration on The Church, section 11, we’ve already seen – and I’ve quoted this before – that the Eucharist sacrifice is the “fount and apex of the whole Christian life.”[5] I pointed out before how that makes the Eucharist so important to Catholics. It is the fount and apex of the Christian life. But here I want to draw attention to the wording “the Eucharistic sacrifice.” It is a sacrifice that is being offered to God and is therefore the fount and apex of the whole Christian life. The Council goes on to say, “for in it people offer the Divine Victim and themselves to God.”[6] So Christ is offered to God, but also now it adds that the communicant offers himself to God as well. It is an offering not only of Christ but the communicant should also be offering himself to God, dedicating himself.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s12-6#ixzz3HlDwUE8w

October 31, 2014 at 1:36 pm PST
#12  elias Lucero - vallejo, California

Sorry about the long cut and paste too. Yes the administering of the body and the blood has changed over the years but one was never required in all of church history to eat of both species. Trent's forbidding of the chalice was a response to protestant claims. The doctrine has not changed, the discipline has.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm

(1) Under this head the following points are to be noted: (a) In reference to the Eucharist as a sacrifice, the communion, under both kinds, of the celebrating priest belongs at least to the integrity, and, according to some theologians, to the essence, of the sacrificial rite, and may not therefore be omitted without violating the sacrificial precept of Christ: "Do this for a commemoration of me" (Luke 22:19). This is taught implicitly by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXI, c. i; XXII, c. i). (b) There is no Divine precept binding the laity or non-celebrating priests to receive the sacrament under both kinds (Trent, sess. XXI, c. i.) (c) By reason of the hypostatic union and of the indivisibility of His glorified humanity, Christ is really present and is received whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity, under either species alone; nor, as regards the fruits of the sacrament, is the communicant under one kind deprived of any grace necessary for salvation (Trent, Sess. XXI, c., iii). (d) In reference to the sacraments generally, apart from their substance, salva eorum substantia, i.e. apart from what has been strictly determined by Divine institution or precept, the Church has authority to determine or modify the rites and usages employed in their administration, according as she judges it expedient for the greater profit of the recipients or the better protections of the sacraments themselves against irreverence. Hence "although the usage of Communion under two kinds was not infrequent in the early ages [ab initio] of the Christian religion, yet, the custom in this respect having changed almost universally [latissime] in the course of time, holy mother the Church, mindful of her authority in the administration of the Sacraments, and influenced by weighty and just reasons, has approved the custom of communicating under one kind, and decreed it to have the force of a law, which may not be set aside or changed but by the Church's own authority" (Trent, Sess. XXI, c. ii). Not only, therefore, is Communion under both kinds not obligatory on the faithful, but the chalice is strictly forbidden by ecclesiastical law to any but the celebrating priest. These decrees of the Council of Trent were directed against the Reformers of the sixteenth century, who, on the strength of John 6:54, Matthew 26:27, and Luke 22:17-19, enforced in most cases by a denial of the Real Presence and of the Sacrifice of the Mass, maintained the existence of a Divine precept obliging the faithful to receive under both kinds, and denounced the Catholic practice of withholding the cup from the laity as a sacrilegious mutilation of the sacrament. A century earlier the Hussites, particularly the party of the Calixtines, had asserted the same doctrine, without denying, however, the Real Presence or the Sacrifice of the Mass, and on the strength principally of John 6:54; and the Council of Constance in its thirteenth session (1415) had already condemned their position and affirmed the binding force of the existing discipline in terms practically identical with those of Trent (see decree approved by Martin V, 1418, in Denzinger, Enchiridion, n. 585). It is to be observed that neither council introduced any new legislation on the subject; both were content with declaring that the existing custom had already acquired the force of law. A few privileged exceptions to the law and a few instances of express dispensation, occurring later, will be noticed below (II).

October 31, 2014 at 3:26 pm PST
#13  Perry White - Thomson, Georgia

Elias

I boldfaced what I believe is a refutation of your statement "one was never required in all of church history to eat of both species." It is one of the few things we are told we should do, don't you agree?

