What do you mean by elements?

Are you familiar with the Aristotelian ideas of substance and accidents?

Yes, Catholics and Lutherans (and to lesser degrees some others) believe that through the Mystery of Transubstantiation the Eucharist and wine become the Real and Present body and blood of Christ.

Here's what is interesting about Sola Scriptura; You cited John 6:56 as evidence, I think, of how the Eucharist cannot contain the real presence. This is one of many verses that the Catholic Church has cited over its 2000 year history as evidence FOR the real presence in the species.

Of course with regard to the RCC, it also received this understanding directly from the Apostles and/or their subsequent students, of which many had actually learned directly from the Apostles while they were alive.

Pope Clement is an excellent example.

Not just Catholics, but all Christians for 16 straight centuries.  All churches that have apostolic succession (and even some that don't) still believe in the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

If I asked you to describe what a man looks like, you might say, "Well, it's an upright animal with two legs, two arms, two eyes, a nose, two ears, etc."  If your name is Bishop3, and I shave your head, are you still Bishop3?  What if I cut off your ears?  Do you then cease to be Bishop3?  What if I cut off your arms and legs?  Are you not still Bishop3 and a man?  If a man is an upright animal with two legs, two arms, two eyes, a nose, two ears, etc, how can you still be a man after I've removed all of those characteristics?

That is a poor analogy that hopes to illustrate that Christ can assume His Holy Presence in a bread and wine and still be Himself.  If you don't believe it, you have the right not to, but understand that you are at odds with Christianity throughout the ages.

I would have to agree with you, that is a poor analogy.

The Apostle Paul say's it is important that we discern the body of Christ. Could you describe the body of Christ?

For the one who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not properly recognize the body. 1 Corinthians 11:29

Jesus was 'really present' at the Passover meal with His disciples.

'And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body, which is being given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
St. Luke 21:19

I speak as to wise people; you then, judge what I say. Is the cup of blessing which we bless not a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is the bread which we break not a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one loaf, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one loaf.
1 Corinthians 10:15-17

...so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually we are members one of another. Romans 12:5

eta:  
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. Matthew 16:17

I am a believer and follower of Christ.
Good evening & thanks for the discussion.

Just wanted to say that this is one of the more mature and respectful debates I've seen on ARFCOM for a while.   Carry on!  :)

Thank you for your contribution, but again, I am not seeing how any of those verses are evidence that one cannot see the Eucharist as the Real Presence of Christ WHILE DISCERNING Him as well. In fact, this is a must according to the Catholic Church:

1385 To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: "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 any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself."216 Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.

1386 Before so great a sacrament, the faithful can only echo humbly and with ardent faith the words of the Centurion: "Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea" ("Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul will be healed.")...

1387 To prepare for worthy reception of this sacrament, the faithful should observe the fast required in their Church.218 Bodily demeanor (gestures, clothing) ought to convey the respect, solemnity, and joy of this moment when Christ becomes our guest.

1389 The Church obliges the faithful "to take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast days" and, prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation, to receive the Eucharist...

The fruits of Holy Communion

1391 Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. the principal fruit of receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion is an intimate union with Christ Jesus. Indeed, the Lord said: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."223 Life in Christ has its foundation in the Eucharistic banquet: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me."224

1392 What material food produces in our bodily life, Holy Communion wonderfully achieves in our spiritual life. Communion with the flesh of the risen Christ, a flesh "given life and giving life through the Holy Spirit,"226 preserves, increases, and renews the life of grace received at Baptism. This growth in Christian life needs the nourishment of Eucharistic Communion, the bread for our pilgrimage until the moment of death, when it will be given to us as viaticum.

1393 Holy Communion separates us from sin. The body of Christ we receive in Holy Communion is "given up for us," and the blood we drink "shed for the many for the forgiveness of sins." For this reason the Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins..."


I think one of the major issues in these discussions is that people who adhere to Sola Scriptura are attempting to find a very concise explanation or answer to what are extremely complex and mystical notions, within the confines of a verse or two, i.e. Scriptural Soundbites.

