Transubstantiation Unsubstantiated

[Thy Geekdom Come]

A group calling itself the "Stormstopper Team" sent me the following spam message in my email. I've been dialoguing with one of the original senders. I told them that although I don't have the time to debate it, I'd post it here and let y'all go at it. Enjoy.

Please keep in mind that this is spam, sent from the darkness by those wishing to remain unidentified, which is contrary to the Gospel and the instructions of the Apostles about the Christian life and evangelization.

God bless,

Raphael

========================================

Dear Roman Catholic. . . .

We are sorry that you are held captive to the concept of "Transubstantiation" and the alleged "Real Presence" of Christ in the Communion wafer. We are persuaded that the theological framework of the Bible conveys a persistent and uncompromising voice in opposition to the entire fiasco regarding this doctrine. God's word tells us to, "study to show yourself approved" {2 Tim 2:15} and we have indeed done so.

What about you? Considering we will be judged by the Word of God {John 12:48} it would seem a sense of urgency is in order to make sure your beliefs can be validated under the searchlight of the Bible. We invite you to consider the illuminating critique below---more than worth your 15 minutes since we give you well over 100 reasons why the Bible builds an impenatrable wall against Transubstantiation. All sober-minded comments sent to this address will receive a response. However, you must interact with the facts presented. Unfortunately, the typical Catholic reply is to exhibit a shallow triumphalism, declaring themselves to be the victor without ever dirtying their hands with any of the details! Most often we are subject to the stirring up of the emotions (as in, How dare you even suggest there is no case for transubstantiation)---or, how did you get my e-mail address; or whoever it was in the church that harmed you, please get over it and come home to Rome; or the demand that we be more kind---(as if Jesus walked around Nazareth with a feather duster and a rose in His mouth)--- or the most popular, "you do not understand Catholicism"---all without furnishing one quote from Holy Writ to make their point.

Now that you know what we don't want to hear, you should respond accordingly. So let the showcase of evidence begin:



THE EUCHARIST

To begin with, the word, "eucharist" is simply a Greek word meaning "thanksgiving". It more than likely came into use by Jesus breaking the bread and "giving thanks".

"The first thing to be noticed is that the word has been transferred from the Greek into an express name, and we may say the chief title, of the Lord's Supper" {C. Hebert, "The Lord's Supper: Uninspired Teaching, vol 1, p. 28}. While the current catechism is correct (#1328) in stating that the word eucharistein used at the Supper, recalls the Jewish blessings that proclaim-- especially during a meal-- God's work of creation, redemption and sanctification; Catholicism has gone outside biblical boundaries to now teach that consuming the Eucharist results in redemption and sanctification---something we will prove the Scriptures absolutely do not support. Henceforth we shall refer to the Roman Catholic Church as the "Catholic Church".

The Catholic Church teaches that a priest has the power to call down Jesus Christ from heaven, and through the miracle of Transubstantiation, the communion wafer and the wine are both suddenly changed into His actual body and blood, even though there appears to be no change in the elements under close scientific examination {Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 1376}. Consequently, we are informed that ingesting the wafer via the mouth throughout one's lifetime is necessary for salvation {CCC #1129, Council of Trent, "Concerning Communion", ch. 1}----and that it is the "center, source and summit of the Christian life" {CCC #1324 & 1343}. We would agree that if this is true, then the whole world ought to become Roman Catholic. On the other hand, if it is not, then this teaching must be ranked as unimaginably deceptive and false. Our burden here is to safeguard the gospel {Jude 1:3}. If a religious system claiming to be Christian is going to demand that something be done as a prerequisite for entering heaven's gate, we should recall that, "the honor of a king is to search out a matter" {Proverbs 25:2}. So we shall do so here.

Remember, there is nothing wrong with disputing the facts. The Scriptures conclusively prove that the act of disputing encompassed much of the life of the apostle Paul who was accused of turning the world upside down {Acts 9:22,17:2, 17:6, 17:17, 18:4, 18:19, 19:8-10; 19:26, 20:31,24:25, 28:23}. He challenged the status quo and was unconcerned about ruffling feathers, saying, "Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? {Galatians 4:16}.

THE GOSPEL

The good news of Jesus Christ is primarily an act of the intellect that is received by what unbelievers would call, "the foolishness of preaching" {1 Cor 1:18-21}----but what Christians know to be "the power of God unto salvation" {Rms 1:16}. It is not meant to satisfy our physical appetite except in metaphorical ways {Psalm 34:8, Jeremiah 2:13, Isa 55:1, Rev 2:16; 22:17}. The gospel hinges on what He has done for us---not what we can do for him {2 Cor 4:6}. When we then join His ranks, we are told to put on the whole armor of God, which includes "the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shoes of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation and the sword of the spirit" {Eph 6:13-17}. Directly after these verses, the apostle Paul indeed says he wanted to open his mouth---but not in order to swallow the Eucharist.
Notice--- In Scripture, life is described as a battle. If there was anything even remotely nourishing in swallowing the communion wafer as the Catholic Church claims {CCC #1003, Ecclesia de Eucharista, #16-17) it would have been highlighted here as the ultimate "vitamin pill" to sustain "soldiers of Jesus Christ" in the wars ahead {1 Tim 1:18, 2 Tim 2:3}. The Pope says the Eucharist is, "our food for the journey" {Ecclesia, #61}. But the apostle did not include this food in the soldier's battle plan, but only asks the Ephesians to pray that he would boldly open his mouth to proclaim the mystery of the gospel . . . period. In stark contrast to God's marching orders as to what constitutes a soldier's armor, the Catholic Church again ventures outside the inscripturated Word and hundreds of years later expects us to believe we must add to our weaponry and be "invisibly equipped" with the Eucharist! {Consitution on the Sacred Liturgy, para 2}.

However, as we will show below, the Lord has already promised the "invisible equipment" of the Holy Spirit---by whom we are promised to be "strengthened with might in the inner man" {Eph 3:16}. Thus, we are convinced that the Catholic Church Eucharist does not belong in our artillery, let alone it being necessary for salvation. "Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men " {Colossians 2:8}.

Keep in mind that when the early church responded to those who would reduce Christianity to rites, rules and regulations, the apostle Paul would not stand for it, "No, not for an hour" {Galatians 2:5}. Later, when actual believers rose up and asserted that, "except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved" ---the council at Jerusalem rejected this addition also {Acts 15:1-11}. We see then that the mindset of the early pioneers was not one of religious toleration when it appeared the gospel was about to be compromised. They were rigidly inflexible when anything extra was looking to be added to the gospel equation. Scripture says we must "rest" our salvation on nothing more, nothing less and nothing ELSE than Jesus Christ crucified {1 Cor 1:23; 2:2, Heb 4:10}. The Catholic Church view is that salvation is a product of faith plus the ritualisitic consumption of Christ at Mass, which the Catholic would consider a work of righteousness.
However, the Bible is adamant that our righteous acts do not save us (Titus 3:5). Salvation is conceptualized in Scripture as a free gift, plain and simple (Eph 2:8-9, 2 Cor 9:15).

