Eating the body of Jesus doesn't compute

I am reaching out to hopefully get an answer to my lifelong question of a central belief in the Christian faith, especially the Roman Catholic faith.

Background: I grew up in a very Roman Catholic family. I am number 10 of 13 children, 8 boys, 5 girls. Mom also had 2 miscarriages which in truth, she became pregnant with 10 boys rather than the 8. Mom had 15 pregnancies in 17 years.

We went to Mass every Sunday and all the holy days. Mom actually taught Catechism to the community and was a very loving soul.

My question since the age of eight and remains 50 years later, why do we have the belief of actually having to eat the body of Jesus Christ?

I am a very logical person, but this concept of consuming the flesh of God's son to obtain salvation simply doesn't make sense. I get that he died for our sins and was sacrificed. I know the history of sacrifices 2000 years ago. Tribes sacrificed lambs, goats and other livestock. But why the eating of his body or any human body? We don't eat humans. I don't even eat animals any more, for digestive purposes. Maybe I am the only one who finds this tenant extremely disturbing.

1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

There is no human flesh and blood in heaven...So what is it exactly that you are eating and drinking???

Jesus is not on the Cross...

Mar_16:6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

Oh oh....

Luk_13:25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are:

How do you re-present the Crucifixion when Jesus is not there??? Maybe you can re-present the creation of the moon?

The consecrated host was changed by Jesus through the priest at Mass into His Body and Blood.

Nah, Jesus never turned his flesh and blood into bread and wine an no did any one else...Or was it the other way around??? Turned bread and wine into his flesh and blood...

Jesus never told anyone to turn bread and wine into flesh and blood...He never told anyone how to perform that task...And as I posted earlier when it was said, 'do this in remembrance of me, that had nothing to do with turning anything into anything...
He broke the bread, passed it around, told them to eat it, in remembrance of him...Anything beyond that you're making up...

If there is no flesh and blood in heaven, and there isn't, what is the advantage of eating human flesh and blood, which is what Jesus had??? Jesus had a terrestrial body and blood...Now, he has neither...

What is the advantage of drinking blood...How does it give you eternal life??? Jesus never told you...Your Church never told you...

Your question: “What is the advantage of drinking blood...How does it give you eternal life??? Jesus never told you...Your Church never told you...”

You ignore the words (truth) of Jesus that does not agree with your protestant viewpoint. Obviously Jesus’ Body and Blood was sacrificed in His death for our salvation. Jesus told the Apostles (including Judas) to “Take, eat, this is my body.” “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matthew 26;26-28 The consecrated host has scientifically been determined to be heart muscle and Type AB blood.

It amazes me that protestants who claim to be bible readers, do not understand the teachings of Jesus and instead are willing to follow false teachings. So you claim the the Body and Blood of Jesus has no value?

Reread and try to understand John 6:53. “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

Me: All very true, but in no way in conflict with anything I wrote. You: It [is] you who did not negate my argument. Me: Let me try again. You successfully argue that there is a mystical meaning to what Jesus said. But God usually gives a physical sign to correlate to the mystical. This is the very meaning of “sacrament”: Something that is made holy by being a sign of something that is mystical.

The sign is the bread and wine which represent the crucified Christ, whose death we remember by showing unity with Him and each other thru sharing the communal meal with others bought by His sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) thus being "one bread" ourselves (if believers). Analogous to how pagans have fellowship with demons in their commemorative feasts, and thus the admonition, "thee things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils." (1 Corinthians 10:20)

And certainly Christ should be present in a special way when such union takes place, "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matthew 18:20)

And what is nowhere shown to be in the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive record of what the NT church believed, which is Scripture, and with Acts thru Revelation best showing how they understood the OT and the gospels is,

• The Lord's supper being conducted by Catholic priests (and only so) or NT pastors (yet expected by not essential) ;

• Offering it up as a sacrifice for sin;

• Dispensing it to people to be consumed as spiritual food;