They read "Discernment of the body" in the Bible and think, "Ok what is the definition of that word? Oh, let's look that up in the dictionary and it says, 'discern; perceive or recognize (something), 2) to distinguish (someone or something) with difficulty by sight or with the other senses."

"Hmmm...well, Christ is dead so how would you recognize 'by sight or senses' His body and blood from a communion wafer?! Nope, you can't.  Therefore it can't be talking about the real presence". "Let's see what my buddy thinks...same? Got it. Can't be it".

And that's it.
Soundbite in Scripture found, a quick assessment made and we're good to go. On to the next theological issue.

Never mind that it was taken without consideration for the 2000 years of some of the greatest intellectual minds in the entire history of Western Civilization, with access to the most complete set of primary sources, a life devoted to the study of theology and ancient languages, and the benefit of a Church whose members were the LITERAL speakers in the Bible or those who learned directly from them. Not to mention the fact that they were descendants of the same peoples, cultures, and linguistic speakers who alone would be aware of the respective nuances of each during the time of Christ.

They understood discernment to mean "x, y, and z", and they took all of these into consideration while RELYING ON THE HOLY SPIRIT to do so.

I think this is the safer bet to follow, not to mention the Scripture itself is as clear as you can get on this.

Again, Christianity believed that uniformly for 16 centuries.  The majority of Christians today--especially, those with apostolic succession--still believe it.  Christ would have been a horrible teacher if He had failed to convey this key teaching properly to His followers.  This of course cannot be.

See if this helps.

Also see 1 Corinthians 10:16, "The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?"

That said, I don't see how John 6 can be read metaphorically when Christ Himself says it, doubles down, and triples down even when people leave Him.

Or, TLDR below:

MEMES?! LOL

Attached File

So... real presence and it's the same sacrifice?

Why then has there been no re-resurrection?

Good morning,
Jesus died once, for all. We were raised with Him.

In communion, we are sharing His body and blood. His real presence is evident to the believer.

It has always been a heart matter. It is, that some fail to recognize the body of Christ.

The Apostle Paul says, that is why many of you are weak and sick and some have even died. But if we would examine ourselves, we would not be judged by God in this way.

Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.
Colossians 3:1

Are you looking to the actual bread and wine as his flesh and blood body? Your focus is wrong. The elements are not what you should be tuned into.

His real presence, can be found in your heart.

It is easy to mock things we do not understand. I suppose that is why many found it to be a difficult teaching.

For you died to this life, and your real life is hidden with Christ in God. And when Christ, who is your life, is revealed to the whole world, you will share in all his glory.
Colossians 3:3?-?4

So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual immorality, impurity, lust, and evil desires. Don’t be greedy, for a greedy person is an idolater, worshiping the things of this world.
Colossians 3:5

Jesus says, it is the Spirit who gives life...
the flesh profits nothing.
the words that I say to you are spirit and they are life.

Thanks

`

Adding to what Bishop3 says - Father Mitch Pacwa explains and tell us:

To an omniscient and omnipresent Creator God, TIME and SPACE have no meaning - no relevance. God is beyond the strictures of a three dimensional world

Everything to God to Him is "the here and now." There is no past, present, nor future

It all exists to God NOW, in a totality of time and space. Nothing is unknown nor undone. God knows and sees all as one --together.

So when the second person of the Blessed Trinity offers his body and blood, suffers his passion, dies, and is resurrected,

to God - this is done ONCE AND FOREVER

and to we mortal creatures, we participate in this at Holy Mass,

Heaven actually comes down and touches the earth, as if we were there with Jesus at the last supper

We share in his real presence - Body and Blood, soul and divinity

We then share his resurrection - done once - for all

It is continuous for God

We partake of this

That always sounded weirdly cannibalistic and vampiric to me.  After the pastor at the confirmation said the wafer turned into the body of christ, and the wine turned into the blood of christ, I asked if he meant metaphorically or literally.  When he said literally, he lost me because I could clearly tell that it was still a little wafer/cracker and still wine.   The pastor's credibility took a huge hit, as did that religion in general.

I support folks believing what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.  I go with the evidence that I can discern.  

