What if the Protestant Interpretation of John 6 is Correct?

 "And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, And not man for the Sabbath." Mark, II, 27.
Thomas Francis Dicksee, Christ of the Cornfield (1883)

Let’s talk about the Bread of Life discourse in John 6:22-70. The Catholic interpretation makes sense, but it’s a shocking one. We think that this lengthy passage is about the Eucharist, and that Jesus Christ literally means that we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood in Communion. This teaching, radical to twenty first-century ears, was no less radical to first-century ears, and even many of Jesus’ own disciples stopped following Him upon hearing it.

Protestants typically disagree with this interpretation, arguing that Jesus’ commands that we should eat His Flesh and drink His Blood are just metaphors. Often, both sides are so busy debating the credibility of the Catholic interpretation that neither stop to seriously ask, “Does the Protestant interpretation make any sense?” The obvious question is if Jesus is speaking metaphorically, what’s it a metaphor for? What is Jesus actually saying?

Remember that Jesus’ words spark a strong reaction: “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” […] After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.” (John 6:61, 66). So whatever Jesus is saying here is so shocking that it’s actually costing Him disciples. To my knowledge, this is the only time we hear of Him losing disciples over something that He’s said. So just what was this shocking teaching?

The Protestant answer is usually something along the lines of: “believe in Me.” So, for example, Matthew Henry’s commentary on John 6:52-59 says,

The flesh and blood of the Son of man, denote the Redeemer in the nature of man; Christ and him crucified, and the redemption wrought out by him, with all the precious benefits of redemption; pardon of sin, acceptance with God, the way to the throne of grace, the promises of the covenant, and eternal life. These are called the flesh and blood of Christ, because they are purchased by the breaking his body, and the shedding of his blood. Also, because they are meat and drink to our souls. Eating this flesh and drinking this blood mean believing in Christ. We partake of Christ and his benefits by faith. The soul that rightly knows its state and wants, finds whatever can calm the conscience, and promote true holiness, in the redeemer, God manifest in the flesh.

Is that a plausible interpretation?

Remember, we’re talking about disciples here, not casual listeners who are tuning in for the first time. And this account in John 6 comes directly on the heels of some other shocking teachings from Jesus. For example, take John 5:15-18

The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him. And this was why the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did this on the sabbath. But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working still, and I am working.” This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God.

 

Jesus goes on to declare Himself the One who will judge the world at the end of time, and talks about the necessity of believing in Him for salvation (John 5:21-23):

For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

Jesus then explains that He’s the one that the Bible is about“You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. […] If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me.” (John 5:39-40, 46).

And we’re to believe that these disciples were okay with the claims to divinity, to the breaking the Sabbath, to the declarations of equality with God, to the claim to be the Eternal Judge, but then heard a generic “believe in Me” message, and suddenly freaked out?

So, instead, you end up with Protestant exegetes explaining that it wasn’t really a hard teaching. Rather, people just left Christ because they misunderstood Him. When Jesus’ disciples declare His a “hard teaching,” Calvin says:

On the contrary, it was in their hearts, and not in the saying, that the harshness lay. But out of the word of God the reprobate are thus accustomed to form stones to dash themselves upon, and when, by their hardened obstinacy, they rush against Christ, they complain that his saying is harsh, which ought rather to have softened them.

Or take Barclay’s bizarre claim that this wasn’t a hard teaching to Christ’s original listeners, and that they didn’t take Him literally:

To most of us this is a very difficult passage. It speaks in language and moves in a world of ideas which are quite strange to us and which may seem even fantastic and grotesque. But to those who heard it first, it was moving among familiar ideas which went back to the very childhood of the race.

These ideas would be quite normal to anyone brought up in ancient sacrifice. The animal was very seldom burned entire. Usually only a token part was burned on the altar, although the whole animal was offered to the god. Part of the flesh was given to the priests as their perquisite; and part to the worshipper to make a feast for himself and his friends within the temple precincts. At that feast the god himself was held to be a guest. More, once the flesh had been offered to the god, it was held that he had entered into it; and therefore when the worshipper ate it he was literally eating the god. When people rose from such a feast they went out, as they believed, literally god-filled. We may think of it as idolatrous worship, we may think of it as a vast delusion; yet the fact remains these people went out quite certain that in them there was now the dynamic vitality of their god. To people used to that kind of experience a section like this presented no difficulties at all. […] They would not read phrases like eating Christ’s body and drinking his blood with crude and shocked literalism.

That interpretation is, of course, directly contradicted by the shocked reactions of Christ’s original listeners. Likewise, when the Jews objected, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52), the Enduring Word commentary explains it away by saying:

 

It’s probable that the Jewish leaders willfully misunderstood Jesus at this point. He just explained that the bread was His body that would be given as a sacrifice for the life of the world (John 6:51). They willfully twisted His words to imply a bizarre cannibalism.

But in fact, this wasn’t the crowd’s initial objection. It’s only after Jesus stressed the physicality of His Eucharistic teaching that, on the third time, they finally took Him literally. It wasn’t like they rushed to the most literal interpretation: they interpreted Him metaphorically twice before finally taking Him literally. And it was only the first two interpretations that Christ corrected. The third time, after they take Him literally (John 6:52), Jesus responds with even more graphically literal language (John 6:53-58).

If the crowds were simply mistaken – if Jesus was just saying “believe in Me,” a message He’d presented countless times to His disciples – why would He take absolutely no steps to clarify their confusion, and in fact speak in such a way that seems designed to intentionally mislead them further?

The standard Protestant interpretation just doesn’t work. It doesn’t make a lot of sense of why Jesus would choose the metaphor of bread and then switch halfway through to the metaphor of meat (meataphor?), nor why Jesus seems to correct figurative interpretations of His words, nor why the crowds of His own disciples would revolt at such an innocuous teaching and abandon Him, nor why He would let them go without clarifying that He actually meant something uncontroversial.

287 Comments

  1. “And we’re to believe that these disciples were okay with the claims to divinity, to the breaking the Sabbath, to the declarations of equality with God, to the claim to be the Eternal Judge, but then heard a generic “believe in Me” message, and suddenly freaked out.”

    Well, it is possible that they took it literally the third time and freaked out. Plus, like a Donald Trump speech going too long, perhaps the more He kept talking, the more the literal words sunk in and offended them. So, the passage does not a demand the Catholic interpretation just because of how the disciples responded.

    However, being that I believe in the Real Presence (and believe it is of metaphysical importance to take part in the Sacrifice), I do not discount the Catholic view of John 6. I am just saying the response of the crowd is not what gives us the doctrine of the Real Presence.

    1. You are technically correct. It’s Christ’s *reaction* to their shock which demonstrates the real presence from this passage.

      Consequently — do you believe that their is some of the bread left, or that the bread still exists when the eucharist is consecrated? Or, do you believe that it is after consecration exclusively Christ’s flesh?

    2. His reaction to their reaction, and that he doesn’t explain it to His apostles later, except possibly “off-screen”. Therefore, we would expect the early Christians to pass this on, but the earliest of them affirm the real presence.

      …I like the word “consequently” today apparently

    3. To Craig,
      Read Joe’s thoughts one more time.
      Pray to the Holy Spirit for wisdom and understanding.
      Read the passage in John three times slowly in a quiet space.
      Be still for a while.
      Read Joe’s thoughts for the last time.
      Be blessed!

      1. “To Craig,
        Read Joe’s thoughts one more time.”

        Answer: To Riley…how about reading MY thoughts one more time? To think that you could read Joe’s article without at least realizing (contrary to him) that there were UNBELIEVERS in that audience of John 6, proves that you are not reading your Bible and will accept what ANY Catholic says without checking them out. You are the perfect poster child as to why Catholicism continues unabated; namely that because you were born into it, (I am assuming) IT MUST BE TRUE, end of story.

        Muslims, and every other false religion can say the same thing. But they are lost, as are you.
        I come down hard, but your comments merit it.

        1. Of course there were unbelievers. But the passage explicitly states that it was many of the DISCIPLES who rejected what He was saying. You have to realize, too, that (as has been stated) in all the earliest writings of the Christian community and their leaders the Catholic understanding is what was universally taught.

          1. What you have to realize is that what is universally taught is also metaphor!!! What does “real presence” mean? Well I know what it doesn’t mean; it doesn’t mean the same as “Real.” !!! It is your FAITH that brings the reality to the communion experience, not the other way around. The whole Bible teaches this FAITH FAITH FAITH Of course God is a “Presence” during communion, No one on the Planet argues against that! But to take it to the Literal extreme that the Catholics do is just certifiable Lunacy. You have to do so many mental constructs and mental hoops to jump through to get to what they are saying it’s not feasible or attainable. They really can’t even explain it themselves to anybody with any successful clarification what so ever! I’ve heard them try and the words they use to try to justify what in reality simply doesn’t happen is nothing short of astounding! And then they have the nerve to say Jesus was talking about REAL Flesh! Then why all the mental and philosophical constructs???

    4. The fact that Jesus did not run after his disciples gives us the doctrine. He let the proto-protestants leave because they did not believe what he said.

      1. They were not believers you are exactly correct! How do I know? Because that’s reasonable to believe. People like what they like, they do what they want, and it’s safe to say that those that stayed to listen to Jesus were followers and those that left said “phooey I don’t believe this.” And this line of Reason also lines up with Sacred Scripture “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him” John 6:44. They weren’t drawn by the Father so they turned away obviously. So using my three legged stool of Reason, Revelation (Scripture but not sola scriptura) and Critical thinking, it’s safe to say that those that turned away were not believers. Ya lost me when you called them proto-protestants though. We were called “evangelicals” long before protestants, protestants is rather more recent if you know your history. But none of this has anything to do with anything. We both believe what the scripture says, its right there we can see what it says. The disagreement is over what is meant by what Jesus said.

        Take verse 27 for example: 27 “Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.”

        All Catholics this is so clear, there is no rebuttal for. He making a comparison here (a metaphor) between actual meat and “that meat which endureth unto everlasting life.” Well what meat is that? What is he talking about? He’s talking about Himself! (His teachings) If he weren’t God in the Flesh he’d be an Egomaniac! But we know he is God. We both agree on that. This verse is a death nell for transubstantiation (one of many) because he is comparing actual meat (notice I didn’t say REAL meat because the real meat is his words!) and that is the methaphor he is making in the Bread of life discourse. Jesus is the bread of Life. My Words ARE real meat! Not actual meat (as in transubstantiation) BUT MORE real than REAL!!!!!! What’s more real than real? Spirit.

        God created the Universe out of nothing by speaking it into existence.
        Using the power of His Word!
        We see here God’s Word supersedes anything in the physical world, More powerful than anything Literal!
        Jesus is The Word.
        The word made flesh.
        If I say “That guy eats and breathes baseball. That guy is Pete Rose. He is Mr. Baseball!”
        Nobody for a minute would create a ritual where sports players consume miniature baseballs. Because we are not simpletons, we know what a metaphor is. I can’t believe this is even a thing, somebody is being deceived here.
        When we hear Jesus’ words/teaching/good news message and buy into it/believe it/focus our lives around it/them we are in the Truth and we have eaten the REAL meat of the matter, the real Truth and it will bring us to eternal life! So in answer to the question, “Is that a plausible interpretation?” A resounding ABSOLUTELY IT IS! And it squares completely with our God given Reason, and the Discernment of The Holy Spirit inside of us! What it doesn’t square with is The Magisterium (an “infallible” dogma which is clearly skewed in this case and it doesn’t square with our direct experience of what actually happens during communion, the remembrance ceremony that Jesus said it is. If Transubstantiation were True I would convert to Catholicism as would the whole world! All kidding aside we would be flocking to the Church to get that bread the way we flock to McDonald’s and Coca-Cola LITERALLY!

  2. Craig –

    How can you believe in the Real Presence but not believe in the Apostolic Priesthood? Or is everyone a priest and that’s how you get around that issue?

    I presume you reject a classical understanding of the Apostles Creed as well.

      1. So, it begs the question. Why doesn’t God do everything if “the man is unimportant?” The priest is an instrument just as the apostles were.
        I recommend in addition to reading Joe, go to Bishop Robert Barron’s Word on Fire ministries web site. View a couple of videos on this subject. I once read a quote, “The mind is a dangerous thing. Once expanded it never returns to its smaller size.” Stay a seeker, that is why you are reading this. Listen! Be still! The Hound of Heaven has chosen you. Be blessed!

        1. Did you just use a strong metaphor? Cuz that’s a pretty hard saying about my mind being stretched, I can’t take it I think I’m going to run away!

      2. C.T. I suppose I believe the miracle of the bread and wine becoming flesh and blood [as well as the Real Presence, as stated on 9/2 @ 2:28].

        Reply: You “suppose” you believe these things? At what point in your life do you think you will ever resolve the issue?
        Let me help you out. The “Real Presence” is a hoax because not only have Christians been promised the “real Presence” of Christ via His Spirit, but Scripture confirms that He is, “not far from any one of us” (Acts 17:27). “If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I lie down with the dead, there you are” (Psalm 139:8). But these truths, which no Catholic denies (CCC 1373-4) have unfortunately metastasized into the hellish desire for His bodily parts as well. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED TO PREPARE OUR STOMACHS TO EAT JESUS CHRIST.
        Furthermore, the fabricated dogma of the “Real Presence” violates the biblical dogma of the incarnation, wherein our Lord became man and who will forever retain a physical body (John 1:1; 1:14; Luke 24:39; Col 2:9). Thus, to possess the attributes of humanity, He, by definition, must localize that humanity in one place at a time since that is the nature of being human! Ergo, He could not possibly be contained “whole and entire” in a million wafers all at the same time around the world 24/7. This absolutely cannot be the case no matter how many popes, priests, prelates, pirates or paupers believe it.

        “Any presence of Christ other than by His indwelling Spirit, is a denial of His real human nature and of His return from heaven, which is an error which affects both the first and second advents” (“Figures of Speech Used in the Bible”, by Bullinger, p. 22).
        To propose Christ is physically present in the elements in any shape or form, “presents grave theological problems relative to the nature of Christ’s humanity since it ascribes the attribute of ubiquity (everywhere-ness) to His humanity” (“A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith” by R. Reymond, p. 960).

        Consequently, there can be no “real presence” of Christ this side of heaven except by the Holy Spirit, and not until that glorious day will any audience be invited to a one man show. Transubstantiation effectively deifies the human nature of Christ by ascribing to it the attribute of omnipresence, WHICH IT DOES NOT HAVE. If it did, we lose our representative who must remain as we are to be our High Priest (and humans are NOT omnipresent). Christ is omnipresent to us only in Spirit, not by Transubstantiation, for His physical attributes in any form, “must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore all things” (Acts 3:19-21).

        1. Micah, since the beginning of Christianity, the Real Presence is taught it is a Sacrament. Read the Didache it is all in there. Who taught you the notion that it is a hoax?

        2. So, Micah, you believe Jesus is constrained by space and time, which He, as God, created? That would contradict the very definition of God. You might also check into the fact that many saints have been proven to be able to be in more than one place at once. And if Jesus is God’s Word, then how can the millions of Bibles in the world also be God’s Word? How do you account for the writings of the earliest Christians, which universally and completely affirm the belief that in later centuries came to be called Transubstantiation?

          Your objections just don’t hold up.

        3. Here here! I totally agree! But I am just flabbergasted that this is even an issue! The only reason these catholics continue to believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation is that they don’t want to admit that the church could be WRONG! And they come right out and say that! “Well the church has been doing it from the beginning so it must be true!” At this point they have removed their brains and are no longer engaged in critical thinking! Gee look at that I just used a strong metaphor! Giggle! I used it very effectively like Christ! Nobody run away please! But here in lies the problem, They hold “Sacred Tradition” (which is not a thing) higher than the Bible itself! How do I know this? Do I have proof? Yes!!!! All you have to do is look no further than 1 Cor. 11:24!!!! And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.” In remembrance of me? Uh whaaaa that sounds like a comparison to me! What is the Catholic response to that? And is it feasible or is it Silly like the doctrine of transubstantiation? Please enlighten me Catholics……. I’m dying to hear how this can be rebutted !

      3. The man through whom God does it is indeed unimportant compared to God. But he is necessary: it is not everyone who can perform the ceremony, and the bread and wine don’t become Christ’s body by themselves. It is not like a priest lays down the species on the altar and just waits like “Come on, God, do your thing”. And it is not like anyone can perform what a priest performs either, because he has been ordained to do so. I can’t sit on my kitchen and say mass. It doesn’t work. Unfortunately, churches with no valid ordination do not have a valid Eucharist.

        1. Uh again, He told me to break bread, just do it and remember Him, I do it! It’s that simple! 1 Corinthians 11:24 Remember Jesus broke with church tradition all the time to come into our lives personally! How dare you go against Jesus and make his words “Invalid” That’s shameful and prideful doesn’t the Bible warn against how wicked that is?

      4. Your theology forces you to say this. The virgin birth was all God. Yet Mary, who allowed it was/is important. Why? Because God made her important! Same thing with Prophets and apostles and those who they laid their hands on! Jesus gave certain men the power to forgive and retain sins, to bind things on earth and heaven. God made these men important yet your theology must say that the men that can perform these acts are not important . It boggles my mind how much your theology forces you to ignore obvious truths (like this) plainly shown in the bible. Specially since you are a Sola Scriptura Christian.

