Feast of Corpus Christi - A Response

Someone who goes by the name "Malakye" posted a response to my earlier article on the Feast of Corpus Christi. The response is getting a bit long for a combox posting and by responding with a new article, responses for the next 2 weeks do not go into moderation (like Malakye's did initially).  So below I am quoting Malakye's entire response with my responses interjected (and the original is linked above).

You quote: "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. (1 Cor. 11:29). Then you comment: "It has long puzzled me as to WHY most Protestants don't get this! This is not the use of symbolism...." RESPONSE: Stop right there. Apparently, you fail to realize that "eating and drinking judgment" in the very verse you wish to prove Transubstantiation, is SYMBOLIC! Oh my, now wasn't THAT a kick in the pants!

sw: Malakye, just because you assert something does not make it so. The fact of the matter is this verse is entirely literal. When you eat and drink the eucharistic hosts - IF - you do so unworthily THEN you are eating and drinking judgment upon yourself. That is not symbolic, that is FACT. Why is it fact? Well, we will discuss that next...

You continue: "It is stating that the eating and drinking of THAT bread and drink (that which was just consecrated by the words a few verses earlier: 1 Cor. 11:23-25) in an unworthy manner brings judgment upon that person for what? For not discerning the body of the Lord! It doesn't get much clearer, my friends!" RESPONSE: To begin with, you simply READ INTO the Text that the bread and wine were "consecrated" by a priest and by some magic trick, Transubstantiation occurred. Where is the army of Bible scholars who will suppo(rt) sneaking that little notion through the back door?

sw: Well, rather than just rely on the citation, let's look at those words from St. Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 11:

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread.
24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.
25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.

Do the words St. Paul used here sound familiar?  They should!  They are straight from the Gospels:

Matthew 26:

²⁶ And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.

²⁷ And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.

²⁸ For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Mark 14:

²² And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body.

²³ And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it.

²⁴ And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

Luke 22:

¹⁹ And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.

²⁰ In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

sw: And even Martin Luther's Small Catechism uses the same verbage:

"Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the night when he was betrayed, took the bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples and said: Take; eat; this is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In the same way he also took the cup after the supper, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them saying, Drink of it, all of you. This cup is the New Testament in my blood, shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

sw: So clearly, St. Paul was passing on the very wording that Jesus Christ used and was recorded by the Gospel writers, Matthew, Mark and Luke. I quoted Luther too, using the same words, and virtually all Christian communities which celebrate "Holy Communion" or "Eucharist" use these same words. Yes, most believe these words to be symbolic but my point here is that Jesus intended we "DO THIS" and we do it THAT WAY every time we participate in Eucharist - and for the most part, we DO exactly THAT and it is for this reason that St. Paul's wording is so familiar.

sw: Now, to answer your question of "where is the army of Bible scholars who will support this concept of Transubstantiation? To quote the U.S. Army slogan, we only need "An army of One," and that is Jesus Christ Himself! When HE said, "This IS my body" and "This IS my blood," true followers of Christ don't doubt His words here! We BELIEVE what Jesus Christ said IS TRUE!  That bread and wine no longer is bread and wine, it IS the body and blood of Christ! When Jesus Christ Himself says it, why would you feel the need for an "army of Bible scholars" to support the statement? That being said, throughout the ages this has been the consistent teaching and this notion of symbolism is the novel (new) idea which gained in popularity only in the last 500 years and only in groups in schism from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. If you really want a list, I'll provide one - just ask again, and be prepared to be overwhelmed.

sw: You accuse me of reading into the text the concept of Transubstantiation - but I say to you, it is YOU who reads into the text a concept of symbolism - for again, when Jesus says "This IS my body," TRUE believers accept Him at His word - it IS His body, it is no longer bread. It may still appear to be bread - St. Thomas Aquinas did an excellent job of explaining the concept of the appearance is the "accidents" and the "accidents" don't change - however the "substance" - that which it REALLY IS - does change. That is where we get the word Transubstantiation -

trans = change

substantia = substance
tion = an act

sw: There is a REAL change in the substance of that which still has the appearance of bread and wine. To say anything LESS happens, like a mere statement of symbolism, is to actually READ OUT OF the text something which is literally part of the text.

sw: In John 6 when Jesus COMMANDS (several times!) that we MUST eat His flesh and drink His blood or we have NO LIFE in us - He doesn't explain it away as a figurative parable. No, in fact when many of His own disciples "turned and walked with Him no more" over that very statement, He doesn't go chasing after them and explain, "Wait guys!  I was only speaking figuratively here" - no!  Instead He turns to The Twelve and challenges, "Will you also leave?" And of course, they don't.