• The primary active function of pastors being this activity or apostles instructing them in this, versus preaching the word and prayer;

• Partaking of the Lord's supper as the means of obtaining spiritual life versus believing the gospel;

• Literally physically consuming anything on this earth was a means of obtaining obtaining spiritual life (not even any place in Scripture);

• Any theological discourse on the bread and wine by NT leaders or lay persons teaching the above, unlike the word of God as preached and received being spiritual nourishment;

• Jesus living by the Father as we are to live by Him (Jn. 6:57) meaning literally physically consuming His flesh; versus living according to His word and thus the doing of it being His “meat.” (Mt. 4:4; Jn. 4:34)

• Any actual inconsistency with “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63) meaning the word of God being "milk" and "meat" (1Co. 3:2; Heb. 5:13; 1Pt. 2:2) by which believers are "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32)

• Any example of the incarnated Christ on earth with the body that would be and was “broken” and His blood poured out as the words at the Lord supper refers to it , in which He appears as inanimate objects that actually do not exist, but decay, etc as if they do, while the Christ has no manifest or testable evidence to His physicality;

• Not discerning the body of Christ in the 1 Co. 11:17-34 discourse meaning not recognizing the union of the believers as that body, ignoring and shaming others, and thus not actually having communion;

And there is more, but even this should not have been necessary. Time to see how HypatiaTaught is doing.

Your church lets homosexuals behind pulpits to molest kids. Why? Because it requires its clergy to remain single and the church ends up that desperate for priests. Of course, that has led to massive sexual abuse covered by the Catholic church.

My mom knew a nun and she wanted her to come over for a Bible study. The nun said she couldn't? Why? Because the Catholic church is so cult-like it won't let its members read the Bible on its own. Only clergy can teach the Bible to its members.

The Catholic church has become an abomination to God.

And, yes, the teachings of Paul make it clear that salvation is by faith and faith alone. The Bible is standard which articulates salvation, not Catholic doctrines.

Ephesians 2:8-9

New King James Version

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Obviously, you judge the Catholic Church by a few sinners, including homosexuals. Sunday’s Gospel Jesus touched one of the unclean outcasts, a leper and became an outcast Himself (unable to enter a town openly). Jesus came to save sinners. Luke 19:10 The mission as the Catholic Church (Mt 28:19-20) directed by Jesus is to lead all to eternal salvation.

Yes, there is sexual abuse in the Catholic Church and the Church has taken steps to correct it. Yes, sexual abuse is the way of the world and we haven’t stopped it or the many other sinful ways of man. As the Blessed Mother told us in 1965 in private revelation that Cardinals, Bishops and priests will lead many to perdition. She also told us the few would enter Heaven. She told us to repent, do penance and pray.

Catholics are not prohibited from protestant bible studies if they are aware that some protestant interpretations are not God’s truth. While we should all study the Bible, Catholics may not be comfortable with protestants beliefs that are contrary to what Jesus taught.

Catholics, based on their Tradition, study the Bible with different premises:

The authority of the apostles and the Church preceded the Bible, and the Tradition of the Church is an equally infallible authority (2 Thess. 2:15; CCC 80–83). The Bible is part of the apostolic Tradition.
The authoritative interpretation of the Bible is the prerogative of the Catholic Church (1 Tim. 3:15; Matt. 18:17; CCC 85-88).
The Bible is not always easy to understand (2 Pet. 3:15-16) and needs to be understood within its historical and contextual framework and interpreted within the community to which it belongs.
Individuals can and should read the Bible and interpret it for themselves—but within the framework of the Church’s authoritative teaching and not based on their own private interpretation (2 Pet 1:20-21).

Your comment: “Because the Catholic church is so cult-like it won’t let its members read the Bible on its own. Only clergy can teach the Bible to its members.”