GOING AWAY

With regard to the "Real Presence" --- Scripture declares that the physical presence of Jesus was going away!

"I go to prepare a place for you" . . . "Yet a little while and the world seeth me no more." . . . "I go away" . . . "But now I go my way to Him that sent me." . . . "I leave the world and go unto the Father" . . .. "I go to my Father and ye see me no more." . . . "For the poor ye have with you always; but me ye have not always." . . . "Ye shall seek me and shall not find me; and where I am, thither ye cannot come." . .. . "And now, I am no more in the world." . . . {John 14:2, 14:19, 14:28, 16:5, 16:29, 16:10, 12:8, 7:34, 17:11}. And Paul confirmed that, "though we have known Christ in the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more " {2 Cor 5:16}.
Notice--- He makes no exception that we be consoled with either Christ's presence in--or eating His flesh as a result of, the Eucharist. Naturally then, a doctrine such as Transubstantiation which bids us to believe in the actual bodily presence of our Lord is at war with the Bible from the get-go.

Furthermore, Jesus emphatically states that prior to the time of His second coming, "if any man shall say to you, lo, here is Christ; or lo, He is there;
believe it not " {Mk 13:21}.

Is not the Catholic Church bidding us to believe Christ is "over there" in a dispensary called a "monstrance", and picked out by the hands of the priest distributing Him in "physical form" at Communion? Yes they are, and this should rightly disturb you. But the Bible declares that Jesus does not dwell in temples {or any holy places} made with hands . . .but has entered into Heaven itself" where He will remain until He appears "a second time" {Acts 7:48; Hebrews 9:24;28}. No mention is made of a "sacramental presence" to sustain us in the meantime. Thus, the Catholic Church vessel called a "monstrance" {or a "ciborium" or "tabernacle"} is nothing other than an alleged holy place made with hands, but Scripture states that Christ is not there!

We also note another warning in Matthew 24:26: "Therefore, if they shall say to you, Behold He is in the desert; go not forth: {or} Behold, He is in the secret chambers {King James Version}
believe it not. " The New King James Version renders "secret chambers" as "inner rooms". . . or even, "inner chambers" {American Standard Version}. What does this mean? In order that there would be no need to speculate, Jesus provided exact locations where these false appearances would occur. With reference to Strong's Concordance, the actual meaning of the Greek word "TAMEION" that is translated as "inner rooms" is, "a dispensory; i.e. a chamber on the ground floor or interior of an Oriental house {generally used for storage or privacy; a spot for retirement.}" In other words, the original Greek actually refers to some kind of storage space , dispensary or private place. The backbone of Roman Catholicism is its star prop---the monstrance, which is a vessel / dispensary/ private dwelling----wherein they insist Jesus Christ "retires" in physical form until taken out by the hands of the priest, to be dispensed to the people via the mouth. However, our Lord says to REJECT any future sightings of His physical presence in any "secret chamber" by preceeding his warning with, "See, I have told you beforehand." {Matt 24:25-26}. And He most certainly did. No where but in Catholicism do the words of Christ find their fulfillment with such stark clarity.

BLOODY COMMUNION WAFERS?

Roman Catholics around the world have been duped into believing that on many occasions the blood of Christ has dripped out of a wafer, and they claim this phenomena constitutes proof for "The Real Presence". What most people are unaware of is the history of red bacteria called
Serratia marcesens . In the 6th century B.C., Pythagoras reported on a substance that was said to look like blood which sometimes appeared on food. Then in 332 B.C., soldiers of the Macedonian army of Alexander the Great, found that from time to time, their bread appeared to have blood on it also. Later in the Middle Ages, it was regularly observed to grow on communion wafers. This led multitudes to think that this was the blood of Christ, hence a miracle. In the dark, damp churches of medieval times, wafers used in Holy Communion often became contaminated with S. marcescens. In 1264, Pope Urban instituted the feast of Corpus Christi {"Body of Christ"} to honor another one of these sightings and there stands today a "Corpus Christi" church in practically every state in the U.S. named after this fake miracle centuries ago. It was 400 years later when Anton van Leeuwenhoek would observe the red bacteria under the microscope. But even today, ignorance prevails and many are deceived {"The Genesis of Germs" by A. Gillen, p. 15}.



NOT VIA THE MOUTH, BUT

''HAVE YE RECEIVED THE SPIRIT .. .. . BY THE HEARING OF FAITH?''

(Galatians 3:2).

Without an iota of proof, the Catholic Church would have us believe that, "it is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present in this unique way. Since He was about to take His departure in His visible form, He wanted to give us His sacramental presence {in the Eucharist----CCC # 1380}.

Reader, that is a boldfaced lie. Before Christ made His departure He said absolutely nothing about "this unique way of remaining mysteriously in our midst through His sacramental presence in the Eucharist" {ibid}. Instead, He promised to be with us by

*** The presence of the Holy Spirit! This is the birthright of every born again Christian; "God has made known to us the riches of the glory of this mystery, [namely] "Christ in you, the hope of glory" {Colossians 1:27}.

*** "Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him..." and "manifest myself to him" {Rev 3:20, John 14:21-23}.

*** After you believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the downpayment of our inheritence" {Eph 1:13}

*** "Nevertheless, I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me" {Galatians 2:20}.

*** The Spirit of God will "abide with you forever; even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive...but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." {John 14:17, 15:26, 16:13}.

*** The believer has the promise of being, "strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith" ---not by transubstantiation {Eph 3:16-17}. Again, God has sent forth the Spirit into our hearts by faith, and not via the mouth and into the stomach---as Catholicism falsely teaches. He has come to reinhabit our redeemed humanity so that our bodies might become the temple of the living God {1 Cor 6:19, 2 Cor 13:5}. Each believer is called a "living stone" that is being "fitly framed together" with the others, being built into a "spiritual house for the habitation of God through the Spirit" {1 Peter 2:5, Eph 2:21-22}.

*** Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" {1 Cor 3:16}.

*** In Isaiah 57:15, the Lord says that He is the high and lofty one that inhabits eternity, and "I dwell also with him that is of a contrite and humble spirit." Thus, it simply staggers the imagination to realize that the God of all creation and eternity dwells with each and every one of His people, just as He knows the name of each and every star in the universe {Psalm 147:4}. "For ye are the temple of the living God; as He has said: I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God and they shall be my people" {2 Cor 6:16, Rms 8:11}.

*** "And because ye are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts..." {Galatians 4:6}

"Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" {Matt 28:20}.



EXCUSES

The Catholic Church may be likened to King Saul in First Samuel 15:13 and following. After being accused of not doing what he was told to do, he kept making excuses that he had indeed obeyed God, but his pleas fell on deaf ears. Saul was full of nothing but hot air. In similar manner, while every Roman Catholic will not argue with the Scriptural references detailing Christ's physical exit out of this world, the fact remains they simply don't like it! Tiptoeing around the fact that Jesus has bid us farewell, damage control experts offer weak explanations seeking to justify His physical presence in the Eucharist that are in abject defiance of the Word of God. Let the reader judge:

"This presence is called "real" ----by which it is not intended to exclude all other types of presence as if they could not be "real" too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense. It is a substantial presence by which Christ, the God-man, is wholly and entirely present" {CCC #1374}.