Next, the phrase, "not discerning the Lord's body" isn't symbolic in and of itself because obviously, to not discern something is to not discern something. It is WHAT is being discerned that is the question here...and we say the "WHAT" is definitely symbolic. You simply assume that judgment was brought upon them because they had failed to discern Transubstantiation had taken place. NO! Judgment was brought upon them because of their callous disregard to what the elements REPRESENTED. Consequently, their's was an abuse offered to a SIGN. Such abuse reaches to that person which the sign signifies; thus, the Corinthian’s sacrilege of the Supper amounted to burning Christ in effigy. They were "insulting the Spirit of grace" (Heb 10:29) which whitewashed our crimson-stained redemption, resulting in some of their deaths (1 Cor 11:30). Therefore, the "Real Presence" of Christ is simply not required to be in the emblems of bread and wine for one to be "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord"....and happily, no need to ever celebrate "Corpus Christi" or name a church like that ever again. Repeat: it was NOT that they were failing to discern Transubstantiation had occurred. They were failing yes, but failing to honor what the Lord's body REPRESENTED in the elements; namely, that it was given in order that our sins might be put away! By their cantankerous behavior, they were effectively treating the work of Christ in contempt. Instead of being cleansed by his blood, they end up being "guilty of his blood"; in the same sense as expressed in Hebrews 6:6; "crucifying to themselves the Son of God afresh."

sw: First off, let me say that I certainly understand WHY you must interpret this as figurative or symbolic - but the reality is there is no figurative language being used here! Jesus does not say, "Take and eat, this bread REPRESENTS my body..." no!  He said "...this IS my body." There is no judgment for not recognizing a representation - the judgment is for not recognizing the body of Christ! 

sw: Ask yourself this - How can one be cleansed by His blood and/or guilty of not recognizing it as TRULY His blood, IF His blood isn't really and TRULY there?

HEBREWS 6:6 IS THE ANSWER, MR. WINDSOR, as to what being guilty of the body and blood means. ALL CATHOLIC APOLOGISTS WITHOUT EXCEPTION, MISS THIS. In other words, if the Corinthians continue to deliberately undermine the cross-work of Christ, they are no different than those who first crucified him; seeing his death as not for the sins of others, but as one who deserved execution. I trust now you are no longer.... "puzzled"???

sw: In context, Hebrews 6:6 is referring not to someone partaking in the Eucharist unworthily, but to those who were once Christians and have fallen away.  These fallen away Christians, since they once knew the Truth now are making a mockery of their former faith and are crucifying Christ again. There is no mention of the Corinthians "continuing to deliberately undermine the cross-work of Christ, you have imported that into the text. The text says those who have fallen away, they are bringing forth thorns and briers - they are no longer Christians, their end is to be burnt (see verse 8). So Hebrews 6 is NOT talking about partaking in the Eucharist unworthily, but abandoning Christ altogether and sewing thorns and briers among His Church.

sw: Without knowing you, other than your appearance here and the fact that you are challenging me and the Church. I must say, I do appreciate your zeal but I would offer you a bit of caution. Hebrews 6 seems to apply more to a person such as yourself. You have had a taste of the truth, you know the saving power of Christ and the Cross, yet you are attacking the Church which He founded! You are attempting to sew thorns and briers here. He chose The Twelve, our first bishops, and The Twelve chose others to spread the Church and to CONTINUE the Church until He comes again. That Church is the Catholic Church which has been around for nearly 2000 years now - it is not some schismatic group which was formed sometime in the last 500 years.

sw: I pray for your repentance and conversion.

AMDG,
Scott<<<

Reminder: If you like what you see here, be sure to click on one of the like and/or share buttons below!

Feast of Corpus Christi

The Feast of Corpus Christi was celebrated last Sunday - the actual Feast Day was last Thursday, May 31st. Due to the nature of this Feast - the celebration is moved to a Sunday. It falls on the Second Sunday after Pentecost by the Traditional ordinal/counting; or by the post-concilliar "ordinary" counting, this year it was the ninth Sunday in Ordinary Time. (This can change, depending on how many Sundays there are after Epiphany before Lent begins).

This is a magnificent feast day for it is one in which we celebrate that which truly separates us from nearly all Protestants. It is on this day that we celebrate the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity, in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. This celebration is anything BUT "ordinary" by the "ordinary" use of the term (but I digress, more on this in a later posting).