I don't put too much stock in what primitive people believed were miracles.  Many primitive peoples assigned miracles to anything they were unable to otherwise explain.  Based on calling anything they can't explain as a miracle, almost every magician on the Las Vegas strip would be considered miracle makers back 2021 years ago.  Fortunately, now people are more intelligent and can reason things through.

Religions all over the world rely more on faith than science.  The existence of God cannot be scientifically proven, nor can it be disproven as a negative cannot be proven.  Hence, folks rely on faith.

I have my beliefs and other folks have theirs.  I don't mind stating what I believe, but I find no value in debating my beliefs with others, so I just won't respond to those who want to criticize, change, or debate my belief system vs theirs.

I used to discuss with folks, but invariably no matter how polite I tried to be, it almost always denigrated into something non-productive.  Hence my unwillingness to respond to postings hoping to engage me in some kind of religious back and forth.

Fair enough, but I wonder if you can see the obvious irony in how you responded and how some early Jews/potential Christians did to Jesus Himself:

Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe...."

41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day....Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life....50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them....59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum."

Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?”

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

Excellent question, if I understand it correctly.

The Mass is a mystical re-presentation of the self-same sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. In a mystical way, the sacrifice is not repeated, but re-presented. This goes back to the Jewish understanding of Passover (as explained in the Dr. Pitre video earlier in the thread) where in a mystical way, each Jew was actually led out of Egypt. This type is fulfilled in a greater manner, a final manner so to speak, in the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ as the Lamb of God. It is the mystical representation not only of the sacrifice but also of the resurrection, which is accomplished at the point in the Mass called the "commingling", wherein the body (host) and blood (chalice) are rejoined, by placing a small piece of the host in the chalice.

Keep in mind it IS Catholic doctrine that Christ died ONCE and was resurrected ONCE. So the Mass is NOT a "repeat", but a re-presentation and not, merely symbolically, a "representation".

Sounded that way to the Jews, too, and Jesus drove the point home rather than walk it back or explain it away.

It also sounded that way to the Romans, which is why one of the charges against the Early Church was her members engaged in cannibalism.

Keep in mind that the real presence is substantive and not dimensive, so if one were to take a consecrated host and break off and consume a small portion, the teaching is not that "hey, I just got an arm and part of the torso", but that each and every part of the host (or precious blood) contains all of Christ substantially and not locally, dimensionally, etc.

Here's a famous Eucharistic Testimonial:



In Valpariso, Chile, at the beginning of the 20th century, Fr. Mateo Crawley-Boevey SS, CC., well known as the great Apostle of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, was a young priest. Fr. Mateo told this story wherever he preached and he found that where people were prepared to earn "three golden coins" with love, many graces were obtained and many conversions followed.

He relates that one day an 8 year old girl told him that Jesus spoke to her every time she received Holy Communion. Father was somewhat skeptical and requested her to ask Jesus to give him proof. The proof Father requested was the sudden conversion of a certain man who was a big sinner, a fallen away Catholic, and enemy of the Church ... and also that this man should come to him for Confession.

About a week later when Fr. Mateo was hearing confessions, the young girl told him that this sinner was coming up to the church. As the priest was leaving the confessional, the fallen away Catholic came into the church and walked over to Fr. Mateo and asked him to help him with his confession. He said that it was the first one since he was baptized. He did not know what came over him that morning but he suddenly understood the necessity of going to confession. Father realized that he had received the proof he requested.

The young girl told the priest that Our Lord revealed to her that He would give the graces to repent and mend his ways to this fallen away Catholic, and also to many other souls. He said, "Always ask Me for souls and I will give them to you, and tell Father Mateo to ask Me for souls. I will give them to him, too, but first you must become My missionary."
She thought she was too young to be a missionary. Our Lord assured her that He would make her His missionary and that she would have to pay a certain price for souls. "I want you," said Jesus, "to earn three golden coins a day." Our Lord then explained what He meant by golden coins.
    1) The first golden coin was her prayers to Him for souls.
    2) The second golden coin was her little sacrifices, especially acts of obedience.
    3) The third golden coin was a promise: "never to miss Mass or Holy Communion through your own fault and to visit Me often in the Blessed Sacrament."