" Certainly, non-Eucharistic Christians have a valid relationship with Him {but} the Eucharist. . . is the most concentrated manifestation of what {Catholics} experience. . . . . . . our souls cannot feed on mere abstract omnipresence; we hunger for a touch" {M. Shea, "This is My Body", p. 35}.

"Christ's presence in the Eucharist in the tabernacle of every Catholic church is a way in which God dwells among His people with special closeness. This is why our churches are open daily and why people often drop in for a visit to share their joys and sorrows with Him, or just to talk things over"
{A. Wilhelm, "Christ Among Us" p. 252}.

Reader---the above is nothing but deceptive, religious-sounding cotton candy. The Catholic Church is simply dissatisfied to "walk by faith and not by sight" {2 Cor 5:7} and impatient for the day when "we shall see Him as He is" {1 John 3:2}. Roman Catholics who "hunger for a touch of the concentrated manifestation of his substantial presence in the fullest sense" are guilty of "great swelling words" {2 Pet 2:18} and "fair speeches that deceive the hearts of the simple" {Rom 16:18}. They just "cannot endure that which is commanded" {Heb 12:20}--- so through "philosophy and vain deceit" {Col 2:8} they scramble to support their worthless traditions received from their fathers {1 Pet 1:18} and in the process, nullify the word of God {Mk 7:9}.

Knowing that her detractors are irate with the thought of the Creator of the universe shrunk to the size of a half-dollar, the Catholic Church presses hard to convince us that His presence in the wafer is by,
"a manner of existing which, though we can scarcely express it in words. . . ought most firmly to be believed" {Trent, "On the Real Presence". . .ch.1}. And a popular Catholic website reports that, "the body of Christ, with its head, trunk and members, has assumed a mode of existence independent of space; within the diminutive limits of the Host. . . which neither experience, nor any system of philosophy, physics or mechanics has the least inkling" {NewAdvent.org). Moreover, the Pope has said, "[We] must firmly maintain that in objective reality, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist. . .[This] mystery indeed taxes our mind's ability to pass beyond appearances. Here our senses fail us." {Ecclesia de Eucharistia, by Pope John Paul II, #15 & 58}. We must forthrightly object to all these grandiose claims! These unwarrantable conjectures may be passed over as gratuitously as they were advanced. Christ's response to Thomas after inviting him to touch Him because of His unbelief was an exception. Future blessed generations, He said, would be "those who have not seen, and yet have believed" {Jn 20:29}. Roman Catholics, however, insist that Christ left us a "visible" demonstration of His presence, "such as the nature of man requires" {CCC # 1366}--- but Scripture has promised no such thing. Rather, we are to look foward to, "the appearing of Jesus Christ, whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though ye see Him not, yet believeing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable" {1 Peter 1:7-8}. Again, the eternal, immortal King is invisible {1 Tim 1:17}---thus it is a delusion to imagine it would be His will to leave us a "visible demonstration". We are not to place Him in a monstrance because, "Heaven is my throne and earth is my footstool; what house will ye build me?" {Acts 7:49}. We are called to, "look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen" {2 Cor 4:18}. The Catholic Church has "exchanged the glory of the incorruptible, invisible God for an image. . .." ---a wafer God that may be likened to a counterfeit bill that cannot be redeemed. And neither can a soul be redeemed by the counterfeit "offering" of the Eucharistic false christ in the Mass because there is now "no more offering for sin." {Romans 1:23; 2 Cor 11:4, Heb 10:18}.

OBJECTION:
"We believe that as a result of consuming the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, we are granted the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. For as John Paul II has said, "Through our communion in His body and blood, Christ also grants us His Spirit" (and) "the joint and inseparable activity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. . . is at work in the Eucharist" {Ecclesia de Eucharistia, #17 & 23}.

ANSWER:
The biblical evidence will not permit the Roman Catholic to have it both ways because the gift of the Spirit has been promised outside of the Communion ceremony by faith as Scripture clearly teaches! Because the Catholic Church cannot pinpoint any direct biblical link as to what advantage might result from actually swallowing the physical body of Jesus, she cleverly solves this problem by co-joining the presence of the Holy Spirit as a benefit, so that everything said about the Holy Spirit, may equally be said about the Eucharist. Thus she deceitfully transfers all the attributes of the Spirt's presence which are found in the Bible in abundance, and then unwarrantedly transfers them over to the Eucharist, which are not stated anywhere. Swallowing the body of Christ, literally or not, is a biblically proven separate action that does not give any promise equal to what the Holy Spirit has already been appointed for. The Catechism readily admits that the Spirit will "teach us everything", helps in understanding the Word of God, renews us into the image of Christ, sanctifies the church, and produces in us "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and self-control" according to Galatians 5:22 {CCC # 729, 1101, 1109, 747, 736}. Furthermore, they agree that He has been sent . .. . "to lead us into all truth" --- "to convince the world of sin, righteousness and judgment" ---- "to shine in our hearts to give us light" --- "to give us wisdom" --- "to quicken us to spiritual life" --- "to help our infirmaties, to help us pray, to intercede for us" --- "to confirm within our hearts that we are children of God" ---and "to be the seal of our inheritence" { John 16:13, 1 Cor 6:20, 2 Cor 4:6, Eph 1:17, John 6:63, Romans 8:16; 26, Eph 1:13}.

We have as yet to hear of any benefit of the Catholic Church Eucharist that has not already been defined as one of the Holy Spirit's assigned duties. That being the case, ingesting the actual body of Christ, even if it were true, does not serve any purpose. The Holy Spirit which inspired the Scripture, singlehandedly multi-tasks all the benefits Christ promised when He emphatically stated His physical presence was going away and the Comforter sent to fill in the void. Moreover, the catechism as quoted above {#1374} which states that the Eucharist materializes the "real presence" in the fullest sense, is a lie. Galatians 3:26 says that when "we receive the promise of the Spirit by faith" ---- we are filled with that Spirit and with all the fullness of God {Luke 1:41; 67, 4:1, Acts 2:4; 4:8; 31; 6:3; 5, 7:55, 9:17, 11:24, 13:9; 52, Eph 3:17-19; 5:18, }. The Catholic Church says the Eucharist brings "fullness" ---but the Holy Spirit says HE does! Both cannot be true since you cannot fill a vessel that is already full with something else! Yet the Catholic Church presses even further by supposing that, "in the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice, the Church prays that the Father of Mercies will grant His children the fullness of the Holy Spirit . . . " {Ecclesia de Eucharista, #43}. Let the Catholic Church pray all she wishes. The Bible will not support this "dual presence in the fullest sense", and therefore, she has neither one.

