Need specifics of Story about the Pope I heard

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread
Hi, I remember someone telling me that when the Pope went somewhere and mass was celebrated the left over consecrated hosts were thrown into a trash can. John Paul II knelt down and one by one picked Jesus up out of the trash can and consumed Him. I was hoping that someone could please tell me where and when this was and any other information about this occurance. Thank you very much! In Christ, Cynthia

-- Cynthia (Faithinhim16@aol.com), March 09, 2002

Answers



-- (_@_._), March 09, 2002.
Just worry about your own soul, Cynthia. Jesus is quite able to take care of himself. The Blessed Sacrament has no natural enemies as long as His people are here to love Him. Eat your heart out. /

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 10, 2002.
Gene,
It looks as though some anti-Catholic punk has used your name and e-mail address to post the above obnoxious reply. What a shame that poor Cynthia, coming here for a straight answer, had to read that! How could someone write, "Eat your heart out," in this context? Horrible! Maybe the moderator would delete it for you.
Cynthia, I'm sorry, but I have never heard of this event in the pope's life -- if it really did take place.
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 10, 2002.
Nope, I think it was Eugene, John. Perhaps you two are mis- understanding each other, hard to believe as that might be ;-)

Moderator

-- moderator ("Catholic_moderator@hotmail.com"), March 11, 2002.

Jmj

Thanks, Moderator. Sorry to hear that.
Contrary to what you said, though, I don't think that Gene and I could be "mis-understanding each other."
First, I had not written a message on this thread, so there was nothing for him to misunderstand.
Second, I write straightforwardly, and Gene, although he usually ignores what I say (if I disagree with him), never misunderstands me.
Unfortunately, the opposite is not true. I have always found many of his messages quite hard to understand, because perhaps just a third of them are straightforward, while another third are tongue-in-cheek humor (with esoteric allusions), and the last third are caustic sarcasm. Trying to figure out what such a writer is trying to say, without my being able to hear his voice and see his face, is quite a chore -- and I am too often not successful. I wish that he could change and always be straightforward, but I guess that we are all set in our ways so late in life.

God bless you.
John
PS: I would be glad to see a straightforward translation of his (above) comments to Cynthia. For example, what in heaven's name does "Eat your heart out" have to do with her message? Why would one of us tell a questioner to do that? And, since the message did not answer her questions ["please tell me where and when this was and any other information about this occurrence"], it doesn't seem to be of any value to Cynthia, who may indeed have been insulted by it. [Now you see why I thought that an imposter had written it.]

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

If I had the wrong perspective on Cynthia's note, I ask her forgiveness. The words:

''and [after] Mass was celebrated the ''left over'' consecrated hosts were thrown into a trash can.''

--At leasted seemed to mean that Catholics could have disposed of the Blessed Sacrament in such ways, so maybe Cynthia took it as a matter of FACT. I just refuse to acknowledge such stories as anything but calumnies. Thinking so, the reply was: Jesus is quite able to take care of himself. (NO ONE in the Catholic Church would dream of such a sacrilegious act); and the Blessed Sacrament has no natural enemies as long as His people are here to love Him.

Does that sound like a punk?

Now, I may have misjudged the kind of question she asked. But to anyone who would say Catholics throw a left-over Blessed Sacrament away in the trash-- My answer would not be friendly. Our Lord is not ''left-overs''.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 11, 2002.

Gene,
I figured you might be carrying a bit of baggage over from our discussion of Aztec ritual!

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), March 11, 2002.
You figured wrongly, CCoose.

I can't imagine how. It has never happened to you
before, has it? Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 11, 2002.

I hadn't heard this exact account, but I had heard that when priests at the same event went to distribute Holy Communion, there were so many people, that the hosts were handed out rather haphazardly, and many hosts were dropped all over the ground, then trampled on in the dirt. I'm afraid many Catholics don't believe in the Real Presence, by the way.

-- Christina (introibo2000@yahoo.com), March 11, 2002.
Christina
It isn't right to venture opinions of who might NOT believe in the True Presence. God knows better than you and I. I would disagree with you. About the way the Sacrament was distributed, you're also just relating hearsay.

