Conversion Story - Matt Enloe (former Baptist) [prepare to be amazed!]

Enloeapologetics ^ | Matt Enloe

[NYer]

Why I am who I am


My earliest religious memory is that of a 6 year old, standing in the vestibule of the 2nd Baptist Church in Fairfield, Texas. My Aunt was discussing with me the merits of Jesus Christ, and my need for his Saving Grace. I vaguely knew who Jesus was but did know that I wanted to go to Heaven, so the generic sequence that followed, most Christians in the United States will recognize; "Dear Jesus, please come into my heart, be my Lord and Savior. I ask this in the name of Jesus, Amen."

That particular Sunday was in its peak of wondrous splendor, as only those who have experienced Texas weather can attest to. Bright blue sky, completely cloudless of course, and it was in the Spring so it was actually cool natured. I vividly recall the sunlight as it streamed through the beautiful stained glass windows onto the bright red carpet.

Even at that young of an age, I preferred the simple and grand majesty of old Baptist traditions to those of my parents' 50 year old non-denominational Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas. Not that I could properly identify why at the time, I only knew that I loved my Grandparents deeply, and treasured every moment that I spent with them. It was not until many years later that I even discovered this preference, much less why I felt that way.

The only thing I knew, at that time, is that God was "old", and the 70 year old Baptist Preacher made him real in a way that my childhood church did not. I had to be reverent going to my Grandparent's church. God was all powerful and I would respect him, and obey what was said and what was in the Bible. In other words, I developed an awe and respect for God at a very young age.

At the early age of 7 I had my first confrontation with my very religious Grandmother. We were enjoying the infrequent quarterly observance of Communion, as the Pastor read the passages from the Gospels regarding the Lord's Supper.

Oddly enough, I observed the congregation around me behaving in a less reverential manner than that which I was raised to adhere myself to. They seemed almost bored, or annoyed that the service was taking longer than the traditional length of 1 hour to 1 hour and 15 minutes, and were most impatient to leave.

Afterwards, I asked my Grandmother why people had behaved that way. Being the protective yet wonderful woman that she was that recognized my early intelligence she gave it to me straight.

She confirmed what I had thought earlier about the service taking longer than they were accustomed to, and their reaction to it.


I then asked her the question that started the confrontation:


"But he said that it was Jesus' Body [and Blood]."

She gave me a hard look and said:

"Yes sweetheart, but what he meant was that it was done in 'memory of me'. Do you know what a symbol is?"

I was getting confused at this point and responded with something to the effect of:

"It's like a picture that means something, right?"

"Yes". She smiled deeply.


Nothing more was said, but I noticed the several sideways glances that she gave me and I became even more confused. Did I ask something wrong? I decided to keep my thoughts to myself.

I was at odds with what she said and what Jesus said.

"This is my body..." ~Take and eat this in Memory of me.

Not ~"This is the memory of my Body, take and eat it for me."

Why even go through the motions of recreating a scene? According to my childhood church, tradition and memory meant nothing, only Faith.

Read the rest here (and do read the rest - long but riveting!)

[Charles07]

What you will notice when you read John’s gospel is that a frequent theme is that Jesus is misunderstood by his listeners. The following pattern occurs again and again:

Jesus says something metaphorically

His listener takes his words literally

Jesus corrects his listener by explaining that he was speaking metaphorically.

Again and again in the gospel of John, when one of Jesus’ listeners misinterprets him by taking a metaphor literally, Jesus IMMEDIATELY corrects the listener by explaining that he was simply making a metaphor.

Examples? Here are a few...

In his conversation with Nicodemus, Nicodemus misinterprets Jesus’ ‘born again’ imagery by taking it literally, ‘can I re-enter my mother’s womb?’, Jesus IMMEDIATELY corrects his literal minded thinking and explains that he meant it metaphorically.

In his conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well, the woman misinterprets his promise to give her ‘living water’ by thinking that he was talking about actual water, Jesus IMMEDIATELY corrects her literal minded thinking by clarifying that he meant spiritual water, welling up to eternal life.

Later, after this conversation with the woman, his disciples misunderstand him, when they bring him food and he refuses to eat ‘I have food to eat of which you do not know’, his disciples think he means literal food, and he IMMEDIATELY corrects them by explaining that he was speaking metaphorically ‘my food is to do the will of the one who sent me’.

Later on, when Jesus is at the grave of Lazarus, Jesus tells Martha that ‘your brother will rise again’, Martha thinks he is referring to the resurrection at the Last Day, Jesus IMMEDIATELY corrects her and makes it clear that he intends to raise Lazarus at that moment.

And this is only SOME of the occasions in the gospel of John where the same pattern occurs.

Jesus says something, his listeners misunderstand him, he corrects them.

So when, in John 6, the Jews ask Jesus to give them manna, just like Moses did, he responds that the manna he will given them to eat is his own body, they interpret this literally ‘how can this man give us his flesh to eat?’, Jesus DOES NOT do what he does over and over again in this gospel, and explain that he was simply speaking metaphorically, rather he reiterates his original comment, only with even more directness and forcefulness ‘if you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will have no life in you’, the Jews get even angrier at him, because they believe he is suggesting cannibalism [or slander] , and again, Jesus DOES NOT correct their misunderstanding.

Surely, the fact that this instance is different from all the others I mentioned must be significant. If Jesus was always quick to make a correction when people misunderstood what he said, and he DID NOT do so this time, then this can only mean that his listeners did not misunderstand him.

http://forums.catholic-convert.com/viewtopic.php?t=72411

[Zionist Conspirator]

If it’s boring, then don’t read it. Unless you’re predestined to do so...

I have no idea to what you are referring, or whatever gave you the idea I was a Calvinist.

[Zionist Conspirator]

What ideas?

I begin to suspect you of being a dishonest person. Why did you come to FR anyway?

One idea, which is spelled out in your self-told conversion story, is that sex is dirty, which is why Mary couldn't have engaged in it after having borne J*sus. The other idea was implied in a PM so I won't mention it here.

You invoke the unchanging antiquity of the Catholic Church but say nothing about its Biblical and scientific modernism. Yes, I suspect you of being a dishonest person.

[MarkBsnr]

ZC: ::Sigh:: It is so boring to read of these Protestant converts coming into the “absolutely unchanged” church whose imprimatur is on innumerable volumes teaching limited inerrancy (if any at all), higher Biblical criticism, and evolution.

---

I had no idea of whether you are a Calvinist or not; I was attempting a humourous aside in honour of the many Calvinists that I have had conversation with. If it fell short, then I will withdraw that portion of the comment.

The first portion still stands.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Sorry. It simply bothers me that anyone who once believed in total Biblical inerrancy would throw it all away to join a church that claims to be "absolutely unchanged" when it obviously is not. Especially considering that I had to leave that church because I refused to sell out.

It makes me angry with those who do.

[MarkBsnr]

I don’t think that I’ve sold out.

The more that I understand the Bible, then more solidly I believe in the Catholic Church. Your story is a sad one; I wish that I could make a difference.

[Charles07]

You say I am dishonest. How very uncharitable.

Let me put this bluntly, because of your insulting manner:

You honestly believe that “out comes the living God”, and then “in comes sinned flesh”??

You sir are the one that is disgusting and vulgar.

[Charles07]

“Sorry. It simply bothers me that anyone who once believed in total Biblical inerrancy would throw it all away to join a church that claims to be “absolutely unchanged” when it obviously is not.”

I suspect that it is YOU that is dishonest!

You claim to be “ex-Catholic”, yet you should very well know that the Church teaches the infallibility of the Scriptures.

“Especially considering that I had to leave that church because I refused to sell out.”

Rubbish.

“It makes me angry with those who do.”

Ah yes, an emotional outburst totally devoid of reason.

Let me tell you why I am here:

YOU attacked ME.

My story was posted here, and you immediately trashed me.

I now think that YOU are DISHONEST for 2 reasons!

You lie about Catholic teaching, and you disobey the words of our Lord by your attitude.

:(

Here is a reminder of your words:

“::Sigh:: It is so boring to read of these Protestant converts coming into the “absolutely unchanged” church whose imprimatur is on innumerable volumes teaching limited inerrancy (if any at all), higher Biblical criticism, and evolution. I notice these people like to ignore these issues. Perhaps they’ve converted all the way and become higher critics and evolutionists themselves?

It’s also quite maddening to read these Protestant converts boasting of the “unity” of the Catholic Church. Never mind that the spectrum of beliefs within the “one true unchanging church” is as great as that among Protestant denominations. As long as everyone belongs to the same organization and recites the same words (which each interprets differently) then everything is just hunky-dory.

The Catholic Church, if it is hated by the “world,” is not hated nearly as much as Fundamentalist Protestants are. In fact, the intellectualism of the Catholic Church means it actually enjoys much respect from the world.

And finally, if you can’t think of a better reason to believe in the “perpetual virginity” of Mary other than that sex is dirty, you’d do better not to engage in any apologetics at all.”

[Charles07]

Moreover, you have failed to document your baseless claims.

[Charles07]

“The other idea was implied in a PM so I won’t mention it here.”

Please do not tell falsehoods.

I have never sent you a PM.