In addition, as they looked skyward to see Him leave this world, the angel said, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into Heaven." {Acts 1:11}. Since He left in His resurrected body, He will return in "like manner" and in no other manner---including disguising Himself under the form of bread and wine. Notice--- if the Catholic Church position were true, the angel should have reminded them in similar fashion as He did at the empty tomb. .. . "He is risen. . . just as He said unto you." {Mk 16:7} And then we would read, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? {You have the reality of His bodily presence when He hides Himself in the bread and wine, just as He said unto you}. But the angel offered no such reminder. Hence, the ascension of Christ and consequent sending of the Spirit for our comfort explicitly denies the necessity for transubstantiation, and thus the case for Jesus speaking symbolically in John 6 and the Last Supper, rings true.

Furthermore, when we take God's character into consideration, we note that the overwhelming evidence indicates that when He wishes to demonstrate His power by miracles, they must be seen! No where in the Bible are we ever told of a miracle taking place where all the evidence indicated no miracle had taken place. Transubstantiation is an allegedly "invisible" miracle that cannot be seen. We object. The wafer looks, tastes, smells and feels like a wafer--- and that is exactly what it is. How can we forget water changing into wine, a rod being changed into a serpent, the sea being split down the middle, the lame walk, the blind see, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and even dry bones are changed into an army of men, all to the amazement of the onlookers {Ezekiel 37:5-10}. And John the Baptist said that God could of these very stones, raise up children to Abraham {Matt 3:9}. But if He did, they would no longer retain the appearance of stones! Moreover, lest we forget that Jesus turned water into wine, we are reminded that the guests did not say, "Why are you serving us water?". Neither did Jesus respond, "It may look and taste like water, but it is actually wine under the appearance of water." No, in fact the guests considered the wine to be the finest served that night" (John 2:1-10). Consequently, we must conclude that invisible miracles such as disguising Himself "under the form of bread and wine" is saying something about God which is incorrect {Job 42:8}.

THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Under no circumstances whatsoever does the Bible indicate the "transforming power" of the Spirit to change the emblems of bread and wine into God Almighty---as the Catholic Church would have us believe {CCC #737, #1104}. Rather, we are told that He transforms
us from one degree of glory into another as we mature {2 Cor 3:17-18, Rom 8:4, Titus 3:5}. While the Catholic Church admits that the Holy Spirit has the power to transform our lives into the image of Christ {CCC #1109} ----they systematically proceed to duplicate and transfer every last one of the Spirit's virtues and place them all on the head of the Eucharist--- all without a shred of scriptural support.

Additionally,
NO WHERE are we told that the Holy Spirit needs to be "BEGGED" out from heaven by a priest to transform a wafer into Diety {CCC #1105} and as one popular priest has written: "When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings down Christ from His throne, and places Him upon our altars to be offered again as the victim for the sins of men" {Fr. John O'Brien, "The Faith of Millions"-- p. 255-6}. As a matter of fact, Romans 10:6 emphatically condemns these wild ideas: "who shall ascend into heaven to bring down Christ from above?" The apostle is teaching that the language of faith does not ask a man to climb to heaven to bring Christ down again since that is impossible as well as unnecessary because Jesus has already come to earth in His incarnation, "nor yet that He should offer Himself often" {e.g. in the Mass} because, "there is now no more offering for sin" {Hebrews 9:25; 10:18}.

Therefore, since it is an established fact we have the promise of new life by the residing power and presence of the Holy Spirit within us BY FAITH ---without the necessity of ingesting the body of Christ "under the form of bread and wine" {Galatians 3:2} ---- Jesus had to be speaking figuratively when He told us to eat His flesh and drink His blood to have new life because the sending of the Spirit for comfort logically refutes the oral fixation of Roman Catholicism. "I will not leave you as orphans" . . . "Ye shall receive power and the Holy Ghost will come upon you and you shall be witnesses unto me...." {John 14:18; 20:22, Act 1:8}. Consequently, the claim that the substantial presence of Christ in, and consequent ingestion of, the Roman Catholic wafer is necessary for salvation {CCC #1129, 1374; Trent, "Concerning Communion" , ch. 1} is tragically unbiblical. Rather, "if any man have not the Spirit of Christ ---he is none of His" {Romans 8:9}. And again, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God {not who eat Him} they are the Sons of God" {Rms 8:14}.



DENIAL OF THE INCARNATION

The doctrine of the "Real Presence" is an intrusion upon the doctrine of the incarnation. Jesus will forever be both God and man. "For in Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" {Col 2:9, John 1:14}. This is the incarnation. Thus, to retain the attributes of humanity, our Lord must be localized in one place at one time since that is the nature of being human. The deity of Christ is omnipresent only in Spirit. This is in perfect harmony with the biblical testimony that the physical presence of Christ was going away; then sending the Holy Spirit to comfort us in His absence; and thereafter being physically taken up into heaven and sitting down at the right hand of God until He returns {Acts 1:11; Hebrews 10:12}. However, the Catholic Church position is that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ which is everywhere present at every Mass on planet earth! This cannot be so as it violates the doctrine of the incarnation. "He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore all things" {Acts 3:19-21}.

OBJECTION: But the Catholic Church already agrees that, "Christ's body is present in one place only, namely in Heaven. In its sacramental state, however {under the form of bread and wine} it has multi-presence" {Ludwig Ott, author of "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, in "Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews"}.

ANSWER: Roman Catholicism is a never-ending array of unbiblical excuses, and would have us believe that she holds the key to all these exceptions for our well-being. This is another prime example.

They leave the impression that the Creator of the universe was lax in His ability to convey exactly what we need to know via the Scripture and that He's appointed Catholic Church personnel to tell us what He really meant. We deny this. Consider the lesson given to us in 1 Kings 13:1, where a lesson is to be learned {Rms 15:4}. God tells a man to take a journey with strict instructions. Someone comes along claiming to speak for God, but he lies to him, saying plans have been changed! You can read for yourself the dire consequences that were suffered after being enticed by this falsehood. We learn from this story that God's marching orders are crystal clear regarding His presence on earth via the Holy Spirit. He has emphatically told us to reject any physical sightings of Him in any shape or form, and that would include "sacramentally" since He has given us no exception to the rule . The Catholic Church comes along claiming to speak for God and tells us plans have been "expanded" (i.e., the human nature of Christ in its "sacramental form" may also contain the attribute of omnipresence). NO WAY. Christians must be unalterably opposed to these pious excuses because we are warned not to add to the Word of God, lest we are found to be a liar {Deut 4:2, Prov 30:6, Rev 22:18}.



THE REAL ABSENCE

Jesus said that, "if I go not away, the Comforter ---which is the Holy Spirit, will not come; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you" {John 16:7}.

Any physical presence therefore, of Christ in the Lord's Supper, other than by His indwelling Spirit is a denial of His real human nature which must be localized in one place. In actuality, the Lord's Supper is a witness to his
real absence --- for "as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come." {1 Cor 11:26}. The physical act of eating the emblems at Communion has value only in pointing to the spiritual truth which they represent. More on this later.

If the bodily presence of Christ were indeed contained in the Catholic Church Eucharist, then the words, "Do this in remembrance of me" would be meaningless. A memorial service is not held for someone in attendance, but for someone who has departed.