Even though you may have a right to say what you please, consider the effect. Many people on the Internet will repeat what you said (opinion) as a plain fact. Soon, no one at all will doubt it happened. Rumors are bad business, most of all when they speak of the Blessed Sacrament. The more sacred something is, the more discreetly should we all speak of it. My advice to you, if you'll receive it in good will.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 11, 2002.

How would it benefit anyone if they ate, digested and excreted out the real body of Christ? Even Jesus knew that it wasn't his real body that we were to eat.

John 6:50-63 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he 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, "I tell you the truth, 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 him 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 him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. 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? 62 What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. (NIV)

No where in the Bible does it say that it is his real body. Jesus himself says that it isn't in vs 63.

Does the church teach that Jesus consumed himself at the last supper?

-Joe

-- Joe (namodi@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

Dear Joe:
I want to think you're sincere and not just a scoffer of the Catholic faith. When there's a doctrine you don't understand, all you need is to ask the explanation. Do you want one? We have it.

The Catholic Church would not be teaching the faithful for almost 2,000 years now, the insane things you've had the nerve to write above.

You didn't ask; you merely produced your own Bible-opera with your (GULP) refutation of the True Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

Did you refute anything? Christ's holy words are still very clear in the Bible: ''Take and eat of this, --This is my body.'' It's a startling statement, yes. But He stated it. ''This is-- my Body !'' He stated drink; ''This is my blood.''

Very unusual; nobody knows why Jesus would have made such direct and clear statements. He is God. We know He speaks only truth, and it's written. You think you can parse the words, ''What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.''

But this doesn't amount to a refutation of Matt: 26, :26-27-28 -- Mark 14, :22-24 Luke 22, :19-20 / much less 1Cor, 10, :14 ''The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not the sharing of the BLOOD of Christ? And the bread that we break,is it not the partaking of the BODY of the Lord?'' Saint Paul is in agreement with Christ and catholics. IT IS the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ we partake in! He states the same in 1Cor 2, :24-27.

You can argue with us; but you can't argue with the apostle Paul; and you can't change the flat statements of Jesus Christ in the Holy Bible, Joe.

If you would like the Church's theological explanation of the True Presence, we can quote it to you. But if you're only here to fantasize on your own theme, we'll just skip it.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 11, 2002.

Pardon me if I am a little slow but are you saying that Jesus Christ was holding a piece of his body infront of him during the last supper. There were thirteen men eating that evening. It was the feast of Passover. They probably ate a normal meal and perhaps 1/2 loaf each. If this was the literal body of Christ then Jesus would literally have to be missing some body parts after the meal. Think about it (1/2 loaf) * (13 men) = 6 1/2 loafs of flesh! This would also mean that Jesus was eating himself! This is disgusting and ridiculous. It is also probably the reason why the woman above says that many Catholics don't believe in the Presence.

If you really believe that it was the literal body of Christ, then that flesh HAD TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE ON CHRIST'S LITERAL BODY! If it came from his literal body, then HE MUST HAVE CUT OR TORN IT OFF HIMSELF FOR THEM TO EAT. You cannot get around this unless you contradict the meaning of your own words.

Also, the Bible speaks of the dipping bread not flesh! When does it turn into the literal flesh? Is it after it goes into the stomach and no one can check if it actually changed into flesh yet?

Please don't resort to ad hominem by calling me a Catholic basher. That will only further prove the illogical nature of this doctrine.

Every reference to the body and blood of Jesus with communion is figurative just as Jesus said that it was.

Paul says:

1 Cor 11:20-27 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not! 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. (NIV)

Eugene,

Look at verse 21. It blows the whole doctrine to smitherines! He says that another gets drunk. One cannot get drunk by drinking human blood. Anyone who cannot see how illogical and bogus this doctrin is must cover their human reasoning skills up with a wet blanket. Enough said.

-- Joe (namodi@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

Dear Joe:
You've understood absolutely nothing of the scriptures. Like any proud man, you're expounding on the scripture from a love of your own wisdom.

YOUR WORDS: ''--21. 'For as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.' Look at verse 21. It blows the whole doctrine to smithereens.''

But it doesn't speak of the Body and Blood of Christ, Joe. Verse 21 is about the Agape-- the feasting before Holy Mass about which Paul strictly warns believers for their abuse of the Eucharist; coming later to the breaking of the bread (after the love feast, or Agape,) already full of food and drink-- some of them actually having over-imbibed. Then, proceed to the Eucharistic celebration (Mass) to offend the real Body and Blood-- Jesus in the Eucharist. Look at the consequences: Verse :27

''Therefore whoever eats this bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.'' Why doesn't Paul say rather, ''-- will be guilty of the bread and the wine?''-- NO ! Guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord, Joe !