We, Catholics, celebrate and honor the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist as truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ because that is what it is and what Scripture tells us it is! Scripture tells us to receive this Holy Communion "unworthily" is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord:

Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. (1 Cor. 11:27).

And why?

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.  (1 Cor. 11:29 emphasis added). 

It has long puzzled me as to WHY most Protestants "don't get this!" This is not the use of symbolism, it is stating that the eating and drinking of THAT bread and drink (that which was just consecrated by the words a few verses earlier: 1 Cor. 11:23-25) in an unworthy manner brings judgment upon that person for what?  For not discerning the body of the Lord!  It doesn't get much clearer, my friends!

The logical conclusions we can draw from this are at least:

1. That which Protestants celebrate in "Communion" is NOT "THIS bread or drink" for why would they deliberately eat and drink judgment upon themselves. I say this because Protestants, with very few exceptions (Anglican) deny that the bread and wine (if they even use real wine) are not REALLY the body and blood of Christ - but only symbols. Scripture does not say the unworthy reception of THIS bread and wine results in judgment for not discerning the symbols of Jesus' body and blood - but for not discerning His body and blood, period.
2. That which Protestants celebrate is NOT "THIS bread or drink" because they have no authority to consecrate being that they are not part of a valid apostolic succession which has this authority. Thus, their celebration truly is "just a memorial" or is "symbolic."

By any logic it seems they should come home to that which their ancestors protested against when they LEFT the Catholic Church sometime within the last 500 years.

Christ Obeys The Priest

Do men, specifically priests, have authority over God Almighty?

“The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating...Indeed, it is equal to that of Jesus Christ...When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man...Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary [who is said to be all but almighty herself]...The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command. ” - (John A. O'Brien, Ph.D., LL.D., The Faith of Millions, 255-256 , O'Brien. Nihtt obstat: Rev. Lawrence Gollner, Censor Librorum Imprimatur: Leo A. Pursley, Bishop of Fort Wayne,-South Bend, March 16, 1974

We see this quote thrown at us often, and what did Fr. O'Brien mean by these words?  Quite simply, when the priest consecrates the Eucharist he is obeying the command from Jesus Christ to "Do this..." and when he "does this..." then that which was mere bread, Jesus comes down out of Heaven and changes the substance of the bread into the substance of Himself.  The substance of that which was mere wine becomes the substance of His Most Precious Blood.  The "humble obedience" which Fr. O'Brien refers to is God remaining consistent to His own command.  If God did not "obey" the priest's command then the command of Jesus telling our first priests to "do this..." becomes a lie, because if God does not "obey" then when the priest holds up the Sacred Host and/or Sacred Chalice and declares "this IS My body..." and "this IS My blood..." it would be a lie - and that would make Jesus' command to them meaningless and also a lie.

"How this ['And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (St. Augustine, Psalms 33:1:10)  This quote and more from St. Augustine found here:  Was St. Augustine Catholic?

The Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ

This Sunday we commemorate the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ.  And for this occasion I thought I’d bring out another solid argument on the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist.

In today’s second reading we find Paul reciting what he was told about Jesus’ words at the Last Supper but what you don’t hear is the explanation on why this is not a mere symbolic remembrance.  At the end of today’s reading, the very next verse and following we find Paul stating: 

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.  Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.  That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.” (1 Cor 11:27-30)

The clue that precludes a mere symbolic understanding of the Eucharist is St. Paul’s usage of “guilty of blood,” which is a figure of speech connoting murder (Nm 35:27; Ez 35:6).  One incurs the “guilt of blood” only if the victim is present in person.  If someone fires a gun at a picture of the President of the United States, that person is not guilty of the President’s blood.  But if someone actually shoots the President, then that person is guilty of the President’s blood.

St. Paul says that we are guilty of Jesus’ blood if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily.  Therefore, we cannot conclude that St. Paul understood the Eucharist to be a mere symbol.  He must mean the Eucharist is Jesus present in person, with his body, blood, soul, and divinity.

And lastly, There are several other ways Jesus could have more clearly indicated that His words of institution (This is my body, this is my blood) was symbolism if He had wished to do so.  Aramaic [Jesus’ native language] has around three-dozen words that can mean ‘represents.’  That’s why Paul warns us that we are to discern the body (if we partake in an unworthy manner, then we are guilty of the blood of Christ.  Now, how can we ‘discern’ the body if it’s merely a symbol?  We can’t!  We are to discern the body in the Eucharist because the Eucharist IS the body.