Thus, transubstantiation is like an extra jigsaw puzzle piece we noticed in the box after completing the framework of Christian theology. It simply does not belong.



JOHN 6:53

"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you"

Are these words of Jesus to be taken figuratively or literally? The Catholic Church insists they are to be taken literally, while most other churches demand the figurative sense. The difference is crucial and we are convinced the biblical data supports the fact that the Catholic Church wars against Scripture, common sense and reason. To begin with, the bare assertion that we are to take these words literally, but at the same time are expected to believe that the literal body and blood of Christ are hidden, veiled to the senses and only appear as bread and wine, is a nonsensical definition of the word "literal", unsupported by any grammatical or historical context of the word itself. Second, the Bible is a treasure chest of metaphorical, symbolic and parabolic expressions, none of which is to be taken literally, but rather as illustrative in order to startle and lead us into spiritual reality. What is important to remember is that we stand on a firm foundation when we declare

God's word endorses the concept of eating and drinking as an act of the intellect!

For example, we cannot "eat and drink righteousness". Yet Jesus said that those who hunger and thirst after righteousness will be filled {Matt 5:6}.
Notice--- right from the start of His ministry, He begins to utilize eating and drinking in a symbolic sense. Long before Catholicism came on the scene, the Psalmist demonstrates a desire to "eat" God also. "Oh taste and see that the Lord is good!" {34:8}. However, he most certainly was not desiring to physically ingest his Creator into his stomach, but rather a deepening appreciation of who He was and what He had accomplished. A little later we read of His desire to "drink" of the Lord also. "My soul thirsteth for God" {42:2}. Was he looking for some "holy water" that He offers? No, but for a similar reason as before. "Whether we be Jew or Gentile, bond or free, we have been all made to drink into one Spirit" {1 Cor 12:13}. And when Paul spoke to those who were "babes in Christ", he said he had to {figuratively} "feed" them with milk {the elementary truths of the faith} and not with meat {the more advanced teachings . . .1 Cor 3:1-2}. In conjunction with these ideas, it is not surprising to find the Lord describing Himself as, "the fountain of living waters" and to "everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters" {Jeremiah 2:13; Isaiah 55:1}. In the last two chapters of the Bible, God promises to quench our spiritual thirst by "giving unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely" {Rev 21:6; 22:17}.

THE FAITH OF THE CANAAITE WOMAN

She sought Jesus for the healing of her daughter. He responded that He was not sent except to the house of Israel and it would not be good to take the children's bread {Israel} and throw it to the little dogs first. Her response was incisive: "Truth, Lord; but even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from the master's table."

"Oh woman", she was told, "great is thy faith. Let it be done unto you as you desire. And her daughter was healed from that very hour" {Matt 15:21}. This is a striking example where Jesus equated the act of believing ---as being synonymous with "eating the words from the master's table". This is precisely how the Lord wishes us to understand Him in John 6 and at the Lord's Supper, and the Old Testament prepares us for this interpretation:

"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" {Deut 8:3; Matt 4:4}. And, "I have esteemed the words of His mouth more than my necessary food" {Job 23:12}. "Thy words were found and I did EAT them, and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart" {Jer 15:16}

With these thoughts as our foundation, now let us explore what comes before John 6 to see if we are on scriptural ground when we arrive at our conclusion that Jesus did not intend for us to eat Him in the crude, literal fashion the Catholic Church suggests. Notice the consistent pattern where His audience gets confused because they take Him literally and focus on the physical aspect:


CHAPTER 1
THEY MISUNDERSTAND!

Jesus is described as the "light of men" {1:5}. Was He a lightbulb? NO. He is also described as "the Lamb of God" {1:29}. Was He a barn animal? NO. Elsewhere in the book of John, He is described as a "door", "a sheperd", "the way", and "the vine". All of these are figurative expressions, but when we get to His saying, "This is my body" and calling Himself "the bread of life", the Catholic Church takes this literally and thinks we ought to eat Him! But He was no more a loaf of bread to be consumed than actual believers are meant to be consumed when the apostle called the church, "we being many are one bread." {1 Cor 10:17}.

OBJECTION: There is no logical parallel between the words, "This is my body" and the statements, "I am the vine" or "I am the door". Yes, Christ is like a vine because all the sap of my spiritual life comes from Him, and He is like a door because I go to heaven through Him. But since there is no one to one corrolation between a piece of bread and His flesh, "This is my body" could not be symbolic. {"Catholicism & Fundamentalism", by Keating, p. 236}.

ANSWER: Completely untrue. Jesus was looking back to millenia of symbolism and identifying Himself in it. The bread they were eating was unleavened bread because leaven represents sin...of which He had no part. Go to any supermarket and buy a box of matzot. You will note that the matzot has a particular appearance. It is both striped and pierced throughout. Thus, the direct corrolation here is that He is like a piece of unleavened bread because, "By His stripes we are healed . . .(and) He was pierced for our iniquity" {Isa 53}. The Lord even compares Himself to a "grain of wheat" ---from which bread is made--- which falls into the ground and dies (John 12:24). These things being so, there is indeed direct association between bread and His flesh to validate Christ was speaking symbolically when He said, "This is my body." Further evidence for symbolism at the Last Supper will follow shortly.

CHAPTER 2
THEY MISUNDERSTAND!

At the temple, the Jews asked Jesus for a sign of His authority. He answered, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews took Christ literally, saying the temple took 46 years to build and would be impossible to reconstruct in three days. They misunderstood the true spiritual meaning of His words. The next passage reads, "But He spoke of the temple of His body" ---referring to the forthcoming destruction of His body and consequent resurrection three days later {2:21}.

CHAPTER 3
HE MISUNDERSTANDS!

Jesus told Nicodemus that He had to be born again. Nicodemus wonders how he could enter a second time into his mother's womb {3:4}. He misunderstood that Jesus was contrasting physical birth with spiritual birth.

CHAPTER 4
SHE MISUNDERSTANDS!

Jesus purposely situates Himself in a setting where the topic of drinking was sure to come up {4:5}. He goes to a place called "Jacob's well" --- waiting for His divine appointment with a woman looking to draw water. He told her that He had "living water" to give her. But she noticed that He had nothing to draw water with and wondered how He was going to retrieve the water in a well that was so deep. She misunderstood! The spiritual water He was offering her was no more H20 than the offer to eat His flesh and drink His blood was an invitation to cannabilism. Jesus responded that, "whoever drinks of the water that I will give him, shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." {13:14}. She misunderstands again! She is bent on thinking on the physical level and wants to know where this water is so she wouldn't have to make the journey to the well ever again. But He was not offering to satisfy her physical thirst from Jacob's well. He wanted her to drink from "Christ's well" ----whose water {the Holy Spirit} would become a well that bubbles up and assures her of everlasting life. As the Psalmist said, "My cup runneth over. Surely, goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever" {23:5-6}. This interpretation is confirmed in chapter 7, "if any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me as the scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spake He of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should receive. .. .." {7:38-39}. There is no escaping the fact that the word of God is making clear that spiritual eating and drinking is through
believing iin Him and that as a result of the gift of the Holy Spirit's indwelling, that person becomes a river, or a channel of blessing of eternal life to others. This is verified in Isaiah 44:3: "I will pour out my Spirit upon thy offspring and they shall spring up among the grass as willows by the water."