At the start of chapter 2: ''I do NOT commend you in that you meet not for the better--(the breaking of the bread--) but for the worse. Verse 20: So then when you meet together, it is no longer possible to eat the Lord's Supper. 21. For at the (Agape) meal each one takes first his own supper, and one is hungry, and another drinks overmuch. 22. Have you not houses for your eating and drinking? Or do you despise the Church of God and put to shame the needy? What am I to say to you? Am I to commend you? In this I do not commend you.''

Is all this over your head, Joe?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 11, 2002.

off

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 11, 2002.
JOE: ''Pardon me if I am a little slow but are you saying that Jesus Christ was holding a piece of his body infront of him during the last supper. There were thirteen men eating that evening. It was the feast of Passover. They probably ate a normal meal and perhaps 1/2 loaf each. If this was the literal body of Christ then Jesus would literally have to be missing some body parts after the meal.

You ARE a little slow, Joe. But that's OK. --First: He didn't say, ''This is a piece of my own body.'' Jesus said ''This is my body.''

Catholics use a term: the Sacrament of the Eucharist, for the Body and Blood of Jesus. Sacrament means MYSTERY. It's not plain to any human intellect HOW Jesus is both at the table with the twelve, and also present in the bread He breaks. Or with the cup-- His Precious Blood separated from His holy Body.

What God says IS.

Moses only saw before him a bush which was on fire, but was not consumed in the fire; and God spoke to Moses from out of the Burning Bush. Does this mean then that the holy Trinity sits in heaven now, on fire? --Certainly not. We have the words in scripture; but we cannot have the blueprints. God doesn't offer you a diagram: ''Here is my Body-- all 200 pounds of me.'' For a human being of VERY finite wisdom, (you, Joe--) to question the powers of God to work ANY wonder He pleases to work, is presumption and arrogance. For the same person, of limited wisdon, to dispute the words of Jesus Christ written plainly in holy scripture, is stupid. You haven't got the wisdom, Joe.

You go on:

''One cannot get drunk by drinking human blood. Anyone who cannot see how illogical and bogus this doctrine is must cover their human reasoning tadah, tadah,''

[tags closed. Moderator]How silly can one poor man get? You haven't got a clue about the scriptures, I'm sorry. ''How illogical and bogus this doctrine is--'' OH?

God has to prove something to us, to YOU-- by doing it with logic? You prefer human logic to God's Word? You think God is ''BOGUS''?

How was Jesus Christ raised from the dead, Joe? By logic? How did He ascend into the clouds of heaven before the eyes of His followers? By Joe's logical doctrine? How is He coming back in glory more than 2,000 years afterward? Logic?

A sacrament of Jesus Christ is a MYSTERY to human wisdom. We believe because Jesus SAID it! He said it, it's written, we believe His words. If He says ''This is my Body'' and ''This is my Blood''; we know it truly is. It has to be so-- under the appearance of bread and wine. The mystery behind that appearance is KNOWN. Jesus Christ revealed it to His apostles and His Holy Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 11, 2002.

Oh boy, what a can of worms i opened up by coming here to try and find an answer to my question. Alright... I didn't intend to invoke such serious questioning but now that all this is on the table i feel obligated to, at least one time, respond to what i started. Here goes... Eugene...

-- Cynthia (Faithinhim16@aol.cm), March 11, 2002.
Hello:

I am responding to Joe's question about: Does the church teach that Jesus consumed himself at the last supper? Jesus did consume himself at the Last Supper. When he instutitoned the Holy Eucharist as his body at the Last Supper he envoked a new convenant that can never be broken.

Matthew 26:26-28 says:

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'"

In this biblical scripture, Jesus instutites the Holy Eucharist to his disciples as his body and blood. He says: Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

When we pray infront of the Blessed Sacrament in a tabernacle or a monstrace or at mass when the priest elevates the host, Jesus is present like he was when he instutioned the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper.