God Bless

Nathan

Adapted from a Catholic Answers Newsletter

The Bread of Life

Today I would like to talk about one particular verse from today’s Gospel reading but first I strongly suggest you go to you Bible and read the Bread of Life discourse where we find this particular verse.

Go ahead and read carefully the Gospel of John, Chapter 6, verses 22 through 58.  About this section about being the Bread of Life and that we must eat this bread and drink this blood to have eternal life.

 

1. The first thing to notice is “what else could Jesus have said to make it any more plain?”  Six times He tells them that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood.  6 times!
    
2. Second, He doesn’t correct those that leave Him for misunderstanding Him since they thought He spoke literally while He supposedly spoke only symbolically.  My question is: why didn’t He say so before they left Him?
    
3. Thirdly, the apostle John recounts Jesus using two different words when speaking of ‘eating’ His flesh.  In the beginning of His discourse He uses the word “PHAGO” which is defined as ‘eat’ and which can sometimes be taken symbolically.  But when the Jews have difficulty accepting Jesus’ second attempt at clarifying His teaching Jesus switches to the word “TROGO” in verse 54 when speaking of ‘eating’ His flesh, a word which is NEVER used symbolically in Scripture and means to ‘munch, gnaw or crunch’ His Flesh making it extremely clear that Jesus was speaking literally.
    
   And so Jesus let the Jews leave because they understood Him correctly, they just couldn’t accept this ‘hard teaching.’

And so Jesus let the Jews leave because they understood Him correctly, they just couldn’t accept this ‘hard teaching.’

And my favorite verse of the whole ‘Bread of Life’ discourse is verse 51.

Verse 51 of John 6 says this: “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, for the life of the world.”

Jesus is the living bread.  We are to eat this bread.  This bread that He gives for us to eat is the flesh that He will give for the life of the world.    If the bread is symbolically His flesh then the flesh that He gives for the life of the world must be symbolic as well.  That’s how Jesus describes it.  Was the flesh on the cross symbolic? Or real?  The flesh that we are to eat, is it symbolic or real?  If the flesh on the cross is real then the bread that we are to eat is that same flesh.  This verse makes it impossible to accept a symbolic reckoning of the flesh we are to eat and the blood we are to drink.

God Bless
Nathan

Constant Teaching of the Church

The Constant teaching of the Church

Individuals can make mistakes or misunderstand their teachers BUT the fact that we find a continuous and unbroken chain of believing in the real presence of our Lord in the Eucharist is extremely strong evidence that this belief was in existence from the very first moments of Christian history.

I mean, a follower of Jesus could reject what He taught but the others who were taught directly by Jesus would not teach the same error.

Let’s go back through time to find what Christians believed on the Real Presence. In our Catechism, the official teaching of the Church on the Eucharist, we find: the catechism quoting the council of Trent from 1551 that the belief in the real presence to have been at least from 1551 to today:

1551 AD

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

The Reformation brought on the need for the Council of Trent because many started teaching contrary to the Church on many matters including the Real Presence. But what about before that time?

431 AD

Council of Ephesus

"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all.  And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

c.400 AD

"[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: 'This is My Body and this is My Blood.' Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ." (Marcus the Magnesian)

c. 370 AD

"You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. " (St Augustine)

325 AD

Council of Nicaea I

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] s hould give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it] " (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

212 AD

The flesh is anointed, so that the soul may be dedicated to holiness. The flesh is signed, so that the soul too may be fortified. The flesh is shaded by the imposition of hands, so that the soul too may be illuminated by the Spirit. The flesh feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ, so that the soul too may fatten on God. (Tertullian)

c.180 AD

He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.  When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the Body of Christ , and from these the substance of our body is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life. (Ireaneus of Lyons)

c. 150 AD

For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus. (St Justin Martyr)

c.110

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ , who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible . (Ignatius of Antioch)

Or

They [the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Ignatius of Antioch)

Now consider this, Ignatius learned from the Apostles themselves. Did he misunderstand them? Isn’t it much more likely that he remembered what he was taught and taught others who would succeed him as Justin Martyr did, and Irenaeus, Augustine even councils speaking for the whole church teaching as the first followers of the original Apostles taught and all speaking with one voice on the matter?

Corpus Christi

Truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ

Individuals can make mistakes or misunderstand their teachers BUT the fact that we find a continuous and unbroken chain of Christians believing in the real presence of our Lord in the Eucharist is not only extremely strong evidence that this belief was in existence from the very first moments of Christian history but that it was taught by the Apostles themselves.

 

I mean, a follower of Jesus could reject what He taught but the others who were taught directly by Jesus would not all teach the same error.