        1. I can refute what you just said in one verse! Matt 23:9 “Call no man Father” That’s a pretty Hard saying isn’t it Catholics? He said don’t do that! But yet instead of obeying Jesus our Lord, you do the opposite and create a whole system around it! SMH shaking My Head….. You guys got it so backwards, there’s not even a metaphor here to confuse the simple and shallow minded! unbelievable!

          1. Andrew Packard, that argument is easily refuted. Jesus was speaking hyperbolic, a good example provided by Jimmy Akin, a really nice person I recommend you lookup is: Luke 14:26, “unless you hate you father and mother (…) you are not worthy of me”. It’s the same situation.

          2. I’m a huge Fan of Jimmy Akin! Obviously an Apologetics genius! I listen to Catholic Answers Live all the time every single day! Sacred Heart Radio in Cincinnati.

            He is a really nice guy! But he is clearly wrong on some issues in my humble opinion.

            It’s right there in the Lord’s prayer “Our Father” I’d prefer to follow the Lord’s prayer rather than Jimmy Aiken.

            Don’t forget he used to be a protestant. And he believed just the opposite just as fervently, he just did a 180 that’s all that shows I guess. Nice guy but not correct

          3. “Don’t forget he used to be a protestant. ”

            Of course not. The fact he *was* and did that 180 – and is a smart, nice guy – is endless reason for Catholics to say, like the father in My Big Fat Greek Wedding…”there you go….”

            My Denver Catholic Biblical Studies class used the work of Protestant apologists extensively. We do have a lot to learn from each other…when we keep it civil. Doesn’t always happen here….but when it does, it’s a pleasure.

      1. Upheld by whom?

        I’ll state my question differently, what historical evidence do you have of a Mass without a priest? Of course, that’s a logical fallacy since the definition of the Mass requires a priest but I’m sure you’ll try to answer.

        1. Again, the Real Presence was mentioned explicitly by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Justin spoke of a “presider”/”president” who led the worship service, but did not mention a priesthood.

          So, my answer is that there were men who taught that Christ was present in the Eucharist but who made no mention of a priest. I am merely doing the same.

          As for it being a logical contradiction to have a mass without a priest, perhaps that is so but I never used the word mass so I did not contradict anything.

          1. “presider”/”president” = presbyter/priest.

            I don’t think that requiring a priest to offer up the body and blood of christ could have just “slipped” in without anyone writing about this novel doctrine, seeing as in the early centuries of christianity there was exceeding zeal for orthodoxy and, and the church fathers were quite vocal on suppressing heresy and novelties (as evidenced by the writings we have).

            Jerome dialogue against the Luciferians par 21 (347-420 ad)
            “Since Hilary when he left the Church was only a deacon, and since the Church is to him, though to him alone, a mere worldly multitude, he can neither duly celebrate the Eucharist, for he has no bishops or priests”

          2. Another counter to this opinion: the unanimous belief of Christians at any point in time are infallible when it comes to salvation doctrine.

            Matthew 16:18 “I say to thee that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

            Seeing as the gates of hell cannot prevail against the church at large (even if the remnant is small), this means that the remnant must necessarily have intact the Holy Gospel. This is the Catholic principle of sensus fidelium.

            John 6:54″Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.”

            Seeing as our Blessed Lord says that we shall not have life in us unless we eat His flesh and blood, this is salvation doctrine.

            Consequently, seeing as the whole church came to believe in the 4th century that a presbyter (or bishop) was necessary to consecrate the Holy Eucharist, there doesn’t seem to be much room to disagree.

          3. Craig –

            Am I correct that you reject the Apostles Creed regarding anything to do with an Apostolic Church? There is no need for a priest in your worldview and therefore no direct linkage with the Apostles.

            Of course, maybe nobody ever discussed the fact that a priest was necessary for the Mass because it was obvious and anyone who thought otherwise was ignorant of Christianity itself as it was practiced and flowed from Judiasm. Just an idea that makes more sense than presuming a priesthood wasn’t necessary given the importance of the Mass held at every gathering by ancient Christians.

          4. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.—St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

          5. I guess you want 2nd century Christians to use the same vocabulary that developed over centuries. Justin also didn’t use the word homoousious, I guess, so we should deny the Trinity? What difference does it make if you have a “sacrifice” with a president or a priest? What distinction do you make besides a change of names, if the function is the same? That’s the same difference between presbyter and priest: none.

          6. In 1 Clement 40-44, the author argues that in deposing their minister(s) the Corinthians violated a divinely established order. In the course of laying this argument out, he draws a direct comparison between the OT priesthood and the NT episcopacy. If Clement did not think of the episcopacy in sacerdotal terms, his references to the OT priesthood wouldn’t make sense. For Clement it is the divinely established order of the OT priesthood — of all divinely established orders — that has been continued in the episcopacy.

          7. Craig, the word you speak of as ‘presider’/’president’ would have been ‘presbyter’ in Greek. That’s the source of the word ‘priest’ as we have it today in English. So yes, Justin and Irenaeus do speak of a priesthood.

      2. Ignatius of Antioch teaches both the Real Presence and the threefold division of Holy Orders, bishop, priest, and deacon, just after the turn of the second century.

        1. But, he never used the word “priest.” People here are presuming that because X existed, therefore Y existed. THat’s a presumption but the evidence of it is not there in which to verify it.

          1. Priest is the English translation/adaptation of the Greek word presbyter, didn’t you know? And in Latin it’s sacerdos. Wow.

          2. You have good opposition responses and seem like a good guy with a different belief. Saw some of your responses on previous articles I’ve been back reading. Thanks for that. Just trying to figure it all out.

            Pat

          3. Hey Craig, me again 🙂

            Just a quick question:

            I found your remark interesting when you say that you believe the real presence, but that it doesn’t need a specific person to celebrate it. Do I understand you correctly that you mean here “a validly ordained priest” in the Catholic sense is not needed for the celebration of the eucharist?

            God bless,
            Marius

      3. There is mention of only Bishops handling the Eucharist by St Ignatius of Antioch. So if this was the case and it was wrong you would expect there to be specific mention that anyone could concecrate not that what was already practiced. I haven’t read what was written upholding the Real Presence, but taking your reasoning, if they didn’t specifically mention that only Christians can concecrate we can assume pagans can. Satan worshippers can. They don’t have to go through the trouble of stealing a consecrated host from a Catholic Church. They can do it themselves and then desecrate it!

  3. J.H. Let’s talk about the Bread of Life discourse in John 6:22-70.

    Reply: Yes, let’s. Thank you for your article; however, I found so many holes in it I was reminded of a slice of swiss cheese.

    J.H. We think that this lengthy passage is about the Eucharist, and that Jesus Christ literally means that we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood in Communion.

    Reply: If Christ really did mean for His audience to swallow His physical anatomy via the Eucharist, then kindly inform me howwwwww were they to do so at that particular time if the Eucharistic ordinance at the Last Supper was still a year away? After all, He was telling them to DO something right there on the spot. If it was to consume His bodily parts from head to toe, how were they to obey that command? Does the Lord give commands impossible to obey?

    J.H. Remember, we’re talking about disciples here, not casual listeners who are tuning in for the first time.

    Reply: You are very simply…wrong. Jesus was NOT just addressing fair-weather, believing disciples who would later desert Him. For someone going to seminary, I’m surprised you forget that there was a crowd there who came to see Him who, according to the mental telepathy of Jesus, were only looking for a free meal based on the previous miracle of the loaves and He forthrightly rebuked them at first sight, and again for their unbelief in 6:36. Hence, rather than the Protestant position of “BELIEVING” not making any sense as you stated, we discover it has a firm foundation right from the get-go based solely on the hunger pangs of His mostly UNBELIEVING audience. We say He set out to use those hunger pangs to His advantage and turned to metaphor. A metaphor is meant to be used in accordance with what someone is already familiar with, and then to establish a dazzling connection. We say He masterfully did JUST THAT when He brought in the idea of eating and drinking His flesh due to their empty stomachs.

    J.H. Many of Jesus’ own disciples stopped following Him upon hearing it.

    Reply: That mayyyy have been part of it, but technically, immediately prior to their turning away (6:65) Jesus said that it is impossible for anyone to come to Him unless the Father who had sent Him, draws that person to do so. Verse 6:66 explicitly says, “AS A RESULT OF THISSSSS”, (not necessarily the fact that they were disgruntled over the body and blood issue) they turned away. Thus, these fair-weather friends of the Lord’s had a BIG problem with the sovereignty of God, imagining they can come to God whenever they feel like it…..as so many delude themselves into thinking today (e.g., my own sister who says, “I will come to Christ when I am darn good and ready!). Catholics don’t like to think about the ramifications of 6:66 because it weakens their argument for the supposed Eucharist being a hard saying instead of the sovereignty of God.

    J.H. Protestants typically disagree with this interpretation, arguing that Jesus’ commands that we should eat His Flesh and drink His Blood are just metaphors. Often, both sides are so busy debating the credibility of the Catholic interpretation that neither stop to seriously ask, “Does the Protestant interpretation make any sense?”

    Reply: Well…if the Catholic position makes so much sense, why pray tell, do up to 70% of those in your camp not have a clue?

    http://www.catholic.com/audio-player/3970

    Catholic apologists repeatedly assert that a Christian relying on the Bible as his sole infallible authority will produce confusion. They claim one must have another infallible authority, the Papacy. Yet, when it comes to the Eucharist, their key doctrine, described in the audio as “the crown jewel” of the Catholic faith, seven out of ten Catholics are confused on it! This is precisely why I inisist that God would never obligate us to the philosophical conundrum resulting fromTransubstantiation, for it does nothing but minister endless questions, and therefore, He MUUUUST be opposed to it (1 Tim 1:3-4).

    J.H. Protestant exegetes…say that people just left Christ because they misunderstood Him.

    Reply: But of course they did! We not only have biblical precedent for people misunderstanding the Savior’s words from left to right, but Jesus was certainly aware that when He brought in the idea of flesh-eating, there were those who were BOUND to take Him the wrong way, and in fact, it is God’s intention indeed to simply leave blind those whose eyes He wishes to close, for His own good reasons (Isa 6:9; Matt 11:25-6; Mk 4:11-12, Luke 8:10, 10:22; John 6:44, 9:39-41, 12:40, 17:6; Rms 11:7-8; 1 Pet 2:8).

    J.H. Why would He take absolutely no steps to clarify their confusion, and in fact speak in such a way that seems designed to intentionally mislead them further?

    Reply: See the verses just cited. Jesus was under NO moral obligation to clarify His point because it was the intentional will of God that many misunderstand. Apparently, the concept of God “misleading” people offends you. Too bad. The Creator of the universe says otherwise. Catholics protocol must deliberately ignore the force of these verses which convey that Jesus would not necessarily correct His audience — because to admit otherwise, would significantly weaken their argument. So again: in addition to the above verse, the fact that God has the ability to open and close our eyes to truth (Luke 24:45) the woeful apologetic which demands the Lord mislead NOBODY, sinks into the mud faster than a pink elephant.

    J.H. It doesn’t make a lot of sense of why Jesus would choose the metaphor of bread and then switch halfway through to the metaphor of meat (meataphor?)

    Reply: On the contrary, it makes all the sense in the world! The flesh-eating perspective, being identical to the concept of belief, was brought in to intensify the dire need for FAITH, and to see beyond the present reality of their physical hunger. This cannibalistic, metaphorical intensity was implemented because Jesus said that there were those among them who BELIEVED NOT (6:36).
    Moreover, if the Jews were rejecting that Jesus had descended from heaven (John 6:41-2), it is inconceivable He would add to their disbelief with the even more astounding miracle of Transubstantiation. The teacher who has a class of Algebra students who are not comprehending well, would never imagine moving on to Calculus to resolve their perplexity. The Jews needed to have their thinking totally reversed and radically changed, as do we all. Ergo, Jesus would never move on to a higher form of education called Transubstantiation (even if it were true) without them first accepting His divine origin, for, “to whom much is given, much is required” (Luke 12:48). Essentially, the Catholic stance has Jesus demanding belief at the elementary level; but not getting that, He decides to graduate them to high school anyway based on their rudimentary knowledge of somehow needing to “eat Him”, albeit being in the dark as to how this could be. So, even though they were confused at a foundational level, Rome says the Lord gives them advanced course work in Transubstantiation by repeating four times in a row that it was vital to consume His christological corpuscles (6:51-56). Let the reader judge if this makes sense, keeping in mind that Jesus would never build upon foundations that are cracked (Psalm 11:3).

    Considering the Catholic tendency to go beyond biblical boundaries, we are not surprised that they think Jesus would take His failing class beyond “Algebra”. We say the Jews were wrong to take Christ literally and were unprepared to move on to “Calculus”. So while it is true He repeated four times the command to eat His flesh (vs. 53-56) this was because He had repeated four times it was imperative to believe in Him! (vs. 29, 35, 40, 47). IT’S AS SIMPLE AS THAT. He is making the same point in all eight verses (!!!) staying within the realm of “believing”, by merely intensifying that vital point through metaphor.

    Naturally, the use of metaphor requires understanding, and it is this understanding that is the responsibility of the Holy Spirit to reveal (John 3:8); for Jesus came into the world to give sight to the blind, and to take away the sight who THINK they can see (Jn 9:39-41). I submit God has chosen to blind Catholic eyes to separate the sheep from the goats. Thus, there is no other way to say it. Catholics are goats.

    1. I am going with Catholic view on this one. I think this is your response to his article that tackles it head on. I appreciate both of you for discourse, although as a newcomer to Christ I must add Micah sounds like a real aggressive guy, lots of hatred. Don’t sense that in aurhor, but it’s possible they have a history and both are over aggressive. It’s more than just passion, it’s downright nasty hatred on Micah on this board. Pushes me further from that strain on Christianity(is it reformed? I don’t really know, just don’t want to be around people like that). Micah has some great points though. I guess it’s which interpretation you believe, but after rereading that passage in John I feel as though followers are grossed out, and they believe he is literal. Just what Holy Spirit is telling me, but crap maybe I’m wrong. Again, I’m new at religion thing, My pastor at my nondenominational church told me to read bible, and spirit will guide you. That’s not really working. Beginning to think it’s all man made, both camps. I mean, these guys are so far apart, and I’ll bet it’s on everything. Doesn’t seem like they have anything in common, and take exact opposite on almost anything. I mean, what do they agree on? Seriously .

      1. Pat Kelly, stay the course and hold on tight to Jesus. A lot of the discussion going on here is just empty words. Ask Jesus to lead you where you need to go, and do not lean upon the testimony of men, some of whom are very ill-informed, for your understanding. Instead, lean upon Jesus and His Church. Be strong and be at peace. I will pray for you. My reception of the Holy Eucharist tomorrow will be for your spiritual needs.

    2. Ah, Micah…I will pray that you learn some history of the Church, and how the Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist, and specifically of John 6, is exactly what was taught by the earliest Christians. The “Reform” of the 16th century is more accurately described as a “Revolt” against the Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself, and you seem to have swallowed only teachings that have come about since that time, without examining what came from times closer to Christ’s. Probably not your fault, but you really should do some research.

    3. Oh My! This is the best response ever! It makes so much sense now! Thanks so much for posting this! I feel so much more enlightened and educated now!

  4. Micah, Micah, Micah
    The Bible was not around in the first 100 years or so from Chirst’s death. It was later assembled by Catholics and was the holy book for Christians untill the 1500s. You interpreting the Bible it is similar to what is going on in our country today with the constitution. It’s up for grabs for interpretation and that causes division, which is exactly what happened with Protestantism.
    Be blessed. Remain a seeker! Pray!

    1. “It (the Bible) was later assembled by Catholics and was the holy book for Christians until the 1500s.” So are you admitting that the Roman Catholic Church gave up on the Bible in the 1500s?

        1. Now please. You are not a Bible-loving Catholic because you rip that page out of Scripture where Jesus commands to partake of BOTH elements of bread and wine, and come up with flimsy excuses to justify taking only ONE.
          So much then, for your “love” of the Bible.

          1. Ummm…seeing as all of my copies of the Holy Scriptures are quite intact, and the Catholic Church teaches that 100% of the contents are infallible, just as whichever protestant confession you adhere to teaches, your accusation is empty. It’s a telling thing that all you can say for our scriptural arguments in defense of the practice of communion under one species is that the argument is “flimsy”. This has been treated many times, by minds greater than I, but for an explanation, here’s the catholic encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm.

            I Loved the scriptures enough that when I found them directly contradicting the Baptist doctrine I used to believe, I repented and became Catholic.

            Baptism saves you. 1 Peter 3:21. (when the scriptures here say “saves” here they don’t mean that you can’t fall away in the future, as indicated by other passages)

          2. A.F. It’s a telling thing that all you can say for our scriptural arguments in defense of the practice of communion under one species is that the argument is “flimsy”. This has been treated many times, by minds greater than I, but for an explanation, here’s the catholic encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm.

            Me: Indeed, the RC arguments ARE flimsy in light of the unambiguous words of Jesus Christ to partake of BOTH, end of story! The article you submitted is an heretical monstrosity. Listen to the madness:

            “In 1 Corinthians 11:28… St. Paul is concerned with the preparation required for a worthy reception of the Eucharist. His mention of both species, “the bread and chalice”, is merely incidental, and implies nothing more than the bare fact that Communion under both kinds was the prevailing usage in Apostolic times.”

            So. The words of our Lord are merely “incidental” and even though it is a fact that taking Communion was prevalent from day 1, this implies nothing???????????

            Worse still, we read…”We are justified in concluding that the N.T. contains no proof of the existence of a Divine precept binding the faithful to Communicate under both kinds.”

