The Eucharist

[JJMG2001]

[quote name='Diamond' post='992198' date='May 28 2006, 11:26 PM']
Good metaphor. I read those when I was a little younger. It was always my understanding that they retained the mind and/or spirit of a human. SOME of their characteristics changed, but they were not totally different. They were humans with the bodies of dogs. Wine would still be wine in a beer bottle.

Besides, using fantastical situations can become a tough way to argue. I've always wondered whether you could kill yourself and it wouldn't be a sin if someone made you a vampire. I've come to the conclusion that since God didn't make that situation occur in nature, it's not much of a question.
[/quote]
But the Eucharist is a fantastical situation. Also vampires are demons (or atleast dambed souls) in eastern European folk lore so I think it would be a sin anyway maybe I can finish this in the mornign it is almost 12:30 here. Tempus est dormire.

Edited May 29, 2006 by JJMG2001

[Robbi]

[quote name='Diamond' post='992189' date='May 28 2006, 09:14 PM']
Sorry, I asked you to answer that post before I had seen your lower half of the post you made concerning the post I referred to.

I just... [b]it's tough to convince myself, on such a difficult to interpret piece of scripture, that Jesus claimed that his body was real food and meant that the food was real, but neither physical nor spiritual.[/b] We know it's not physical. Why couldn't this be spiritual? That's the only thing that makes sense to me. I see no other example in the Bible of something "being" something else without changing at all.

So what exactly is important about it being in this sense "real"? God being there spiritually is clearly all we need to gain His strength. His spiritual prescence is totally real. What does the bread being really his body (in that sense) implicate?

EDIT: What do you mean by "really" is? Could something be really God if it were not all good and all truth? That seems to be what you're implying.
[/quote]

There you go, you have said it yourself that it is difficult to interpret such scriptural passages.
Some of the disciples that were with Christ thought it was difficult to understand and walked away from Him! (Jn 6:55-56)
That is why you MUST have an authority that can make the correct interpretation.
The Catholic Church has that authority through the Apostles and succession of Popes who hold onto the Tradition of Transubstantiation. It is difficult to comprehend, but it is a mystery, like the Trinity, that requires a leap of faith to believe.

[Myles Domini]

Diamond did you listen to presentation of Dr Hahn that I linked in post #6?

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]Good metaphor. I read those when I was a little younger. It was always my understanding that they retained the mind and/or spirit of a human. SOME of their characteristics changed, but they were not totally different. They were humans with the bodies of dogs. Wine would still be wine in a beer bottle. [/quote]

It seems to me that you are a Cartesian dualist without even knowing it. You say that you are strictly adhering to science, but science can neither account for the reality of an immaterial mind nor an immaterial "spirit." Science can point out the brain and how it functions, it can show neurons firing and electrical signals jumping across synapses, but it will never show you the mind that you believe in. When you tell me that the animorphs "were humans with the bodies of dogs" what you are saying to me is that what it is to be human [i]has nothing to do with science[/i]. If it did, then you would be able to know, scientifically, that there was a mind/spirit present in that dog. But you can't.

So by professing a belief in an immaterial mind or immaterial spirit, you are admitting to the same principle that you reject with regards to the Transubstantiation. In transubstantiation, the substance (the what it is) changes even though there is no perceptible change in the accidents (all scientifically observable facts). In your notion of human identity, the substance (the human) remains the same even though there is a total change in all of the accidents (all scientifically observable facts), since it is still just a human in a dog body.

So you have to pick. If our minds or spirits are immaterial, then you have to admit that the principle of transubstantiation makes sense. If transubstantiation doesn't make sense, then you cannot maintain that our minds or spirits are immaterial.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='Diamond' post='992159' date='May 28 2006, 09:40 PM']
I think I understand a little better. Still, is there a miracle that demonstrates this idea? I have seen God do the impossible; I have not seen Him do the irrational. When he multiplied the fish the firsh were still really there. The people did not eat air and find their stomachs filled. When Jesus turned water to wine, the change was actual and physical. People did not drink a non-alcoholic, clear beverage and declare it wine. Is there a basis for this or is the Eucharis considered unique?

If the change is not physical, what is it? The miracles I know are eiher spiritual or physical. The Eucharist insists on another state of realness beyond physical and yet un-spiritual. If the change is physical; why is it not seen? Isn't something that can be measured what would be considered a physical change? If the change is spiritual, your ideas do not conflict with Protestants (at least the ones I'm associated with) in the least.