I hope this helped you Joe. Take a look at the Real Presence Website: http://www.therealpresence.org/

JMJ,

Chris +

-- Christopher (cdwiseman01@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

Sorry, just got started writing and accidentally sent the message.. Eugene, "Just worry about your own soul, Cynthia" K- first of all, didn't think my question was judgemental of others souls... i was simply asking for information. --At leasted seemed to mean that Catholics could have disposed of the Blessed Sacrament in such ways, so maybe Cynthia took it as a matter of FACT. I just refuse to acknowledge such stories as anything but calumnies. Thinking so, the reply was: Jesus is quite able to take care of himself. (NO ONE in the Catholic Church would dream of such a sacrilegious act); -- I'm not into tabloids or "calumnies"... if i recall correctly the story i mentioned was related to me by a very solid religion teacher... however i'm trying to contact her to verify the information i'm tryig to remember... ----It isn't right to venture opinions of who might NOT believe in the True Presence. God knows better than you and I. I would disagree with you. About the way the Sacrament was distributed, you're also just relating hearsay. Even though you may have a right to say what you please, consider the effect. Many people on the Internet will repeat what you said (opinion) as a plain fact. Soon, no one at all will doubt it happened. Rumors are bad business, most of all when they speak of the Blessed Sacrament. The more sacred something is, the more discreetly should we all speak of it. My advice to you, if you'll receive it in good will. ---

Unfortunatly i believe there is truthto what Christina says... whether the story about the EUcharist is correct i am unsure... but i do know that there are indeed some Catholics that don't believe in the true presence...polls have shown that over 25% or american Catholics don't believe in the true presence and if polls aren't solid enough evidence then i've listened to Catholics tell me that they don't believe in the true presence... that they think it's bread and a symbol. So,sorry as it is, there are someCAtholics that do not believe in the true presence - this is fact, not opinion. And in defese of Christina... she's not spreading heresy... she said "heard" (as in not for sure it was fact) and she was relating her knowledge to me as i had requested in my question so as i could see if what i had heard was correct. She was sharing information, not heresy... in which case.. are you 100% possitive that an occurance like this never has occured in the world???.. i don't think you can truthfully say that. granted such ideas are horrid but it would be naive to think them immpossible in this day and age with morals in the decline that they are. And lastly... "You ARE a little slow, Joe" Is this how Jesus would have responded?? He's being inquisitive and seeking truth... for this i applaud him... i wouldn't want to turn him off Cathlicity with a reply such as that.

Joe, I'll give you my reply next...

-- Cynthia (Faithinhim16@aol.com), March 11, 2002.

Dear Joe, Wow, a hard apologetics topic. It's difficult because faith is just that... beief in something without physical proof... when asked to intellectually explain and proove it, it can be a challenge... i shall do my best to help clarify. thanks for your inquisitiveness and sorry about rude answers you have been recieveing.. not all Catholics respond to questions like that.

"How would it benefit anyone if they ate, digested and excreted out the real body of Christ? "

You are right it wouldn't benefit anyone. However, that is not exactly what we Catholics believe. Oh, sorry... on a side note... what religion are you joe? anyway... we believe that when the body of Christ (under the apperance of bread) is no longer distinguisable as bread... like when He would start to be digested.. it's not longer Jesus... so we don't really digest or excrete our Lord. He is only phsically within us for several minutes.

And also about the drunk quote thing... no-- you can't get drunk on blood. But you can on wine. Here's an explanation for that. Things have both Accidents and Substance to them. Accidents are the physical properties or charictaristics. And the substance is what something really is. For example: An apple is red and crunchy and has skin and fruit inside with seeds. these are the accidents and the substance... is the apple itself... it's an apple. the substance is what it is.. the accidents describe it. Now... before transubstantiation (changing of bread and wine into body and blood) the bread is bread and it's accidents are for examples: thin, round, tastes flour like, hard, smooth... it looks like bread, tastes like bread and smells like bread... and right now it is bread. same with the wine.. right now it's wine... and it's accidents are: red, bitter sweet, liquid, drink too much you get drunk. NOw, after transubsantiation... the accidents remain the same but the substance changes. It's now Jesus's body and blood... with the same accidents of the bread and wine it formerly was. Hope this helps. speaking of corinthians... here's the passage you talked of... let me give you a Catholic take on it..