Again, you are misinformed, The Catholic Church has no prohibition against Catholics reading the Bible. The Church does have the authority of Jesus to interpretate the scriptures.Mt 18:17

Your comment: “The Catholic church has become an abomination to God.” Again, your personal opinion based on the ways of the world. As Christ was hated by he world, so too will Catholics be hated by the world. Mark 13:13

your comment: “And, yes, the teachings of Paul make it clear that salvation is by faith and faith alone. The Bible is standard which articulates salvation, not Catholic doctrines.”

So you are the authority and not Jesus Christ. Jesus never said that you are saved by faith alone. Christ said you need Baptism, my Sacraments including the Eucharist, not follow false prophets, works as I have done, keep my commandments and endure till the end (in the state of grace).

Following Paul, the Catholic Church teaches that justification comes by faith. Only it says that it doesn’t come through faith alone. If you look carefully at Paul’s writings, you will notice that he never says that our righteousness comes from faith alone—only that it comes from faith apart from works.

Romans 3:28 is a key verse in the differences between traditional Protestants and Catholics. You will notice that Paul says a man is justified by faith (pistei in Greek). When Martin Luther translated the letter to the Romans into German in the sixteenth century, he added the word alone —but alone is not in the original Greek text. The phrase “faith alone” does occur in the New Testament: one time, in James 2:24. There the inspired apostle denies that justification is from faith alone. Let me quote it: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

Paul speaks about Christians fulfilling the law by following the command to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Gal. 5:14). He then explains that we must show the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal 5:16–26) and bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:1ff) as a way of fulfilling the “law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). All Paul’s teaching comes down to this: Our own works can never justify us, but works that grow out of faith in Christ are part of our justification. That’s why Paul says in Philippians 2:12 you must “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” And that squares with James’s teaching that works that grow from faith justify.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/arent-we-saved-by-faith-alone

My question to you: If someone only believes in some of Christ’s teachings and rejects others (specifically the Sacrament of the Eucharist) does one have true faith in Jesus Christ to receive eternal salvation in Heaven?

“For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without recognizing the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.”

Please note, that the purpose of blood in Jewish sacrifice was for the remission of sins, which is what purpose Jesus gives for the Lord’s Supper:

“Unless you eat of my body and drink of my blood, you shall have no life within you.”

Your comment:
So you claim the the Body and Blood of Jesus has no value?

“Exactly...No value...Jesus is in heaven and he neither has a human body nor human blood...He gave those up, once for all, for all time... “

Perhaps you don’t believe in the Resurrection? Jesus kept His Body and Blood and many saw Him even as He ascended into Heaven. So you are a doubting Thomas?

St. Thomas Aquinas examines this idea in the Summa Theologiae (part III, question 54). Christ’s body, though real, was “glorified” (i.e. in a glorified condition). St. Thomas cites St. Gregory saying that “Christ’s body is shown to be of the same nature, but of different glory, after the Resurrection” (III, 54, article 2). What does that mean? It means that a glorified body is still a body, but it is not subject to corruption.

As we would say in modern scientific terminology, the glorified body is not subject to the forces and laws of physics and chemistry. Human bodies, made of the elements on the periodic table, belong to rational souls.

The Catholic Church has followed the teachings of Jesus with the help of the Holy Spirit since Pentecost, while the protestant beliefs as expressed by a former Catholic priest and later expanded came approximately 1500 years later with no connection to the Apostles and early Church fathers.

Yes, the members of the Catholic Church celebrates daily the Mass throughout the world along with Jesus through the priest His sacrifice on Calvary as an offering to God the Father.

During the Last Supper, the Lord said to his disciples, “Do this in memory of me.” In Greek, this statement reads, “Touto poieite eis tan eman anamnesin.” There are two.aspects of this phrase that deserve consideration. For one, the phrase touto poieite can be translated as do this or as offer this. In the Old Testament, God commands the Israelites “you shall offer (poieseis) upon the altar two lambs” (Ex. 29:38). This use of poiein is translated as offer this or sacrifice this over seventy times in the Old Testament. So the same word that is used for the sacrifice under the Old Covenant is used for the sacrifice of the Mass in the New.