The impossibility of the physical manifestation of Christ in the Catholic Church Eucharist is also implied in this conversation. The woman said that "our fathers worshipped in this mountain, and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship." Jesus responded that the hour was coming when she would neither worship in this mountain or in Jerusalem---{"for the Holy Ghost had not yet been given" John 7:39}---for God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit {not in the material} and in truth" {4:21-24}. Two separate commands are implied here and the Catholic Church flunks the test in both. First, worship under the New Covenant would not be characterized by locality and materiality--- but is rather an action of the heart. Yet, the Catholic Church is infamous for confining her worship in a sacred vessel, on an altar and distributing a material object,
"to exercise the work of salvation . . .by means of sacrifice and sacraments, around which the entire liturgical life revolves" {Vatican 2, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, para 6}. So whether it be at Mass or making an appointment at a Eucharistic devotion, or when the community carries the monstrance in a parade through town, these desires for physical manifestations are out of sync with John 4.

Second, "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign. . .of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer" {Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 1325, #1380}.

Note here the claim of sanctification through worship of the Eucharist! This directly contradicts the Bible which says that we are sanctified by the operation of the Holy Spirit who dwells within {1 Cor 6:11} . Sanctification is a lifelong process wherein we are "conformed to the image of His Son" {Romans 8:29} and Jesus prayed that we would be "sanctified through thy truth; thy word is truth " {Jn 17:17}. That being the case, the process of advancing along on the road of holiness can only come about through "eating" the Word of God because, "How sweet are thy words unto my taste; yes, sweeter than honey to my mouth ......and "How then shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed according to thy word" {Ps 119:103 . . .Ps 119:9}.

In direct opposition to this, the Catholic Church says it is by the ingestion and worship of the Eucharistic wafer! "There is nothing more efficacious for advancing along the road of holiness {than} conversation with Christ in the Blessed Sacrament" {"Mysterium Fidei" by JPII}. "Growth in the Christian life needs the nourishment of Eucharistic Communion" {CCC #1392}.

All the good things the Catholic Church may say of the Holy Spirit are drowned out and nullified by falsely asserting that Christ left us a "visible" demonstration of His presence, "such as the nature of man demands" {CCC # 1366}. True, obstinate men may indeed require a sign, but Jesus' general tenor was that an "evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, but there shall no sign be given. . . " {Matt 12:39}. The Catholic Church's infatuation with the physical by #1. . .. centering her worship in religious spectacle; #2. . . gaining access to Christ's substantial presence contingent upon the magic of Transubstantiation, and #3. . .. becoming sanctified by worshipping, then swallowing a material object, is diametrically opposed to the undenialable spiritual applications set forth by Jesus everywhere in the Gospel of John.

Someone has correctly observed: "The interaction in John 4 bears remarkable similarity with John 6. In J-4, Jesus picks up on the woman's interest in water. In J-6, He picks up on the crowd's interest in bread. In both cases, eternal life is in view. In both cases, a metaphor of consumption is used to illustrate belief in Jesus. Since He is speaking of eternal life in both passages, the question must be asked: If the Catholic Church insists on viewing J-6 literally, in that we must actually eat bread to gain eternal life, why does that same Catholic Church not teach that we must drink physical water to obtain eternal life per J-4? If the Catholic Church understands J-4 symbolically, (and she does) then she has no basis for rejecting the symbolic understanding of J-6." {"Evangelical Answers", by E. Svendsen, p. 246}. The parallel is clear: if drinking literal water does not produce eternal life, then neither does eating actual bread.

CHAPTER 5
THEY MISUNDERSTAND!

Jesus was claiming to be equal with God and this very thought was revolting to the Jews, whose vociferous hostility was to the point of seeking to slay Him {5:16}. Christ responded that, "he that heareth my word and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life." Here we notice eternal life is offered simply by faith----with no requirement of eating and drinking anything.

CHAPTER 6
THEY MISUNDERSTAND!

In light of the many erroneous conclusions people made preceeding John 6---as well as after {7:36, 8:22, 10:6, 11:12, 16:18}--- it should now come as no surprise that subsequent to Jesus announcing that we should eat His flesh and drink His blood, "the Jews strove among themselves, saying 'How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" {6:52}.

We are practically set up to expect that once again, people were about to be confounded by the
words of the Messiah. We insist on the strongest of evidence that just as before, they have failed to follow the spiritual tapestry underlying the symbol of His words and the result is similar to what comes later in 10:6: "But they understood not what things they were which He spake unto them". Amazingly, it is right here that the Catholic Church interferes with the symmetry of Scripture and would have us believe for no good reason that the Jews were following His train of thought perfectly. They unconvincingly argue that although the Jews were confused, they were correct to understand Christ literally; that He was actually bidding us to eat His physical body so the Catholic Church view of transubstantiation may be vindicated. But this absolutely cannot be true no matter how many popes, priests, prelates or paupers have promoted it! It was the intentional will of God to withhold the mysteries of the kingdom to many for His own good reasons and this is yet another pristine example {Isa 6:9, Matt 11:25, Mk 4:11-12, Luke 8:10, John 9:39-41, Rms 11:8}.

Simple logic also wins out in this case. If the Jews did not believe Jesus descended from heaven to begin with (John 6:41-2), it is inconceivable He would add to their disbelief with an even more astounding miracle---that being the alleged consumption of His physical body. The teacher who has a class of elementary Algebra students who are not comprehending well, would never imagine moving on to Calculus to resolve their confusion. And neither did Jesus move on to a higher plain of spirituality, even if Transubstantiation were true, without them first accepting His divine origin. The entire theme of the gospel of John that is reiterated over and over again is believing that Jesus is the Son of God and that is exactly what "eating" His body and blood on the "metaphorical menu" was meant to convey. Again, if the Jews did not believe in His divine origin from the start---which is a truth set forth in the very first verse of this gospel, it is illogical to suppose that Jesus would take them on to more advanced learning. By describing Himself as the "Bread of Life" in verse 35, the Catholic Church admits that up to verse 47, "the teaching and the meaning, at least up to this point, is purely symbolic" (Not By Bread Alone, by R. Sungenis, p. 172). Hence, the Catholic Church bids us to believe that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He says He was the bread that came down from heaven, but then spoke literally when He told them to eat it! This is pure nonsense. Jesus used this "oral oratory" in John 6 to set the table---but not for Him being the main course! It was to convey the idea of believing in Him, period. "He that cometh to me [not he who eats me] shall never hunger, and he that believeth in me shall never thirst" (6:35).