"1 Cor 11:20-27 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not! 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. (NIV) "

Alright... Paul is not telling them about the last supper.. he's rebuking them for their improper celebration of the Eucharist. The purpose of the Eucharistic meal is not to satisfy physical hunger but the hunger of the soul. These early christians were not sharing... some were eating and drinking much ( getting drunk ) while others were recieving hardly any. They have houses in which they can eat in such manners... but at the Eucharistic table they are to share and each one consume our Lord's body and blood. In verse 27 paul says anyone who east unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of Christ. He's saying that anyone who recieves the Eucharist with great sin or with out proper appreciatin will be responsible for recieving the body and blood of God with great sin and disrespect. What would be the big deal if it was just a symbol?? But it is a big deal because it isn't a symbol... it's the real deal... it's Jesus body, blood, soul, and divinity.

Before i accidentally loose all i've typed i'll post this and continue with John next

Pax, Cynthia

-- Cynthia (Faithinhim16@aol.com), March 11, 2002.

Thanks, Cynthia, for backing me up. Exactly, I heard or saw this story somewhere, I don't remember where exactly. Golly, this was almost 10 years ago. I was also going to respond to Eugene about the polls regarding the Real Presence, which you confirmed.

-- Christina (introibo2000@yahoo.com), March 11, 2002.
Dear Joe... Onto John,the bread of life discourse is a good passage. I would however encourage you to look at a little more of John.. John 6:22-70

Here's what you included:

"John 6:50-63 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he 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, "I tell you the truth, 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 him 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 him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. 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? 62 What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. (NIV)

No where in the Bible does it say that it is his real body. Jesus himself says that it isn't in vs 63. "

"the bread is my flesh", "eats my flesh and drinks my blood" There are quotes that you typed where Jesus says that it's his body and blood and flesh" i think Jesus is being pretty clear --- but onto the rest of the passage...

"here is the bread that comes down from heaven" Jesus came down from heaven, He is the bread of life (he replaces manna of old testament to fulfill the new covenant). "this bread is my flesh" right there Jesus tells them... the life giving bread from heaven is Him... it's His flesh! then in verse 52 the jews have the same question and doubt as you do and Jesus repeats himself "amen, amen" he believes what he is saying very strongly... "unless youeat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you do not have life within you." Jesus is telling them again you have to eat His FLESH and BLOOD (not bread and wine) or you they won't have eternal life. "whoever eats my flesh and drink myblood has eternal life" "for me flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drink my blood remains in me and i in him" flesh is true food... we really consume his flesh and true drink... we realy drink his blood (although the accidents of both the body and blood are those of bread and wine (not chunks of skin and bone).

Then verse 60... the diciples mention it's hard to accept such seemingly drastic teachings... eating Jesus's flesh and blood is ahard concept

And "it is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. the words i have poken to you are spirit and life" Jesus is not just contradicting what he emphasized so much above... instead He is saying that the spirit (soul) gives life.. it' must be fed with His flesh. And the flesh he speaks of is the natural world... our physicalness... our physical bodies will fail us... which is why our spirit gives us life and must be fed by the eternal bread of life... that's Jesus' body and blood... Jesus is the only eternal being.. by taking Him into us we give our souls the capability of eternal life... but plain old bread and wine can't make our souls eternal.. . only Jesus can.

I now offer verse 66-67 of John 6

"As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied Him. Jesus said to the twelve, "do you also want to leave?""

This is the clincher... Jesus has been talking about them eating His flesh and blood...many don't understand or want to believe this...it's too much for them.. so they begin to leave him... and Jesus doesn't stop them... if he didn't mean flesh and blood he would have called them back and been like hey... i was just talking in symbols... it's just bread and wine ... not really my flesh and blood... but He didn't ... He couldn't change the truth... He really meant Body and BLOOD and so he let them go...

well, i'm gonna send this before i loose it... hope thishelps joe God bless! pax, Cynthia

-- Cynthia (Faithinhim16@aol.com), March 11, 2002.

Okay... tad bit more on true presence for Joe...

I know the true presence is hard to grasp -- it's sad that many who call themselves CAtholic don't believe in it. It's a great gift from God. I can't explain it all fully or make it make complete sense... because for us humans it doesn't... some things we have to understand the best we can and accept the rest on faith... as we accept the existence of God. I hope you find the truth. God bless Pax, Cynthia

-- Cynthia (Faithinhim16@aol.com), March 11, 2002.