“And finally, if you can’t think of a better reason to believe in the “perpetual virginity” of Mary other than that sex is dirty, you’d do better not to engage in any apologetics at all.”

Stop twisting my words also, please.

[Charles07]

“It’s also quite maddening to read these Protestant converts boasting of the “unity” of the Catholic Church. Never mind that the spectrum of beliefs within the “one true unchanging church” is as great as that among Protestant denominations. As long as everyone belongs to the same organization and recites the same words (which each interprets differently) then everything is just hunky-dory.”

You are certainly entitled to your opinion...

The Catholics who do not believe/obey every doctrine taught (de Fide) have effectively excommunicated themselves.

“Cafeteria” ones included.

“The Catholic Church, if it is hated by the “world,” is not hated nearly as much as Fundamentalist Protestants are. In fact, the intellectualism of the Catholic Church means it actually enjoys much respect from the world.”

Again, you are certainly entitled to your opinion; you may attempt to “document” this, but I doubt that anything of any substance will be presented.

[Iscool]

In his conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well, the woman misinterprets his promise to give her ‘living water’ by thinking that he was talking about actual water, Jesus IMMEDIATELY corrects her literal minded thinking by clarifying that he meant spiritual water, welling up to eternal life.

You are COMPLETELY WRONG...She didn't get the water part, yet...

Joh 4:15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

She still figured she would literally never be thirsty again...But then Jesus corrects her just as he did in John chapter 6...And like in chapter 6, and your church, she still didn't get it...

Joh 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Salvation is of the Jews...

Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

NOT IN FOOD OR DRINK...

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

In John chapter 6, the people were looking for physical food that would provide nutrition for one's flesh...

Joh 6:27 Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

Joh 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

There's no eating or drinking here, it's the act of seeking out God and believing...

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Whoever believes on Him will be raised up in the last day...

Joh 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Joh 6:48 I am that bread of life.

Spiritual bread just like the spiritual water...

Joh 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

Joh 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

And you KNOW it was spiritual bread because all of the people the ate of it physically died...

Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, (to die as a sacrifice for your sins on the cross, Not to physically eat, but to Believe in) which I will give for the life of the world.

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

SPIRITUAL...The chapter clearly explains that...

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Just like the woman and the water at the well...Spirit and Truth...You must worship in Spirit and Truth, not flesh and blood...

You guys are doing exactly the same thing as the woman at the well when she had it wrong...

Joh 4:15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

She thought she still had some actual water to drink...Just as you think you have to eat the bread of life...

She didn't get it...And neither do you...

[Charles07]

Your exegesis is just that...

Sorry, but you cannot yank things out of context and expect a cogent argument.

“you are wrong” doesn’t cut the mustard...

Foreshadowing of the Eucharistic Sacrifice

Gen. 14:18 - this is the first time that the word “priest” is used in Old Testament. Melchizedek is both a priest and a king and he offers a bread and wine sacrifice to God.

Psalm 76:2 - Melchizedek is the king of Salem. Salem is the future Jeru-salem where Jesus, the eternal priest and king, established his new Kingdom and the Eucharistic sacrifice which He offered under the appearance of bread and wine.

Psalm 110:4 - this is the prophecy that Jesus will be the eternal priest and king in the same manner as this mysterious priest Melchizedek. This prophecy requires us to look for an eternal bread and wine sacrifice in the future. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Catholic Church.

Malachi 1:11 - this is a prophecy of a pure offering that will be offered in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting. Thus, there will be only one sacrifice, but it will be offered in many places around the world. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Catholic Church in the Masses around the world, where the sacrifice of Christ which transcends time and space is offered for our salvation. If this prophecy is not fulfilled by the Catholic Church, then Malachi is a false prophet.

Exodus 12:14,17,24; cf. 24:8 - we see that the feast of the paschal lamb is a perpetual ordinance. It lasts forever. But it had not yet been fulfilled.

Exodus 29:38-39 – God commands the Israelites to “offer” (poieseis) the lambs upon the altar. The word “offer” is the same verb Jesus would use to institute the Eucharistic offering of Himself.

Lev. 19:22 – the priests of the old covenant would make atonement for sins with the guilt offering of an animal which had to be consumed. Jesus, the High Priest of the New Covenant, has atoned for our sins by His one sacrifice, and He also must be consumed.

Jer. 33:18 - God promises that His earthly kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever. This promise has been fulfilled by the priests of the Catholic Church, who sacramentally offer the sacrifice of Christ from the rising of the sun to its setting in every Mass around the world.

Zech. 9:15-16 - this is a prophecy that the sons of Zion, which is the site of the establishment of the Eucharistic sacrifice, shall drink blood like wine and be saved. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the priests of the Catholic Church.

2 Chron. 26:18 - only validly consecrated priests will be able to offer the sacrifice to God. The Catholic priests of the New Covenant trace their sacrificial priesthood to Christ.

Foreshadowing of the Requirement to Consume the Sacrifice

Gen. 22:9-13 - God saved Abraham’s first-born son on Mount Moriah with a substitute sacrifice which had to be consumed. This foreshadowed the real sacrifice of Israel’s true first-born son (Jesus) who must be consumed.

Exodus 12:5 - the paschal lamb that was sacrificed and eaten had to be without blemish. Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38 - Jesus is the true paschal Lamb without blemish.

Exodus 12:7,22-23 - the blood of the lamb had to be sprinkled on the two door posts. This paschal sacrifice foreshadows the true Lamb of sacrifice and the two posts of His cross on which His blood was sprinkled.

Exodus 12:8,11 - the paschal lamb had to be eaten by the faithful in order for God to “pass over” the house and spare their first-born sons. Jesus, the true paschal Lamb, must also be eaten by the faithful in order for God to forgive their sins.

Exodus 12:43-45; Ezek. 44:9 - no one outside the “family of God” shall eat the lamb. Non-Catholics should not partake of the Eucharist until they are in full communion with the Church.

Exodus 12:49 - no uncircumcised person shall eat of the lamb. Baptism is the new circumcision for Catholics, and thus one must be baptized in order to partake of the Lamb.

Exodus 12:47; Num. 9:12 - the paschal lamb’s bones could not be broken. John 19:33 - none of Jesus’ bones were broken.

Exodus 16:4-36; Neh 9:15 - God gave His people bread from heaven to sustain them on their journey to the promised land. This foreshadows the true bread from heaven which God gives to us at Mass to sustain us on our journey to heaven.

Exodus 24:9-11 - the Mosaic covenant was consummated with a meal in the presence of God. The New and eternal Covenant is consummated with the Eucharistic meal - the body and blood of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine.

Exodus 29:33 – God commands that they shall eat those things with which atonement was made. Jesus is the true Lamb of atonement and must now be eaten.

Lev. 7:15 - the Aaronic sacrifices absolutely had to be eaten in order to restore communion with God. These sacrifices all foreshadow the one eternal sacrifice which must also be eaten to restore communion with God. This is the Eucharist (from the Greek word “eukaristia” which means “thanksgiving”).

Lev. 17:11,14 - in the Old Testament, we see that the life of the flesh is the blood which could never be drunk. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ’s blood is the source of new life, and now must be drunk.

Gen. 9:4-5; Deut.12:16,23-24 - in these verses we see other prohibitions on drinking blood, yet Jesus commands us to drink His blood because it is the true source of life.

2 Kings 4:43 - this passage foreshadows the multiplication of the loaves and the true bread from heaven which is Jesus Christ.

2 Chron. 30:15-17; 35:1,6,11,13; Ezra 6:20-21; Ezek. 6:20-21- the lamb was killed, roasted and eaten to atone for sin and restore communion with God. This foreshadows the true Lamb of God who was sacrificed for our sin and who must now be consumed for our salvation.

Neh. 9:15 – God gave the Israelites bread from heaven for their hunger, which foreshadows the true heavenly bread who is Jesus.

Psalm 78:24-25; 105:40 - the raining of manna and the bread from angels foreshadows the true bread from heaven, Jesus Christ.

Isaiah 53:7 - this verse foreshadows the true Lamb of God who was slain for our sins and who must be consumed.

Wis. 16:20 - this foreshadows the true bread from heaven which will be suited to every taste. All will be welcome to partake of this heavenly bread, which is Jesus Christ.

Sir. 24:21 - God says those who eat Him will hunger for more, and those who drink Him will thirst for more.

Ezek. 2:8-10; 3:1-3 - God orders Ezekiel to open his mouth and eat the scroll which is the Word of God. This foreshadows the true Word of God, Jesus Christ, who must be consumed.

Zech. 12:10 - this foreshadows the true first-born Son who was pierced for the sins of the inhabitants of the new Jerusalem.

Zech. 13:1 - on the day of piercing, a fountain (of blood and water) will cleanse the sins of those in the new House of David.

New Testament

Jesus Promises His Real Presence in the Eucharist

John 6:4,11-14 - on the eve of the Passover, Jesus performs the miracle of multiplying the loaves. This was prophesied in the Old Testament (e.g., 2 Kings4:43), and foreshadows the infinite heavenly bread which is Him.

Matt. 14:19, 15:36; Mark 6:41, 8:6; Luke 9:16 - these passages are additional accounts of the multiplication miracles. This points to the Eucharist.

