Two Hard Sayings in One Day – Jesus’ insistence that the Eucharist is actually His Body and Blood

ADW.org ^ | 22 August 2021 | Msgr Pope

[Ken Regis]

I think you’re supposed to include references on this site.

You seem to include references when you’re NOT quoting scripture. But that’s because the references come with the cut ‘n paste.

That’s not rightly dividing - or anything LIKE it (see list above).

Letters and notes written by your former folks - no matter how extensive, no matter how well-intentioned mean nothing. I choose to “study” the “Word” not depending on others to do my dividing.

Now, I’m done with you. It not personal. I’ll remember your name. Cronos.

[boatbums]

If I hit a nerve, I need to aim better - for I’m going for brain cells.

Wouldn't it be awesome if it traveled through the HEART first?

[boatbums]

Do YOU believe in Jesus? Do YOU follow His words in this or are you like the people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him but rejected the Body of Christ in the Eucharist saying

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?...

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. Is that you, kingsman redeemer a person who "turns back from Christ and no longer follows Him" because the teaching of the Eucharist is "a hard teaching"

It's very dishonest to LEAVE OUT verses of a passage in order to make it say something it does NOT. Why did you skip John 6:59 as well as verses 61-65? They did say Jesus' words were a hard teaching - no doubt even Peter had questions, but that wasn't the reason many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. Let's look at your excluded verses, shall we:

59Jesus said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. 60On hearing it, many of His disciples said, “This is a difficult teaching. Who can accept it?”

61Aware that His disciples were grumbling about this teaching, Jesus asked them, “Does this offend you? 62Then what will happen if you see the Son of Man ascend to where He was before?

63The Spirit gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 64However, there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray Him.)

65Then Jesus said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless the Father has granted it to him.”

66From that time on many of His disciples turned back and no longer walked with Him.

We can see the real reason some left and it wasn't because of Jesus' words about His flesh and blood - Jews were familiar with metaphors, figures of speech and similes.

[boatbums]

The Kingdom was at hand, i.e. was near when Christ preached on earth. The Kingdom is here, and has been inaugurated since 33 AD - that's what the Apostles were preaching, that is the Good News, the Gospel, the ONE Gospel that the disciples were preaching as seen in Acts 17

Remind me again where we can find this kingdom where:

The cow will graze with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play by the cobra’s den, and the toddler will reach into the viper’s nest. They will neither harm nor destroy on all My holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the sea is full of water. (Isaiah 11:7-9)

And if, as you assert, the Kingdom of heaven is already here on this earth, why would God create a NEW heaven and earth?

But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar, the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and its works will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to conduct yourselves in holiness and godliness as you anticipate and hasten the coming of the day of God, when the heavens will be destroyed by fire and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with God’s promise, we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells. (II Peter 3:10-13)

[Elsie]

I’ve always wondered whether the animals listed in the verses are new ones or old ones that have died before?

There was a movie about dogs going to heaven.

I sure would like to see and enjoy the pets I’ve had thru the years.

I guess I’ll have to wait and see...

[daniel1212]

He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (Psalms 98:9)

"MY Psalm 98:9 looks nothing like that. What version do you use? Is it an RCC version? "

No, it is a, example of ACOPIOS (A Catholic's Own Perverted Interpretation Of Scripture), for while censuring YOPIOS (You Own Private Interpretation Of Scripture) - engaging in ACOPIOS by citing 2 Peter 1:20 which is not referring to interpretation of Scripture but to Divinely revealed prophecy - they engage in the same in support of their particular church, and which gives them a great amount of liberty to do, according to at least one Catholic apologist.

Which interpretation is not determined by the weight of honest contextual grammatical Scriptural substantiation but by how it can be construed to support their particular self-proclaimed one true church. I mean how else can they support PTCBIH (Prayer To Created Beings In Heaven) when there is not even one single prayer by a believer to anyone but the Lord in Scripture, despite the Spirit recording over 200? Thus egregious extrapolation must be resorted to in order to support a doctrine which in reality a tradition of men.

Which means Scripture becomes an abused servant compelled to support distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).

In the Catholic imagination the churches of Acts thru Revelation centered upon a ceremony with a man titled with the distinctive name for a separate class of sacerdotal ministers whose exclusive primary function was to change bread and wine into the "true body and blood" of their christ, meaning the bread and wine no longer exist, their christ having taken their place, being fully present in every single visible particle. Until that is, the non-existent host visibly manifests (sight now being important in Eucharistic theology, perhaps lest this christ ends up in a vacuum cleaner) corruption, at which point their christ no longer exists there either. Of course, honest Catholics admit that the bread wine looks feels, tastes and would scientifically test to be what they appear to be (thus celiac Catholics can have problems with the communion hosts), as would the body of the Biblical Christ.