Dear Christina and Cynthia:
You do us all a favor, coming up to bat for the True Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.

Maybe my style is less COOL than the style you like. I'm not famous for that. But I know what the TRUTH is.

''No where in the Bible does it say that it is his real body. Jesus himself says that it isn't in vs 63.''

This is a statement by Joe. He's not asking; he's telling us. Yet, my retort, And lastly... "You ARE a little slow, Joe" makes you cringe. How sensitive you seem! Why is Joe insensitive, telling us all that the Body of Our Lord is being ''excreted'' according to the false Catholic doctrine? I'm the one who ought to be warned, ''Is this how Jesus would have responded?? He's being inquisitive and seeking truth... for this I applaud him...'' APPLAUD!-???

He's seeking confrontation. Don't mistake the inquiry for what it isn't. The inquiry is a feeler; leading up to Joe's quick ''smithereens'' remarks. Catholic doctrine is blown to smithereens! Are you all asleep?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 11, 2002.

Joe,

That's the benefit of being in the church, we have the *correct* interpretation of the Bible handed down to us from the time of Christ. We don't have to try and figure it out by ourselves like the sola scriptura types.

48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." 52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

In John 6 Jesus said we must eat His flesh and drink His blood.

60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" 61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[5] and they are life. [duplicate quotes deleted. Moderator]

In the second part of this passage is the first apostasy in the NT. Some of Jesus' disciples desert him for the very same reason you have. They didn't believe he MEANT what he said, that we were to eat His flesh. And these followers LEFT His church because Jesus reinforced that He meant He was speaking literally and not figuratively. If the passage meant what you say, why would His followers leave? BTW, reread the passage. It should be pretty obvious that the last part about "spirt/flesh" does NOT relate to the above.

Also, Joe, remember that the Catholic church was practicing the same way since the time of Christ, and we have early records to prove it. The practices YOU speak of didn't start until the 1600-1800 years later. From that alone, which of these would you believe to be true?

Frank



-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 12, 2002.

Cynthia,

Thank you for your sincere reply. I believe that you are sincere in your Catholic beliefs. You mention accidents. If they don't change at all(in other words, the bread still tastes and feels like bread and the same with the wine) then it IS bread and wine isn't it? Why would God do a miracle and change something that tastes like bread, looks like bread, smells like bread, feels like bread and is bread into something that tastes like bread, looks like bread, smells like bread, feels like bread and is FLESH??? I do not mean to insult your nor the other Catholics on this board. However, this sounds very contrived! If God going to do a miracle, why doesn't he make the flesh taste, look and feel like flesh. Doesn't it make you wonder at all? To me, it is no wonder that so many Catholics doubt the True Presence. Can you see at all how this would seem very contrived and hard to believe?

You mention that Jesus didn't call the disciples who left back and say: "wait wait wait come back! I didn't mean my real body and real blood, I just meant it figuratively..." However, this argument is not hold up for two reasons:

God through Jesus was testing the people. Jesus said hardly spoke anything in public that was straight forward. He even spoke in hard sayings to his disciples. So much so that when he finally spoke plainly to them...

John 16:27-31 27 No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. 28 I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father." 29 Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. 30 Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God." 31 "You believe at last!" Jesus answered. (NIV)

So, he didn't even speak to his own disciples clearly until then!

Cynthia, you sound like you are sincere Catholic. Some of your fellow Catholics are referring to me in a condescending way as a sola scriptura person. I'm catching on to the fact that modern Catholics still believe that they are not able to interpret the scriptures for themselves. Nor are they suppose to. Instead, they are to just listen other men's interpretations. I'm ok with this unless those other men are contradicting the Bible itself.

I can tell you by the word of God. Don't listen to those who discourage you from reading the Word of God. Don't listen to those who discourage you from looking into the Word of God to see if the doctrines that they teach you are actually in line with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. How can I can I say this to you? Because one of the first Catholics, the apostle Paul, praised those who do this:

Acts 17:10-11 10 As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (NIV)

There, Cynthia, you see? The brothers at Berea were considered more noble because they didn't just take Paul, a prominent Catholic, at his word. No, they searched God's word to see if what he was saying was true! Is your church teaching you this, or are they teaching the opposite? Why shouldn't you do the same? Does any man have the right to override the Word of God?