The second key.aspect of this phrase is Our Lord’s use of the word anamnesin. If you were to ask a Protestant to look in a Greek Translation of his Bible, every time this word (anamnesis) appears it is within a sacrificial context (see, for example, Numbers 10:10). It also can be translated as memorial offering or memorial sacrifice. While these nuances are lost in the English translation, Jewish ears would have understood the sacrificial meaning of Christ’s words.

Your comment: “Where did you get the crazy idea that drinking blood is somehow connected to the sacrifice Jesus went thru??? Don’t be saying ‘scripture’ because it’s not there...”

Jesus told us to eat His Body and Blood in the Eucharist for our salvation.
Obviously, you missed the prophecy Isiah preached judgement to the Israelites “you shall hear but never understand, and you shall see but never perceive.

So now you bring up a multitude of other issues to diffuse the debate into too many contentions to have a clear resolution. We’re talking about the presence of Body of Christ in the form of bread and wine. “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without recognizing the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.”

And which erroneous belief (that not "recognizing the body" refers to unbelief in the bread and wine being the body of Christ) was already already refuted, for as said i to you in post 147 "contextually the "body" that was not discerned is that of the body of Christ, the church, as briefly explained in post 125, by the grace of God well as in the link i provided you in post 188. Contextually the context is not the nature of bread and wine but both in this chapter and the next (as said before), it is the body of Christ bought with His blood, which Corinthians were not recognizing by eating independent of others at the feast, to the shame of them that have not, and thus they were not actually coming together to eat that supper.

Please note, that the purpose of blood in Jewish sacrifice was for the remission of sins, which is what purpose Jesus gives for the Lord’s Supper:

And which atonement was accomplished in Jn. 19:30 ("it is finished") and is commemorated in the Lord’s Supper as "one bread" showing remembrance by manifesting the union this wrought, sharing food in a communal meal with others who were purchased with that sinless shed blood, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [declare] the Lord’s death till he come" (1 Corinthians 11:26)

“Unless you eat of my body and drink of my blood, you shall have no life within you.”

And as I told you in post 126 spiritual life is never obtained by literally physically eating anything, nor spiritual nourished by the same, but by believing the gospel and being strengthen in faith by the word of God, and thus living it out. Consistent with this, it is the word of God that is referred to as "milk" (1Cor. 3:2; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12,14) and is said to nourish souls, (1Tim. 4:6) and build them up, (Acts 20:32) and thus the primary active function of pastors is to preach the word, (2Tim. 4:2) which is how they "feed the flock." (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2)

And as I told you in post 147, Moreover, if Catholics really took Jn 6:53,54 literally and as a imperative requirement just like other "verily, verily" statements, then they must exclude baptized Prots who deny Catholic Eucharistic theology (with its non-existent transubstantiated bread and wine) as being Christians in whom Christ dwells. Contrary to V2.

You are just taking up more of my time by resorting to the RC habit of reiterating refuted arguments, and trying to use Scripture as it was your determinitive authority, even though it is not and thus all arguments from it are dismissed.

For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

And so around they go.

aMPU Here, I'm guessing you are referring to the millions of Catholic interpretations of what to believe??

Again making up falsehoods about what other people believe?

Nor can they trace back their traditions to before 100 AD and demonstrate they never changed - another lie - you're on a roll. Read the Didache - dated to 50 AD

Chapter 9. The Eucharist. Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:
We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..
And concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..

and

Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day. But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations."

Futhermore, let's look at the Eucharist

aul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16)

6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

and also 1 Cor 11:27-29

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.
How can one be guilty of the Body and blood of Christ if as AmPU says, "this is only a memorial"?

And in first century writings

Ignatius of Antioch 1st century - in Epistle to the Smyrneans, chapter 7 The heretics confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again - AmPu's beliefs mirror those of the 1st century heretics who denied Christ

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.