Matt. 16:12 - in this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term “bread.” In John 6, He eliminates any metaphorical possibilities.

John 6:4 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times “I AM the bread from heaven.” It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this “new” bread which must be consumed.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases “real” food and “real” drink use the word “alethes.” “Alethes” means “really” or “truly,” and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus’ flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus’ disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, “Who can ‘listen’ to it (much less understand it)?” To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of “spirit versus flesh” to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still “in the flesh.”

John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where “spirit” means “symbolic.” As we have seen, the use of “spirit” relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.

John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn’t Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn’t Jesus say, “Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!”? Because they understood correctly.

Mark 4:34 - Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation.

John 6:37 - Jesus says He would not drive those away from Him. They understood Him correctly but would not believe.

John 3:5,11; Matt. 16:11-12 - here are some examples of Jesus correcting wrong impressions of His teaching. In the Eucharistic discourse, Jesus does not correct the scandalized disciples.

John 6:64,70 - Jesus ties the disbelief in the Real Presence of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist to Judas’ betrayal. Those who don’t believe in this miracle betray Him.

Psalm 27:2; Isa. 9:20; 49:26; Mic. 3:3; 2 Sam. 23:17; Rev. 16:6; 17:6, 16 - to further dispense with the Protestant claim that Jesus was only speaking symbolically, these verses demonstrate that symbolically eating body and blood is always used in a negative context of a physical assault. It always means “destroying an enemy,” not becoming intimately close with him. Thus, if Jesus were speaking symbolically in John 6:51-58, He would be saying to us, “He who reviles or assaults me has eternal life.” This, of course, is absurd.

John 10:7 - Protestants point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, “I am the door.” But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically.

John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, “I am the vine.” Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6, Jesus’ disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 – Jesus says He will not drink of the “fruit of the vine” until He drinks it new in the kingdom. Some Protestants try to use this verse (because Jesus said “fruit of the vine”) to prove the wine cannot be His blood. But the Greek word for fruit is “genneema” which literally means “that which is generated from the vine.” In John 15:1,5 Jesus says “I am the vine.” So “fruit of the vine” can also mean Jesus’ blood. In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used “bread” and “the body of the Lord” interchangeably in the same sentence. Also, see Matt. 3:7;12:34;23:33 for examples were “genneema” means “birth” or “generation.”

Rom. 14:14-18; 1 Cor. 8:1-13; 1 Tim. 4:3 – Protestants often argue that drinking blood and eating certain sacrificed meats were prohibited in the New Testament, so Jesus would have never commanded us to consume His body and blood. But these verses prove them wrong, showing that Paul taught all foods, even meat offered to idols, strangled, or with blood, could be consumed by the Christian if it didn’t bother the brother’s conscience and were consumed with thanksgiving to God.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says we must become like children, or we will not enter the kingdom of God. We must believe Jesus’ words with child-like faith. Because Jesus says this bread is His flesh, we believe by faith, even though it surpasses our understanding.

Luke 1:37 - with God, nothing is impossible. If we can believe in the incredible reality of the Incarnation, we can certainly believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. God coming to us in elements He created is an extension of the awesome mystery of the Incarnation.

Jesus Institutes the Eucharist / More Proofs of the Real Presence

Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is “Touto estin to soma mou.” This phraseology means “this is actually” or “this is really” my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - “touto mou estin to soma.” The statement is “this is really” my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying “this represents (not is) my body and blood.” However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for “represent,” but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for “estin” which means “is.”

Matt. 26:28; Mark. 14:24; Luke 22:20 - Jesus’ use of “poured out” in reference to His blood also emphasizes the reality of its presence.

Exodus 24:8 - Jesus emphasizes the reality of His actual blood being present by using Moses’ statement “blood of the covenant.”

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, “the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ’s body and blood?” Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul’s questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word “koinonia” describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.

1 Cor. 10:18 - in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.

1 Cor. 11:23 - Paul does not explain what he has actually received directly from Christ, except in the case when he teaches about the Eucharist. Here, Paul emphasizes the importance of the Eucharist by telling us he received directly from Jesus instructions on the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the Christian faith.

1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

1 Cor. 11:30 - this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies.

1 Cor. 11:27-30 - thus, if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of literally murdering the body of Christ, and risking physical consequences to our bodies. This is overwhelming evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are unjust penalties if the Eucharist is just a symbol.

Acts 2:42 - from the Church’s inception, apostolic tradition included celebrating the Eucharist (the “breaking of the bread”) to fulfill Jesus’ command “do this in remembrance of me.”

Acts 20:28 - Paul charges the Church elders to “feed” the Church of the Lord, that is, with the flesh and blood of Christ.

Matt. 6:11; Luke 11:3 - in the Our Father, we ask God to give us this day our daily bread, that is the bread of life, Jesus Christ.

Matt. 12:39 – Jesus says no “sign” will be given except the “sign of the prophet Jonah.” While Protestants focus only on the “sign” of the Eucharist, this verse demonstrates that a sign can be followed by the reality (here, Jesus’ resurrection, which is intimately connected to the Eucharist).

Matt. 19:6 - Jesus says a husband and wife become one flesh which is consummated in the life giving union of the marital act. This union of marital love which reflects Christ’s union with the Church is physical, not just spiritual. Thus, when Paul says we are a part of Christ’s body (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23,30-31; Col. 1:18,24), he means that our union with Christ is physical, not just spiritual. But our union with Christ can only be physical if He is actually giving us something physical, that is Himself, which is His body and blood to consume (otherwise it is a mere spiritual union).

Luke 14:15 - blessed is he who eats this bread in the kingdom of God, on earth and in heaven.

Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus commands the apostles to “do this,” that is, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, in remembrance of Him.

Luke 24:26-35 - in the Emmaus road story, Jesus gives a homily on the Scriptures and then follows it with the celebration of the Eucharist. This is the Holy Mass, and the Church has followed this order of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist for 2,000 years.

Luke 24:30-31,35 - Jesus is known only in the breaking of bread. Luke is emphasizing that we only receive the fullness of Jesus by celebrating the Eucharistic feast of His body and blood, which is only offered in its fullness by the Catholic Church.

John 1:14 - literally, this verse teaches that the Word was made flesh and “pitched His tabernacle” among us. The Eucharist, which is the Incarnate Word of God under the appearance of bread, is stored in the tabernacles of Catholic churches around the world.

John 21:15,17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed” His sheep, that is, with the Word of God through preaching and the Eucharist.

Acts 9:4-5; 22:8; 26:14-15 – Jesus asks Saul, “Why are you persecuting me?” when Saul was persecuting the Church. Jesus and the Church are one body (Bridegroom and Bride), and we are one with Jesus through His flesh and blood (the Eucharist).

1 Cor. 12:13 - we “drink” of one Spirit in the Eucharist by consuming the blood of Christ eternally offered to the Father.

Heb. 10:25,29 - these verses allude to the reality that failing to meet together to celebrate the Eucharist is mortal sin. It is profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

Heb. 12:22-23 - the Eucharistic liturgy brings about full union with angels in festal gathering, the just spirits, and God Himself, which takes place in the assembly or “ecclesia” (the Church).

Heb. 12:24 - we couldn’t come to Jesus’ sprinkled blood if it were no longer offered by Jesus to the Father and made present for us.

2 Pet. 1:4 - we partake of His divine nature, most notably through the Eucharist - a sacred family bond where we become one.

Rev. 2:7; 22:14 - we are invited to eat of the tree of life, which is the resurrected flesh of Jesus which, before, hung on the tree.

Jesus’ Passion is Connected to the Passover Sacrifice where the Lamb Must Be Eaten

Matt. 26:2; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7 - Jesus’ passion is clearly identified with the Passover sacrifice (where lambs were slain and eaten).

John 1:29,36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19 - Jesus is described as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The Lamb must be sacrificed and eaten.

Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38; 19:4,6 - under the Old Covenant, the lambs were examined on Nisan 14 to ensure that they had no blemish. The Gospel writers also emphasize that Jesus the Lamb was examined on Nisan 14 and no fault was found in him. He is the true Passover Lamb which must be eaten.

Heb. 9:14 - Jesus offering Himself “without blemish” refers to the unblemished lamb in Exodus 12:5 which had to be consumed.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 - Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” - that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.

Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26 - they sung the great Hallel, which traditionally followed the Third Cup of the seder meal, but did not drink the Fourth Cup of Consummation. The Passover sacrifice had begun, but was not yet finished. It continued in the Garden of Gethsemane and was consummated on the cross.

Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 18:11 - our Lord acknowledges He has one more cup to drink. This is the Cup of Consummation which he will drink on the cross.

Psalm 116:13 - this passage references this cup of salvation. Jesus will offer this Cup as both Priest and Victim. This is the final cup of the New Testament Passover.

Luke 22:44 - after the Eucharist, Jesus sweats blood in the garden of Gethsemane. This shows that His sacrifice began in the Upper Room and connects the Passion to the seder meal where the lamb must not only be sacrificed, but consumed.

Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23 - Jesus, in his Passion, refuses to even drink an opiate. The writers point this out to emphasize that the final cup will be drunk on the cross, after the Paschal Lamb’s sacrifice is completed.