THE BLOOD OF ATONEMENT WAS NOT A BEVERAGE

When John 6:53 is interpreted literally, it is in disharmony with the rest of the Bible. It opposes scores of verses that declare salvation is by faith in Christ without any indication of the need to consume Him in bodily form. Jesus was using the metaphor of drinking to teach that the basis for eternal life was by accepting His flesh and blood sacrifice {1 John 4:2-3}.
Eating His flesh and drinking His blood are separate realities signifying we are reconciled to God by BOTH His life of perfect obedience, and the blood He poured out, dying in our place {Romans 5:10 & 19}. These sacred sentiments can be summed up by---- " having faith in His blood" {Romans 3:25}------not drinking it.

Cannibalism was condemned in Genesis 9:4, and abstaining from the universal revulsion of drinking literal blood is confirmed in Acts 15:20, 29 & 21:25 after Christ ascended back to heaven.
Notice-- if there was some exception to this rule----such as literally drinking His blood in Communion, which the Catholic Church says is "the source and summit of the Christian life" {CCC #1324}--- the book of Acts would have included this exception, but it does not----which means the concept of Transubstantiation had never even entered their minds.

Eating and drinking are metaphors for
believing in Him----count on it. To believe is to accept something in the mind and absorb it in the soul. That's eactly what eating does. Our bodies accept the food through the mouth, and it gets absorbed through digestion.

Read it again. How do we get new life?

"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you" {John 6:53}

WHAT DID HE WISH TO CONVEY? THE ANSWER IS FOUND LATER IN JOHN 20:31 . . .

IT IS BY

believing that Jesus is the Christ, that we have life.


In 1 Cor 10:4 we are metaphorically told that in the Old Testament, those wandering in the wilderness "drank" from their spiritual Rock, who was Christ. The water that flowed from an actual rock was indeed literal water so they would not die of thirst, but the language of Scripture which turns Christ into a beverage, as it were, was not meant to be taken literally as even all Catholics will agree (See any Bible Commentary of your choice on this verse). Thus, since the idea of "drinking" Christ in a figurative sense was introduced in the Old Testament, all rational reasoning demands we keep the same typology when we come to the New Testament (1 Cor 2:13).



THE PLEDGE

OBJECTION:
But the Catechism tells us that being nourished with the Eucharist brings a foretaste of the transfiguration of our bodies, confirming with a PLEDGE that we belong to the body of Christ {CCC #1000, 1003} insisting that no surer PLEDGE or clearer sign could be given of this great hope in the new heavens and new earth {CCC #1402, 1405} .


ANSWER: The Catechism is dead wrong to say there is "no surer pledge" that has been given. It is not having ingested the Eucharist that confirms our sonship, but God has ordained the indwelling Holy Spirit to be the "seal of our inheritance" . . .period {Eph 1:13-14, 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5}. Or, as the Amplified Bible phrases it, "the security deposit and guarantee of the fulfillment of His promise". Or as another has said, "The indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer is said to be an "earnest" ---that is, a pledge or deposit on an ultimate fulfillment of a magnified promise" ("Days of Praise" devotional, 5/25/07 entry). Or still yet another, "the Spirit is given to us as a downpayment in PLEDGE that the entire inheritance will follow because we are joint-heirs with Christ" {Believer's Bible Commentary, by McDonald}. All of these comments are vindicated by the fact that the word translated "earnest" (Greek, arrhabon) is essentially a transliteration of its Hebrew equivalent (arabown), translated "pledge" in the O.T. (see Genesis 38:17-20). Count on it! The Holy Spirit is our pledge and not ingestion of the Eucharist!

The other claim in the objection above regarding the Eucharist being a foretaste of our heavenly bodies, is also erroneous. "Now He that has wrought us [fashioned and prepared us] for the selfsame thing [this very thing] is God, who also has given us the earnest of the Spirit" {2 Cor 5:5). What is this "very thing" God has prepared us for by sealing us with His Spirit? The answer is found in 2 Cor 5:1-2; which advances the argument that being sealed with the Spirit is in fact that "foretaste" of the immortal body which we will receive when we go to be with the Lord. And so the claim of the Eucharist being a foretaste of our resurrected bodies, has once again been demolished by the Word of God which is sharper than any two-edged sword {Hebrews 4:12}.

OBJECTION: We are also told that the Eucharist has the "power of resurrection " that will raise us from the dead and bring us to heaven {CCC #1524}. The Pope claims that, "in the Eucharist, we receive the pledge of our bodily resurrection at the end of the world" {Ecclesia de Eucharistia, #18}.

ANSWER: We repeat, these statements are in complete contradiction to Romans 8:11, Eph 1:13-14, 2 Cor 1:22 & 5:5 which assert that the Spirit has been given to us as the seal (or pledge) of our inheritance and it is this power that will result in resurrection: "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit that dwells in you." Hence, the Holy Spirit is the present possession of all who have received Jesus as Savior, and God's pledge of a glorious future consisting of a perfect body, a great inheritance, and the certain fulfillment of all His gracious promises. Roman Catholics must face the fact that their church has inexcusably transubstantiated all the attributes of the Holy Spirit and turned them into the alleged benefits to be received by swallowing the Eucharist. This is rank heresy!



''I HAVE SPOKEN UNTO YOU IN FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE''

It must be underscored that all too often Jesus used the most provocative and compelling expressions to drive His point home and John 6 is no exception. For example,

"If thy right hand causes you to sin, cut it off" {Matt 5:30} --and "If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother. . .and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" {Luke 14:26}.

He was not speaking in the literal sense in these places, and neither was He speaking literally when He told us to eat His flesh and drink His blood! Just as one eats and drinks in order to have physical life, so too must one eat {
believe} in Christ to have eternal life. The Catholic Church is blinded to the fact that just as we do not literally "eat God" when we are asked to, "Oh taste and see that the Lord is good!" {Psalms 34:8}. . . neither do we actually consume His physique when we are asked to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Witness John 16:25: "These things have I spoken unto you in figurative language; but an hour is coming when I shall no more speak unto you in figurative language, but I shall show you plainly. . ." {NKJ version}. When we consider that the events of John 6 took place before Jesus's "hour to speak plainly", then we may rightfully expect Him to be speaking more often in figurative language! As a matter of fact, even after the discourse in John 6, the Jews came right out and said, "How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, TELL US PLAINLY " {John 10:24}.



TWO WAYS OF SAYING THE SAME THING

It must be a fact therefore, that "eating and drinking" are synonymous with simply "believing in Christ" because they both produce the same result ---eternal life!

In John 5:24, 6:35, 6:40, 6:47 we read that believing in Him results in everlasting life. Compare them with verse 54 and we learn that eating His flesh and drinking His blood also brings eternal life. To eat His flesh and drink His blood is analogous to believing in Him. . . period.

STATED IN PLAIN LANGUAGE . . .
{John 6:40}

" . . .everyone which seeth the Son and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

STATED IN FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE . . .
{John 6:54}

"whoso eateth my flesh and drinks my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day"

Again---"Lazarus sleepeth, but I go to awake him out of sleep". The disciples said not to bother, let him enjoy his rest. Jesus then said, "Lazarus is dead" {John11:11}. Two ways of saying the same thing---- and still yet another example in the book of John where someone has misunderstood.