 

Let’s go back through time to find what Christians believed on the Real Presence.

 

In our Catechism, the official teaching of the Church on the Eucharist, we find the catechism quoting the council of Trent from 1551 which means that the belief in the real presence to have been existence for at least from 1551 to today:

 

Paragraph 1376 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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

 

The Reformation brought on the need for the Council of Trent because many started teaching contrary to the Church on many matters including the Real Presence. But what about before that time?

 

431 AD

Council of Ephesus

"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all.  And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius)

 

 

c.400 AD

"[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: 'This is My Body and this is My Blood.' Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ." (Marcus the Magnesian)

 

c. 370 AD

"You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. " (St Augustine)

 

325 AD

Council of Nicaea I

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it] " (Canon 18).

 

212 AD

The flesh is anointed, so that the soul may be dedicated to holiness. The flesh is signed, so that the soul too may be fortified. The flesh is shaded by the imposition of hands, so that the soul too may be illuminated by the Spirit. The flesh feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ, so that the soul too may fatten on God. (Tertullian)

 

c.180 AD

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the Body of Christ , and from these the substance of our body is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life.” (Ireaneus of Lyons)

 

c. 150 AD

“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” (St Justin Martyr)

 

 

c.110

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible.” (Ignatius of Antioch)

 

Or

 

“They [the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again.” (Ignatius of Antioch)

 

Now consider this, Ignatius learned from the Apostles themselves. Did he misunderstand them? Isn’t it much more likely that he remembered what he was taught and taught others who would succeed him as Justin Martyr did, and Irenaeus, Augustine even councils speaking for the whole church teaching as the first followers of the original Apostles taught and all speaking with one voice on the matter? The fact of the matter is the belief of the presence of the Body and Blood of being truly present in the Eucharist is a belief found throughout the two millennia of Christian history and without break.  The idea of a symbolic presence only in the Eucharist is a novelty, a tradition of man.

 

God Bless

Nathan

Missed past week’s leaflets?  Questions?  Comments? 

Come visit our Blog at www.parishofthepreciousblood.blogspot.com
 Prepared by a St.Denis parishioner

Do Denominations Matter?

Question:  Does the denomination really matter?
Person asks:
I have always believed that “a Christian is a Christian.” If we love Jesus and believe that He died for our sins, we will be saved. Promoting a specific “brand” of Christianity only promotes division. I am a Methodist, but I love Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, and Pentecostals all the same. We need to learn to live together. What we have in common is more important than our differences.

My reply:
The compromise you’re suggesting doesn’t work in matters of salvation.  Let me explain.  As a Christian, you believe in the Ten Commandments, right?  In the First Commandment, God warns us not to worship false gods.  If we do, we commit the mortal sin of idolatry and condemn ourselves to hell.  Sound about right?

Now, if a pagan comes to your door and shared with you his religion and worship of the Great Tree, you would have a moral duty to explain to him that what he is doing is wrong and to reject this religion, repent of his sins and come to Jesus Christ who is the only way of salvation.  Make sense so far?

Now, here’s your problem.  Catholics worship what appears to be mere bread, which the Church calls the Eucharist.  We worship the Eucharist because we believe that, in the sacrifice of the Mass, the bread becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ and is thus worthy of worship.  Our belief is based on Scripture, history and the entire Christian tradition.

If the Eucharist is not Jesus Christ, but a mere piece of ordinary bread, then Catholics are committing idolatry.  If we are committing idolatry, you have the same moral obligation to us as you had to the pagan.  You are obligated to tell us that we are committing idolatry and must reject our false religion, lest we go to hell.  If Catholics worship bread, then Catholicism must be renounced by all Christians.  In fact, the Catholic religion lives or dies with the Eucharist, for the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Catholic faith.  If the Catholic faith is false, then you must not sit idly by and let us Catholics commit idolatry and die in our sins.

If, however, the Eucharist is truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, then the Catholic Church is the one and only true religion.  Jesus said, “I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except by me.”  As Catholics we are obliged to bring the fullness of the truth to all since we wish all to have the fullness of Christ.  And what could be better than to receive the WHOLE Christ as He intended;  Body, blood, soul and divinity, into your very self both spiritually AND physically?

To recap, if we Catholics are wrong then it is the Christians duty to bring it to our attention so that we would reject this great sin of idolatry of a false god.  But if we are right, then of course we are obliged to bring this truth to all who are unawares.