Is the Eucharist the lone example of a state of reality that is neither spiritual or physical?
[/quote]
see this thread

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=49653&hl="]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=49653&hl=[/url]

[Fidei Defensor]

Regarding your question about miracles pretaining to the Eucharist, see this link:

[url="http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html"]http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html[/url]

[jswranch]

[quote name='Diamond' post='992189' date='May 28 2006, 09:14 PM']I just... it's tough to convince myself, on such a difficult to interpret piece of scripture, that Jesus claimed that his body was real food and meant that the food was real, but neither physical nor spiritual.[/quote]

Remember, we are not talking about one scripture verse. There are many in the new testiment about blood, body, bread, wine, cup, drink, eat, etc. Look them all up and ponder them. Then reflect on the verses the Catholic Church praises... that Jesus said, 'I am that bread you eat... If you do not [gnaw on my flesh and bones] you have no life in you.'

[Franimus]

I highly recommend researching the Lanciano miracle (which you can do in part by following fidei defensor's link). Also, if the human body can change bread and wine into flesh and blood, why can't God? I also wholeheartily agree with Jeff.

[Guest T-Bone]

Here's a metaphor that I like:

Take Bob. Let's say Bob dies in his sleep.

The body in the street still looks, feels, smells, (tastes?) like Bob, yet there is something fundamentaly different between Bob five minutes ago, and the body that's in the bed now.

The Eucharist looks, feels, smells, tastes like bread and wine, yet there is something fundamentally different between the bread and wine, and the Eucharist.

In both cases the apperance does not change, but the substance does.

[Anthony]

[quote name='Diamond' post='992159' date='May 28 2006, 09:40 PM']
I think I understand a little better. Still, is there a miracle that demonstrates this idea? I have seen God do the impossible; I have not seen Him do the irrational. When he multiplied the fish the firsh were still really there. The people did not eat air and find their stomachs filled. When Jesus turned water to wine, the change was actual and physical. People did not drink a non-alcoholic, clear beverage and declare it wine. Is there a basis for this or is the Eucharis considered unique?

If the change is not physical, what is it? The miracles I know are eiher spiritual or physical. The Eucharist insists on another state of realness beyond physical and yet un-spiritual. If the change is physical; why is it not seen? Isn't something that can be measured what would be considered a physical change? If the change is spiritual, your ideas do not conflict with Protestants (at least the ones I'm associated with) in the least.

Is the Eucharist the lone example of a state of reality that is neither spiritual or physical?
[/quote]


There is a book on Eucharistic miracles called: [u]Eucharistic Miracles : And Eucharistic Phenomena in the Lives of the Saints[/u] written by Joan Carroll Cruz. I've read a little bit of it, but it consists of first hand accounts of people who have witnessed Eucharistic Miracles. One miracle in particular my spiritual director told me about was about this women; a skeptic who recieve the Eucharist on the tongue, took the Host out of her mouth and place it in a napkin only to find that it had bled and soaked through the napkin.

I recommend reading this book. You can purchase it through any Catholic book store and maybe some Christian book store.

I know a great book store you can order this book online frome. Here is the website.

[url="http://www.gloriadeo.com/pl/pages/product_detail?product_id=2080"]Eucharistic Miracles[/url]

Edited June 3, 2006 by Anthony

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Diamond' post='991911' date='May 28 2006, 03:41 PM']


Protestants (at least the church I'm associated with) would most likely agree that Christ is with us spiritually in the Communion act. If you like this wording, He is [i]really[/i] spriitually there. Since the bread does not change, He is obviously not physically there. The only option I can see is that the Eucharist means exactly what I would agree with: that Christ is [i]really spiritually[/i] there in Communion.

I'm hoping I'm wrong so I can get some schooling.

Thanks for the help.
[/quote]

Diamond, for the first 10 centuries of Christianity [until 1088AD], no one even questioned Jesus physical presence in the Eucharist.
St Cyril of Jerusalem who was born in[b] 315AD[/b] ""Since He Himself has declared and said of the bread: This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any more? And when He asserts and says: This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood?"" "In the type of bread is given thee the Body, in the type of wine the Blood is given thee"; but they do not remain in their original condition, they have been changed, though the senses cannot tell us this: "Do not think it mere bread and wine, for it is the Body and Blood of Christ, according to the Lord's declaration". "Having learned this and being assured of it, that appears to be bread is not bread, though perceived by the taste, but the Body of Christ, and what appears to be wine is not wine, though the taste says so, but the Blood of Christ . . . strengthen thy heart, partaking of it as spiritual (food), and rejoice the face of thy soul".