THE MEAT OF THE MATTER

What then of, "My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed"? Notice that a few chapters earlier in John 4:33, Christ spoke figuratively regarding eating when answering the question, "Has any man brought Him something to eat?" He replied that, "I have meat to eat that ye know not of&

[Gregorius]

Whoa! That goes on and on and on!
Don't stop beleivin'.

NO wonder they make the claim that the average Roman Catholic doesn't completely answer! The Average Roman Catholic probably doesn't have time! However... We are not average Roman Catholics. Let's take a look at this.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Gregorius' date='04 September 2009 - 10:38 PM' timestamp='1252118295' post='1961142']
Whoa! That goes on and on and on!
Don't stop beleivin'.

NO wonder they make the claim that the average Roman Catholic doesn't completely answer! The Average Roman Catholic probably doesn't have time! However... We are not average Roman Catholics. Let's take a look at this.
[/quote]

It's mostly just a compilation of every outlandish Eucharistic heresy and misconception ever used against the Church (plenty of strawman arguments), but I don't have the time anymore to address these sorts of things. It really is so amazing how little time you have once you have a family.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Raphael' date='04 September 2009 - 07:41 PM' timestamp='1252118476' post='1961144']
It's mostly just a compilation of every outlandish Eucharistic heresy and misconception ever used against the Church (plenty of strawman arguments), but I don't have the time anymore to address these sorts of things. It really is so amazing how little time you have once you have a family.
[/quote]


Aww cmon, you could have a "fight the heresies" date with your wife !

[Selah]

ah, fundies

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Slappo' date='04 September 2009 - 10:51 PM' timestamp='1252119088' post='1961149']
Aww cmon, you could have a "fight the heresies" date with your wife !
[/quote]
You must think Jen and I are still on our honeymoon.



We usually come home from work and discuss heresies in the media, politics, etc. Unfortunately, there aren't enough Catholics in our area for us to get together on a regular basis with others who really know their faith and have deep theological discussions. Jen and I have dreamed of winning the lottery or something and just buying an entire neighborhood down here and filling it with devout Catholics just to be leaven in the local society.

[picchick]

"Unless you Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood you have no life within you."

Doesn't Jesus say this? And don't the people question? And doesn't Jesus correct them saying HIS Body and HIS Blood?

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='picchick' date='05 September 2009 - 12:20 AM' timestamp='1252120806' post='1961163']
"Unless you Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood you have no life within you."

Doesn't Jesus say this? And don't the people question? And doesn't Jesus correct them saying HIS Body and HIS Blood?
[/quote]
I got this email too. The guy told me his name, but since I think he told me in confidence, I won't reveal it. Nobody really has the time to answer something that long, which I think is part of the strategy. Swamp someone with information and then gloat when they don't have an answer. I HAVE an answer, I just don't have 24 hours to kill. There are subheadings to this thing though, praise God, so perhaps we could assign each person a section and git er dun. Let me know who's game.

Peace,
phatcatholic

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='04 September 2009 - 10:17 PM' timestamp='1252124239' post='1961190']
I got this email too. The guy told me his name, but since I think he told me in confidence, I won't reveal it. Nobody really has the time to answer something that long, which I think is part of the strategy. Swamp someone with information and then gloat when they don't have an answer. I HAVE an answer, I just don't have 24 hours to kill. There are subheadings to this thing though, praise God, so perhaps we could assign each person a section and git er dun. Let me know who's game.

Peace,
phatcatholic
[/quote]
I think I could handle a little, easy section.
A REALLY little, REALLY easy one.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='05 September 2009 - 12:17 AM' timestamp='1252124239' post='1961190']
I got this email too. The guy told me his name, but since I think he told me in confidence, I won't reveal it. Nobody really has the time to answer something that long, which I think is part of the strategy. Swamp someone with information and then gloat when they don't have an answer. I HAVE an answer, I just don't have 24 hours to kill. There are subheadings to this thing though, praise God, so perhaps we could assign each person a section and git er dun. Let me know who's game.

Peace,
phatcatholic
[/quote]

Can you at least tell me...is this someone I'm supposed to know? I'm more offended that someone spammed me with offensive anti-Catholic material (that is, knew me well enough to know I'm Catholic) than with the content itself (which is stupid, but, well, stupid). Quite frankly, I feel like my privacy was violated...someone got my email somewhere, found out I was a Catholic, and attacked me.

[LivingStone]

Just note that there's a difference between evangelizing and "discussing" (which seems more like debating/argument). Upon first impressions alone, it doesn't seem that these people are seeking out truth in any sense; rather, are content with the 'truth' that they have conceived and are looking to merely rattle a few cages. In other words, this ain't evangelization people.

Respond to them and tell them that we'll pray for them. I think that would be most appropriate, but that's my opinion. Peace.

[picchick]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='05 September 2009 - 12:17 AM' timestamp='1252124239' post='1961190']
I got this email too. The guy told me his name, but since I think he told me in confidence, I won't reveal it. Nobody really has the time to answer something that long, which I think is part of the strategy. Swamp someone with information and then gloat when they don't have an answer. I HAVE an answer, I just don't have 24 hours to kill. There are subheadings to this thing though, praise God, so perhaps we could assign each person a section and git er dun. Let me know who's game.

Peace,
phatcatholic
[/quote]
I don't know if you were meaning to quote me or not. You are correct. No one has the time to answer it. And if you try there will be always something you miss.

My answer is the answer to the Eucharist. Jesus said what he meant. He wasn't joking. And because of it people left. I am not going to bother to answer them. It will take too long. And nothing I say will convert their heart. It is obvious they know a little of Catholic teaching. They had to in order to write what they did. It is full of misunderstanding, misconception and various anti-Catholic views spewed together in a long email. They are looking to cause trouble; they are not looking for answers.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='LivingStone' date='05 September 2009 - 01:22 AM' timestamp='1252128164' post='1961209']
Just note that there's a difference between evangelizing and "discussing" (which seems more like debating/argument). Upon first impressions alone, it doesn't seem that these people are seeking out truth in any sense; rather, are content with the 'truth' that they have conceived and are looking to merely rattle a few cages. In other words, this ain't evangelization people.

Respond to them and tell them that we'll pray for them. I think that would be most appropriate, but that's my opinion. Peace.
[/quote]
More or less what I meant. You can't evangelize by being a stranger. This is spam...I don't even know who sent it.

Sr. M. Johanna would have a field day.

[goldenchild17]

tract my butt. that's a book. I like the title though...

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='04 September 2009 - 10:17 PM' timestamp='1252124239' post='1961190']
I got this email too. The guy told me his name, but since I think he told me in confidence, I won't reveal it. Nobody really has the time to answer something that long, which I think is part of the strategy. Swamp someone with information and then gloat when they don't have an answer. I HAVE an answer, I just don't have 24 hours to kill. There are subheadings to this thing though, praise God, so perhaps we could assign each person a section and git er dun. Let me know who's game.

Peace,
phatcatholic
[/quote]

sounds fun