John 19:23 - this verse describes the “chiton” garment Jesus wore when He offered Himself on the cross. These were worn by the Old Testament priests to offer sacrifices. See Exodus 28:4; Lev. 16:4.

John 19:29; cf. Matt. 27:48; Mark 15:36; - Jesus is provided wine (the Fourth Cup) on a hyssop branch which was used to sprinkle the lambs’ blood in Exodus 12:22. This ties Jesus’ sacrifice to the Passover lambs which had to be consumed in the seder meal which was ceremonially completed by drinking the Cup of Consummation. Then in John 19:30, Jesus says, “It is consummated.” The sacrifice began in the upper room and was completed on the cross. God’s love for humanity is made manifest.

Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; John 19:14 - the Gospel writers confirm Jesus’ death at the sixth hour, just when the Passover lambs were sacrificed. Again, this ties Jesus’ death to the death of the Passover lambs. Like the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant, the Passover Lamb must be eaten.

1 Cor. 5:7 - Paul tells us that the Lamb has been sacrificed. But what do we need to do? Some Protestants say we just need to accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior.

1 Cor. 5:8 - But Paul says that we need to celebrate the Eucharistic feast. This means that we need to eat the Lamb. We need to restore communion with God.

Heb. 13:15 - “sacrifice of praise” or “toda” refers to the thanksgiving offerings of Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which had to be eaten.

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul’s use of the phrase “the cup of blessing” refers to the Third Cup of the seder meal. This demonstrates that the seder meal is tied to Christ’s Eucharistic sacrifice.

John 19:34-35 - John conspicuously draws attention here. The blood (Eucharist) and water (baptism) make the fountain that cleanses sin as prophesied in Zech 13:1. Just like the birth of the first bride came from the rib of the first Adam, the birth of the second bride (the Church) came from the rib of the second Adam (Jesus). Gen. 2:22.

John 7:38 - out of His Heart shall flow rivers of living water, the Spirit. Consequently, Catholics devote themselves to Jesus’ Sacred Heart.

Matt. 2:1, Luke 2:4-7 - Jesus the bread of life was born in a feeding trough in the city of Bethlehem, which means “house of bread.”

Luke 2: 7,12 - Jesus was born in a “manger” (which means “to eat”). This symbolism reveals that Jesus took on flesh and was born to be food for the salvation of the world.

The Eucharist Makes Present Jesus’ One Eternal Sacrifice; it’s Not Just a Symbolic Memorial

Gen. 14:18 - remember that Melchizedek’s bread and wine offering foreshadowed the sacramental re-presentation of Jesus’ offering.

Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - the translation of Jesus’ words of consecration is “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin.” Jesus literally said “offer this as my memorial sacrifice.” The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.

In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.

Lev. 24:7 - the word “memorial” in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is “azkarah” which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus’ instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a “memorial offering” demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.

Num. 10:10 - in this verse, “remembrance” refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus’ command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.

Mal. 1:10-11 - Jesus’ command to his apostles to offer His memorial sacrifice of bread and wine which becomes His body and blood fulfills the prophecy that God would reject the Jewish sacrifices and receive a pure sacrifice offered in every place. This pure sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally re-presented from the rising of the sun to its setting in every place, as Malachi prophesied.

Heb. 9:23 - in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself.

Heb. 9:23 - the Eucharistic sacrifice also fulfills Jer. 33:18 that His kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever, and fulfills Zech. 9:15 that the sons of Zion shall drink blood like wine and be saved.

Heb. 13:15 - this “sacrifice of praise” refers to the actual sacrifice or “toda” offering of Christ who, like the Old Testament toda offerings, now must be consumed. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which also refer to the “sacrifice of praise” in connection with animals who had to be eaten after they were sacrificed.

1 Peter 2:5-6 - Peter says that we as priests offer “sacrifices” to God through Jesus, and he connects these sacrifices to Zion where the Eucharist was established. These sacrifices refer to the one eternal Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ offered in every place around the world.

Rom. 12:1 - some Protestants argue that the Eucharist is not really the sacrifice of Christ, but a symbolic offering, because the Lord’s blood is not shed (Heb. 9:22). However, Paul instructs us to present ourselves as a “living sacrifice” to God. This verse demonstrates that not all sacrifices are bloody and result in death (for example, see the wave offerings of Aaron in Num. 8:11,13,15,21 which were unbloody sacrifices). The Eucharistic sacrifice is unbloody and lifegiving, the supreme and sacramental wave offering of Christ, mysteriously presented in a sacramental way, but nevertheless the one actual and eternal sacrifice of Christ. Moreover, our bodies cannot be a holy sacrifice unless they are united with Christ’s sacrifice made present on the altar of the Holy Mass.

1 Cor. 10:16 - “the cup of blessing” or Third cup makes present the actual paschal sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb who was slain.

1 Cor. 10:18 - Paul indicates that what is eaten from the altar has been sacrificed, and we become partners with victim. What Catholic priests offer from the altar has indeed been sacrificed, our Lord Jesus, the paschal Lamb.

1 Cor. 10:20 - Paul further compares the sacrifices of pagans to the Eucharistic sacrifice - both are sacrifices, but one is offered to God. This proves that the memorial offering of Christ is a sacrifice.

1 Cor. 11:26 - Paul teaches that as often as you eat the bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death. This means that celebrating the Eucharist is proclaiming the Gospel.

1 Cor. 10:21 - Paul’s usage of the phrase “table of the Lord” in celebrating the Eucharist is further evidence that the Eucharist is indeed a sacrifice. The Jews always understood the phrase “table of the Lord” to refer to an altar of sacrifice. See, for example, Lev. 24:6, Ezek. 41:22; 44:16 and Malachi 1:7,12, where the phrase “table of the Lord” in these verses always refers to an altar of sacrifice.

Heb. 13:10,15 - this earthly altar is used in the Mass to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice of praise to God through our eternal Priest, Jesus Christ.

Jesus in Glory Perpetually Offers the Father His Sacrifice on Our Behalf

Rev. 1 to 22 - Jesus is described as the “Lamb” 28 times in the book of Revelation. This is because Jesus emphasizes His sacrifice in heaven and in His Holy Catholic Church.

Rev. 1:13 - Jesus is clothed in heaven with a long robe and golden girdle like the Old Testament priests who offered animal sacrifices. See Exodus 28:4.

Rev. 2:17 - the spiritual manna, our Lord’s glorious body and blood, is emphasized in the heavenly feast.

Rev. 3:20 - as Priest and Paschal Lamb, our Lord shares the Eucharistic meal with us to seal His New Covenant. Through the covenant of his body and blood, we are restored to the Father and become partakers of the divine nature.

Rev. 5:6 - this verse tells us that Jesus in His glory still looks like a lamb who was slain. Also, Jesus is “standing” as though a Lamb who was slain. Lambs that are slain lie down. This odd depiction shows Jesus stands at the Altar as our eternal priest in forever offering Himself to the Father for our salvation.

Rev. 7:14 - the blood of the Lamb is eternally offered in heaven with the washing of the robes to make them white.

Rev. 14:1, Heb. 12:22 - Zion is the city where Jesus established the Eucharist and which was miraculously preserved after the destruction of Jerusalem. See also Psalms 2:6 and 132:13. It represents the union of heaven and earth, of divinity and humanity. This is why those who enter into the Eucharistic celebration on earth enter into the presence of innumerable angels, the souls of the just made perfect, Jesus the Mediator of the Covenant and His sprinkled blood, and God the Judge of all.

Rev. 19:13 - in all His glory, Jesus’ sacrifice is eternally present as He presents Himself to the Father clothed in a robe dipped in blood. Jesus’ sacrifice is the focus in heaven and in the Mass. When the Father beholds His Son, He beholds His sacrifice for humanity.

Rev. 19:9 - we are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb where we become one with Him by consuming His body and blood. This is the nuptial union of divinity and humanity.

Heb. 2:17; 3:1; 4:14; 8:1; 9:11,25; 10:19,22 - Jesus is repeatedly described as “High Priest.” But in order to be a priest, “it is necessary for [Jesus] to have something to offer.” Heb. 8:3. This is the offering of the eternal sacrifice of His body and blood to the Father.

Heb. 2:18 - although His suffering is past tense, His expiation of our sins is present tense because His offering is continual. Therefore, He is able (present tense) to help those who are tempted.

Heb. 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:15,17 - these verses show that Jesus restores the father-son priesthood after Melchizedek. Jesus is the new priest and King of Jerusalem and feeds the new children of Abraham with His body and blood. This means that His eternal sacrifice is offered in the same manner as the bread and wine offered by Melchizedek in Gen. 14:18. But the bread and wine that Jesus offers is different, just as the Passover Lamb of the New Covenant is different. The bread and wine become His body and blood by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.

Heb. 4:3 – God’s works were finished from the foundation of the world. This means that God’s works, including Christ’s sacrifice (the single act that secured the redemption of our souls and bodies), are forever present in eternity. Jesus’ suffering is over and done with (because suffering was earthly and temporal), but His sacrifice is eternal, because His priesthood is eternal (His victimized state was only temporal).