Inspired by John Slaza’s response on his website:
http://www.johnsalza.com/p/q-a.html

God Bless
Nathan

John 6 and AOMin.org Revisited

On the aomin.org blog a person who uses the pseudonym of "TurretinFan" (hereafter "TF") posted a blog against the Catholic belief in the Eucharist truly being the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.  Since one has to be registered at aomin.org (and I can see no way to do that there) to post comments, I am posting my reply here.

> TF: Roman Catholics like to try to claim that they are
> just taking Jesus “literally” when they interpret “this
> is my body” to mean that what was in Jesus’ hands was
> not bread but his physical body [FN1].

sw: No, we don't "try" to claim that, we do claim, accept and believe the words of our Lord and Savior.

> TF: Three passages in John help to illustrate the problem
> with that approach: John 4, John 6, and John 7.  In the
> first, Jesus refers metaphorically to living water, in
> the second Jesus refers to himself as food and drink, and
> in the third Jesus offers drink to those who thirst.
>
> In John 4:6-15, Jesus interacts with the Samaritan woman
> at Jacob’s well.  He asks her for water, she objects
> because he’s Jewish, and he responds that she should
> be asking him for water, because the water he offers
> is better than the water from Jacob’s well. She
> misunderstands him as speaking physically, even after
> some further explanation.  She wants to stop the labor
> of drawing water and misunderstands Jesus’ comments
> about “never thirst.”

sw: Certainly there is a spiritual message here, but it is also physical.  Those who will "never thirst" will physically never thirst for the spiritual refreshment in the eternal (a physical reality) drink He will give to them.  Eternal life (or death) is and/or will be a physical reality.

> TF: In John 6:26-71, Jesus interacts with a number of
> “disciples” who want Jesus to repeat the miracle of the
> loaves that’s reported at the beginning of the chapter.
> Jesus explains that the person who believes on him will
> never thirst and whoever comes to him will never hunger,
> calling himself the “bread of life” that “came down from
> heaven.” Jesus insists that the bread he offers is better
> than the manna that the people ate in the wilderness.

sw: The bread, which is His body, IS better than the manna that the people ate in the wilderness!

> TF: Jesus talks about them eating his flesh and drinking
> his blood, but they take him physically and go away in
> disgust.  Jesus explains that the words he speaks are
> spirit and life.

sw: Precisely!  His words ARE "spirit and life" (spiritual and literal)!  Just as the story in John 4 relates, there IS a spiritual side to Jesus' words - but there IS a literal side too!  His words are LIFE, and ETERNAL LIFE (which is a physical reality).  To simply stand on a metaphor is to lose the REALITY of eternal life, which Jesus promises to those who partake in His body and blood.  Later, on Holy/Maundy Thursday, He physically provides them with the spiritual food - which IS His body and IS His blood.  We claim, accept and believe our Lord and Savior's words!  Now, did Jesus call out to them, "Hey wait disciples!  I was only speaking in metaphors, come back and hear the explanation!"???  No, He let them walk away, not because they did not believe Him, but because they DID believe Him and would not claim, accept and believe the words of our Lord and Savior!

> TF: Jesus asks the twelve if they will go away too,

sw: Note, He still doesn't change or explain away the command - rather He further challenges The Twelve.

> TF: but Peter (speaking for the group)

sw: Thank you for recognizing Peter's leadership/spokesperson role.

> TF: says that they will stay with him because they believe
> and know that his words are the words of eternal life.

sw:  Precisely!  And what were those words?  "If do not eat My flesh and drink My blood, then you have NO LIFE in you."  "NO LIFE" is the physical reality of the spiritual truth - their physical eternity will be one of separation from God in death.

> TF: In John 7:37-39, Jesus interacts with those at the
> temple for the feast.  Jesus offers the thirsty people
> water.  John explains to us that Jesus is speaking
> about the Spirit as the “rivers of flowing water.”

sw: And did the Holy Ghost NOT come from Him?  Did this NOT really happen?  Was the REAL descent of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost NOT a real event?  My friends, "spiritual" does NOT mean "not real!"

> TF: These passages illustrate Jesus’ fondness for using
> food as a metaphor for trust in him.  We approach the
> Lord’s table by faith, coming to Him as represented by
> the bread and cup.  We gain a benefit from this if we do
> so by faith, but not if we do so any other way.  It is
> not the physical elements that provide the benefit we
> receive, it is the Spirit.

sw: We approach His table in TRUE Faith when we claim, accept and believe our Lord and Savior's words!  That which we see/perceive as bread, in reality IS His body!  That which we see/perceive as wine, in reality IS His blood!  He did not command us to participate in a metaphor, no, He commanded we eat His flesh and drink His blood, and then He provides the means to REALLY do just that!  We claim, accept and believe the words of our Lord and Savior.