And a christ whose appearance did not conform to what He appeared to be is in contrast to how the true Christ of Scripture is described, with His manifest physicality being emphasized (Is. 53; Lk. 24:39; John 20:27; 1 John 4:2; 5:6,8) incontrast to the false christ. And which separate sacerdotal minister offers this inconito wafer/wine pseudo-christ as an offering for sin, "in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead" (CCC 1414) and then dispenses it to the believers in it as spiritual food, the "medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ." (CCC 1405)

And yet all thru Acts we do not see such described, so that Catholics can only read their priestly sin-offering Eucharist into into passages such as "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, " (Acts 2:46) "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." (Acts 20:7) No doubt having the Lord's supper was practiced, but nowhere it is described as conducted by uniquely sacerdotal ministers presenting it as a sin-offering and spiritual food and as being the primary unique function of pastors and the central focus of the church. All this must be read into Acts thru Revelation.

For moving on from Acts, the Lord's supper is not even mentioned at all in the rest of the NT, except for a brief mention of the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12 and in 1 Corinthians. In which the church as the body of Christ is the focus (as predominates with Paul. the former persecutor of Christ, by attacking His body), which church is called "one bread" in taking part in the Lord's supper, showing union with Christ and each other thereby live as Israel did in Passover which represented Christ, whereby they have fellowship with Christ like as pagans have fellowship with the object of their dedicatory feasts, thus believers are warned against having fellowship with demons by taking part in their religious feasts. But which is not by consuming their flesh. (1 Corinthians 10:16-22)

In the next chapter, with the focus being on unity of true fellowship, the Corinthians are chastised for supposedly taking part in the Lord's supper but not actually doing so since some were eating and drinking to the full (the Lord's supper/ feast of charity was not consuming about 0.25 grams of bread and sip of wine) while ignoring others, thus shaming those who had nothing to eat. 1 Corinthians 11:16-22) This was utterly contrary to effectually remembering and thus showing the Lord's death via manifesting the union with Him and each other which were bought with His sinless shed blood (cf. Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 6:20) by eating food with each in a communal feast of charity. Therefore Paul provides words spoken by Christ at the Last supper, and states, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [kataggellō: preach, declare]the Lord’s death till he come." (1 Corinthians 11:26)

Since these Corinthians were doing just the opposite, ("When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken" (1 Corinthians 11:20-21) then in effect they were not recognizing the Lord's death which made them one with the Lord and each other. Thus follow the damming words, "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep." (1 Corinthians 11:27-30)

Contextually, contrary to the imagination of Catholics, the issue and focus here is not that recognizing the nature of the bread consumed (which Paul calls "this bread," "that breadf) but the union of the church, with the unworthiness here being that of how they hypocritically treated other members of the body of Christ, contrary to being "one bread," just the opposite to the love of Christ manifested in purchasing them with His sinless shed blood.

And since this disunity was the problem, that of "eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken" (1 Corinthians 11:21) then the correction given is not a discourse on the nature of the bread and wine, but "Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come." (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)

Note that even the notes in the official RC bible for Americans states concerning "not discerning the Lord’s body" states, "It follows that the only proper way to celebrate the Eucharist is one that corresponds to Jesus' intention, which fits with the meaning of his command to reproduce his action in the proper spirit. If the Corinthians eat and drink unworthily, i.e., without having grasped and internalized the meaning of his death for them, they will have to answer for the body and blood, i.e., will be guilty of a sin against the Lord himself (cf ⇒ 1 Cor 8:12 [But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. (1 Corinthians 8:12)]).

Thus apart from 1 Corinthians and the brief mention of the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12, the Lord's supper is nowhere described in only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive record of what the NT church believed, which is primarily Acts thru Revelation, which best shows how they understood the OT and the gospels. Nowhere is there any discourse on transubstantiation, or the centrality of the Lord's supper. Nor is there any charge or instruction to pastors on conducting the Lord's supper, and while all offerings as a sacrifice, nowhere is the Lord's supper described in Acts onward (these being interpretive of the gospels) as a sacrifice for sin, not as spiritual good.

Instead, and confirmatory of John 6:53-63 as meaning receiving the word of God as life-giving and substantiating food, it is the word of God, with believing the gospel being the means of obtaining life in oneself, by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; cf. Psalms 19:7) thus desiring the sincere milk (1Pt. 2:2; cf. (1Co. 3:22) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God. And with the preaching of it being the primary active function of pastors, whereby they which “feed the flock” (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) ) by which they are "nourished" (1 Timothy 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32) Glory be to God.