            NO PROOF????? These words are the end result of when God gives people up; that because they received not the love of the truth, He will send them “STRONG DELUSION” (2 Thess 2:11-12).

    2. R: Micah, Micah, Micah…The Bible was not around in the first 100 years or so from Chirst’s death. It was later assembled by Catholics and was the holy book for Christians untill the 1500s.

      M: Riley, Riley, Riley…what you say has no relevance to this discussion.

      R: Your interpreting the Bible it is similar to what is going on in our country today with the constitution. It’s up for grabs

      M: Since I previously pointed out your elementary ignorance of Scripture, I would not expect you to recall that God wishes us to exercise our minds on His word from Genesis to Revelation. And I will continue to do so.

      You also don’t seem to realize that after all the yada yada yada about the RCC being the official interpreter of the Bible, at the end of the day, they have left 99% of the Bible…UNINTERPRETED. Which means, Catholics are in the same boat as Protestants; which meeeeens the effects of an “infallible” magisterium are, for all intents and purposes, USELESS.

      1. “…they have left 99% of the Bible…UNINTERPRETED”

        ummm…unless you don’t count the countless scripture commentaries written by the church fathers

        A mere prayer can’t save you (except in unusual circumstances, such as the thief on the cross, but it was his desire to be saved by Christ coupled with his faith that saved him, precisely because he couldn’t be saved the usual way).

        Jesus told us “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16) Faith alone can’t save you. “Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?” (James 2:24)

        If you wish to be saved, believe and be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (if you have not done so already), and stay faithful to Christ until the end. “But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.” (Matthew 24:13) If you haven’t been faithful, go to confession. “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.” (1 John 1:9) “Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (John 20:23 — Christ here is speaking to the Apostles)

        1. A.F. [I do not agree that the RCC has left] 99% of the Bible…UNINTERPRETED”

          Well then, you need to take a wake-up pill. Pius XII in “Divino Spiritu” (paragraph 47) says that, “there are but FEW texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church”.

          But of course, he does not have the decency to to tell us which ones he is referring to!
          Absolutely inexcusable.

          Thus, when you think of it, it is downright comical that Jesus should give the RCC the gift of infallibility because
          1) They cannot even tell us how many and WHICH verses have been infallibly defined
          2) They cannot tell us how many and WHICH infallible ex-cathedra statements have been made
          3) They cannot even tell us, specifically, how many and WHAT infallible traditions ought to be kept to be in good standing with the RCC.

          1. Micah: Well then, you need to take a wake-up pill.

            Me: I already did. That’s why I’m not protestant anymore.

            Micah: Well then, you need to take a wake-up pill. Pius XII in “Divino Spiritu” (paragraph 47) says that, “there are but FEW texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church”.

            Me: Granted. *Infallibility* has only been invoked a few times with regard to scripture passages (in order to settle a few contentious ones). This doesn’t nullify the authority of tradition in judging the sense of the scriptures. This also doesn’t nullify the authority of the *doctrines* defined by the authority of the Church.

            Micah: “Thus, when you think of it, it is downright comical that Jesus should give the RCC the gift of infallibility because
            1) They cannot even tell us how many and WHICH verses have been infallibly defined
            2) They cannot tell us how many and WHICH infallible ex-cathedra statements have been made
            3) They cannot even tell us, specifically, how many and WHAT infallible traditions ought to be kept to be in good standing with the RCC.”

            Me: 1) for the layman is not particularly important, since the verse’s interpretation invariably relates to an infallibly defined doctrine, all of which are readily knowable. 2) this has been answered by many people, many times, I won’t bother answering it again here. This statement is simply false. 3) The Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is a sufficient compendium.

            We are compelled to accept the infallible traditions and doctrines that we are aware of (and most of if not all are easily knowable). We as layman aren’t necessarily culpable for doctrinal confusion from the pulpit so to speak.

            Matthew 16:18. The gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. Protestantism (many of whose doctrines only started appearing circa 1517) is thus, impossible.

            When our Blessed Lord speaks of the sheep and the goats, he talks about their works, not their faith alone. Don’t be deceived. Protestantism can’t save you. Repent and believe the Gospel.

          2. A.F. Protestantism (many of whose doctrines only started appearing circa 1517) is thus, impossible.

            Me: This is laughable, using your logic, since infallibility was declared in 1870 and made retroactive to another time period, such as Trent, CATHOLICISM IS IMPOSSIBLE.

        2. “This is laughable, using your logic, since infallibility was declared in 1870 and made retroactive to another time period, such as Trent, CATHOLICISM IS IMPOSSIBLE.”

          The Doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t fully declared until The Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1213, “and made retroactive to another time period…”

          The Doctrine being declared doesn’t “Create” the Doctrine, it just “defines what has always existed.”

          1. “The Doctrine being declared doesn’t “Create” the Doctrine, it just defines what has always existed.”

            Those taking a class in logic would laugh you out of the room. To simply say, “well, we always believed it – but are just getting around to officially defining it” is a clever way to make sure you win the argument every time, as well as a breeding ground to create doctrines out of thin air and say “its always been this way”. It is a miserable excuse, and sharper knives in the drawer such as myself, can see through such trickery.

            I categorically proved below that the idea of infallibility DID NOT rear its ugly head until 1,800 years after Christ left this earth. See my comment to Ms. Mitchell on 9/2 @ 7:20. It most certainly was not “always what the church believed”, and is therefore a sham and a hoax.

            As for the Trinity being “defined” circa 1200, so what? The RCC can “define” anything she wants at any time she wants. Who cares? All the evidence for the Trinity is in Scripture for all to see with a little legwork. Hence, we need not thank the Lateran Council for that which most Christians would find out on their own.

          2. “All the evidence for the Trinity is in Scripture for all to see with a little legwork.”
            Well, many anti-trinitarians would deny that. Including one friend of yours who posted in another thread. The Bible certainly supports some kind of Arianism. It always depends on your definition of the Trinity — which definition is necessarily philosophical and is not found expounded logically in the Bible, even if you consider the Bible as “proof” for anything (which it isn’t).

  5. However, even if Protestants accepted the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine they could not bring it about beause they do not have a valid priesthood.

      1. As I previously mentioned, the hope for Catholic/Lutheran unity will not only NEVER become a reality, but is diametrically opposed to the intent of Jesus in John 6 and at the Last Supper. He KNEW and INTENDED that His language was going to split Christendom straight down the middle. Those who understood Him wrongly, would be lost, but His sheep would understand very well and be composed of the elect. Either Jesus Christ DID intend for His followers to consume Him, or HE DID NOT. There is no middle ground. The “infallible” council of Trent has already gone on record to reveal the Catholic position, and they proclaimed that the Eucharist was necessary for salvation, end of story. There was to be no argument and no compromise because an infallible document cannot be changed. That being so, any hopes for “unity” with those who reject the RC view, are disingenuous and doomed to failure. If Eucharist-rejecting evangelicals are considered hellhound by Trent, the folks putting that mishmash together are wasting their time because the verdict has already been infallibly declared. They must therefore be labeled as rogue Catholic and Lutherans who wish to reinvent history.

      2. Rev. Dark Hans, It’s great to hear that. But how wide (worldwide) is this agreement? I just also wonder if Catholic bishops would ever accept as valid the ordination of women.

  6. Maybe I should be more hung up on this than I am, but I feel like it was just another weeding down to the devout 12. I can of see it as you never really know why a teaching leads someone away from the gospel or is to hard for them to have faith in both in this instance and in modern day. As far as the “bread” portion, we regularly see faith, testimony, etc. being compared to food. “Milk before meat”, “feasting on the word”, etc. So in this moment, when reading this I just interpret it at bread= the staff of life. Something so necessary it can’t be done without which why Christ compares himself and his teachings to it. Likewise for the remission of sins being equally as necessary as water. While none of the is profound or really new information, it’s almost like I don’t even see the literal interpretation. Like we are reading two different passages.

    On a slightly related note, I just LOVE John 6:67-69. It something I need posted up in my house somewhere. Because in a moment of a trial of my faith, I want my answer to be “Where else would I go? I believe and am sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” That’s the rock solid foundation that I want to emulate as only someone name Peter can.

    Thanks for reminding me to take a moment and really consider pieces of the things that I believe.

      1. Rather, the blood of Jesus Christ cleansus us from all sins (1 Jn 1:7), NOT BAPTISM. And it is by having FAITH in HIs blood (Romans 3:25) NOT DRINKING IT, by which we are saved.

        Sadly, Catholics such as yourself are being just as ripped-off by the Vatican as were the victims of Bernie Madoff were when they trusted him with their funds.

        1. Not actually Catholic and don’t believe in transubstantiation. My intention was to show the parallels.

          However, “Sadly, Catholics such as yourself are being just as ripped-off by the Vatican as were the victims of Bernie Madoff were when they trusted him with their funds.” is offensive and unkind. This is a discussion about whether or not a teaching is true and explaining why one would see it one way or the other. Bernie Madoff knowingly and intentionally lied to people for his benefit and financial gain. The Catholic church’s only goal is to bring people to salvation.

          1. Ms. Mitchell….I’m afraid you don’t understand the ramifications of what you’re saying. OK, you’re not a member of the RCC. Fine. But the RCC has gone on record that consuming the Eucharist is necessary for salvation. Therefore, when you tell me that “the church’s only goal is to bring people to salvation”, THAT MEANS, by definition, via the Eucharist. Since you admit you don’t believe in T, then the RCC says you’re on your way to hell. That being so, the respect you have for this institution must DIMINISH, and not remain on the level of kissing cousins, as you portray.

            Furthermore, you say, “Bernie Madoff knowingly and intentionally lied to people for his benefit and financial gain.” [This is not the case with the RCC].

            I must disagree. The example of planet earth being filled with a multitude of priests who “knowingly and intentionally” deceived young boys to come “help me find my cat that went in that dark alley”…is indicative of similar shenanigans put on in 1870 when the Pope self-appointed himself as the infallible prime minister of the world. This, I tell you, was a “knowingly and intentional” deceit designed to fool the public, under the direction of Satan. For in Keenan’s Catholic Catechism of 1869, the idea of infallibility was strictly denied…..yet a year later it was put into motion…and the following year the catechism edited OUT their previous comments made in 1869! Much more could be said to support my Bernie Madoff analogy, but suffice to say that to suppose the RCC has always been a vessel of honor and virtue concerned with the salvation of souls, is logically bankrupt.

          2. “Since you admit you don’t believe in T, then the RCC says you’re on your way to hell.”
            I sense here you have no idea of what the CC thinks of salvation, particularly concerning non-Catholics.

          3. Bingo, Jennae….

            From what you have seen, and what the rest of us have dealt with in a previous blog post, micah is a mean-spirited, unremitting borderline psycho, a (termed by Joe Heschmeyer) James White fanboy attempting to beard the Catholic lion, though he has nothing but a dull razor and hasn’t done much but reveal his true colors.

            Look at the contrast between the discourse between Craig Truglia and the Catholic posters on this thread. Sometimes vigorous, as philosophical/theological debates will get, but civilized and gentlemanly, especially on Craig’s part. Micah? Insulting, monotonous, and tiresome as you have seen. When he gets called on a point of theology, he ignores and moves on to the next red herring, because it’s all he’s got.

            Another contrast….you’ll note the Catholic posters will debate theology, micah does that *and* he tells us we’re going to Hell. Find where one of us tells him that. I don’t know who is or is not saved, I do believe in a Catholic Scriptural and traditional path to salvation, and I am sticking to it. But I suppose micah learned to discern who is and is not saved in evangelical Jeebus camp. They ought to bottle it.

            I have said before, I live in Colorado Springs, which is known as the Protestant Vatican – termed not by me, but by Protestants I know. I sent my kids to a charter school when they were very young – they were tortured unmercifully by the evangelical majority that belonged to New Life Church, to the point we had to find another academic venue for them. That school was later investigated by the state of Colorado for racial and religious bullying; it caused a complete management change and it no longer resembles a Hitler Youth camp. An angry Jewish lawyer, and Air Force Academy grad named Mikey Weinstein started an organization called the Military Religious Freedom Foundation to combat the abuse his sons took at the hands of a cadre of evangelicals who had acted at the USAFA as micah does here. Now Mikey attacks anything in the military with a cross or a Bible and the evangelicals have no one to thank for that but themselves.

            The problem here is not well-intentioned Protestantism, misguided as we Catholics believe it to be; it’s the particularly crazed flavor of Christian fundamentalism that you’ve seen here, the kind that makes pundits and political activists express fear of a theocracy and gives impetus to the likes of Hillary Clinton. I personally welcome the discourse of such as Craig Truglia; he keeps us on our theological toes and prevents us from becoming a self-licking ice cream cone; I also learn a lot from his erudite references. Micah just introduces dissolution and chaos; I’d strongly advise the posters here to ignore him and his bile until he goes away.

          4. A.K. you’ll note the Catholic posters will debate theology, micah does that *AND* he tells us we’re going to Hell.

            M: This one sentence alone exposes the deep delusion God has ordained for you in particular (2 Thess 2:11-12). Anyone familiar with antiquity knows that there exists a long string that runs like a red thread throughout your history of the hierarchy telling “outsiders” they are unsaved. For example, con-artist Boniface VIII blabbered, “It is altogether necessary for salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff”. Which meeeeens, if you don’t, it’s off to hell you go. And yet you have the nerve to criticize meeeee? Thus, your credibility borders on ZERO. You know neither the Bible OR your own church history. Worse still, you say,

            “When he gets called on a point of theology, he ignores and moves on to the next”.

            I dare say that it appears you are so full of baloney, it may be time for you to open up a delicatessen! I have spent more than a few hours on this site answering MANY points and have not purposely run away from ANYTHING. I could debate the Pope tomorrow and I’m confident he would lose, that’s how downright stupid your assessment of me is.

        2. Micah: Rather, the blood of Jesus Christ cleansus us from all sins (1 Jn 1:7), NOT BAPTISM.

          1 Peter 3:21 “Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

          St. Peter seems to disagree. The blood of our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ saves us from our sins by being united in His death in baptism (see Romans 6). You can’t say we have no biblical support for this doctrine. Baptism saves you. (though you have to remain faithful to Christ)

          So there are at least 5 major gospels floating around right now:
          1) Salvation by faith and reciting the sinner’s prayer. (mostly baptists, evangelicals, methodists, some reformed)
          2) Salvation by faith alone (sinner’s prayer is considered unbiblical). (mostly reformed, some baptists)
          3) Salvation by faith (possibly reciting the sinner’s prayer), and receiving the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” (mostly pentecostals and similar)
          4) Salvation by faith received at baptism, confirmed throughout a christian’s life by maintaining faith (Lutheran, some Anglican, some reformed)
          5) Salvation by faith received at baptism, confirmed throughout a christian’s life through faithful obedience. (Catholic, Orthodox)

          Are you trying to defend 1) or 2)?

    1. Actually, more like 1,500 years, if you’re speaking of the Protestant Revolt (commonly called the Reformation). And this is the crux of most of the movements that have been instituted since Christ, movements that claimed that at some point the Church as a whole apostasized, and that *NOW* a revelation has been made to bring it back to Christ’s truth. That’s what Mohammed claimed; that’s what Luther, Calvin, etc. claimed; that’s what the Mormons claimed; that’s what the Jehovah’s Witnesses claimed; and many, many others. And in no case is there any historical evidence to back up the claims. Only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches can validly trace their authority back to the Apostles, and only they can demonstrate conformity of doctrine with the writings of the early Christians and continuity of that doctrine throughout the centuries.

    1. Your comment is nothing but disgraceful – and is smack dab in the category of those who persecuted Christ without cause. How dare you say I am here not to dialogue when I have in fact, proved my position 10 times over and you have produced NOTHING. Anyone reading this can see that you are so full of hot air, if you were a balloon, you’d pop.

        1. Rev I’m not surprised you would encourage the kind of “dialogue” Micah participates in. ~ 40% insults, the assumption that for the most part the Church has nefarious intent. He’s not here to understand and discuss, but to tell us what the Church “really” teaches (evil) and condemn.

      1. I don’t have to produce anything. Plenty of people much knowledgeable than me have. You haven’t proved anything other than the fact you have absolutely no respect for any Catholic here. Hint you can disagree and still respect a person. You seem incapable of understanding this.

        1. CK: I don’t have to produce anything. Plenty of people much knowledgeable than me have.

          M: Oh stop it. You most certainly DO have to produce something if you go out of your way to call me a troll, whatever that means.

          CK: you have absolutely no respect for any Catholic here. Hint …you can disagree and still respect a person. You seem incapable of understanding this.

          M: No, I don’t think you even know what the word respect means. It means to admire someone. Simple.
          Do you have respect for me by calling me a troll? We both know the answer to that question, so you are, in fact, a hypocrite.

          Going further, did Christ “respect” those in Matthew 23 whom He called names, 16 times?
          The names are, “hypocrites” (7 times), “son of Hell” (once), “blind guides” (twice), “fools and blind” (3 times), “whited sepulchres” (once), “serpents” (once), and “offspring of vipers” (once).

          In 1 & 2 John, he calls certain persons “liars” and “antichrists”.
          May we conclude the author respected THEM?
          Or John the Baptist, (“ye brood of vipers”). No respect.
          Or Stephen, “You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.” (Acts 7:51). All this came without an ounce of respect. Or Jesus again, giving no respect to Herod by calling Him a fox (Luke 13:32).