I Corinthians 11
23For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is fore you. DO THIS in remembrance of me.”f 25In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. DO THIS, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

November 3, 2014 at 6:49 am PST
#14  elias Lucero - vallejo, California

That's the point I was making. The catholic church has always taught that when you eat the body, you consume all of the living christ; body, blood, soul, and divinity. And the same with the cup. A laymen need not take both to receive all of Jesus. In taking the body we also drink the cup. That's what Trent was getting at. They were stomping down a heresy that was beginning to arise. On that claimed that you needed to take both species in order to receive Jesus.

November 3, 2014 at 11:03 am PST
#15  Perry White - Thomson, Georgia

OK, so when you read I Corinthians what does it say? Who cares what the Catholic church or the Protestants say? What does the Bible say. DO THIS in remembrance of me. Eat the bread, drink the cup. Why does it have to be any harder than that?

November 4, 2014 at 7:12 am PST
#16  elias Lucero - vallejo, California

Im only saying that in eating the body we also drink the cup because both contain all of Jesus Christ.

November 4, 2014 at 11:42 am PST
#17  elias Lucero - vallejo, California

Im only saying that in eating the body we also drink the cup because both contain all of Jesus Christ.

November 4, 2014 at 11:42 am PST
#18  elias Lucero - vallejo, California

Im only saying that in eating the body we also drink the cup because both contain all of Jesus Christ.

November 4, 2014 at 11:42 am PST
#19  Perry White - Thomson, Georgia

Then why do you need them both? If Christ said do them both, why is one good enough? Apparently Jesus disagrees with you, as He does in most things catholics believe.
Please answer only once.

November 4, 2014 at 2:39 pm PST
#20  elias Lucero - vallejo, California

http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/06/if-whole-christ-is-present-under-both.html

[“And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connection and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who hath now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with His body and soul.” (Council of Trent, session XIII, chapter III)
What is particularly noteworthy about the definition from Trent is that the body of our Lord is present in the Host “by the force of the words” (ex vi verborum) while the blood of Christ is present therein “by the force of natural connection and concomitancy” (per concomitantiam). In other words, because the body and blood of Christ (together with his soul) are united in his proper mode of existence which is now in heaven, so too they are united in the Blessed Sacrament. By the power of the words of consecration, the bread is substantially changed to the body of Christ and the wine is substantially changed into the blood of Christ, but by virtue of the fact that (now in heaven) Christ’s body and blood in their proper species are united to one another and together are united also to his human soul, so too in their sacramental species they are likewise united.]

The body and the blood can never be seperated due to the hypostatical union of the risen Christ. There are many things that the apostles and their successors gave to us that are understandably hard to figure out, this being one of them, but if your claim is true, that jesus disagree's withmost of the things the catholic church teaches than maybe the church was also wrong for condemning many heresies in the early church also. Ones that denied the divinity of Christ, Gnostics and such. Perhaps the church was even wrong to decide what was to be included in the closed cannon of sacred scripture. The problem with that ad hominem claim is that it debases all grounding for making an argument against the catholic church in the first place. If the catholic church is wrong on most things than that means that nothing it teaches can actually be infallibly true. That would include the trinity, the cannon of the bible(with the deuterocanonical), One God, and many more dogmas that non-catholic churches beliefs reside in. The fact of the matter is that the catholic church has actually been around since Pentecost(physically and spiritually) and has protected what is true from what is false. If it hadn't we'd all be Muslims.

November 5, 2014 at 11:17 am PST
#21  Perry White - Thomson, Georgia

Elias

The hypostatic union refers to the divine and human nature of Christ existing in one. It has nothing to do with "body and blood". But some magic words will transform bread and wine into flesh and blood.

The church can get many things right and still be mostly wrong. I agree with RCC on some things. Problem is there is too much dirt in the water for me to drink it. It is not an ad hominem attack to point out doctrinal error of which the RCC is full of. The fact of the matter is that there was no Catholic Church until at least 300 hundred years after Pentecost.