Coming back to this particular point in bold.

Given the charges of cannibalism during a period of persecution, and as partial cause of it, wouldn't it make sense for the early Christian writers to correct the idea that it's *just* symbolic were that in fact what they believed?

Instead, the only corrections one can find when they write on the subject is in line with Catholic teaching on substance, rather than consuming physical flesh in the sense of cannibalism, e.g., gnawing/consuming an arm muscle, etc.

But nowhere in the Fathers do we ever find an explicit explanation of symbolism simply, despite the fact that they wrote about symbolism where applicable all the time.

Saw this thread and thought I'd chime in as a protestant perhaps on a journey to the Catholic church or maybe elsewhere.  For many years I would have vehemently disagreed with transubstantiation mostly on the basis that what the Catholics believe couldn't possibly be true given that they're barely Christians who worship Mary and follow the Pope (who possibly could be the antichrist), at least that is what I was taught.  However over the past 7 or 8 years I have discovered the writings of the fathers and subsequently some scriptures I could have sworn weren't in my Bible before (like John 6, or the passage where where Jesus breathes on the disciples) and now am convinced that at a bare minimum to be consistent with scripture and with the teachings of the earliest Christians a belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the elements is absolutely required.  

That being said whether transubstantiation is the best way to explain the real Presence or if like the Orthodox it is best left as a "mystery of faith", I am still working that out. It is much more fitting to scripture than the typical evangelical position that the bread and wine are "merely symbols", and communion is done only to help us remember what Christ did on the cross.  I also have in the process of reading the Father's have become much more amenable to most Catholic or Orthodox doctrines and have realized in no way are Catholics the bogeyman they are made out to be by so many evangelicals, but still have some doubts about particular dogmas like papal infallibility, the Marian dogmas, indulgences.

I appreciate also the discussion on this board from many faithful Catholics (and that of a few co workers and neighbors), it really helps humanize the church, beyond simply an intellectual concern over which faith body has the most correct doctrine.  I plan to dig into some future discussions with all of you. God bless.

God Bless!

I extend my appreciation to the Catholics here as well.

Welcome.

Where, roughly, in CO? Feel free to send me a PM and I might be able to direct you towards some onsite resources depending on location.

Dr. Brant Pitre has some great presentations on YouTube, as does Dr. John Bergsma (particularly on things like the Dead Sea Scrolls) and Dr. Scott Hahn.

The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate have a series called "No Apologies" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8sn5xfhTi4&list=PLejh_e0-LN4y9s11oJ_qciF69N7bDi5CU) which are short bits covering the logic and scriptural basis of many catholic doctrines. No need to go in order on that playlist.

If you are in the COS area, 1120AM or 104.3FM are the local Catholic radio stations. I think Denver is 1060AM?

I'm way late to this...but this is always how I've understood those passages regarding the Lord's supper. It is clearly figurative.

So, uh...I'm ignorant and maybe this is a dumb question, but what is the Eucharist? Are people saying that when they eat the bread and drink the wine that those substances LITERALLY turn into Jesus' flesh and blood?

What do you say about the guy on the cross next to Jesus then? Honestly asking, because Jesus told him he would be in paradise with Him...but I'm kind of doubting they got him down and baptized him and then hung him back up to finish dying.

Not my work:

"Two others also, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with [Jesus]. . . . One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, ‘Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!’ But the other rebuked him, saying, ‘Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.’ And he said, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ And he said to him, ‘Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise’” (Luke 23:32-43).

This is all the Bible tells us about the “good thief,” but several points are clear. First, he is a criminal whose crucifixion for his actions is just. Second, he is contrite. Third, he believes in Jesus. And finally, Jesus affirms his salvation. There is no indication that this man was a Christian, yet Jesus assures him that he is saved and even promises (in most Bible translations) that he will go to heaven that very day.

Therefore, the challenge goes, baptism is not necessary for salvation, since there is no indication that the good thief was—or ever would be—baptized."

First, let’s consider the Church’s teaching on the necessity of baptism and how the good thief could attain salvation. It might come as a surprise to learn that Catholics recognize that the good thief was indeed saved, and tradition assigns him the name St. Dismas.