          When Jesus throws the multitude in hell, his disagreement with them… AS WELL as their person, will go hand in hand into the flames. You cannot separate the person from the “disrespectful” label attached to them. If someone is a liar, all respect stops. I have biblical precedent for my position. You do not.

          I do admit, however, that while I may disagree with Hillary, I do admire and respect her TENACITY in sticking with politics for 50 years. But note that I respect the ATTRIBUTE of tenacity, not the person herself (who should have been convicted of SOMETHING for that e-mail fiasco, and if it was anybody else, they would be in jail).
          Likewise, I can respect the tenacity of the Pope in all his globe-trotting, but I do not respect the man himself, who holds false doctrine. A man’s doctrine emanates from his PERSON, and thus, the person cannot be separated from their doctrine, for as I said before, BOTH will be thrown into hell. Why then should we waste time trying to respect the person APART from his doctrine. It is futile.
          Jesus asks us to plant seeds, to both our friends AND our spiritual enemies, and I have done so. “Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?”
          That’s in Galatians.

          1. Micah – respect : a feeling or understanding that someone or something is important, serious, etc., and should be treated in an appropriate way

            What’s being discussed is important and people here are serious. Of course you pick the definition that fits your purpose. How bout this show common courtesy. I called you a troll because you have been rude and hateful. Simple.

            You are not Jesus or the Apostles. You’d have to love your neighbor if you want to be more like them, something you seem incapable of expressing. What the Apostles and Jesus taught is infallible. You are expressing your understanding of the bible. You can disagree without being disagreeable. THAT OPENS HEARTS. Your attitude hardens hearts and pushes people seeking truth away from Jesus. I think someone else has expressed this here already.

            In Christ
            CK

          2. Micah you win. You are turning this place into one of those crazy reformed sites. Your pride keeps you from changing your ways which causes people to stop listening/reading you. Not sure how you expect to bring the gospel to people in this manner. I’m done reading your comments. You may have the last word.

        2. C.K. respect : a feeling or understanding that someone or something is important, serious, etc., and should be treated in an appropriate way

          M: What you miserably fail to understand is that if I didn’t care about Catholics, I wouldn’t do anything.

          C.K. What’s being discussed is important and people here are serious.

          M: You don’t say. And you think my responses exemplify that I AM NOT SERIOUS ABOUT THIS ISSUE? This is laughable.

          C.K. I called you a troll because you have been rude and hateful. Simple.

          M: What you again fail to understand is that there izzzz such a thing as false doctrine, and Jesus Christ categorically states that He, QUOTE, “HATES IT” in the book of Revelation. Now if I perceive that Catholicism falls into that category, I am therefore justified by injecting emotion into my responses because we were not created to be wet rags. It’s obvious you wish the Lord didn’t get so upset in Matt 23 by all His name-calling. Deal with it. But here we go again, the minute I try to follow after Jesus, what is the typical reply?

          C.K. You are not Jesus or the Apostles.

          M: Bingo to the typical RC retort! It is worthless. To think that I am out of order by imitating the greats just mentioned, is pure nonsense! BOTH of them said, “Be ye imitators of me”. To think that I may not show emotion as those did, is downright ridiculous. You wish to emasculate me down to a charity church mouse who wears a pink ribbon on his tail, but it will never work.

          C.K. Your attitude hardens hearts and pushes people seeking truth away from Jesus.

          M: As long as myyyyy heart is in the right place, it must be left up to God to LITERALLY open hearts, as He did Lydia’s in the book of Acts by the preaching of Paul. We can only plant seeds. And need it be said that we are all made up of different temperaments, which God can use to His advantage….as in someone being so annoyed that I am saying the Pope is wrong, that they get up off the couch and do some further research. Hence, I have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of – and your accusation that I am so “hateful” will NOT stand up to a jury in heaven….especially if the martyrs whom the RCC slew were called in as witnesses.

  7. Excellent points Joe! The only thing I might want to add is that “eat my flesh. drink my blood” already had a metaphorical understanding from the Old Testament and it certainly wasn’t a metaphor for belief. Verses like Psalm 27:1-2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Revelation 17:6-16 clearly show that if “eating flesh/drinking blood” were metaphors, they were metaphors for doing someone injury, harm, or persecution. Also the greek word “trogon” used in John 6:53-58 is a graphic word meaning “to chew or gnaw.” It is never used in a metaphorical sense in the Bible. As for the “believe in me” passages that come beforehand, obviously belief in Christ is necessary to understand the mystery Jesus is imparting. I like St. Augustine’s explanation of the event. The Jews thought of Christ’s teaching her carnally (the capharnite error) assuming Jesus was going to chop up bits of his limbs or something and give it to them. Of course, that is not the Catholic understanding. They should have followed Peter’s example with “Lord to whom should we go?” I doubt Peter got exactly what Jesus meant there but he knew who Jesus was and that there is no one else so he was just gonna have to trust Him. It is true to say that this teaching has split really the whole world up. Those who humbly accept Jesus’s teaching here that yes, we really do eat His flesh and drink His blood (in the “spiritual” way that is Transubstantiation) and those who just couldn’t handle it and clamor “how can this man give us his flesh to eat?!)

    May God be with you

    Matthew

    1. You say: Excellent points Joe! The only thing I might want to add is that “eat my flesh. drink my blood” already had a metaphorical understanding from the Old Testament and it certainly wasn’t a metaphor for belief. Verses like Psalm 27:1-2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Revelation 17:6-16 clearly show that if “eating flesh/drinking blood” were metaphors, they were metaphors for doing someone injury, harm, or persecution. [If metaphor was being used, this would mean Jesus wants us to persecute Him. Since THAT can’t be true, the only other option is that Jesus was speaking literally and we are eat Him]

      Response: In Joe’s article, “How the early church disproves…” , I responded to you DIRECTLY on this issue on 8/31 @ 6:27. YOU HAD NO ANSWER, and were thus, refuted. Yet here you have the gall to simply say it all over again, thinking you deserve to be crowned king for a day. As I’ve said before, once Catholics get a hold of some spiffy answer that suits their purposes, they will never let go of it and are impervious to correction.
      That said, I will paste my reply here for those who missed it so you may be ashamed:

      “This complaint ignores that in His lifetime, Jesus received a double dose of physical, as well as psychological abuse. That being so, the objection vanishes because by “eating His flesh” in a metaphorical sense, we reap the benefits of that abuse by believing He suffered for our sins in our room and stead (Isaiah 53).
      No one ever told you that, did they? I didn’t think so.
      Next, the objection is disingenuous, in that while it acknowledges that eating flesh and drinking blood can be metaphors for contempt, it leaves the impression that they can ONLY be metaphors for contempt.
      As a matter of fact, any given word or words can be used metaphorically in a number of ways. Consider, for example, the word “sword.” In Luke 2:35, a “sword” will pierce Mary’s heart. Clearly, “sword” is a metaphor for sorrow. But in Revelation, the “sword” in Jesus’ mouth is a metaphor for judgment (cf. Revelation 1:16; 2:16; 19:15, 21). In Matthew 10:34, “sword” is a metaphor for division and violence, whereas in Ephesians 6:17 and Hebrews 4:12, the “sword” is a metaphor for the Word of God. Hence, Catholicism cannot escape the absolute truth that “metaphorical believing” under the auspices of “eating flesh and blood” is indeed a viable alternative to their position, as it, like the word “sword”, can have more than one metaphorical meaning! Furthermore, contrary to the Catholic insinuation, eating flesh and drinking blood are metaphorical in other ways besides hating or causing someone injury. Sometimes eating flesh and drinking blood are metaphors of distress under persecution (Lev 26:29; Deut 28:53; Jer 19:9). Sometimes they metaphorically express divine justice or giving someone their just desserts (Numbers 23:24; Isaiah 49:26; Rev 16:6). Other uses are found in Ezekiel 39:17-21, 2 Samuel 23:17, Isa 49:26… and James speaks of eating flesh as a metaphor for GREED (5:3).
      No one ever told you these things did they? No, I didn’t think so.

      Hence, while Scripture can shed light on how “flesh-eating” has been metaphorically used, the determining criterion for a proper exegesis of those terms is the immediate context of John’s gospel. Thus, the context makes it clear that eating flesh and drinking blood are primarily metaphors that embrace the benefits that come from BELIEVING in Jesus, end of story.

      1. One last question Micah: Why do you believe the Bible is true? I mean, what proof do you have that all or most of what is written there is true?

        1. Your question is not relevant to this discussion. Time out to be spent by attempting to deal with the numerous points I’ve brought up which proves the falsity of the “tranz”… but which have, for the most part, been left untouched. I will therefore not waste a combox telling you why I believe the Bible is true.

          1. Maybe because the Bible isn’t literal and therefore is poetic, mythological, allegorical, and therefore is untrue.

            And maybe because it cannot ever be proven to be true, except maybe when the sun swallows the earth some billions of years from now. So you’re leaning upon a unfalsifiable assumption that the Bible is true: “the bible is true because you believe so.” You have an interpretation of something that cannot be proven to be true, or better, upon some things that are certainly not true (Adam and Eve, the Tower of Babel, the Exodus etc. are certainly, false myths by a tiny rancorous people.)

            So you’re fighting about the interpretation of a myth… which is false.

          2. “dodging the question… dodging the question… yada yada dodging the question… “…

            “Your question is not relevant to this discussion.”
            Hum… they’re all myths, man, if you cannot prove the whole Bible is true. So your interpretation is a mirage based on a myth.

            Therefore: God = Odin = Zeus = Jupiter = Ahura Mazda = Tupã = Oxum.

            Viva!

          3. KO, I don’t know what you are driving at here but it is certainly not Catholic. Even if some of the genre in the Bible are poetic and allegorical, some are very much historical. The Gospels for instance. I agree that “the Bible is true because you believe it so” would be an unfalsifiable and fideistic assumption but that is not what Catholics claim. Adam and Eve are most certainly historical people but much of the narrative of the fall of man is allegorical. The Exodus is definitely historical. The Bible is allowed to be a sole witness to history. You cannot say that something is false because the Bible is the only source to mention it.

            C.S. Lewis described Christianity as “true myth.” It’s a profound point that yes, things described in the Gospels can be called “mythological” because of their astounding reports but they really happened! That’s the beauty of it!

            May God be with you.

          4. Sorry, but no.

            “The Exodus is definitely historical. The Bible is allowed to be a sole witness to history.”
            No serious historian would claim that. There is no historical proof for the Exodus, Moses, Noah, Abraham, the whole thing. The Bible is not a historical book.

            About the fideistic assumption, that’s obviously what someone like Micah and in a lesser degree Craig believes in. That’s what I was aiming for, but I’m sure it missed the mark.

            I’m sorry for my comments, but in a deeper sense. All this back and forth from Micah and Craig left me the impression that it’s wasted time. One labels whole groups of people (women) as not Christian; another dooms billions of people to hell. They’re both despicable scum. Yet in the end I admit it’s much easier for a Protestant to become an unbeliever than a Catholic.

            Goodbye for you all. I hope I won’t come back.

          5. On the contrary, Micah, the question KO asks about why you believe the Bible is true is quite important to the discussion, since it’s a passage in the Bible that we are discussing. If you can’t explain why you think the Bible is true, anything you say about what the Bible means has no importance whatsoever and the discussion is completely trivial. Clearly you don’t seem to consider this discussion trivial, so KO’s question is not only germane but foundational.

      2. Sigh, okay for the sake of other readers I will respond to these attacks.

        Let’s actually define the term “metaphor.” The best two definitions I could find are,

        1: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

        and 2: a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract.

        Given this let’s do a little experiment. In these Old Testament passages that I mentioned in my previous comment (Psalm 27:1-2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Revelation 17:6-16), eating flesh/drinking blood is a metaphor for (and would directly be substituted for) injury, persecution, harm. So if that is the metaphor Jesus means in John 6, then He would be saying something to the effect of “Unless you do me injury, persecution, or harm, you have no life in you. He who persecutes/injures/harms me abides in me and I in him.” This is of course incoherent nonsense and can be easily rejected. However an attempt is made to qualify this metaphor by not pointing out something we should do but by pointing out something we should “believe is done” to Jesus (namely being persecuted/injured/harmed for our salvation). This simply will not do however because it stretches the definition of a metaphor well past the breaking point. Jesus is most certainly telling us to DO something in John 6:53-58. If that “something” is a metaphor for something else, then we must DO that something else. Since this metaphor used in the Old Testament points to persecution/injury/harm then Jesus would be requiring us to do these things to Him in order to have life. That’s absurd and therefore THAT metaphorical understanding of “eat my flesh/drink my blood” fails completely.

        Moving on to the other passages that were cited (Lev 26:29, Deut 28:53, Jer 19:9). Those are instances of “devouring flesh” bing metaphors for God inflicting punishment/curse for sins of disobedience/idolatry. So if we port that metaphorical understanding into John 6 we get: “Unless you experience divine punishment for sins of disobedience, you have no life in you.” Again this is incoherent. In Numbers 23:24, “drinks the blood of the slain” is a metaphor for Israel destroying it’s enemies. This doesn’t work in John 6 either. It would be: “Unless you destroy me your enemy, you have no life in you.” Same idea in Isaiah 49:26, Ezekiel 39:17-21, and Revelation 16:6. Neither of those metaphorical understandings make sense if ported to John 6. As for James 5:3, if “eat your flesh” is a metaphor for greed, well if we port that to John 6 it’s: “Unless you are very greedy, you have no life in you.” Once again, this fails. So we see that all biblical precedents for a metaphorical understand of “eat my flesh, drink my blood” are simply incoherent when applied to Jesus’s words in John 6. The only other options left are to make up a new metaphorical understanding without biblical precedent, or it’s not a metaphor.

        As for the context of John 6, Joe pointed out in his article the numerous times Jesus told people to believe in him well before the Bread of Life discourse (John 3:16, 3:36, 5:24, 5:46-47). If Jesus telling us to “eat his flesh” was a metaphor for belief, not only did no one there pick up on it, it would have been completely redundant. Furthermore, John 6:52 clearly states that the problem the Jews/disciples had with Jesus’ words had nothing to do with Jesus saying that no one can come to the him unless the Father draws him. It wasn’t: “How can this man say that no one can come to him unless the Father draws him??!!” No it was “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?!” Jesus response removes all doubt: “Amen, Amen I say to you, unless you eat (trogon) of the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” The entirety of the Christian Church has understood this as referring to the Eucharist for 1500 years before the protestant reformation. With some gnostic exceptions (which protestants have many unfortunate characteristics of), the faith of the Church in the true, substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist was constant and the early Church Fathers are unanimous.

        It was also posited that “eat my flesh” was a metaphor purposely used to confuse/deceive. That is abundantly absurd seeing how God never lies (Titus 1:2) never tempts (James 1:13) and can neither deceive nor be deceived. Not revealing the entire truth or even concealing the truth from someone is not the same as intentionally misleading or deceiving someone which would be a sin.

        Finally it was alleged that Catholics “deify Christ’s human nature” and we “deny the incarnation because we make Christ to be omnipresent in his humanity which would violate the human nature.” It’s rather interesting that Catholics are accused of “deifying Christ’s human nature.” Jesus already took matter, a part of creation that he took as his body, divine when the Word became FLESH. Jesus’s flesh is fully divine and worth of complete adoration/latria. We see this in Matthew 2:11, Matthew 14:33, John 20:28, and elsewhere. A denial that Christ’s flesh is divine is a thoroughly Gnostic/Arian/Nestorian conception of Jesus Christ. As St. Hilary (310-367AD) in his treatise on the Trinity Book 8 put it:

        “13. Now our Lord has not left the minds of His faithful followers in doubt, but has explained the manner in which His nature operates, saying, That they may be one, as We are one: I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in one. Now I ask those who bring forward a unity of will between Father and Son, whether Christ is in us today through verity of nature or through agreement of will. For if in truth the Word has been made flesh and we in very truth receive the Word made flesh as food from the Lord, are we not bound to believe that He abides in us naturally, Who, born as a man, has assumed the nature of our flesh now inseparable from Himself, and has conjoined the nature of His own flesh to the nature of the eternal Godhead in the sacrament by which His flesh is communicated to us? For so are we all one, because the Father is in Christ and Christ in us. Whosoever then shall deny that the Father is in Christ naturally must first deny that either he is himself in Christ naturally, or Christ in him, because the Father in Christ and Christ in us make us one in Them. Hence, if indeed Christ has taken to Himself the flesh of our body, and that Man Who was born from Mary was indeed Christ, and we indeed receive in a mystery the flesh of His body— (and for this cause we shall be one, because the Father is in Him and He in us)—how can a unity of will be maintained, seeing that the special property of nature received through the sacrament is the sacrament of a perfect unity?”

        And again:

        “14. The words in which we speak of the things of God must be used in no mere human and worldly sense, nor must the perverseness of an alien and impious interpretation be extorted from the soundness of heavenly words by any violent and headstrong preaching. Let us read what is written, let us understand what we read, and then fulfil the demands of a perfect faith. For as to what we say concerning the reality of Christ’s nature within us, unless we have been taught by Him, our words are foolish and impious. For He says Himself, My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. John 6:55-56 As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this true? YET THEY WHO AFFIRM THAT CHRIST HESUS IS NOT TRULY GOD ARE WELCOME TO FIND IT FALSE. He therefore Himself is in us through the flesh and we in Him, while together with Him our own selves are in God.