I do not want to cause trouble. I believe that I've raised some valid concerns here for you, Cynthia, to consider. Eugene and others will ridicule me as a basher of Catholics, as a sola scriptura person with no Bible knowledge at all. When they do, watch them carefully and see if they are encouraging you to see for yourself or if they make fun of the concept of you reading and exploring the Word of God for yourself like Paul praised the Bereans for. I hope that you Cynthia will look up the above verse in your Bible and SEE FOR YOURSELF that this is what Paul taught. Don't be intimidated by any man, only fear God. I wish you well, I really do. You seem sincere in your beliefs and I pray and hope that you will find this posting helpful for your life. It is the kind of thing that can be thought about when one puts one's head on the pillow at night :o)

May God bless you abundantly and may he open his word and truth to you!

-- Joe (namodi@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.

OK, Cynthia--
You have it plainly here. When you ''applauded'' this man for being ''inquisitive'' and wanting to learn:

''You ARE a little slow, Joe" Is this how Jesus would have responded?? He's being inquisitive and seeking truth... for this i applaud him... i wouldn't want to turn him off Cathlicity with a reply such as that.''

He's not turned off ''Cathlicity''--? No, he's merely blaspheming the Blessed Sacrament! If only he had the intelligence to really make his case; but he falls flat. Even you can see that; and you were willing to include him in the session.

Joe has a lot to learn. We've showed him the scriptural proofs. He has to rea it again. God may ring some bells in his head before long. Joe said don't let man discourage you from reading the Bible. For what it's gotten him! He can't understand a word of it, and comes here to preach. The ones with the emptiest heads are the most desperate to mount the podium! Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 13, 2002.

Joe

One thing I can see is this; you talk in circles, but you cannot see the words clearly. The scriptures that the Borean congregation were of the OLD Testament and the Borean's were merely trying to see if what Paul was saying is true. They saw that Paul was speaking the truth. The thessalonian's came into their midst and tried to cause trouble and the effort was fruitless as the Borean's were in full acceptance of what the scriptures said. So maybe their were some heretics among the Thessalonians at the time as there are to this present day trying to upset the words that Paul and the others were preaching. This problem is stil ongoing to this day in the Church as the Catholics are still tirelessly keeping the Scriptures clean from heretic thoughts.

Another point is this; the church has NEVER disallowed any Catholic from reading the word or the Bible ever. If you took the time you will notice that Catholics have been recieving the word of GOD daily for 2,000 years straight from the Bible. In fact it was ordered by previous Popes and from other Catholic sources that all of us must come to know Jesus in the word which is the Bible. Mary at the apparitions at Fatima Portugal ordered all of us to read and know her son through the Scriptures and to pray daily to him. We are not just smarter. We just listen to the Holy Spirit everyday in our Spiritual Journey about God the Father and his SON Jesus Christ.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 13, 2002.

Joe,

If they don't change at all(in other words, the bread still tastes and feels like bread and the same with the wine) then it IS bread and wine isn't it?

NO, it is Christ, but still appears to be bread to our 5 senses.

Why would God do a miracle and change something that tastes like bread, looks like bread, smells like bread, feels like bread and is bread into something that tastes like bread, looks like bread, smells like bread, feels like bread and is FLESH??? I do not mean to insult your nor the other Catholics on this board. However, this sounds very contrived! If God going to do a miracle, why doesn't he make the flesh taste, look and feel like flesh. Doesn't it make you wonder at all

Hardly Joe. The point it is it is both a true miracle and a mystery. Why not answer your own question? Why doesn't God just PROVE to us he's here, isn't that what you are really asking? If God PROVED he was here to you so openly what would the point of faith be? If you believe God exists, why doesn't He just stay here physically with us all the time so we KNOW he's here? If you don't insist God do this you shouldn't insist on God turning the host into a bloody piece of flesh either!

I don't understand what you mean in the next part. In Mat. People assume He's speaking figuratively, he repeats that He is speaking literally and some don't accept it and leave. What's so hard to understand?

God through Jesus was testing the people. Jesus said hardly spoke anything in public that was straight forward. He even spoke in hard sayings to his disciples

This part is true! He was seeing if they would obey Jesus, or obey what *they* thought was correct instead of what He explicitly told them. Those followers that turned their backs on Jesus' commandment failed the test.