> TF: Remember what Jesus said about clean/unclean foods:
> (Matthew 15:17)
> Unfortunately, it seems our Roman Catholic friends and
> relatives fail to understand this.  Christ is our
> spiritual food and drink, not our physical nourishment.

sw: The section TF refers to is critical of the pharisees violation of God's Law.  The reference is to the Corban/Korban/Qorban Rule - wherein "the law" allowed for someone to give to the temple that which they should have given in support of their parents and "justify" the crime against their parents because it was given to the temple.  The challenge to Jesus was over the fact that the Apostles did not wash their hands before eating bread, and Jesus said that it was not unwashed hands which corrupts the man - but an unclean heart.

> TF: Isaiah 44:3; Psalm 105:41; Isaiah 48:21; Psalm 78:20;
> 1 Corinthians 10:4
> The blessings we receive in Christ are primarily spiritual
> blessings.  We drink the spiritual drink from the
> spiritual Rock, and that Rock is Christ.  He is our Rock,
> we trust in Him.

sw: Interesting.  While the passages, for the most part, speak of spiritual truth - they also speak to a physical reality.  Psalm 78:20 actually recalls a physical reality in the striking of the rock - and challenges that if He can provide water from a rock, can He not provide flesh for His people?  Interesting that TF would select this passage which argues FOR the Catholic position!

AMDG,
Scott<<<

> TF: Footnote 1: I should add that the Roman Catholic
> position is particularly absurd in that it takes “this
> is my body” as implying that the bread ceases to be
> bread and becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity
> of Jesus.  Likewise, it is claimed that “this is my
> blood” implies exactly the same thing about the
> contents of the cup.  That’s quite far from taking the
> words literally, in which the bread would just be the
> body, and the contents of the cup would just be the blood.

sw: And how does one separate the soul and divinity from the body and the blood?  Oh ye of little faith.

Clearing up Confusion

What is a "Parable"?

Definition: "At its simplest a parable is a metaphor or simile drawn from nature or common life, arresting the hearer by its vividness or strangeness, and leaving the mind in sufficient doubt about its precise application to tease it into active thought." (C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom , New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1961, p. 5)

We might think that Jesus spoke in parables to make it easier for people to understand his message. According to the Gospels, however, he surprisingly does NOT expect everyone to understand them! This is clearly expressed in Matthew 13:10-17:

10 Then the disciples came and asked him, "Why do you speak to them [the crowds] in parables?"
11 He answered, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.
12 For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.
13 The reason I speak to them in parables is that 'seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.' (cf. Isa 6:9-10)

There were many times when His listeners didn’t understand Jesus’ sayings as we can plainly see in this particular parable but also in many instances in the Gospel writings.  And every time they didn’t understand, Jesus explained further to help clarify His message to all or to the Apostles alone.  For example, Jesus makes sure the Apostles understood His parable before moving on to the next when He asked them if they understood the parable of the Net.  He asked: ⁵¹ “Have you understood all these things?” Jesus asked.  “Yes,” they replied.”

 In instances when they didn’t understand, the Apostles asked Him to elaborate, to explain as we see in Matt 13 verse 36 where the Apostles ask: “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”  He then goes on to explain the parable further.

We can easily show many instances where Jesus spoke in parables in terms that confused His listeners but in every case He either continued to explain Himself until they understood or the Apostles went to Jesus and asked Him to explain His saying further.

This is why we must reject the Protestant argument that Jesus would allow His listeners to turn away from Him simply because they misunderstood His teaching on His Flesh being the Bread of Life in Chapter 6 of John’s Gospel.  That we must eat His flesh and drink His Blood to have eternal life was not a parable, metaphor or simply symbolic language because this would mean that  Jesus would have allowed His listeners to turn away from Him on a misunderstanding which would make Him a terrible teacher, something He never did in any other time during His ministry.  It would mean that in this one instance when His listeners didn’t understand would be allowed to leave without a word of explanation to them or His Apostles.  No, Jesus spoke literally when He said that we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood to have eternal life.

God Bless
Nathan

The Real Presence, Part 4

“A type is a person, thing, or event in the Old Testament that foreshadows something to come later in time.  It is like a taste or hint of something that will be fulfilled or realized.  Types are like pictures that come alive in a new and exciting way when seen through the eyes of Christ’s revelation.”  The type is always lesser than the anti-type.  The anti-type (New Testament event) is always greater than its type (shadow of an event in the Old Testament).  And both are independent of each other.