Whether or not Dismas had been baptized is unknown. Scripture and other historical records do not contain this information. We also do not know that Jesus had instituted the necessity of sacramental baptism at that point.

If Jesus did institute baptism before the Crucifixion, and Dismas was baptized, then there is no conflict with the doctrine of the necessity of baptism. But if Dismas wasn’t baptized, does this pose a conflict? Actually, it doesn’t. While baptism is the ordinary means of baptismal graces, the Church holds that there are other extraordinary means that suffice when certain circumstances exist. One of those is baptism of desire. The Catechism explains:

Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery. Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity (CCC 1260).

So it could be that Dismas was ignorant of certain things but he experienced a true conversion on his cross and was saved because he would have desired baptism had he known. Or maybe he wasn’t ignorant but he had not yet had the opportunity for baptism and his actual desire for it sufficed: “For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament” (CCC 1259).

Whatever the case may be, Jesus’ words on the cross to Dismas do not contradict the doctrine of the necessity of baptism as the Catholic Church teaches it.

Previous posts here answer this completely.

Yes. True “soul food”.  

I breathe but cannot see the process of getting oxygen to my body.  The Eucharist is similar... the bread and wine are not merely transformed, but transubstantiated... totally changed..

https://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=50909

OK, interesting view point.

Although, this part -- "Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved." -- sure seems to imply that people that have never heard of Christ and never accept Him as their savior will go to heaven if they just do their best as they understand the "best" to be. They might want to reword that one?

Yup, I posted that and then kept reading. LOL. I see now (I think) what it's supposed to mean.

Yeah, I think I get it now. Everything that's been presented so far in this thread has left me wholly unconvinced though. I get how someone could read it that way, but it's really quite a stretch, and the arguments just aren't persuasive to me. Jesus said a ton of things figuratively and spoke parables to the masses without explaining the spiritual significance at times. I don't see how this is any different. I don't have a horse in this race though; it's not salvation impacting, so I don't care to try and debate the point -- just saying, before someone tries to press me on this one. LOL.

Regardless, if I am wrong, that doesn't stop the power of God from doing what He has willed each time I take communion. It is obviously dependent on Him, not me.

Sorry for the interruption, LOL. Carry on!

For me as a life long Protestant, what convinced me that the Catholic understanding of the real presence is much closer to correct than my old evangelical understanding of it being just a symbol, was not primarily the scripture verses on "eat my flesh" or "this is my body", because you're right these statements can be interpreted in multiple ways (which brings up the Sola Scriptura, or the perspicuity of scripture discussions, which may be the most critical as a protestant since all denominations on these principles) but rather reading how the church fathers, even in the first generation after the apostles wrote of it.  I was under the impression that the early church post new testament was basically lost to history, when I found we have an abundance of primary source writings from this area and thus have a great idea of how the earliest Christians understood the actual teachings of Jesus and his apostles it blew my mind.

This quote on the eucharist from Ignatius Bishop of Antioch in the late first century was my first hint that early Christians interpreted the Lord's supper literally:

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

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

And this one from Justin Martyr:
This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

"First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155

After reading these writings I knew my local church was far from the teachings of the Apostles as understood by the early church. This caused a dilemma in my mind, who was more likely to interpret these things correctly, those Christians who had life long dialogs with the Apostles and were personally instructed by them, or me who has a few hundred pages of the new testament? And there is my dilemma as a protestant looking towards the ancient Christian faiths.

Holy communion doesn't happen without the Holy Spirit. He is the same Holy Spirit,  and hasn't changed ever since the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

He reveals truth. Yes, Truth. Now God did not leave us orphans. How do you interpret those things in your natural mind? Yeah, but we have the mind of Christ. This is a mystery revealed.

The Word of God is Spirit. Jesus said, It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

Why does Apostle Paul say there are those who do not properly recognize the body? We must examine ourselves.

Thanks

Eta: Maranatha

That the Holy Spirit is the same and has not changed for all eternity is the official teaching of the RCC, but again, how does that prevent its presence from being alongside the Real Presence of blood and body from being in the Eucharist simultaneously? Indeed, it MUST be as the Holy Trinity CANNOT be divided but is always One.