Thus, besides focusing the gospels as being interpretive of the rest of the NT rather than the opposite, then Catholics appeal to so-called "church fathers" as if these uninspired wrings of men are determintive of what the NT church believed. Yet even rests upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, since it is she who determines who is included in this class of "church fathers" (and likely what could be accessed from among them) and only what what they say when they support her. "Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings–she judges them more than she is judged by them.” — Catholic Encyclopedia: “Tradition and Living Magisterium” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

However, resorting to the uninspired writings among them to support distinctive Catholic teachings no more validates the latter than writings of the Talmud validates doctrines that are not in Scripture, and instead testifies to their progressive accretions of errors. Which stand in contrary to the multitude of basic doctrines that Catholics and evangelical Christians historically have held together, and the latter have been foremost defenders of them.

[kinsman redeemer]

I remember the old days when these threads would go way up into the hundreds of posts.

It's always good to read your contributions. You bring truth to light.

Good work!

[daniel1212]

"There was a movie about dogs going to heaven. I sure would like to see and enjoy the pets I’ve had thru the years. I guess I’ll have to wait and see.."

Maybe most Golden Retrievers. Pit Bulls no so much! (No being too serious.)

[daniel1212]

"I remember the old days when these threads would go way up into the hundreds of posts. It's always good to read your contributions. You bring truth to light. Good work! "

Takes hours to type and compile with my stiff arthritic fingers, but glory to God for what is good. But there should be no need continually refute Catholic propaganda, but some seem compelled to continually provocative post the same again and again despite such being continually exposed as fallacious. I wonder if they imagine an indulgence is being obtained by such cultic bot behavior.

[Elsie]

I remember the old days when these threads would go way up into the hundreds of posts.

Well; we OLD coots were YOUNG back then.

Now we have to NAP a lot.

Breaks up the train of thought.

[Elsie]

Bingo!

[Elsie]

I wonder if they imagine an indulgence is being obtained by such cultic bot behavior.

Well; they HAVE been promised a lot.

A lot of non-Scriptural benefits for following the words of an apparition.

One that has been claimed to:

1. come from heaven
2. be everyone's mother
3. will checkout your prayer requests to see if they are important enough to kickup to the Big Guy
4. help you win at BINGO - no; wait...

[boatbums]

I sure would love an eternity with my precious departed fur babies (Puddin, Emily, Stella...). We can hope.

[boatbums]

AMEN!

[Cronos]

Those signs are incorrect.

Basically “the Church” is the Catholic Church.

If you, KR, don’t believe what Jesus taught as handed down to His Apostles - let’s make it simple, the Eucharist - then you aren’t part of the Church of Christ.

Jesus was very precise about this and that is why all Christians until the 1600s believed in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Catholics believe it
The Eastern Orthodox believe it
The Coptic Church believes it
The Armenian Oriental Orthodox Church believes it
the Ancient church of the East, the Assyrian Church believes it

Even the Lutherans and many Anglicans believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Only modernists such as yourself choose to disregard Jesus’ very own words

John 6 (KJV)
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.
..
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
..
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

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.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

—> you are not of the Church if you do not believe what Jesus said above

[Cronos]

Ken You posted a lot there!

I apologize for the length, it was to show that Daniel's post about people rejecting the mass was false.

[kinsman redeemer]

Cronos,

Call the pope and tell him his ad team is out of step. Until then, I’ll continue to call it the “RCC” because that’s what it calls itself.

Also, I’ll continue to practice the Lord’s Supper, celebrating the memory of my Lord’s death on the Cross because He paid the price I couldn’t pay. I will do this with a full understanding of what He intended, until the day He returns.

Belief in this is not a vote or a popularity contest. I don’t care how many of you there are. That chorus is futile.

Your labels don’t interest me. Go ahead and try to find a page full of church sign images that say “Modernist”.

Finally, since you have a warped interpretation of Scripture, I’m done with you.

You continue to echo yourself. As Daniel12 12 said in another thread, I will treat you like a bot caller until you have something new to say.

[grey_whiskers]

There is NO connection David pouring out a canteen (or whatever they used back then) of water, while saying "This is the blood of the guys who got the water for me" (they had to break into the Philistine camp to get to the particular well the water came from)...

and the Last Supper

Maybe you never noticed, but David poured out water. And he called it blood because of a deadly risk other men took.

Jesus drank wine ("I tell you I shall not drink of it again until I drink it in my Father's Kingdom") instead of pouring it out. It wasn't water.

And He didn't pour it on the ground he passed it around.

Are you off your Meds again?

[grey_whiskers]

24. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

Leave Kamala (Camel-a) Harris out of these threads, please.

[grey_whiskers]

Do you think of yourself FIRST as a Christian or as a Catholic?

Irrelevant.

Scripture again, St. Paul.

11My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: Individuals among you are saying, “I follow Paul,” “I follow Apollos,” “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?

So even if they called themselves a follower of XXX, yet St. Paul himself calls the all brothers, so they are all believers.

"It's Scriptural"

You're engaging in the same dishonest traps the Pharisees attempted on Jesus "Is it Lawful to pay Taxes to Caesar, or not?"

Get stuffed, troll.