November 17, 2014 at 12:07 pm PST
#22  elias Lucero - vallejo, California

Perry,

That last comment is interesting, can you give a document that supports that. And also why did the church get the biblical cannon and the trinity right, but not the eucharist and apostolic succession right.

November 19, 2014 at 12:56 pm PST
#23  elias Lucero - vallejo, California

Sorry, let me rephrase that. where do you draw the line between what is true and right and what is false. For instance, if the bible doesn't have an inspired table of contents for each of the books, and the cannon wasn't formed until the fourth and 5th century(by what you might call the 'newly formed' and corrupt Roman Catholic Church) Then how can we know if it's true. And if the church was wrong about the eucharistic tradition (it was tradition before it was written) then how can it be correct on interpreting what was scripture and what was not. The council did not seek a self authenticating book because there was none, but they did examine the doctrines and contents as well as observe their tradition to decide rightly if it were scripture or not. But then again, these were the same heretical founders of the newly formed church that believed in Eucharist and much more nonsense like the authority of tradition, so how can we trust it.

Constantine didnt found the church, he legalized the practice of it. The tradition, doctrines, Popes, Bishops, and documents like the didache which predates the gospels support my position that there was always a physical church that existed, distinct from the heretic churches. St. Ignatius points that out in AD 110.

November 19, 2014 at 4:50 pm PST
#24  elias Lucero - vallejo, California

Sorry, let me rephrase that. where do you draw the line between what is true and right and what is false. For instance, if the bible doesn't have an inspired table of contents for each of the books, and the cannon wasn't formed until the fourth and 5th century(by what you might call the 'newly formed' and corrupt Roman Catholic Church) Then how can we know if it's true. And if the church was wrong about the eucharistic tradition (it was tradition before it was written) then how can it be correct on interpreting what was scripture and what was not. The council did not seek a self authenticating book because there was none, but they did examine the doctrines and contents as well as observe their tradition to decide rightly if it were scripture or not. But then again, these were the same heretical founders of the newly formed church that believed in Eucharist and much more nonsense like the authority of tradition, so how can we trust it.

Constantine didnt found the church, he legalized the practice of it. The tradition, doctrines, Popes, Bishops, and documents like the didache which predates the gospels support my position that there was always a physical church that existed, distinct from the heretic churches. St. Ignatius points that out in AD 110.

November 19, 2014 at 4:50 pm PST
#25  Perry White - Thomson, Georgia

Elias

Try Phillipians 2:6 in refrence to Christs dual nature.

The books werent books. Some were letters nd works of art. Why do they need a table of contents? Why does the T of C need to be inspired?

The RC didnt create the Bible. There are many reasons why it is wrong on so many issues. Getting one or two things right doesnt make you the authority.

December 3, 2014 at 11:27 am PST
#26  elias Lucero - vallejo, California

Yes of course Jesus has 2 natures, I dont argue against this. But they are hypostatically joined in the 1 person of christ, making them inseperable, as such in the eucharist.

The RC didnt create the bible, but they did discern whether or not the books were inspired, and we should both argue that they did so infallibly. Martin Luther wouldnt tho.

Now why do they have the Authority to do so in the first place. Lets take the infallibility of the church out of this equation now. If the church is fallible, then why is its cannon of scripture infallible. You could argue that they chose by examining traditional liturgical texts yet many no-cannonical books were being used in the liturgy, and many were proposed for the cannon. In this case history does not answer the question of the cannon.

Lets examine the works of the new testament authors without church infallibility. Only pauls books are said to be inspired explicitly by peter. The gospels were assumed. revelation, james, jude, 1,2,3rd john and hebrews were actually doubted in terms of their cannonicity. Any book can claim inspiration but not be so. Ok so where do we get the cannon? the church. But for us to argue that the church is fallible like i did at the beggining of this argument, would naturally imply that so too is the cannon that it decided on.

Now let me ask, who are you to say that the RC got it right? But in order for you to answer me, the only way I will accept your point is if you give me proof from scripture, because if scripture truly is the final authority, why would it need someone to discern its own integrity.

December 4, 2014 at 4:12 pm PST

You are not logged in. Login or register to leave a comment.