        And again:

        “15. Now how it is that we are in Him through the sacrament of the flesh and blood bestowed upon us, He Himself testifies, saying, And the world will no longer see Me, but you shall see Me; because I live you shall live also; because I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. If He wished to indicate a mere unity of will, why did He set forth a kind of gradation and sequence in the completion of the unity, unless it were that, since He was in the Father through the nature of Deity, and we on the contrary in Him through His birth in the body, He would have us believe that He is in us through the mystery of the sacraments? And thus there might be taught a perfect unity through a Mediator, while, we abiding in Him, He abode in the Father, and as abiding in the Father abode also in us; and so we might arrive at unity with the Father, since in Him Who dwells naturally in the Father by birth, we also dwell naturally, while He Himself abides naturally in us also.”

        And finally:

        “16. Again, how natural this unity is in us He has Himself testified on this wise— He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. John 6:56 For no man shall dwell in Him, save him in whom He dwells Himself, for the only flesh which He has taken to Himself is the flesh of those who have taken His. Now He had already taught before the sacrament of this perfect unity, saying, As the living Father sent Me, and I live through the Father, so he that eats My flesh shall himself also live through Me. So then He lives through the Father, and as He lives through the Father in like manner we live through His flesh. For all comparison is chosen to shape our understanding, so that we may grasp the subject of which we treat by help of the analogy set before us. This is the cause of our life that we have Christ dwelling within our carnal selves through the flesh, and we shall live through Him in the same manner as He lives through the Father. If, then, we live naturally through Him according to the flesh, that is, have partaken of the nature of His flesh, must He not naturally have the Father within Himself according to the Spirit since He Himself lives through the Father? And He lives through the Father because His birth has not implanted in Him an alien and different nature inasmuch as His very being is from Him yet is not divided from Him by any barrier of an unlikeness of nature, for within Himself He has the Father through the birth in the power of the nature.”

        May God be with you all.

        Matthew

    2. MP: The greek word “trogon” used in John 6:53-58 is a graphic word meaning “to chew or gnaw.” It is never used in a metaphorical sense in the Bible.

      Response: In a blog post written by Michael Taylor, we read:

      In recent times, Roman dignitaries have made some noise about Jesus switching from the word “eat” (esthio) to the more graphic “to chew” (trogo) in John 6:54-58. They say this switch in terminology proves that Jesus was speaking literally rather than metaphorically. Karl Keating supposes, without proof, that the word “to chew” (trogo) “is not the language of metaphor” (“Catholicism & Fundamentalism” p. 247). We simply ask, “Why not?” Why would a switch in terminology demand we conclude a literal understanding rather than a metaphorical one?

      Apparently, he believes the word “chew” cannot be the language of metaphor because it is far more graphic or vivid than the more mundane “to eat.” We are immediately reminded of their propensity to upgrade the merely “mundane” to give their theology more sparkle, such as replacing “cup” with “chalice”, so we suspect another similar trick. The truth is, however, there is nothing intrinsically literal about the word “chew” that would lead us into the territory of Transubstantiation, and thus, this hypothesis is unwarranted. What Keating does not consider is…

      A. Esthio is used in all of the Last Supper passages (“take and eat”, not chew).

      B. By the time of John’s gospel, the Greek word for “chew” (trogo) had become synonymous with the ordinary word for “eat” (esthio). Originally, trogo was used of animals and conveyed chewing, or mastication. But over time, the word had gradually begun to replace the more common “to eat” (esthio). According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, “John…seems to follow a usage, which generally replaces esthio with trogo. (Leonhard Goppelt, Gerhard Friedrich, editor, Vol. 8, p. 236-237).

      C. The simple possibility of stylistic variance! See when Jesus wished to make the same theological point; as was made with Lazarus being described as “asleep”, but who was, in reality, dead. We also note in John 21:15-17 that Jesus asks Peter three times, “Do you love me?” In the first two questions, He uses the Greek word agapeo for love. In the last question, he switches to phileo. Greek scholars have long noted that there is no essential difference between the terms and are used interchangeably. In the very same passage, Jesus also varies his metaphors. “Tend my sheep” is used twice. “Feed my lambs” is used once. Why the switch? Once again, the simple solution is probably the best solution. Both metaphors use pastoral imagery to make the SAME theological point; namely, that Peter is given a pastoral responsibility for the flock. “Therefore, the difference between tending sheep and feeding lambs is most likely a stylistic variance, rather than what the Roman church would have us believe; namely, a THEOLOGICAL variance. When all is said and done, the variance between “to eat” and “to chew” does not in any way imply that the object of our chewing is the literal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ!”

      1. Why bother switching words at all if it does nothing to add the meaning? First of all, In John 6, the word used for “eat” up to verse 54 is “phago” not “esthio.” Both “esthio” and “phago” are used in the Institution narratives. In either case, one should not seriously consider that either “phago” or “esthio” used in the Institution narratives are metaphors for doing something else. They are both referring to eating and that is undeniable. John 6 does not use “esthio” but it does use “phago.” “Phago” means simply “eat” while “trogo” means chew. If there is no difference in meaning why change words? Strong’s greek lexicon (a protestant source) defines “trogo” as: to gnaw, munch, crunch. The word still implies mastication. Even if you were right and esthio/phago are synonymous with trogo, both involve physical eating and NONE involve “belief.” Either way, you’re eating something.

        It’s not necessarily a “change” in the meaning to switch from “to eat” over to “to chew.” Eating involves chewing. “To chew/gnaw” is simply a more graphic word than “to eat” and adds more weight to the point that Jesus wants us to physically eat something, namely His flesh and blood.

        May God be with you.

        Matthew

        1. Matthew, that’s too simple. “We” have to consult and quote the tortured narratives of other twisted fundamentalists desperately trying to justify their manufactured worldview. In an effort to spread the love of Jesus and get folks saved….

          1. A.K. [I deplore] the tortured narratives [of] twisted fundamentalists desperately trying to justify their manufactured worldview.

            M: And Jesus will say to you on that final day,
            “I DEPLORE YOUR TWISTED HIERARCHY WHO DESPERATELY TRIED TO JUSTIFY THEIR MUTILATION OF THE ORDINANCE I INSTITUTED AT THE LAST SUPPER BY SAYING AT TRENT THAT I HAD COMMANDED NO SUCH THING AS TO EAT BOTH EMBLEMS OF BREAD AND WINE AND THAT IT WAS PERFECTLY ALRIGHT TO EAT EITHER ONE. NO! I SPECIFICALLY SAID TO PARTAKE OF BOTH.
            The devil played that trick on Eve by cooing, ‘yay, hath God said?’ and she fell for it, as you do in like manner. Now, depart from me.”

        2. I would add that you will never find anywhere in any other Greek writings where trogo is used metaphorically. It just wasn’t done. But our Protestant friends would have us believe that this one time, this is the case. Really if Jesus was being metaphorical, why switch from phago, a word that can be used metaphorically, to a word that is never used metaphorically? It just doesn’t make sense. Unless it is the only way you can deny that Jesus was being literal.

          1. Hey Duane! Side question, how do you get italics/bold on this blog? lol I can’t figure it out.

            Matthew

          2. One more reason serious exegesis starts with the Greek or Latin and NOT English! But in this post modern world everyone is smarter than those in the past and can figure things out without the Church!

          3. with i in the middle at the beginning of what you want italicized, followed by with i in the middle so Duane

            same thing with strong for bold Duane

            same thing with indent for indent

            Duane

            same thing with blockquote to quote someone

            so if I want to quote someone and put in italics it would look like

            then the text

            you do not want caps, all smaller case and what you.

            This:

            Hey Duane! Side question, how do you get italics/bold on this blog? lol I can’t figure it out.

            Matthew

            Becomes this:

            Hey Duane! Side question, how do you get italics/bold on this blog? lol I can’t figure it out.

            Matthew

            Just make sure whatever order you have them in before what you want, when using multiple things like bold and indent you reverse the order on the other end.

            Hope this helps,

            Duane

          4. Okay, that did not come out like I thought it would.

            this with an i in the middle at the start of what you want italicized followed by this with an i in the middle.

            you can put strong in the middle for bold

            indent if you want to indent

            blockquote to quote someone

            You can also use several in conjunction. Whatever order you use before whatever sentence you want to do something to, just remember to reverse the order after the sentence.

          5. Let’s try this again.

            = italics

            = bold

            to quote

            on the backside you must always use this </

            and if you use several in conjunction just remember to reverse the order.

            So if you go i, strong, blockquote, on the backside you want blockquote, strong, i.

            Duane

  8. I applaud those who are seeking to cite historical evidence and use logic and reason with our friend Micah, but you’re wasting your time my friends; just let it go. God has created, he’s set up a game and foreordained not specific events within a cohesive plan of salvation available to all, no, he’s foreordained our very ability to receive truth and you and I friends came out on the short end of the divine stick. However, those that he foreordained see beyond historical evidence and reason, after all, these are “earthly” things, not spiritual — non-compatible. And they sure don’t need guidance from any man-made authority, they have been given the special knowledge that goes way beyond us and guarantees their own individual salvation. Council all you want – it’s happened before – but these views will likely hold.

    1. This micah gem clinched it for me:

      “Going further, did Christ “respect” those in Matthew 23 whom He called names, 16 times?”

      Does that tell you anything? A redundant and tedious fundamentalist who believes anything is justified in the name of Jesus. A quote from Eric Hoffer concerning academia, that I believe is appropriate here: “I would give them anything they want, except power.”

      No one likes you micah. Why don’t you just Luke 9:5 yourself out of here and go where someone is interested in your bile (like back to Jeebus camp with Parster Taid Haggard), and leave us Cat’liks to our unsaved misery.

      1. AK: No one likes you micah.

        This is an unkind and unchristian thing to say, and I don’t think that this is a good way to try to teach someone the virtue of kindness. I appreciate Micah’s zeal, even though he is certainly out of line insulting Catholics on a Catholic blog.

        1. A.K. No one likes you micah.

          Jesus said, “Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you”. Apparently, you wish to be liked by everyone, but the Creator of the universe says if you don’t rock the boat, there is something wrong with your theology because the gospel WILL indeed offend, and so I expect comments from people like you who do NOT understand the gospel and think that swallowing a wafer is necessary for salvation.

        2. A.F. [Micah] is certainly out of line insulting Catholics on a Catholic blog.

          M: But it is OK for Mr. Heschmeyer in a previous article to refer to the “ugly insanity of Calvin’s railing against [Transubstantiation] as satanic.” ???????

          Are you people for real?

          1. Yes.

            This is a Catholic blog. We’re going to say Catholic things. We don’t agree with Calvin, and think that his opinion on Transubstantiation denys the plain words of Christ: “for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed”.

            On the other hand, going onto a Catholic blog to insult Catholics is another matter entirely. If we had gone to a protestant blog and insulted protestants, it would be the same matter.

            This also isn’t Christlike. Christ never went into pagan temples and argued with the pagan priests — He didn’t even go in there at all!! When we hear of the apostle’s ministry, the major example we have that correlates to this situation is Paul in Athens. He didn’t insult the pagans there, and he sought to make his appeal winsomely using things that they already knew and believed.

            Take a page from Paul.

      2. I’m certainly not Micah’s biggest fan either but I think Alex is right. I will admit that in some of my comments to him, I let my righteous anger show but above all, Micah needs prayers.

        Matthew

        1. Ok guys….if I am un-Christian then I am in good company. Previous blog, on Protestantism and the Eucharist, Joe, before he cut off conversation, called micah a ‘blowhard.’ I was holding back.

          Joe works too hard on this wonderfully constructed, well-researched blog meekly to countenance the disruptive presence of a fundamentaloid minion of chaos. Someone has to speak up and some of us have. You are welcome to continue to throw your pearls of kindness and wisdom to be trampled by someone who clearly does not wish you and your faith well, and then spiritually to get torn up in the process, until you get sick of it.

          My 2 cents is, stick to civilized debating with guys like Craig, and like Joe, leave this guy to wither instead of encouraging him.

        2. M.P. Micah needs prayers.

          M: I do not need your prayers. Everything I’ve said has been in line with the word of God and all you continue to do is blow smoke because you’ve been refuted and publicly humiliated.

          1. “Everything I’ve said has been in line with the word of God”

            That’s what we claim too.

            So. Who do you suggest should arbitrate?
            1) The word of God can’t, because that’s what we’re in disagreement about.
            2) We could have the church fathers arbitrate, but as Joe has thoroughly shown before, the church fathers all believe like we do — all the way back to the 2nd century — immediately after the death of the last apostle.
            3) We could have the authorities of the historical Church arbitrate, but they repeatedly affirm the real presence.
            4) We could have miracles of God arbitrate, but any Eucharistic miracles that we cite, will undoubtedly be denounced by you as “false signs” ala revelation

          2. Very good, Alex F. You hit the nail on the head. Micah won’t acknowledge appeals to any authority other than himself – not the Bible, nor biblical exegesis, nor history, nor the earliest Christians, nor reason and logic, not even all the miracles throughout history (except, of course, those recorded in the Bible, since God would never do such things) up to the present day.

          3. Dear Mica , you have made an egregious error coming here and proclaiming ad nauseam your personal interpretations of scripture .

            You haven’t refuted anyone here . And I gonna prove it here , and I will be interested to se how you will exegete your way out of this

            You are a perfect example of the necessity of the church in interpreting scripture

            Its quite clear that you do not believe in transubstantiation ( inspite of the evidence in scripture ) Sitng the use of other metaphors like the sword that pierced Mary heart has no correlation to the flesh and blood discourse WHATSOEVER. These are not parallel texts and you are using them incorrectly to drive home your flawed view of scripture

            And yet you accuse catholics over flawed interpretations . that there pot calling the kettle black

            You said :
            Everything I’ve said has been in line with the word of God and all you continue to do is blow smoke because you’ve been refuted and publicly humiliated.

            MY RESPONSE
            Rubbish ; Everything you have said is your PERSONAL interpretation of scripture . In case you were unaware of the situation because of your oversized ego , its you that has blown smoke

            If we were to use your Eisegetical principle to disprove that Eucharist then we might as well throw all
            every literal meaning of every scriptural passage out the window .

            We would no longer , according to your theories be able to properly understand when Jesus was talking literally , because there are just way too many metaphors in the bible to refute them

            Talk about over reach misrepresenting scripture

            And you have nerve to blow your trumpet and claim victory when there isn’t

            Your nauseating hostility reminds me of the great catholic basher James White who himself so blind to his own vehement opposition to catholicism that he cannot exegete scripture properly and it is him and people like you who are so diametrically opposed to the catholic church that you are blinded by your own zeal against it

        3. M.P. I will admit that in some of my comments to him, I let my righteous anger show

          M: You are so bent on being a charity-churchmouse, that you don’t even realize that to have “righteous anger” is NOT a sin and something not to feel guilty over. Who in the world taught you this type of morality? It could’t have been from any Christian, because Christians believe the Bible and the Bible simply does’t teach that!

          Every Mass contains the prayer that, “by the hands of your holy angel, this offering may be borne to your altar in heaven in the sight of your divine majesty” (CCC 1383; Sungenis, p. 396).

          To be sure, the Bible does not say one solitary word about one solitary angel, zooming back and forth to heaven, carrying a transubstantiated sacrifice from every Mass on Earth to the throne room of God until the end of time! One wonders what mode of “Transubstantiation transportation” this busy bee uses to “carry” the sacrifice through the heavens? Apparently, the angel has no time to rest because God needs to be “appeased moment by moment by the re-presentation of the cross” (Sungenis, p. 396). Forget about asking questions because the Pope says, “whatever has been preached and believed throughout the whole Church with true Catholic faith since the days of antiquity is true, even if it not be subject to rational investigation, and even if it not be explained in words (Mysterium Fidei, 20; Reason 11). How convenient. Some people would say this emperor has no clothes. In any case, Scripture tells us to condemn any sophistical tricks played by angels who “carry” a gospel contrary to the biblical record, and we will indeed do that right here and now (Galatians 1:8-9).

  9. When Jesus consecrated the wine at the Last Supper, He spoke to St. John and revealed the following about Judas, His soon to be betrayer: “…He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. [27] And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly.”

    The fact that Satan entered Judas exactly at the time that he had received the Eucharist from Jesus, certainly seems to indicate that something MORE than ‘metaphor’ is taking place here. If Judas is the antithesis of what a follower of Christ should be, and satan physically entered into him at that very moment, it seems very reasonable that the opposite would occur to those who have true love for Christ. That is, not satan, but Christ Himself would enter into them. Both are physical events.

    So, I think this little detail shouldn’t be neglected in the conversation about the ‘Real Presence’. The ‘real presence’ of satan was certainly at work in Judas at the very moment he received the Holy Eucharist… unworthily.

    Something to think about.

    1. No, there is nothing to think about. Catholics are constantly and forever forgetting about the promise of the HOLY SPIRIT who comes to dwell with each believer, which makes mincemeat out of your Judas analogy. There never was, nor will there ever be, any need to physically consume the anatomical constituents of Christ the Lord. It is pure fantasy.

      1. Ummm except that we teach plainly that every believer receives the Holy Spirit at their baptism, as scripture plainly teaches.

        You don’t seem to know Catholic teaching very well.

      2. Catholics forget about the promise of the Holy Spirit? You don’t know the Catholic Church. As Bishop Fulton J Sheen said, there are millions of people who hate what they mistakenly think the Catholic Church is, but only a handful who hate what the Catholic Church actually is. Please, Micah, educate yourself.

  10. Micah –

    Please explain how the Holy Spirit can guide so many Catholics to hell? Or do you have the guts to say that men like Augustine and Acquinas (Catholics to the core) weren’t endowed with the Holy Spirit?