Heb. 4:14 – Jesus the Sacrifice passes through the heavens by the glory cloud of God, just like the sacrifices of Solomon were taken up into heaven by the glory cloud of God in 2 Chron. 7:1. See also Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51; and Acts 1:10.

Heb. 7:24 – Jesus holds His priesthood is forever because He continues forever, so His sacrificial offering is forever. He continues to offer His body and blood to us because He is forever our High Priest.

Heb. 8:2 - Jesus is a minister in the sanctuary offering up (present tense) His eternal sacrifice to the Father which is perfected in heaven. This is the same sanctuary that we enter with confidence by the blood of Jesus as written in Heb. 10:19. See also Heb. 12:22-24.

Heb. 8:3 - as High Priest, it is necessary for Jesus to have something to offer. What is Jesus offering in heaven? As eternal Priest, He offers the eternal sacrifice of His body and blood.

Heb. 8:6; 9:15; cf. Heb. 12:22-24; 13:20-21 - the covenant Jesus mediates (present tense) is better than the Old covenant. The covenant He mediates is the covenant of His body and blood which He offers in the Eucharist. See Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - which is the only time Jesus uses the word “covenant” (which is the offering of His body and blood).

Heb. 9:12 – Jesus enters into heaven, the Holy Place, taking His own blood. How can this be? He wasn’t bleeding after the resurrection. This is because He enters into the heavenly sanctuary to mediate the covenant of His body and blood by eternally offering it to the Father. This offering is made present to us in the same manner as Melchizedek’s offering, under the appearance of bread and wine.

Heb. 9:14 - the blood of Christ offered in heaven purifies (present tense) our consciences from dead works to serve the living God. Christ’s offering is ongoing.

Heb. 9:22 – blood is indeed required for the remission of sin. Jesus’ blood was shed once, but it is continually offered to the Father. This is why Jesus takes His blood, which was shed once and for all, into heaven. Heb. 9:12.

Heb. 9:23 – Jesus’ sacrifice, which is presented eternally to the Father in heaven, is described as “sacrifices” (in the plural) in the context of its re-presentation on earth (the author first writes about the earthly sacrifices of animals, and then the earthly offerings of Jesus Christ’s eternal sacrifice).

Heb. 9:26 – Jesus’ once and for all appearance into heaven to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself shows that Jesus’ presence in heaven and His sacrifice are inseparable. This also shows that “once for all,” which refers to Jesus’ appearance in heaven, means perpetual (it does not, and cannot mean, “over and done with” because Jesus is in heaven for eternity). “Once for all” also refers to Jesus’ suffering and death (Heb. 7:27; 9:12,26;10:10-14). But “once for all” never refers to Jesus’ sacrifice, which is eternally presented to the Father. This sacrifice is the Mal. 1:11 pure offering made present in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting in the Eucharist offered in the same manner as the Melchizedek offering.

Heb. 10:19 - we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus on earth in the Eucharistic liturgy, which is the heavenly sanctuary where Jesus’ offering is presented to God in Heb. 8:2.

Heb. 10:22 - our hearts and bodies are (not were) washed clean by the action of Jesus’ perpetual priesthood in heaven.

Heb. 13:10 – the author writes that we have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. This altar is the heavenly altar at which Jesus presides as Priest before the Father, eternally offering His body and blood on our behalf. See. Mal. 1:7,12; Lev. 24:7; Ez. 41:22; 44:16; Rev. 5:6; 6:9; 9:13; 11:1; 16:7.

Heb. 13:20-21 - Jesus died once, but His blood of the eternal covenant is eternally offered to equip us (present tense) with everything good that we may do God’s will.

Heb. 13:8 - this is because Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. While His suffering was temporal (because bodily pain is temporal), Jesus and His sacrifice are eternal (because redemption, salvation, and the mediation of the New covenant are eternal).

Heb. 13:15 – the letter concludes with an instruction to continually offer up, through Christ, a sacrifice of praise to God. The phrase “sacrifice of praise” refers to the “toda” animal sacrifices that had to be consumed. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30.

1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 20:6 - we are a royal priesthood in Jesus, and offer His sacrifice to the Father on earth as He does in heaven.

1 John 1:7 - the blood of Jesus cleanses us (present tense) from all sin. His blood cannot currently cleanse us unless it is currently offered for us.

Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood...” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world...” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).

“For the blood of the grape—that is, the Word—desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both—of the water and of the Word—is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body…He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: ‘I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,’ which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212).

“For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ...Thus, therefore, in consecrating the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered. For if any one offer wine only, the blood of Christ is dissociated from us; but if the water be alone, the people are dissociated from Christ; but when both are mingled, and are joined with one another by a close union, there is completed a spiritual and heavenly sacrament. Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone, nor wine alone, unless each be mingled with the other; just as, on the other hand, the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, unless both should be united and joined together and compacted in the mass of one bread; in which very sacrament our people are shown to be made one, so that in like manner as many grains, collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread; so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, with which our number is joined and united.” Cyprian, To Caeilius, Epistle 62(63):13 (A.D. 253).

“Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).

“For as to what we say concerning the reality of Christ’s nature within us, unless we have been taught by Him, our words are foolish and impious. For He says Himself, My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him. As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this true? Yet they who affirm that Christ Jesus is not truly God are welcome to find it false. He therefore Himself is in us through the flesh and we in Him, whilst together with Him our own selves are in God.” Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 8:14 (inter A.D. 356-359).

“Let us then in everything believe God, and gainsay Him in nothing, though what is said seem to be contrary to our thoughts and senses, but let His word be of higher authority than both reasonings and sight. Thus let us do in the mysteries also, not looking at the things set before us, but keeping in mind His sayings. For His word cannot deceive, but our senses are easily beguiled. That hath never failed, but this in most things goeth wrong. Since then the word saith, ‘This is my body,’ let us both be persuaded and believe, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ hath given nothing sensible, but though in things sensible yet all to be perceived by the mind. So also in baptism, the gift is bestowed by a sensible thing, that is, by water; but that which is done is perceived by the mind, the birth, I mean, and the renewal. For if thou hadst been incorporeal, He would have delivered thee the incorporeal gifts bare; but because the soul hath been locked up in a body, He delivers thee the things that the mind perceives, in things sensible. How many now say, I would wish to see His form, the mark, His clothes, His shoes. Lo! Thou seest Him, Thou touchest Him, thou eatest Him. And thou indeed desirest to see His clothes, but He giveth Himself to thee not to see only, but also to touch and eat and receive within thee.” John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, Homily 82 (A.D. 370).

“It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy body and blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, ‘He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.’ And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord’s day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint.” Basil, To Patrician Caesaria, Epistle 93 (A.D. 372).

“You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ...When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.” Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26, 1325 (ante A.D. 373).

“…if a person sees bread he also, in a kind of way, looks on a human body, for by the bread being within it the bread becomes it, so also, in that other case, the body into which God entered, by partaking of the nourishment of bread, was, in a certain measure, the same with it; that nourishment, as we have said, changing itself into the nature of the body. For that which is peculiar to all flesh is acknowledged also in the case of that flesh, namely, that that Body too was maintained by bread; which Body also by the indwelling of God the Word was transmuted to the dignity of Godhead. Rightly, then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was transformed in that Body was changed to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in a manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle, ‘is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer’; not that it advances by the process of eating to the stage of passing into the body of the Word, but it is at once changed into the body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, ‘This is My Body.’” Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 37 (post A.D. 383).

“ Seeing, too, that all flesh is nourished by what is moist (for without this combination our earthly part would not continue to live), just as we support by food which is firm and solid the solid part of our body, in like manner we supplement the moist part from the kindred element; and this, when within us, by its faculty of being transmitted, is changed to blood, and especially if through the wine it receives the faculty of being transmuted into heat. Since, then, that God-containing flesh partook for its substance and support of this particular nourishment also, and since the God who was manifested infused Himself into perishable humanity for this purpose, viz. that by this communion with Deity mankind might at the same time be deified, for this end it is that, by dispensation of His grace, He disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh, whose substance comes from bread and wine, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by this union with the immortal, man, too, may be a sharer in incorruption. He gives these gifts by virtue of the benediction through which He trans-elements the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing.” Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 37 (post A.D. 383).

“Perhaps you will say, ‘I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?’ And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed...The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: ‘This is My Body.’ Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks.” Ambrose, On the Mysteries, 9:50 (A.D. 390-391).

“’And was carried in His Own Hands: ‘how carried in His Own Hands’? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, ‘This is My Body.’” Augustine, On the Psalms, 33:1,10 (A.D. 392-418).

“Dearly-beloved, utter this confession with all your heart and reject the wicked lies of heretics, that your fasting and almsgiving may not be polluted by any contagion with error: for then is our offering of the sacrifice clean and oar gifts of mercy holy, when those who perform them understand that which they do. For when the Lord says, “unless ye have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, and drunk His blood, ye will not have life in you,’ you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood. For that is taken in the mouth which is believed in Faith, and it is vain for them to respond Amend who dispute that which is taken.” Pope Leo the Great, Sermon, 91:3 (ante A.D. 461).