Good morning.

The Holy Spirit is my Teacher.

eta: there is no schism in the body.

If you do believe in the Trinity, (and I apologize if my assumption is offensive), then I am not sure what your statement "The Holy Spirit is my Teacher" means as it pertains to this this discussion. I am not saying that you have to believe in RCC doctrines, only that a belief in the Trinity not only does not conflict with the Real Presence of Blood and Body in the Eucharist, but that as a matter of theology, it would inevitably be found in the Eucharist if one asserts the Real Presence of Blood and Body. That's all, and I mean no offense to your beliefs.

Sir, I take no offense. Love is indeed the greatest.
I like sound doctrine, so get it from the source right?

If that's your belief, fair enough. God bless!

I find it amusing how religious zealots of every faith believe that their faith is the one true and only way to believe, and that everyone else's faith or belief system therefore has to be "wrong".  Protestant vs Catholic, Jew vs Muslim, Bhuddist vs Hindu, even various sects within each faith argue and bicker over who is right and who is wrong.  

A true zealot MUST denigrate any alternative faith, because if they don't say at the other faith is "wrong", then they are indirectly admitting that their belief system is either weak, or possibly even wrong.  

Almost every religion once viewed homosexuality as a horrible sin, however over time many faiths have accepted homosexuality.  I guess the initial view of homosexuality was wrong for all those faiths that now accept it.  Then the question would be what will be the next thing to become acceptable...pedophelia, beastiality, murder.  

I guess religions have to change with the times in order to maintain membership.  Listening to various religious zealots justify, or try to sell their faith is quite entertaining.  And that applies equally to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists, Atheists, Hindu, and any other religion folks can think of.  

Just wait...someone will come along and tell me I am wrong because (fill in the blank).  That will merely prove my point.

Well, it sure sounds like you've created an irrefutable doctrine, since you laid the ground rules down in such a way that anyone who disagrees with you now only proves your point. So if they agree then you "win", and if they don't agree with you then you still "win".

Sounds like the very hypocrisy you just criticized all religions for holding to.

But it's different in your case, now isn't it?

I agree with all that is in your post. Yet none of it contradicts what was in my post. You are correct to say communion does not happen without the Holy Spirit. Thus the epiclesis during the eucharistic prayer when the priest prays that the Holy Spirit might come down and transform the gifts. Also as a mystery of faith we need the Spirit to reveal these things to us.

You are also correct to say that God reveals truth to us, and that we have the mind of Christ, but how does he reveal truth to us? If he simply imparts truth into our minds individually then why do so many Christians who truly love God and seek the truth believe contradictory things?   If our method of discovering truth is by reading scripture individually and personally interpreting it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, why do so many learned Christian theologians who all love Jesus disagree vehemently on important points of doctrine? Is not the "We" who possess the mind of Christ also the mystical body of Christ, the church?  The church is described as Paul in 1 Tim 3:15 as a pillar and buttress of truth. So then the mystical body of Christ possesses the mind of Christ in order to provide a foundation of truth for us as individuals.

You are also correct to say that the Word of God is Spirit, but it is also true that the word was made flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, who was incarnate, died, and rose again, which indeed profits us everything, so there must be a more specific interpretation of "the flesh profits nothing".  This has been long thought of to say that to consider  these matters from a merely human perspective will not profit us, as this is a mystery of faith it can only be perceived by faith which is granted to us by the Holy Spirit.  That Christ who is the word, words are to be interpreted by the Spirit and enliven our souls is also undeniable, therefore I agree with you whole heartedly.

Paul says there are those who do not properly recognize the body precisely because there are many Christians who would participate in communion who do not recognize the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ in The Lord's Supper, through faith which is a gift of God through the spirit. You're absolutely correct we must examine ourselves.

My two cents anyway.

Faiths that have changed their position on the morality of homoaexual acts merely confirm the fact that those faiths are false, or at a bare minimum were formerly false and thus founded upon fraud and therefore may be immediately discounted by one who seeks truth, moral law is unchangeable despite the whims of society.  This does not disprove religion, just those religions that have changed.