    I’m sure you won’t be able to explain yourself in less than three sentences and you use a bunch of misguided biblical passages to deflect from the truth that your whole worldview of the Holy Spirit is unworkable. There is some hope though.

    1. Whilst the wicked draw near against me, to eat my flesh. My enemies that trouble me, have themselves been weakened, and have fallen. (Psalm 26:2)

      By the wrath of the Lord of hosts the land is troubled, and the people shall be as fuel for the fire: no man shall spare his brother. And he shall turn to the right hand, and shall be hungry: and shall eat on the left hand, and shall not be filled: every one shall eat the flesh of his own arm: Manasses Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasses, and they together shall be against Juda. (Isaiah 9:19-20)

      And I will feed thy enemies with their own flesh: and they shall be made drunk with their own blood, as with new wine. (Isaiah 49:26)

      You that hate good, and love evil: that violently pluck off their skins from them, and their flesh from their bones? Who have eaten the flesh of my people, and have flayed their skin from off them: and have broken, and chopped their bones as for the kettle, and as flesh in the midst of the pot. (Micah 3:2-3)

      Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl in your miseries, which shall come upon you. […] Your gold and silver is cankered: and the rust of them shall be for a testimony against you, and shall eat your flesh like fire. (James 5:1,3)
      And the ten horns which thou sawest in the beast: these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her with fire. (Revelation 17:16)

      ++++++++++++++++++++++

      To eat somebody’s body and to drink somebody’s blood is to assault and persecute him/them and, thus, Jesus was not speaking metaphorically/symbolically (although, He was also speaking symbolically if we understand the Eucharist is also a symbol is understood correctly and completely) for that would mean the way to eternal life is to assault and persecute Jesus

  11. Well, well, well hate to see a discussion degenerate into uncharitable verbage. Converted 4 years ago. Believe in the Real Presence. Since it is a Mystery, it cannot be understood by reading Scripture alone.

    1. I have already said on this thread:
      if the Catholic position makes so much sense, why pray tell, do up to 70% of those in your camp not have a clue?

      http://www.catholic.com/audio-player/3970

      Catholic apologists repeatedly assert that a Christian relying on the Bible as his sole infallible authority will produce confusion. They claim one must have another infallible authority, the Papacy. Yet, when it comes to the Eucharist, their key doctrine, described in the audio as “the crown jewel” of the Catholic faith, seven out of ten Catholics are confused on it! This is precisely why I inisist that God would never obligate us to the philosophical conundrum resulting fromTransubstantiation, for it does nothing but minister endless questions, and therefore, He MUUUUST be opposed to it (1 Tim 1:3-4).

      1. Micah, faith by itself needs work, you have to be faithful by loving and obeying God.

        Here is the whole context of the first chapter of 1 Timothy:

        Timothy Charged to Oppose False Teachers
        3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. 5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

        Paul preached the real presence and taught Timothy the same. He taught Timothy to oppose those who don’t believe, the false prophets.

      2. Thats correct , confusion has born its fruits brother with 38,000 denominations of Christian protestantism . That about as much proof as one needs really

        1. Amen. You can see how I have engaged this sister-marryin,’ deep-fried-Twinkie-eatin,’ goob about a milion times in this thread. I am relatively certain he is from that inbred and shrinking crowd in Westboro, Kansas; took time out from trying to ruin combat-death funerals (thank you, Patriot Guard Riders) to give us unsaved apostates a little grief. It didn’t work, only served to sharpen our iron.

          If the undead thing pulls the stake out of its chest and returns, we’ll be ready for it. Deus Vult….

  12. Micah, remember it is Jesus Himself that gave us this “new Passover” with all of its OT symbolism and Jewish History to go with it. It was Jesus who injected the Eucharist into Christian history on the night before He died, and associated it with a “New Testament in My Blood”. If you think it is nothing significant, than why did He do this on the night before He died? And why does it contain so much of Jewish mystical theology and history going even back to Adam, the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life? Why is Jesus called the ‘New Adam’ by St. Paul? In associating Adam with Jesus, we also must associate the ‘fall’ of Adam by disobeying, and the eating, ‘forbidden fruit’ to the contrary command of Jesus, to positively ‘drink’ of the cup of His blood, and EAT His body…i.e.. the Eucharist.

    This is to say, that we all know it was an act of “eating'” that caused the fall of the parents of mankind. We read that God gave them only ONE major warning, and that was to NOT EAT from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. And what do we have Jesus commanding us to do? He gives us a commandment, and even stresses over and over again through similar threats of doom, in the Gospel narratives, the we MUST EAT SOMETHING. It is a new commandment, a new Testament, as Jesus calls it. So, Adam was told not to eat something (the forbidden fruit) lest he die, and Jesus tells us the opposite, he commands “those who eat my body and drink my blood have life in them”. Adam gave us death by eating, Jesus gives us life by eating. Don’t you see how they go together?

    We can never isolate the things of Christ, or His Church, from this great history of Israel which were the people of God. Everything Christian is a continuation of this great history and story. This is why we include the Old Testament readings with the New Testament readings in the ‘holy liturgy’ which in itself evolved from ancient Jewish practices and customs. Since the Apostles were Jewish, and Jesus also, it was only natural that they lived and followed early Jewish ritual and customs, given to them by God through the ‘Law and the Prophets’. And Jesus had no complaint against these. He said that He came to ‘fulfill’ the law and the Prophets, not to destroy them. He was ADDING to the treasury of faith given to us by the Israelites and Jews throughout the ages. That is, we have a “double treasure, the old and the new”.

    So, some of these customs of the ‘old’ remained in the ‘new’…which grew up like a sapling tree, even a “tree of Life”, just as Jesus said would happen in His various Gospel parables and teachings. And one of these customs was the “Pasch” of the Jews, which very clearly is associated with the institution of the Eucharist…because the Lord’s death took place at this very time of year. A wise man must tie all of this together, even as the Book of Psalms,Ecclesiastes, and Wisdom teach. And Christ wants us to be persons, and saints, of wisdom and understanding concerning these very things. It is all part of being ‘holy’ even as ‘your Father in Heaven is holy’.

    If we divorce this great story of Israel, and Jesus, from the story of Jesus’ Church and the era of the “New Testament in His Blood”, we lose all meaning, wisdom and understanding. For this reason, Adam’s fall must be associated with Jesus’ Resurrection. Adam’s commandment to NOT eat of the forbidden fruit, must be associated with Jesus’s new command that we MUST eat and drink what He tells us to…and that new Fruit is Jesus Himself in the Holy EUCHARIST.

    Now, we know this is not allegorical because we have the early practice of Christians doing this very thing, and keeping it as it’s most guarded treasure and custom. The celebration of the ‘Pascal mystery’ was so important to the early Christians, that it was not even taught to neophyte ‘catechumens’ until AFTER their baptism. In the early Church it was largely kept a secret, which even led to many understandings and persecutions by the Romans. I’m sure that you probably know this ancient history already. So, the history of the ‘catechumenate’ in the early church, before 300 AD, is important to be familiar with. If you don’t know about it there is a work by St. Hippolytus call ‘Apostolic Tradion of hippolytus, written in about about 250 AD concerning the Eucharist in early Christianity. Here is a link that you can copy and paste:

    http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/bibilotheque_rore_sanctifica/12-pretendue_tradition_apostolique_d_hippolyte/1934-burton_scott_easton-tradition_apostolique_d_hippolyte/Burton_Scott_Easton_-_The_Apostolic_Tradition_of_Hippolytus_(1934).pdf

    Generally speaking, as the new born Church began to grow, and spread throughout the Roman Empire (and even farther) before the 1st Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, new rules of organization were needed in the Church to adapt to it’s ever expanding size. That is, it grew from a ‘sapling’ in the time of the apostles, to be a young and fruitful tree by the year 325. Whereas, at the time of the Apostles and their successors ‘the Apostolic Fathers’ needed only bishops to guide the Church, at Nicaea, we find the bishops acknowledging ‘archiepiscopates’, to govern the Church in such places as Alexandria.

    All of this was taught by Christ beforehand, and was even prefigured in many Old Testament passages. This is all part of Christ’s command to “go out into the WHOLE WORLD and teach them to carry our all that I have commanded you.” It was one of the last things that He said to the Apostles before ascending into Heaven.

    So, the development of the Church was very natural, even as Jesus said: ‘Even as the smallest seed grows into a large tree such that the birds of the air can build their nests.’

    A further history of this growth can be found in ‘Eusebius Ecclesiastical History’ at the New Advent site.

    If we think Eusebius had good intentions when writing this history we can benefit tremendously by it. If we think he was a devil, for some reason, then we won’t benefit and will walk in darkness regarding the nature and history of the development of the early Church that Jesus founded. Knowledge brings wisdom, and so this History should not be neglected by those who seek to understand the development of the holy Church that Christ founded.

    May God help you to understand this great story, starting with Adam, continuing with Christ, and extending even up until our present day!

    Blessings and Peace.

    1. AW: Micah, remember it is Jesus Himself that gave us this “new Passover” with all of its OT symbolism and Jewish History to go with it. It was Jesus who injected the Eucharist into Christian history on the night before He died,

      M: What you omit to say is that the RCC teaches that when Jesus “injected” Himself into the Eucharist on the night before He died, HE OFFERED HIMSELF RIGHT THEN AND THERE IN SACRIFICE BEFORE HE EVEN WENT TO THE CROSS! RC foot-soldiers repeatedly try to justify their unbelievable doctrines by hiding behind that old stand-by, “IT’S A MYSTERY”, but we will not tolerate these excuses that go outside biblical boundaries…”no, not for a moment”, to quote Paul. Catholics are being duped, plain and simple. Repeat: rather than the Last Supper setting the stage as a simple memorial for future generations, they teach that Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice “in the bread and the wine” at the Last Supper, before He went to the cross! The allegedly “infallible” Council of Trent taught that, “At the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed [He] offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the form of bread and wine…” (Session 22, “On the Institution of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; CCC 1323 & 1365). This perverts the Lord’s Supper into something it was never intended. On the contrary, Christ offered up His body “on the tree”, per 1 Peter 2:24…i.e., at the cross, no sooner and no later; and certainly not at the Last Supper, and definitely not at any Mass going on today at the hands of a sacerdotal priesthood the Bible no where even mentions!

      AW: He gives us a commandment, and even stresses over and over again through similar threats of doom, in the Gospel narratives, the we MUST EAT SOMETHING.

      M: Here we go again, Catholics trying to convince that they are interested in keeping the commandment of Jesus at the Last Supper, but who, in fact, DO NOT do any such thing. Jesus said to “DO THIS” (partake of both elements). Catholic DO NOT (“have one or the other”).

      1. Being ‘hung up’ on the necessity of both the body and the blood taken together seems a little ‘pharisaical’ to me. You scrutinize the scriptures in your own way, thinking you know everything, even as Jesus’ Pharisee enemies did back when they persecuted Him.

        The early Church, as with all other ecclesiastical controversies (Such as the Judaism controversy of the 1st Council of Jerusalem) was given the power by Christ to ‘loose and bind’ such customs, even including the distribution of the Eucharist, as the Church saw fit.
        If you say that the Church did not have that right, or power, given to it by Christ…well, thats your opinion. But if you good ‘Extreme Unction’ and Holy Viaticum’ you will find a lot of info. on how the Eucharist and Sacraments were provided in extreme circumstances. For example, some such circumstances involved baptizing and giving Holy communion to martyrs waiting for execution, or doing the same for very sick people in remote locations. There are very charitable reasons for why one species of Communion would suffice in such circumstances.

        On another topic, St. Paul said to ‘be an imitator of me as I am of Christ’. If you want to imitate Christ, you should exhibit a little more charity into your comments. Notice how beautiful were all of the words of the Gospel, even when they were ‘reprimanding’ in nature.

        The Fathers of the Church also wrote as such (i.e.. 1st Letter of Clement, Ignatius letters, etc…).

        I’d recommend that you try to copy such demeanor and style when you write also. It’s pretty immature and brutish, in my opinion; at least compared with the charity exhibited with other Christian writers over the last 2 millennium.

        God bless.

        1. awlms – regarding the part of your post that addresses the heavy-handed approach to proselytizing…I am reminded of the initial forays of the Conquistadores and how unsuccessful they were at coercing conversions..until the appearance of Our Lady of Guadalupe at Tepeyac Hill. Her gentle example and holy intercession resulted in nine million conversions of the indigenous population over the next decade.

          When Jesus wants to get the message across to people who honestly and earnestly are searching for the truth, He sends His gentle Mother. Sometimes I have to work to remember that, in moments of frustration.

          1. AK,

            Jesus also taught His disciples, right after the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper:

            “A NEW COMMANDMENT I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. [35] By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.”(John 13:34)

            So, this is also a proof that can be used to tell the true Church from the many false ones. Because this ‘new commandment’ is associated with the Eucharist, and is part of Jesus’ farewell address to His faithful disciples ,after the ‘breaking of the bread’ and before His passion, I think the the close correlation of the Eucharist and the virtue of Charity is established. 1. We have a “NEW TESTAMENT in My blood” and 2. we have “A NEW COMMANDMENT” to love one another. All said within minutes of each other.

            So, if we want to follow the Lord’s ‘new commandment’, it is therefore best to love all Christians; and maybe even more so the ‘lost sheep’ of the Lord, spoken of in the Christ’s parable of the Good Shepherd.

            May all learn from Jesus Christ Who says: …”learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls.” (Matt. 11:29)

          2. Careful, AK. You’re confusing the Conquistadores (the secular military) with the churchmen who accompanied them. The Church has NEVER tried to convert anyone by force, and in fact has always condemned any attempt to do so.

        2. AW: Being ‘hung up’ on the necessity of both the body and the blood taken together seems a little ‘pharisaical’ to me.

          M: Would that we all would be “hung up” on obedience to Christ. Call me a pharisee if you must. I can assure you that not only does it mean nothing to me, but Jesus laughs at it as well.
          Why?
          Because as Trent says that at the get-go, JESUS DIDN’T EVER COMMAND ANY SUCH THING IN THE FIRST PLACE!
          And what pray tell, do you think the Lord Jesus Christ thinks of THAT? I’ll tell what He thinks. He spits on it.

          Let’s review:
          With unmitigated gall, the Council of Trent subverts the Lord’s authority by declaring, “This holy synod, taught by the Holy Spirit…declares that lay people…are not obliged by any divine command to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both kinds, and that it can in no way be doubted without injury to faith that Communion under either kind is sufficient to them for salvation” (“Concerning Communion Under Both Kinds”, ch 1).

          To suppose that we are “not obliged by any divine command” to partake of both bread and wine, very simply proves Rome is God’s arch-enemy, and they certainly weren’t “TAUGHT” by the Holy Spirit, for the H.S. does not teach in contradiction to His word. The axiom He provided at the Last Supper is a foundation that stands immovable, regardless of the bulldozing tendencies of the Roman oligarchy to uproot it.

          Going beyond the IMMEDIATE lunacy of the RC position, equally infuriating is that by taking the sledgehammer to Christ’s command, they know DARN well people are going to question this, and so naturally, we are expecting some sleazy excuse to justify their disobedience. Quoting Jesus from chapter 6, Trent says: “If anyone eats this bread, he will live forever” (“Concerning Communion Under Both Kinds”, ch. 1). They assumed that because the Lord only mentions bread in this verse, and NOT wine, then receiving Communion in either form is sufficient.

          Will someone pass me the smelling salts, I think I’m gonna faint!

          That the council could actually think this type of shotgun apologetic will get past the “blazing eyes of fire” waiting for them on Judgment Day (Rev 1:14; 19:12) proves they all deserve a dunce cap. The fact is, it’s as common as the noonday sun to speak on a topic, but take for granted things that are not mentioned. For instance, everyone agrees that just because drinking is not mentioned in, “Give us this day our daily bread”, that this is a prayer that we die of thirst.

          AW: [Delivering the Eucharist] to very sick people in remote locations [justifies the convenience of communion only under one kind].

          M: This “charitable” response can by no means take away the force of Christ’s command on the one hand, and the unbelievable claim that a “whole Christ” is contained in each every crumb and drop of the Eucharist. Does every drop in the ocean consist of the WHOLE OCEAN? NO. It is pure madness to assert any such thing, yet Catholics are all for it when it comes to the RC wafer.
          You then went on to tell me that the church has the power to “loose”, and I am reading that as “loosing ourselves from obeying Christ as the church sees fit”. Truly, the manipulation of the Scriptures by RC personnel knows no bounds, and thus, it is easy to see how the Lord will “spew you out of His mouth” come Judgment Day as we read in Revelation.

          1. “And what pray tell, do you think the Lord Jesus Christ thinks of THAT? I’ll tell what He thinks. He spits on it.”

            Does anyone else here need any more clear piece of evidence we are dealing with a raving psycho, regardless of religious belief, and that we here are are best and most charitably served by ignoring him until he goes away?

          2. You must know that it was the early Church that wrote the NT scriptures that you talk about, the same early Church that had the sacred writings read in public at the multitudes of Eucharistic services/agape, etc…all of which were administered by an authorized teacher, either bishop or presbyter/priest. I

            If you read Church history, you will note that only those scriptures which were read at the liturgies throughout the world were considered to be held authentic, and suitable for inclusion in a new Canon of Scripture, as compared to the Old Testament. This, for instance, is why the Gospel of Thomas is not included in the NT canon, as also so many of the other Gnostic Gospels. And, even some ‘spurious’ writings that were indeed read at the Eucharistic liturgies, such as the ‘Shephard’ and the ‘Didache’
            were not included. It actually took about 300 years, until about 400 AD that the last book of the NT was canonically included for the NT, being considered mostly ‘spurious’ before this date.This is to say, the Bible that you read was produced by the early CATHOLIC Church…whether you like that or not.