“The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God’s body and blood. But if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit. And we know nothing further save that the Word of God is true and energizes and is omnipotent, but the manner of this cannot be searched out. But one can put it well thus, that just as in nature the bread by the eating and the wine and the water by the drinking are changed into the body and blood of the eater and drinker, and do not become a different body from the former one, so the bread of the table and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ, and are not two but one and the same.” John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4:13 (A.D. 743).

“Wherefore to those who partake worthily with faith, it is for the remission of sins and for life everlasting and for the safeguarding of soul and body; but to those who partake unworthily without faith, it is for chastisement and punishment, just as also the death of the Lord became to those who believe life and incorruption for the enjoyment of eternal blessedness, while to those who do not believe and to the murderers of the Lord it is for everlasting chastisement and punishment. The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, ‘This is My body,’ not, this is a figure of My body: and ‘My blood,’ not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous occasion He had said to the Jews, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He that eateth Me, shall live.” John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4:13 (A.D. 743).

The Bread and Wine Become Jesus’ Body and Blood

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (A.D. 110-165).

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: ‘I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,’ which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212).

“He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood. In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, ‘Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?’ The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, ‘He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes’—in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212).

“He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood?” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:4 (c. A.D. 350).

“Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).

“Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXIII:7 (c. A.D. 350).

“Let us then in everything believe God, and gainsay Him in nothing, though what is said seem to be contrary to our thoughts and senses, but let His word be of higher authority than both reasonings and sight. Thus let us do in the mysteries also, not looking at the things set before us, but keeping in mind His sayings. For His word cannot deceive, but our senses are easily beguiled. That hath never failed, but this in most things goeth wrong. Since then the word saith, ‘This is my body,’ let us both be persuaded and believe, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ hath given nothing sensible, but though in things sensible yet all to be perceived by the mind...How many now say, I would wish to see His form, the mark, His clothes, His shoes. Lo! Thou seest Him, Thou touchest Him, thou eatest Him. And thou indeed desirest to see His clothes, but He giveth Himself to thee not to see only, but also to touch and eat and receive within thee.” John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, Homily 82 (A.D. 370).

“You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ....When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.” Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26, 1325 (ante A.D. 373).

“Then He added: ‘For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed].’ Thou hearest Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood, thou perceivest the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord’s death, and thou dishonourest His Godhead. Hear His own words: ‘A spirit hath not flesh and bones.’ Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, “do show the Lord’s Death.’” Ambrose, On the Christian Faith, 4, 10:125 (A.D. 380).

“Rightly, then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was transformed in that Body was changed to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in a manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle, ‘is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer’; not that it advances by the process of eating to the stage of passing into the body of the Word, but it is at once changed into the body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, ‘This is My Body.’” Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 37 (post A.D. 383).

“Seeing, too, that all flesh is nourished by what is moist (for without this combination our earthly part would not continue to live), just as we support by food which is firm and solid the solid part of our body, in like manner we supplement the moist part from the kindred element; and this, when within us, by its faculty of being transmitted, is changed to blood, and especially if through the wine it receives the faculty of being transmuted into heat. Since, then, that God-containing flesh partook for its substance and support of this particular nourishment also, and since the God who was manifested infused Himself into perishable humanity for this purpose, viz. that by this communion with Deity mankind might at the same time be deified, for this end it is that, by dispensation of His grace, He disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh, whose substance comes from bread and wine, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by this union with the immortal, man, too, may be a sharer in incorruption. He gives these gifts by virtue of the benediction through which He trans-elements the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing.” Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 37 (post A.D. 383).

“Perhaps you will say, ‘I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?’ And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed...The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: ‘This is My Body.’ Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks.” Ambrose, On the Mysteries, 9:50 (A.D. 390-391).

“’And was carried in His Own Hands:’ how ‘carried in His Own Hands’? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, ‘This is My Body.’” Augustine, On the Psalms, 33:1, 10 (A.D. 392-418).

“He did not say, ‘This is the symbol of My Body, and this, of My Blood,’ but, what is set before us, but that it is transformed by means of the Eucharistic action into Flesh and Blood.” Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on Matthew 26:26 (ante A.D. 428).

“Eran.—You have opportunely introduced the subject of the divine mysteries for from it I shall be able to show you the change of the Lord’s body into another nature. Answer now to my questions.
Orth.—I will answer.
Eran.—What do you call the gift which is offered before the priestly invocation?
Orth.—It were wrong to say openly; perhaps some uninitiated are present.
Eran.—Let your answer be put enigmatically.
Orth.—Food of grain of such a sort.
Eran.—And how name we the other symbol?
Orth.—This name too is common, signifying species of drink.
Eran.—And after the consecration how do you name these?
Orth.—Christ’s body and Christ’s blood.
Eran.—And do yon believe that you partake of Christ’s body and blood?
Orth.—I do.” Theodoret of Cyrus, Eranistes, 2 (A.D. 451).

“Dearly beloved, utter this confession with all your heart and reject the wicked lies of heretics, that your fasting and almsgiving may not be polluted by any contagion with error: for then is our offering of the sacrifice clean and oar gifts of mercy holy, when those who perform them understand that which they do. For when the Lord says, “unless ye have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, and drunk His blood, ye will not have life in you,’ you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood. For that is taken in the mouth which is believed in Faith, and it is vain for them to respond Amend who dispute that which is taken.” Pope Leo the Great, Sermon, 91:3 (ante A.D. 461).

“The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God’s body and blood. But if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit. And we know nothing further save that the Word of God is true and energises and is omnipotent, but the manner of this cannot be searched out. But one can put it well thus, that just as in nature the bread by the eating and the wine and the water by the drinking are changed into the body and blood of the eater and drinker, and do not become a different body from the former one, so the bread of the table and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ, and are not two but one and the same.” John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4:13 (A.D. 743).

“Wherefore to those who partake worthily with faith, it is for the remission of sins and for life everlasting and for the safeguarding of soul and body; but to those who partake unworthily without faith, it is for chastisement and punishment, just as also the death of the Lord became to those who believe life and incorruption for the enjoyment of eternal blessedness, while to those who do not believe and to the murderers of the Lord it is for everlasting chastisement and punishment. The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, ‘This is My body,’ not, this is a figure of My body: and ‘My blood,’ not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous occasion He had said to the Jews, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He that eateth Me, shall live.” John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4:13 (A.D. 743).

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

[Running On Empty]

Wow—just—wow.

[Charles07]

“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.”-John Paul the Great

[Iscool]

Wow—just—wow.

It don't take much to 'wow' some folks...Now check it out with the scripture to see the contorted, twisted, convoluted and perverted private interpretation put out by the author of this piece...

This thing is full of misquotes of scripture (that's adding to the scripture and taking words away from it)...

Here's an example of the many perversions...

1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 20:6 - we are a royal priesthood in Jesus, and offer His sacrifice to the Father on earth as He does in heaven.

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:

There's not a word in here about offering HIS sacrifice...It says we are to praise HIM...Someone's lying to you...

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Here's the rest of that perversion...

As you can see, the verse is talking about the Royal Priesthood, which is all Christians, NOT your Catholics priests...And it is speaking about the 1000 year reign of Christ of earth that you guys don't believe in...

It has NOTHING to do with sacrificing Jesus again on the Cross or in the Mass...

Here it is again: 1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 20:6 - we are a royal priesthood in Jesus, and offer His sacrifice to the Father on earth as He does in heaven

Nothing but a lie with a capital L...And you buy into because they told you to believe it...

And here's another one:

Heb. 13:15 – the letter concludes with an instruction to continually offer up, through Christ, a sacrifice of praise to God. The phrase “sacrifice of praise” refers to the “toda” animal sacrifices that had to be consumed. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30

Now here's another lying misquote...Here's the real verse:

Heb 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.

a sacrifice
θυσία
thusia
thoo-see'-ah
From G2380; sacrifice (the act or the victim, literally or figuratively): - sacrifice.

of praise
αἴνεσις
ainesis
ah'ee-nes-is
From G134; a praising (the act), that is, (specifically) a thank (offering): - praise.

There is nothing here about an animal sacrifice...Or any sacrifice that had to be consumed...It's a sacrifice with our LIPS, not teeth...

Another lie...

Ha...They know you guys won't check this stuff out...You'll just believe it...

[Charles07]

Shame on you...

Get your head out of the sand.

Leviticus 7

7:12 ean men peri ainesewV prosferh authn kai prosoisei epi thV qusiaV thV >>ainesewV<< artouV ek semidalewV anapepoihmenouV en elaiw lagana azuma diakecrismena en elaiw kai semidalin pefuramenhn en elaiw

Hebrews 13

13:15 di autou [oun] oun anaferwmen qusian >>ainesews<< diapantos tw qew toutestin karpon ceilewn omologountwn tw onomati autou

[Charles07]

Wonder how he will say THAT is “twisted”...

:D

[Charles07]

Did you know that the phrase “1000 Year Reign of Christ” does not appear anywhere in scripture? Nor the word “millenium”? Does this surprise you? Notice in the above title, we did not spell out the word “thousand,” but used “1000” instead. This is because numbers are fictions in numerical form and have no substance. And the “1000 year reign of Christ” is also a fiction according to Scripture, which has has no substance. It is born and bred from the doctrines of man, not from the Holy Scripture.