I'm catching on to the fact that modern Catholics still believe that they are not able to interpret the scriptures for themselves. Nor are they suppose to. Instead, they are to just listen other men's interpretations.

You are sadly mistaken. All Catholics should read the Bible and interpret the Scriptures for themselves. The Church however through Sacred Tradition has the TRUE interpretation to Written Tradition as found in the Bible. So a Catholic has two perspectives, the true meaning as remembered by the church, and a personal meaning for themselves. However if a person reads their Bible and comes away saying "Scripture says I should be a racist" for example, the Church teaching DOES supercede their personal interpretation for this reason -- the Holy Spirit has passed down the true interpretation to the church, only a fool would turn their back on it.

I'm ok with this unless those other men are contradicting the Bible itself.

This is where you sola scriptura (do you see this as an insult?) people really fall down. Sola scriptura itself is unscriptural. Every guy out there that interprets the Bible himself comes up with a different interpretation of them. Do you honestly believe that when one group of protestants say homosexuality is o.k., and the next say it's not that they are BOTH right? You have no AUTHORITY to say if your interpretation is better than the next guy's. We do. It was handed down from Christ.

There, Cynthia, you see? The brothers at Berea were considered more noble because they didn't just take Paul, a prominent Catholic, at his word

Finally a breakthrough! THANK YOU for admitting Paul was Catholic! That means that you believe OUR church existed since Paul, and that should lend pretty strong evidence to our claim that our Traditions are True Tradition. Also, we'd all agree that you should make sure anyone who talks to you is not contradicting the word of God. What's so strange about that?

Does any man have the right to override the Word of God?

No, but many Protestants do it all the time by denying the teachings of Christ and practicing their own "religions" instead of being members of His church.

Eugene and others will ridicule me as a basher of Catholics, as a sola scriptura person with no Bible knowledge at all

I don't see you as a basher, just wrong.

When they do, watch them carefully and see if they are encouraging you to see for yourself

You bet I'd encourage her to see for herself! Go ALL the way back to the first centuries and you'll see the teachings were Catholic from the get-go. Even Joe admits this when he says Paul was a Catholic! I'd also encourage her to ask why she should believe someone who said "bible only" when that practice didn't start until 1600 years *after* Christ by people who wanted to break away from His church.

Frank



-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 13, 2002.

Thanks for the sound reasoning, Frank. Joe must be reading; let's pray he does his best to see your points.

Joe is not forthcoming in any way with answers to my questions, Cynthia's and your own.

He ignores the words, ''Take and eat, this is my BODY. Drink of this; this is my Blood--''

No matter how badly he desires to make it metaphorical or symbolic, the words are PLAIN.

Joe can sweat and strain over an alternative to Jesus' words to His disciples, those who no longer walked with Him after He stated His flesh was food, and His Blood was drink INDEED! (Jn 6, :55-:56-:57)--

It's called evasion. But how is Joe to evade the words of Jesus to His apostles at the Last Supper? ''This is MY BODY. This is the cup of MY BLOOD, which is shed for you,''

He can't. He can only BLUFF!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 14, 2002.

Joe

You have been duped for too long. I have seen GOD for many years and can tell you this:

Whenever I see a bloom on a tree, plant, bush, or any other flowering living thing, i see the rebirth of the earth which is also the reappearance of GOD in his creative powers.

Whenever I see the birth of a new child, I see the Virgin birth of Christ from the womb of Mary. This new life constantly replenishes the earth to keep it alive. It is another miracle of GOD's. LIFE.

So, Whenever I read or hear a passage from Scripture, not a verse I mean a full passage, perocope, I see GOD and his infinite LOVE, AGAPE, come to life.

Therefore verses have no root at all. To have any life a verse needs all of the rest of the verses around itself to have LIFE. Verses alone do not have roots and do not have energy, substance, or whatever to support itself. Sola Scriptura does not have support either as it relies on verses and loses support in itself as the verses deny the other verses. It is like one having life and denying his parents or siblings ever existing.

S, Joe what do you want? Death in sola scriptura or life in the whole of scriptural truths? It is your choice only and we Catholics have long ago make our minds up, thanks to the Apostles. They NEVER taught the people in verses. Why are you?

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 14, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