            And the actual liturgy itself came before any NT scripture was written. This is basic Church history. And, It was the Eucharist that was called by Christ the ‘New Testament’, not scripture. It was the sameCatholic Church who decided that referring to the scriptures as the ‘New Testament’ would be an acceptable practice, even though this does cause a little scriptural confusion considering Christ’s words at the Last Supper. In any case, the ability to govern the Church was given to the apostles and their successors. Though you certainly seem to doubt this.

            I would advise you study well Eusebius’ Church History. This wprk reveals and teaches many facts about the nature and functioning of this early Church before 300 AD.

            And, I think You should charitably point out exactly where in this early history of the Church that i your opinion it became a tool and servant of satan?

            The Canons of Nicaea Council I – are also important…for the sake of understanding early Church ecclesiology.

            If you ignore these historical facts from authentic Church History, it just shows that indeed you do not care for the truth… that you so frequently boast of defending.

            It basically means that you are creating your own theology and Church, even though it might include only one person.

            Regarding Church authority in the early Church, there are many common sense problems that needed to be solved back then, and Jerusalem Council 1 is a good example. Even great Sts. such as Peter and Paul were at odds.

            There were many decisions to be made back then, and which required a lot of discussion and debate. And then the authorized leaders…Apostles and Bishops after them, made the decisions necessary to guide the ever expanding Church.

            So much of these decisions were based on wisdom and common sense…..which are actually gifts of the Holy Spirit, the same Spirit that Jesus promised and God sent at Pentecost.

            It seems that you have a huge problem with any sort of Church leadership not of your own making. Otherwise please teach the commentary here, where exactly the early Church authorities/Bishops went wrong, and where they were historically right. Was Ignatius of Antioch wrong? Polycarp? Clement I? St. Irenaus? Justin Martyr?

            Or are all of these mere heretics in your opinion?

            Why talk about Trent when you don’t even give and opinion on the 1st four centuries of Christianity?

            And then desert fathers such as Sts. Antony, Hilarion, Ammon, Macarius, Pacomius, and thousands of others….

            Are all of these also heretics, even though St. Athanasius wrote the first life of St. Antony with his own pen? And knew personally so many of the others? Are all these heretics?

            At least Catholics are not ashamed of writing clearly what they believe. Can you do the same…and is there any historical precedence for such belief in Church History?

            Just a few extra questions for you, since you are certainly indefatigable in writing.

            May God grant you His Peace.

      2. Micah in response to your post SEPTEMBER 3 / 2016 4:16pm

        You call those who defend catholic teaching as RC FOOT SOLDIERS hiding behind the word MYSTERY . Let me explain something to you : In our human weakness and our imperfect intellect we CANNOT know everything .

        The humble awareness of NOT KNOWING all the details of HOW God works is NOT making excuses ; its admitting that we CANNOT know how God does what he does in our limited capacity as mere human beings : Thats called faith . So to say that we are MAKING EXCUSES when we say something is a MYSTERY is misunderstand what we mean when say something is a Mystery

        You said that these EXCUSES go OUTSIDE of biblical boundaries .
        Well as I just explained , they are not . You just fail to understand our use of the word MYSTERY
        Having Faith in Gods omnipotence, in spite of our lack of understanding , is in no way extraneous to the gospels ; its actually required .

        I believe that God can work miracles . I don’t know HOW he does this , but I believe , THROUGH FAITH , that he does

        So your premise is false , and you are completely misguided on this matter

        You then go on to say that Paul said CATHOLICs are being duped . WHICH PAUL SAID THIS ????

        Why do you use words like “INJECTED” . What is your purpose for the use of such words that don’t have any scriptural basis .

        We don’t believe Jesus “INJECTED” himself into the Eucharist as you put it . Why be so condescending to the text of scripture ?????

        WE believe that Jesus can become present in the eucharist in a “MYSTERIOUS” way , and we DO NOT limit his capacity to do so merely on the basis of not knowing HOW he can actually do this

        Your arrogance is infecting your ability to see things clearly

        Is it fair then to say that you yourself are INJECTING your own interpretations ?????

        You said that our belief in the Lords Supper as is in the mass is a perversion and NOT WHAT JESUS INTENDED.

        So you are now the honoured one amongst us who knows what Jesus intentions were. Thank you for putting us stupid catholics in their place , lol

        What would we ever do without your private interpretations 🙂

        Jesus said himself that it was HIS BODY , and the very BODY that was going TO BE GIVEN UP . So just to set the record straight , it might just be you my friend that is calling Jesus a liar and here’s why

        Who are you to put limitations on the power of Christ . This GOD MAN created the universe, time and space , but you reject his capacity to present his redemption before it happened in time and space .

        Can you please explain how the Angels have been saved PRIOR to Christs redemption even BEFORE it happened . Christ’s redemption is Eternal and his redemption is NOT limited to your circumscribed analysis within of an historical event

        In fact I do NOT circumscribe Christs power to PRE-PRESENT his passion at the last supper , anymore than I circumscribe his capability to do so past beyond the historical event either . Its you that has done this

        By what authority do you claim the Jesus is incapable of doing such a thing . You said that his sacrifice was NO SOONER or LATER and CERTAINLY NOT at the last Supper .

        Really , how can you be so certain . How can you , a mere mortal of a man , be so certain that Christ CANNOT pre-present his own sacrifice :
        This same Jesus who raised himself body from the dead , is now , according to your great insight , incapable of PRE PRESENTING his sacrifice, by bringing it forward in SPACE and TIME .

        Jesus seem’s to think that he can .

        Lets have a think about this in a better context ,

        Jesus is God
        Jesus created the universe
        Jesus forgave sins
        Jesus cures peoples illnesses instantly
        Jesus defy’s nature and walks on water
        Jesus raised from the dead
        But Jesus “CANNOT” PRE-PRESENT his sacrifice at the last supper
        Jesus “CANNOT” RE-PRESENT his same sacrifice at the mass

        Under what pretext do you make such an authoritative claim . It cannot be scripture because Jesus tells that its his BODY that “WILL BE” given up at the last supper

        Your authority is your ego , and thats really all it is

        And yes Catholics faithfully do what Christ has asked when he said DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME

        You said that they don’t . Well that’s essentially what the mass is ; the very thing that Christ commanded them to do

        Jesus had intended for the last supper to be presented again and again in his memory , so then how is the mass NOT what Jesus intended

        According to your logic then ; By ” DOING” what Jesus commanded them TO DO , i.e. offering up the bread and wine in consecration , they are NOT DOING what Jesus commanded them to do . What sort of bizarre twisted logic are you presenting here .

        You haven’t proven your case at all , other than you saying that that you have . It’s just a case of you not seeing what is plainly there in front of you .

        Please I would dearly love to here your personal interpretations of what DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME actually means , and why your personal authority and interpretation supersedes the obvious literal content of Christ’s words .

        Looking forward to a very interesting answer to that

  13. Some very interesting arguments both for, and against, the Catholic view. I always find it quite interesting that people, like Micah, always get so arrogant, self righteous, and sometimes downright hateful when trying to make a point against Catholic teaching on something. So I ask myself why do they always seem to take that sort of path? Is it because they have so much love and concern for Catholics that they don’t want to see them go to hell for their beliefs? Listening to his explanations, I just don’t get that impression. I don’t know how anyone else feels about it.

    The only thing that I come away with listening to Micah is that he is obsessed with being right, and proving that he is right. And that he is also obsessed with proving that everyone that doesn’t agree with his assessment is totally wrong, or a moron. He seems to be they type of person that just loves to argue to prove himself correct or superior. And that really sort of shows what his real motives are. Which in my humble opinion, have nothing at all to do with being a Christian. So, other than trying to prove himself correct, and everyone who disagrees with him to be a moron, I am at a loss to see any other motive.

    I’m always surprised how closely anti Catholic arguments seem so very similar in their delivery, type of arguments, and purpose, as do the atheistic arguments against God and Christianity itself.

    I guess that my question would be, why does the Catholic view of John’s gospel upset Micah so much? Does he have a genuine Christian concern for the fact that Catholics believe that it is the body and blood of Jesus. Is it really causing him, or those that believe that it is the body and blood of Christ, any harm? I think not, in both cases. However if it really is, as Catholics believe, the body and blood of Jesus, and if it really does for their soul what they believe that it does, it would seem to me that it would be wise to believe that it is what Catholics believe it to be.

    1. Dan, you’re spot-on. I would add, since micah and “mick jagger” obviously hate Catholicism it is in their interest to disrupt a well-constructed and thoughtful Catholic blog with posts that are (much like the fundamentalist hellfire sermons they ape) shallow, speculative, repetitive, and past-borderline abusive – geared towards the weak and vulnerable. Contrast with Craig Truglia, a Protestant who is a scholarly and civil gentleman, and whose learned posts (to me, at least) cause thoughtful Catholics to delve more deeply into the history and tenets of their faith – never a bad thing. I allowed myself to get sucked into the vitriol with these two characters and have learned my lesson. I hope others do as well.

    2. D: Some very interesting arguments both for, and against, the Catholic view….[but] it would seem to me that it would be wise to believe that it is what Catholics believe it to be.

      M: Yet because you fail to interact with even one of the points I made that you were impressed with, and because you failed to refute even one line of my commentary, any further opinions you make lose their impact.

      D: I always find it quite interesting that people, like Micah, always get so arrogant, self righteous, and sometimes downright hateful when trying to make a point against Catholic teaching on something.

      M: Your ridiculous assessment of me is without warrant and is typical. When someone studies an issue in detail, people like you are shocked out of their socks and are inwardly jealous that they are not so familiar with Scripture as those they are chiding. Consequently, they ease their guilty conscience by calling their opponent an arrogant slob. You are offended that someone like me can actually be CONFIDENT about his conclusions because you yourself do not possess any such confidence. You equate my zeal with “HATRED”, which is still yet another misguided notion. I keep on reminding that Jesus says He HATES false doctrine in Rev 2:15, and if Heeeee hates it, SO CAN I. It will be up to Him to access if my hatred was justified, but because the evidence is so overwhelming AGAINST the obnoxious idea of eating the bodily components of the Savior, I am confident I have nothing to worry about.

      D: in my humble opinion, [Micah has] nothing at all to do with being a Christian.
      M: You sir, are a very foolish person indeed and your jab merely rolls off me like water off a duck’s back. I once again affirm that because you could not put together one sentence to refute anything I said, you are obviously ashamed of your own biblical illiteracy and so you lash out at someone like me who intimidates you. If you think for one minute I am going to be ashamed of the fact that I can quote Scripture and put two and two together by using the brain God gave me, you are only kidding yourself. My conclusions, after much study, amount to only “being obsessed with being right” according to you! Baloney. Again, I believe this comes down to a case of jealousy. You find it shocking that Catholic doctrine can be met head-on with such a truckload of biblical evidence against it, that you equate this evidence with an “obsession I have with being right”. Your delusion is great indeed.

      D: I guess that my question would be, why does the Catholic view of John’s gospel upset Micah so much?

      M: Becauuuuuuuse, there are so many people headed for hell by believing it! The fact that the physical constituents of Jesus were never meant to be consumed by mouth, Catholics end up being guilty of idolatry by worshipping a mere piece of bread which they think, will get them to heaven. However, the apostle threw a fit in the book of Galatians at the thought of adding even ONE thing to the gospel of grace. He would do likewise with Rome, which has added FAR MORE requirements by demanding that we do this that and the other thing for eternal life, with all these “other things” being on the same level as the cross-work of Christ. Hence, all Catholics are lost.
      Let’s EAT another portion of Scripture while we’re at it…

      “So I went to the angel, telling him to give me the little book. And he said to me, “Take it and eat it; it will make your stomach bitter, but in your mouth it will be sweet as honey” (Ezekiel 2:8-3:3:1-10).

      Just as Ezekiel was told to eat from the book he saw in the outstretched hand, so too was John told to “take and eat” the little book held in outstretched hands (Revelation 10), which in turn reminds us of when Christ told His disciples to “take and eat” what was in His outstretched hands at Supper.
      This “eating of books” graphically illustrates the dual reality pertaining to both the gladness and sadness of the message: the sweetness of God’s word in His final victory was coupled with some bitter truths about judgments to come, which nauseated these prophets. Nevertheless, “eating” was meant to INTERNALIZE the message, making it an inward passion, ready to deliver to others, for the prophet was told, “Hear with your ears and receive into your heart all my words” (Ez 3:10; cf. Psalm 119:9, 103; Jer 15:16; Job 23:12). This is precisely what we are to do when we “eat” the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ!

      The books (or scrolls) that were eaten were not made of any sort of literal paper because our bodies were not designed to digest those materials. Neither is the Catholic Eucharist made up of the literal Christ, which our bodies were not designed to digest either. The books, as well as the bread in Communion, were indeed meant to be consumed, but the overarching purpose of both was to digest what was said and then proclaim those truths:
      “Eat what thou findest; eat this scroll and go speak to the house of Israel” (Ez 3:2). Thus, the concept of eating which is defined as incorporating into our being what we have heard and believed, has a rock-solid foundation that Rome totally avoids in her catechism because it would obviously rain on her parade.

      1. What were the early people who knew people who knew Jesus doing. That’s it .Done, final, that is the end. Not what People think they have figured out centuries later. Were early Christians who knew guys who knew guys who knew Jesus taking bread and wine and saying it was actually the body and blood of Christ. Were they? And please don’t quote scripture saying its symbolic, just answer the question. And if these followers were, it’s good enough for me. If they were not, and said the bible is going to be all put together in a few centurys, and it will prove its symbolic, so its symbolic. Or were they all wrong and in hell (you said they go to hell for thinking it’s real presence) for going against scripture, which they didn’t have yet, at least the New Testament. If you prove it was already symbolic, everyone was saying that, only a few freaks were saying it was real, I’m in. It just seems to me they all took it literally, at least in the limited writings we have. Screw all the “this is what bible says” stuff, I’m sticking with early Christians. You are not. We shall see I guess.

    3. Here’s what I would say to you Dan. Catholic teaching claims to be “Dogmatically Infallible.” So if you believe in the Magisterium you can’t be wrong! “The only thing that I come away with listening to Micah is that he is obsessed with being right, and proving that he is right.” Really? reeeaaaly? Micah’s the one obsessed with being right…. love how you turn these things around!

      “Is it because they have so much love and concern for Catholics that they don’t want to see them go to hell for their beliefs?” I don’t believe catholics are going to hell for believing in something as silly as transubstantiation. They are Christian enough for me. They believe in Jesus, that’s spot on.

      However, you are completely backwards again. Catholics and Evangelicals both do communion. It is the Catholics that claim the protestant communion is invalid (or wrong) again THEY are the ones obsessed with being right NOT the other way around. We are not saying their communion is invalid, we are saying what they believe about it is silly, irrational, has no bases in anything, and doesn’t conform to any experience that anyone has ever had ever.

    1. My response to you is the same I gave to Dan. You accomplish absolutely NOTHING by your blurb, but I know it gives you pleasure to at least say SOMETHING… to ease your guilty conscience, hoping to hide the fact that you have nothing meaningful or of value to submit.

      1. Micah, I pray you find Jesus in the Most Holy Eucharist.

        Ignatius of Antioch – Church Father

        “I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

        “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

        Justin Martyr

        “We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). cah, I pray that you find Jesus in the most Holy Eucharist.

        1. Justin has already been dealt with elsewhere. You don’t even realize what you’re reading. I never met one Catholic who did. Justin believed that Christ passed into the digestive tract to “nourish” us, but modern Catholicism does not (CCC 1377). READ WHAT HE SAYS: “the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus”. Read it again. And again…. until you wake up out of your spiritual coma. If you ever do, you will realize that our own flesh changes and is nurtured by the nutrients taken into the digestive tract. Justin apparently thought the body of Christ was broken down and distributed in the same manner. Someone along the way realized that the ramifications of such thinking were disgusting beyond belief, so they made Christ pack His bags BEFORE the stomach acids kicked in so He wouldn’t so rudely be escorted OUT of our digestive tract.

          As for Ignatius, it is utterly criminal what catholic apologists have done to Iggy’s work. They attempt to make it look as though the Dosetists (to whom he was speaking) objected to the Eucharist because they didn’t believe the bread and wine used to celebrate it to be the literal flesh and blood of Christ. That simply isn’t true; rather, Ignatius conveys that the gift of God is eternal life made possible by the sacrifice of Christ. That sacrifice is what the Eucharist is all about. It is the sacrifice and suffering of Christ the Dosetists spoke against and, therefore, abstained from celebrating the Eucharist in which thanksgiving is offered for the cross-work of our Savior. Ergo, there is absolutely no contextual support for claiming that Ignatius was referring to the Eucharist bread as being the literal flesh of Christ. That is merely assumed by those who already believe it.

          Finally, you say, “I pray that you find Jesus in the most Holy Eucharist”.

          No such prayer will be answered because the physical anatomy of the Messiah is no more in your RC wafer, then there is a man in the moon. When one believes in the promise of the Holy Spirit which Christ promised in His absence, one does not need His physical anatomy in any way shape or form, as it would accomplish nothing. Jesus said His physical anatomy was “GOING AWAY” no less than 10 times. Hence, Communion is a monument to His real physical ABSENCE, not His real physical PRESENCE, for He said to do this in remembrance of me. One does not have a memorial service for someone who is physically in attendance. Now wake up!