The “thousand year reign” appears nowhere in the sixty-six books, 1,189 chapters, 31,173 verses of the Bible except in this one passage where it occurs six times in six consecutive verses (Revelation 20:3-8). It is not solid study to build an entire system of beliefs about the end of the age and the status of the kingdom on such a highly symbolic passage. More especially when that interpretation conflicts with other plain passages of scripture.

Revelation 20:3-8 is the only passage in the entire scriptures that the so-called premillinialists have as the basis for the “1000 year reign.” What endless variations of concocted fables have resulted! Clearly it does not contain the detail that they attribute to it.

First, it should be pointed out that scripture does not speak of “the thousand year reign of Christ.” Revelation 20:4 says, “...and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God,...and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” It’s not Christ that reigns 1000 years, but those who were killed for God’s sake that reign with Christ 1000 years.

To illustrate, consider the phrase, “John Doe reigned with the king for one year.” Does this mean the king reigned for only one year? No, it does not. The king could reign for many years, but the point is not how long the king reigned but how long John reigned with the king. The king isn’t the subject, it is speaking about how long John reigns with him. Likewise, Revelation 20:4 is not about how long Jesus will reign, but how long others will reign with Jesus. There’s a big difference.

There are some things not mentioned in Revelation 20.

* First, it does not mention the second coming of Christ.
* Second, it does not mention a reign on earth.
* Third, this passage does not mention a bodily resurrection.
* Fourth, it does not mention Christ on earth.
* And fifth, it does not mention us, it says “they” lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Who are the “they” that lived and reigned with Christ? The souls of them that had been beheaded for their testimony of Jesus. In an earlier chapter of this same book of Revelations, in Chapter 6:9-11, the picture is of the souls of martyrs who had been slain for the word of God under an altar crying for vengeance. Here the martyrs are on thrones, God’s inevitable judgment has come. The victory came in the spirit world (not the physical), and God assured their victory. This passage only speaks of the “dead” reigning with Christ, this passage does not speak about those who are “alive” reigning with Christ.

The passage also mentions the first resurrection, which is in contrast with the second death. The point is not that the righteous is raised a thousand years before the wicked, for a physical reign on earth, but that the cause of Christ for which the martyrs died is triumphant. Evil is not forever on the throne. God has overcome.

This passage says nothing about Jesus coming to this earth and establishing a worldly kingdom at Jerusalem — those that so teach are duty-bound to prove their doctrines with scripture, not just their imaginations.

Revelation 20:4, “…and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”

This is where the phrase “1000 year reign” came from. Its proper use would be limited to exactly what John was describing at this point. The so-called “premillinialists” believe that they will be worldly conquerors with Christ when He comes to reign on this earth for 1000 years; but Paul says that “we are more than conquerors through him that loved us” now! And this is the essence of what John the Revelator is communicating. There is no reason to differentiate between these reigns. There is no reason to believe (other than impatience or dissatisfaction with God’s plan for us) that there is anything sweeter on this earth than reigning in His kingdom, now.

At Revelation 20:6, the first resurrection clearly applies to those dead in Christ who lived and reigned with Christ for the figurative “1000-year period” in wait for the final judgment and the general resurrection of the just and the unjust. The second death is explained further below. It is the ultimate death that those who are lost will experience at that judgment, the first death being physical death. While the saints and true believers who die physically experience this first death, the second death will have no power over them.

While the main thrust of Revelation 20:6 is that the righteous dead are reigning with Christ, there is no reason to believe that those of us on this earth do not share in this reign now. One of the major losses of the “premillinialists” is that, in their quest for a worldly kingdom in the future, they fail to recognize the blessings of Christ reigning in our lives now.

Let us now compare scripture with scripture to interpret the “thousand years.” In scripture, the term “thousand,” when in reference to time, is always used symbolically of a predetermined time that God chooses. In other cases, it is always used symbolically for a large number of people or things. Surely, nobody can honestly interpret the following “thousands” as literal:

People or Things

Job 9:3, “If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand.”

Psalms 50:10, “For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.”

Ecclesiastes 7:28, “...one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found.”

Song of Solomon 4:4, “…whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men.”

Daniel 5:1, “Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.”

Daniel 7:10, “...thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.”

Days, Years, and Generations

Deuteronomy 7:9, “…which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that…keep his commandments to a thousand generations;”

1 Chronicles 16:15, “Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;”

Psalms 84:10, “For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand.”

Psalms 90:4, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past,”

Psalms 105:8, “He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.”

Ecclesiastes 6:6, “Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place?”

2 Peter 3:8, “...one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

It should be obvious from the above that every occurance of the word “thousand,” by itself, throughout scripture, is not literal but symbolic for a large number or long period of time. Then, why is it when we go to the book of Revelation (the most symbolic book of them all), many interpret this thousand years as literal? Especially when there is no scriptural warrant for doing so?

Futurists make the same mistake that the Jews who crucified Christ made — they were not satisfied with a spiritual kingdom; they had to have a literal, worldly, physical kingdom. The Truth of the matter is not that Christ will reign for a thousand years some time in the future, but that Christ is reigning now, and will continue to reign for eternity. We do not have to wait for His Kingdom to come sometime in the future before He starts reigning over our lives, for Christ’s Kingdom is here now, and He desires that we reign with Him now, whether we choose to recognize it or not!

http://ecclesia.org/truth/1000.html

The Millennium — the very term, meaning a period of 1,000 years — comes to us from the description in Revelation 20.1-10. The story tells of a final battle between the forces of God and Satan in which God will triumph.

20 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and locked and sealed it over him, so that he would deceive the nations no more, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be let out for a little while.

7 When the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will come out to deceive the nations at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, in order to gather them for battle; they are as numerous as the sands of the sea. 9 They marched up over the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from heaven and consumed them. 10 And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Interpretations of when this 1,000 year period will come have varied greatly in Christian history.

1. THE BACKGROUND

The idea of a 1,000-year kingdom is not found in any other Jewish or Christian apocalypse before Revelation. It enters later Christian tradition through Revelation and its interpreters. Other Jewish apocalypses do, however, seem to expect a long and glorious kingdom on earth, either of indefinite duration (’forever”), or of some significantly long, but finite duration. The idea of a coming earthly kingdom lay behind the apocalyptic fervor that fueled the First Revolt (66-70 CE). The post-70 CE Jewish apocalypse, IV Ezra, is probably closest in tone and in date to what we see in Revelation. It predicts a coming Messiah who will soon defeat the Romans and establish a new Kingdom of Israel on earth that will last for 400 years (IV Ezra 7.28).

It may well be that the number 1,000 comes originally from I Enoch, where it looks toward a coming age when the faithful once again live long peaceful lives like the patriarchs of Genesis who lived before Noah’s flood. For the author of 1 Enoch these figures, such as Noah himself (who is said to have lived 950 years) or Methusaleh (969 years), reflected the “golden age” of humanity. Later apocalyptic tradition often depicted the coming messianic age as a return to that time, and the number 1,000 (rounded off for good measure) became an important symbol.

2. THE MILLENNIUM IN THE SECOND CENTURY

It is not entirely clear whether Revelation meant for the 1,000 years to be taken literally or figuratively. What is clear is that it depicted the time of evil and oppression which the Christians were then experiencing (described in chapter 11 as three-and-one-half years, or 42 months, or 1,260 days) would be a mere blink of an eye compared to the long and glorious rule of God that would ensue. Nonetheless, it appears that, taken literally, the author was predicting that the Roman Empire would fall before the year 100 CE and lead into the 1,000 years of peace. Needless to say, that did not happen. Even so, some Christians of the 2nd century, continued to look toward a literal fulfillment of these expectations in their own day.

Most notable among these thinkers was Justin Martyr, who was a Christian teacher and philosopher in Rome from ca. 144-164 CE. Writing in the years following the Second Jewish Revolt (132-135 CE) he viewed that revolt as the “sure sign” that the end was just around the corner. He expected John’s 1,000 years soon. The term usually given to this type of early literalism is called Chiliasm (from the Greek word chilia, meaning a thousand). Chiliasm refers to a stream within early Christianity that kept expecting John’s predictions to come true “any time now.” These ideas continued to resurface from time to time down to the fourth century and probably contributed to the suspicion in which the Book of Revelation was traditionally held.

The most infamous Chiliast interpreter of Revelation of the 2nd century was the “heretic” Montanus. Claiming to be a prophet, Montanus predicted that the New Jerusalem would descend on his hometown of Pepuza, in Phrygia (central Turkey) sometime around 170 CE. He also had two prophetesses, named Priscilla and Maximilla, who delivered other predictions about times and events. Montanus, like the author of Revelation, was a strident opponent of “worldliness,” and called on Christians to live a strict life apart from Roman society. Finally, however, he was driven out of the church for his disruptive teachings, even though some persisted in his views for another century afterward all across the empire.

3. AUGUSTINE AND THE MEDIEVAL SYNTHESIS: TRADITIONAL POST-MILLENNIALISM

By the time that the Book of Revelation was included in the Latin Christian Bible (in 394 CE), it has also been given a different interpretation regarding the 1,000 years. The chief architect of both was St. Augustine (354-430 CE). Revelation’s vision of a triumphant Christian kingdom on earth could be seen coming to reality as the emperor Theodosius banned all pagan religious activities in the same year. Augustine argued that the End it describes exists far off in the future, and that with the Church, Christians have already entered into God’s earthly reign.