Many of the first Christians used this method to find new insights in the Scriptures.  We see these ‘types’, or ‘figures’ or examples in many places in Scripture like in 1 Cor 10:11 and Heb 11:19 for example.

One of these instances can be found in the Gospel of Matthew where we see that the Egyptian Exodus told in Hosea 11:1 is quoted exactly in Matt 2:15 when speaking of Jesus’ return to Israel from Egypt: “where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."”

What Matthew has done here is he took an historical event and interpreted it as a shadow of something greater to come in the future, which he sees as ‘fulfilled’ in the person of Jesus the Messiah.

Other examples of Jesus Christ type/antitype pairs are: 

A) Jonah in the belly of the whale is a type of Christ in the tomb.  For Jonah stayed in the belly for three days as did Christ stay buried for three days until His resurrection as Jesus explained Himself “In the same way that Jonah spent three days and nights in the big fish, so will the Son of Man spend three days and nights in the depths of the earth. “(Matt 12:40)

 

B)  The deadly bites of serpents are healed by the brazen serpent, which was lifted up that those bitten might look at it and live (Num 21:9).  Jesus Himself gives the explanation of this: “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believes in Him may not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:14)

 

C)  In God’s request that Abraham sacrifice his son Isaac (Gen 22:2) we find another type of Christ.  The birth of both was supernatural (remember, Abraham was a hundred years old and Sarah an elderly woman when she bore Isaac).  Both are sons of promise.  Both were called “the only begotten son.” Both carried the wood of their own demise up the same mountain, Moriah.  Both consented to endure death.  Both were bound.  Both were offered by their fathers.  Both were laid on the wood.  Both were in the vigor of life, and both live again after the offering.

 

D)  Melchizadek is another type of Christ.  We see evidence of this in Heb 6:20 “On our behalf Jesus has gone in there before us and has become a high priest forever, in the priestly order of Melchizedek.”  and “Melchizedek, who was king of Salem and also a priest of the Most High God, brought bread and wine to Abram [whose name was later changed to Abraham] and blessed him, and said, "May the Most High God, who made heaven and earth, bless Abram!”(Gen 14:18)

In the Paschal lamb which the Israelites were commanded to eat as part of the Passover celebration is another strong foreshadowing of Christ.  Each family is commanded to take a lamb without blemish and to sacrifice it (Exo 12:7-8).  The lamb was to be roasted and eaten with unleavened bread and wild lettuce.  The Paschal Lamb prefigured symbolically Christ, “The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29).

We can agree that Jesus is a priest forever of the order of Melchizedek (Heb 6:20), and that he is also the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29) because we find these statements in Holy Scripture.  By putting these to types together we see that Jesus is a priest forever but also the sacrificial lamb to atone for our sins.  Jesus as priest offers up to God a perfect sacrifice to atone for our sins, Himself.  That sacrifice, as in the Passover sacrifice of the lamb, we are to EAT the lamb.  Now, how are we to eat the lamb when the sacrifice is in the form of bread and wine?  We find the solution in Jesus’ own words in the Last Supper when He raises up the bread and then the wine and says: “this is my body…this is my blood”.  The bread and wine presented and consecrated is transformed into the body and blood of our Lord but in keeping the same form of bread and wine!  A perfect fulfillment of both types including a third type where Jesus calls Himself the true bread of Heaven which gives eternal life! John 6:48-50 states “I am the bread of life.  Your ancestors ate manna in the desert, but they died.  But the bread that comes down from heaven is of such a kind that whoever eats it will not die.”

The difference between Christ’s death on the cross – the event- and the Eucharist – the sacrament – is the difference between history and liturgy.  The historical event happened once and it will never again be repeated (Heb 9:25-26).  The liturgical sacrament, however, not only keeps the past from being forgotten; through it the Eucharist of history – Jesus’ passion and death – is made present again.  While his act of physical death will never be repeated, Jesus’ act of total self-giving to the Father for us (Rom 8:32) continues eternally in Love – that is, the Holy Spirit.

This moment in salvation history is the culmination of all of Scripture.  As the Israelites were to sacrifice and eat the Passover lamb, so now are we to re-present His sacrifice forever in the form of bread and wine and eat His body and drink His blood because HE is the perfect sacrificial Lamb that we are to eat for our salvation (John 6:51).  As the first Isrealites had to eat the sacrificial lamb, so too must we do the same.

 

God Bless
Nathan