Like other images in revelation, the 1,000-year reign was not to be taken literally; it was a symbol of the “age” of the Christian Church. This view was further reinforced for Augustine and his age when the “eternal city” of Rome was sacked by the Goths in the year 410 CE. Now some of the triumphalism of earlier times was muted. Instead, Augustine wrote his City Of God as an exposition of this symbolic understanding of time, salvation, and Final Judgment. But while making Revelation safe for Christianity, Augustine and his brethren also ensured that it would be around for future generations to use and reinterpret as they saw fit.

This symbolic view of the 1,000 years has two key components. First, that the 1,000 is not to be taken literally, but figuratively, and that the millennial kingdom is already alive in the Christian Church. This means that all the events described in Revelation had already taken place, and only the Final Judgment was yet to come at the end of the figurative Millennium. But when that time was, no one could be sure, said Augustine. The latter of these elements became the dominant Christian view throughout the remaining centuries and still is. It is usually called “post-millennialism,” i.e., that the Last Judgment occurs at the return of Christ after the 1,000 years is finished. Augustine’s further insistance that this 1,000 years was not to be taken literally is often known as “a-millennialism,” but for all intents and purposes it is a variant of the traditional “post-millennial” view, but without a literal 1,000 years.

Despite Augustine’s insistance that these numbers were merely symbolic, many Christians have taken them literally in one way or another. The first clear indication of this came as the year 999 CE approached its end and many Christians expected the Final Judgment to commence then. Many others throughout the later Middle Ages used some vague notion that the 1,000 years was running out. They still held to a more-or-less literal post-millennialism. For example, Martin Luther, near the end of his life said that he didn’t expect the world to last another 20 years. In his view the Reformation was part of the divine plan to cleanse the Church as it neared the end of the 1,000 years in preparation for its final judgment.

As more centuries passed, this timetable became increasingly hard to compute. By the year 1600 CE, for example, Protestant interpreters who expected a literal 1,000 years could not help but notice that this put the beginning of their Millennial Kingdom squarely in the period of the medieval Catholic Church. So, they began to recalibrate the time-tables, while still holding onto the traditional post-millennial scheme. This view became very prominent in both England and New England and led to a new round of “millennial” calculations. Many of these, such as the ones developed by Cotton Mather, sought refuge in other symbolic numbers, such as the mysterious 1,260 days of Revelation 11. Using a principle of interpretation (based on a reading of 2 Peter 3.8) that “one day equals one year,” they could create new mathematical schemes that better fit both Christian history down to their own times. So Mather predicted that the end would come in 1696, then in 1736, and finally in 1716. When a giant earthquake hit Boston in 1728, he was sure that was it.

Mather’s date-setting did not sit well with everyone, especially when it required constant revisions as each date passed. For Mather as well as others, 1716 was a grueling year of tense expectations and soul searching. enough was enough, said some, it was time to put such linking of prophecy and current events aside. But a new round of millennial preaching broke out within only a few years coinciding with the revivalist movement in new England known as the “great awakening.” yet it would signal a shift in some of their interpretive assumptions.

The notion that an “awakening” of the hearts and souls of people was instrumental to the coming millennium was a key feature of this new movement. no figure was more central to its ideals than the minister of the congregational church of Northampton, Massachusetts, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), whom Perry Miller called, “the greatest [American] artist of the apocalypse.” By Edwards’ day, the notion had already surfaced that the judgment day might not come until the year 2000 (when the world would be 6,000 years old, using Bishop Usher’s date for creation). Edwards himself seems to have accepted this view, but he was interested in when and how the millennium would commence. By 1742, at the height of the revival, he concluded that it was the dawning or prelude to “that glorious work of God, so often foretold in scripture, which in the progress and issue of it, shall renew the world of mankind.” The key was progress, reform, renewal of society; these were to be signs that the millennial kingdom had arrived.

Edwards thus consolidated what was emerging as the new main stream of American Protestant millennial expectation — what is usually called “postmillennialism.” in this view, the Millennium was a time of the saints on earth which would lead to revival and renewal, at the end of which the elect would be snatched away to heaven just before the destruction of the world by a final conflagration. Moreover, this paradigm could reinterpret current events and calculations of history in variable ways, but it looked primarily to the notion of social progress as the eventual outcome and sign that the millennial kingdom was nigh. This idea would spark American consciousness in terms of social reform, such as the abolition of slavery, down to the Civil War and into the twentieth century.

4. THE RISE OF PRE-MILLENNIALISM

It was out of this period that a new scheme of millennial interpretation would emerge. In the regions of the westward expansion during the early decades of the 1800’s, a new revivalism broke out. Called the “second great awakening” it resumed many of the goals of moral conversion and utopian idealism from the days of Jonathan Edwards. Camp meetings sprang up throughout the midwest. The region know as the “burned over” district of New York got its name from these revivalist activities. Firebrand preachers, such as Charles Grandison Finney, took the calls for reform very literally. Within another generation, they and their children would lead the charged, emotional battle over abolition of slavery. But the goal was the same, perfecting the Christian society of America as a millennial kingdom to prepare for the judgment day.

Out of this period would emerge some new interpretations of apocalyptic with a far more pessimistic outlook on the course of human events. known as “pre-millennialism,” it would resurrect the expectation of an imminent second coming, but with a twist. One of the new interpretations of this period was that proposed by Joseph Smith (1805-1844), who grew up in Palmyra, New York. The result was the foundation of a new apocalyptic offshoot of Protestant Christianity. It took over many aspects of traditional apocalyptic expectation and thought, but there were also new elements. Hence the movement came to be known by the apocalyptic title, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but better known as the Mormons.

Another product of the revivalist spirit in the ‘burned over district” of New York was a Baptist layman and farmer, William Miller (1782-1849). Originally from New England, he had strong belief in literal fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Having witnessed the battle of Plattsburgh during the war of 1812, he ascribed the victory to divine intervention. Then in 1818, after two years of intense bible study, he concluded that the second coming of Jesus would occur in 1843. An important shift led Miller to make this prediction. He now used a time-frame of 2,300 years (drawn from Daniel 8.14) to calculate the period from the post-exilic “purification” of the Temple down to the “end of the world.” This meant that the 1,000 years of Revelation was yet to come. It was this shift that gave rise to pre-millennialism, the idea that the end of the world must come before the millennial kingdom on earth.

More than any other figure, it was John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) who put a new face on literalist pre-millennialism that lasts to this day. He did so through a new wrinkle in his system of prophecy interpretation, that, among other things, avoided Miller’s downfall of date-setting. Darby’s system, known as “Dispensationalism” derives from Miller and others its basic pre-millennial orientation and its distinctive understanding of the nature of prophecy. But it adds some new elements as well. One key was the peculiar idea of “prophecy” itself. Darby himself was from Ireland and served an Anglican priest in Dublin. After an accident in 1827, Darby went through a lengthy period of convalescence during which he had some sort of religious experience through reading the Bible. He emerged with a new sense of “prophecy.” For Darby almost the entire Bible was somehow to be understood as prophetic or predictive of future events. Even Genesis was more than an account of the origins of the earth, it was a blueprint for time. Simultaneously, Darby had become disgruntled with the English churches for being too ritualistic. He eventually left to join a new sect, called “the Plymouth Brethren.”

Notably, Darby preached that God divided time into a series of three epochs, which he called “dispensations.” In each dispensation of history, Darby said, the means of salvation ordained by God was different. The first “dispensation” lasted from the day of creation to the death of Jesus. It was governed by prophecies delivered to Israel. The third (and last) would begin with “the Rapture” (another of Darby’s key terms) that occurs just prior to the Millennium when Jesus will return again. Hence, the second is that of the present times, having begun with the resurrection (not the birth) of Jesus. Darby said far less about this second “dispensation” itself, as if time between the New Testament and the present hardly mattered. Thus, like Miller and others, Darby took the view that all the “prophecies” of the Book of Revelation (after the opening two chapters) and many others were yet to be fulfilled in human history. The “dispensation” of the church was not the Millennium, but rather one more stage of preparation for it.

Darby therefore refused to predict a date for the end of the world, but focused instead on the “signs” in Revelation and other scriptures, by which he calculated that one could tell that the clock was now winding down to the end. When these signs started appearing, Darby said, then there would be seven years of “tribulation” prior to the end of the world, which would be followed by Christ’s return, defeat of Satan, and the inauguration of the 1,000-year reign on earth.

While other forms of pre-millennialism are still operative today, Darby’s “dispensationalist” version has been by far the most influential and wide-spread among those American evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants who accept a literalist view of “Bible prophecy” for prediction of contemporary events. Among other Christian groups, including both Catholic and Protestants, some form of a-millennialism, i.e., the figurative (or non-literalist) type of post-millennialism, has remained the most common type of end-time expectation down to the present.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/readings/white.html

[Charles07]

“It has NOTHING to do with sacrificing Jesus again on the Cross or in the Mass...”

That is not what the Church teaches...

:)