          1. I’m afraid it is what the protestants have done by their mental gymnastics with Ignatius that as I said to Craig earlier, would make Simone Biles jealous, is what is truly absurd beyond reason. Here is Ignatius of Antioch in his own words:

            ” They refrain from the eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father of his goodness raised up.”

            Once again, Ignatius does not say that they (Docetics) refrain from the Eucharist because they do not confess that the Eucharist is “about Christ’s sacrifice.” Ignatius does not say that the Docetics refrain from the Eucharist because they do not confess that the Eucharist is “thanksgiving for the cross-work of our Savior.” No rather Ignatius says that “they refrain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist IIIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSS TTHHHHHHHEEE FLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESH!!!!!!!!!!
            of our Savior Jesus Christ!

            It’s truly astounding that so many protestants, like a certain president from the 90s, can’t figure out the meaning of the word “is.” They just can’t handle the truth.

            May God be with you all.

            Matthew

          2. Matthew – did you ever see the original Star Trek season 2 episode, “The Trouble with Tribbles?” Toward the end of the episode, Dr. McCoy came up with a solution to the tribble problem on the enterprise.

            “If you stop feeding them, they stop growing…’

            I have seen a dozen places where this bully – not troll – hateful….little…bully – has apparently been properly skinned and gutted, and it keeps coming back because the anonymity of the internet lets him do it. And because, you all keep feeding it.

            I watched a beautiful young girl lose her spiritual armor, then wither and die in no small part due to the bullying of evangelical larvae that grew into a venomous reptile like this one.

            A last appeal to you all…when the banjo music cues again, don’t listen, like Achilles’ men passing the Sirens…just let it wither and die for lack of feeding….

          3. Ak, I know exactly what you’re talking about 🙂 LOL! The only reason I am responding now is for the sake of readers of the blog. It will take nothing short of direct Divine Intervention ala Saul in Acts 9 to help Micah and I pray he gets it. But I will not stand idly by as my Mother, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the Bride of Christ, gets blasphemed, sullied, and spat on by the ravings of a lunatic heretic. I will not stand idly by as the Miraculous Eucharist, instituted by our God and Lord Jesus Christ and made possible by the power of the Holy Spirit, is blasphemed by similar mad ravings. If you attack these, you attack my family. But I will be done shortly.

            May God be with you all.

            Matthew

          4. Matthew – interesting, I have my copy of “Letters to the Churches” in front of me. The reference you make is in Ignatius’ Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter VII to be specific. The imprecations against the Docetae don’t even come up until Chapter XI of the Letter to the Trallians. Deliverance Boy should read his “Iggy” a little more closely. as well, maybe he’d see the dire threats against schismatics, and the exhortations to obey the Bishops and chosen Presbyters (priests, of course), who are the only ones to “administer…a proper Eucharist” (Smyrnaeans, Ch VIII). Since the Eucharist is the subject of this thread. Right, Banjo Boy?

            It’s what happens when it spends its time going back and forth between here and a Parster Jimmuh White website every time it’s stumped. Bound to get those references mixed up a bit.

            You have a good night, my friend. God be with you. Oh, and you too, Micah, you bullying reptile.

          5. You actually think what you are saying here is true? Read your history books. You said something about a balloon in one of your posts here, maybe yours will burst soon.

        2. No this is very interesting! I really do enjoy these quotes from the early church members in the 1st century.

          However the fallacy that’s being made here is we are expected to believe that their opinions are more believable and truer just because of the time period.

          Am I not raising a legitimate objection?

          In philosophy isn’t that called the appeal to authority?

          The issue or the question is not When did some church members start going awry or being wrong; The question is IF they are wrong, and the strengths of their arguments!

          1. “Am I not raising a legitimate objection?

            In philosophy isn’t that called the appeal to authority?”

            Andrew – you could say that same thing about Luther and Calvin and everyone who followed him up to Pastor Ted Haggard and Joel Osteen and every other micro and mega church following in some fashion after the Reformed tradition (oh, that word).

            Catholics believe that men who learned either directly from the apostles, or from those who learned from the Apostles, have more credible theological authority than someone who lived 1400-1900 years later.

            We realize your “mileage varies.”

            “I don’t believe catholics are going to hell for believing in something as silly as transubstantiation. They are Christian enough for me. They believe in Jesus, that’s spot on.”

            I most certainly do appreciate that, and sincerely. I am sure others here do as well.

            But look around on this site. You’ll find scads of those in the Reformed tradition, who believe – and vehemently advocate – just the opposite. They think they are right, sola. And some of them would say your soul is in danger because of what you said you believe.

            Which of you is right? Does that tell you something?

          2. Andrew – this is very often what happens when Reformed are encouraged to study the early Church Fathers, and Doctors such as Aquinas.

            https://evangelicalexodus.com/

            For my two cents, I believe God has a plan, and that Acts 5: 34-39 applies to the ultimate outcome of these apologetic debates….

      2. We know who you are, you’ve accomplished that loud and clear. May the Lord Jesus have mercy on you and bring you to the fullness of His Truth which you will find only in the Church he founded here on earth Matthew 16. Eph 2:20

        1. A.K. Micah, you bullying reptile….you should read “Iggy” a little more closely.

          M: Needless to say, you are nothing but a total hypocrite in light of the Council of Trent stating that anyone who says Christ was speaking metaphorical in John 6 was under the direction of Satan.
          Oh, but heavens to betsy, theyyyyyy ought not be considered as speaking from a bully pulpit???????
          Yeah, right.

          Matt P: Ignatius says that “they refrain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist IIIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSS TTHHHHHHHEEE FLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESH!!!!!!!!!!
          of our Savior Jesus Christ!

          It’s truly astounding that so many protestants…can’t figure out the meaning of the word “is.” They just can’t handle the truth.

          M: On the contrary, you argument cannot stand because Iggy was a very metaphorical writer, and what you don’t know is that he used the concept of “FAITH” as being “THE FLESH OF THE LORD”, which instantly weakens your argument, which I will get to shortly.
          First of all, my position is that T is a false doctrine, and that being so, IT HAD TO START SOMEWHERE. It was prophesied that the minute the apostles were out of the picture, false doctrine would quickly creep in. Therefore, even if what you interpret about Iggy is true, it does no harm to my contention that T began very early on.

          Nevertheless, there is evidence that Iggy does NOT support your view. For those with a little more sense than you, I will explain.
          Basically, your argument hinges on “The Eucharist izzzz the flesh…” from

          ‘They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.’ (Letter to the Smyrnaeans).

          As a side note, Catholics TYPICALLY contend that when Jesus said He would give His flesh for the life of the world, He meant the giving of His flesh in the Eucharist. On the other hand, Iggy agrees with the Protestant position that He was referring to the flesh He would give by suffering on the CROSS.
          Anyway, the evidence does not support that Iggy had notions of cannibalism running through his head THERE, or anywhere else. We say the RCC erroneously relies on Iggy for support of Transubstantiation by a CASUAL reading of his words at first blush; when in fact the crux of his argument was simply wielding the Eucharist as a metaphor for the actual flesh of Christ against the Gnostics who said HE DID NOT REALLY COME IN THE FLESH and had not really suffered.
          Iggy’s use of “flesh”, “blood” and “leaven” as METAPHORS leaves no room for him to be entertaining thoughts of “Transubstantiation”, a term not even used TILL CIRCA 1200.

          Watch it: Christians are exhorted to be changed into “new leaven,” and that new leaven is by following Jesus Christ. He speaks not of bread being changed into deity, but of Christians being changed into “the bread of Christ”.

          “Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be ye changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ.”

          Here he is not speaking of the Eucharist, but of avoiding bad company and becoming more like our Lord, reminding us of 1 Cor 5:6-8: “Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch… the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”

          In his letter to the Romans, he looks forward to being fed as “food for the wild beasts,” which is to be taken literally of course, as he was about to be fed to the lions, but Iggy was not one to miss the opportunity for a metaphor. “I am the wheat of God…and let me be ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ.” Since Jesus was “that bread which came down from heaven” (John 6:31-58), Iggy desires to follow in His footsteps; that is, to be ground like “the wheat of God” and become like “the pure bread of Christ.”

          What we see in all of these examples is that in some way or another, Christians are exhorted to be more like our Savior by use of a metaphor in which we are “changed into the new leaven,” or become the “wheat of God” that is like the “pure bread of Christ,” or, “Wherefore, clothing yourselves with meekness, (WATCH IT NOW)
          renewed in faith, THAT IS, the flesh of the Lord,
          and in love, THAT IS, the blood of Christ” (To the Trallians, VIII).

          Had Iggy been less metaphorical in his writing, and had he been less prone to apply the metaphors of flesh, blood, leaven, wheat and bread so freely, RC foot-soldiers might have a case for early belief in the “real presence.” As matters stand, they most certainly do not.

          Based then on the D’s not believing Christ came in the flesh, and Iggy’s metaphorical use of flesh elsewhere; coupled with the fact that He no where else spoke about the Eucharist in a way that would support Roman dogma; the Catholic position which asserts he is speaking literally is definitely suspect. One would be a fool to risk their eternal life on a man famous for writing metaphorically, but in this one ambiguous place think they have found victory for the doctrine of T.

  14. Joe, really interesting read, as usual. Thanks. As for the comments section, it’s blowing up lately. Can you get someone compile Cliffs notes versions? Ha.

  15. They are right to extent for themselves. They can’t have the Eucharist or know the Real Presence because they don’t have any concentrated hands among them. And if they do happen to have a former priest among them offering communion, his and their sinful souls would be receiving in error. So they could never experience or receive God’s Grace from the Eucharist. This leads to the continued belief that It(Him) is just symbolic. The same happens to Catholics that receive Jesus regularly in a state of sin. They too start to believe the Eucharist is just a symbol.

  16. Micah, actually you are the one shocked and can’t believe that people actually believes what Jesus said in the bible. He said if you don’t eat His flesh and drink His blood, you have no life in you. His disciples who can’t take His words left Him (John 6:66). We believe because Jesus said so and thought so. You think modern person like you know how early Christian life was like better than Jesus’ Apostles and the Founding Fathers. You don’t have a clue and it is very obvious. You need to read history some more in order to understand why so many people on this post have strong opinions and oppositions to your erroneous interpretation of the bible. You kinda made your self the infallible authority, you are your own pope.

    1. Spence…your entire comment presupposes that every one on planet earth turn their brains over to the Vatican hat-check girl and go mindlessly into the Pope’s waiting room to receive his instruction.

      Furthermore, spare me the claptrap about reading what HISTORY says FIRST, and then have THAT conform to the Bible.
      Finally, do not tell me for one minute that my interpretation of the Bible is erroneous without giving examples as to why you think so.
      Two can play the same game. Watch me.
      Spencer, your interpretation of the Bible is erroneous.

      1. Micah, I asked who told you that the Real Presence is a hoax? That is not the teaching of the Apostles of Church and the scholars of Scripture who are the Church Fathers. I asked you if you read The Didache, it is the historical proof that Real Presence of God in the Eucharist is not a hoax but sacred truth passed on by the Apostles Ephesians 2:20 Justify your position with historical proof and you have none.
        I point you again to 1 Timothy, you quoted 1:3-4, continue reading and understand you have no credibility preaching here, you are what verse 7 described. You are your own pope.

        5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

        If you can’t give me historical proof, then you are just the same as the Arians and Nestorians. Get your fact straight.

        http://www.tldm.org/News22/15MajorHeresiesAndThoseWhoFoughtThem.htm

        1. S….”The Didache, it is the historical proof that Real Presence of God in the Eucharist is not a hoax but sacred truth passed on by the Apostles”

          M: But of course you don’t quote it! In fact, it simply refers to the Lord’s Supper as spiritual food and drink (as do I) with absolutely no indication that the elements are transformed in any way.

          You are refuted.

          1. You have not refuted anything with historical facts, but your own personal and twisted opinions formulated by 21st century heretics.

            Who founded your church? I can point you to mere men, some with questionable moral ethics. Be careful out there.

          2. Micah, glad you checked out the Didache for now you know that the Apostles of Christ historical and biblically taught there are only 2 ways. The Right and Wrong ways. The Right Way have the Eucharist, the Church, Baptism, Bishop, Priests and Deacons…very Catholic.

          3. S… You have not refuted anything with historical facts

            M: Give it up Spence. You have been thoroughly refuted. You made the bogus claim about the Didache supporting the RC Eucharist and you have been shown the claim is fraudulent. It’s like telling you the sky is blue, but no matter what the evidence, you will say it’s green.

          4. Didache 9:5 “Allow no one to eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized in the name of the Lord. For concerning this, the Lord has said, “Do not give what is holy to dogs.” 10:1 After the Eucharist when you are filled, give thanks this way….”

            Hey Goober….does that sound like a metaphor? I’ll answer…only if you’re desperate to defend the indefensible……

            Get civil….or just leave….

  17. The article

    It’s unclear why the author entitled the article the way he did. Obviously, if the Protestant position is true, Catholics are lost.

    Also, he says, “The Protestant answer is usually something along the lines of: “believe in Me.” So, for example, Matthew Henry’s commentary on John 6:52-59 says, “Eating this flesh and drinking this blood mean believing in Christ.”.

    So what? Augustine taught the same thing, as he very well knows – since I told him that very thing the day before the article was posted.

    Apparently, the trick is to sweep under the rug those things that cast a black cloud over your thesis, which is, of course, not a very nice thing to do.

    1. Everyone shut up. Micah is in charge of biblical interpretation from now on, for the world. His authority is that catholics sucks. Forget early church father’s, he’s got it figured out. I mean, come on, how many times does he have to school you losers on scripture. God of scripture interpretation, Micah please help all those 1 billion catholics, 700k orthodox, etc. How many people believe your exact brand of scripture? Your a stats guy, you love saying 70% of catholics don’t believe in communion. Obviously, the Lord has led everyone to your brand of Christianity. I’m guessing 2 billion? Tell us. Or more like 100k tops. Loser!!!!!!!you lose!!!!

      1. D.J. you love saying 70% of catholics don’t believe in communion.

        M: Oh no you don’t. It was a catholic apologist who made that claim, not me. The audio, for those who missed it, is in my response to Joe’s article above.

        By the way, the tone of your reply is a complete rebuttal to everyone on this board who said I needed to change my “attitude”. Personally, I have nothing against your tone because it is only natural you should be upset, as were the Pharisees who grinded their teeth against “that lunatic”. The fact is, if I were to speak like Dolly Parton and serenaded you with my disagreements in a sweetie pie voice, each and every Catholic response would STILL end up repudiating me, and this you cannot deny.
        I have nothing against those Protestants who conduct themselves in perhaps a more courteous manner than myself, but one way is not any more credible than another as God is able to use different temperaments to His advantage.
        At the end of the day, it’s obvious you are afraid I could be telling you the truth, for…like a few others, you have no response to the biblical data I presented, so you just end up blowing smoke.

          1. Anyone reading your blurb sees your astounding hypocrisy, for you have not produced even one sentence to prove anything.
            Seriously, I don’t know how types like you can even look in the mirror.

    2. Micah, throw us some meat justify your blurbs with historical facts. Don’t leave the Church Fathers behind because then your history will be incomplete and therefore a fraud.

      1. Spencer, et al.:

        You know this blood-gorged little tick is nothing but a cut/pastetard, right? Foot wide and an inch deep. I put a mistake in my post last night – on obvious one for anyone who has read any of the Fathers, especially Ignatius, whom Goober keeps quoting, just to see what he would do. He…didn’t…catch…it. (and no, I’m not going to say what it is). He – ok, for consistency “it” – has not come up with *any* responses to the stumpers awlms posted on 3 September 9:39PM, or the two matthewp posted on 3 Sept/12:36AM and 4 Sept/5:12 AM, or Duane on 3 Sept @2:25 AM. Because there are no Protestant answers to those….but it will keep coming back, from a different direction, with the same crap, over and over again.

        Here’s what I divine out of my observations…someone out there (someone like Parster Jimmuh) sees certain Catholic venues – like this one – as a real threat. So he sends half-trained Homers, fresh out of a nightmare rural backdrop of Deliverance and Breaking Bad, hand-picked for their stupidity and tenacity (don’t admire it for it’s “zeal” – would be like admiring an SS Oberst for his enthusiasm in 1942 Ukraine) to disrupt – a victory is won when any of us stop reading/visiting Joe, or keep feeding the evil Parster’s little blood-sucking familiar.

          1. You’re still here, Goober, which shows his amazing level of Christian tolerance. It’s a Catholic thing. You wouldn’t understand.

            Just leave.

          2. And OBTW, Goober, we are all waiting for your arrogant Self to address the references I made, or find my planted mistake.

            You be asking Parster Jimmuh “whut do Ah do now?”

            Just leave. Don’t come back. Unless you can drop the arrogance and learn some civility, as well as debating (not bullying) skills. Then you’ll be as welcome as Craig Truglia.

            Until then, just leave. No one likes you and you are not welcome as you are.

          3. Craig Truglia banned me… and some others banned me as well… as AK said, it just shows how admirable a level of tolerance Joe has.

        1. A.K. find my planted mistake.

          M: If you think for one minute I’ll spend even a nanosecond trying to find a planted mistake, you need to get your head examined. You further exemplify the Pharisees when they tried to catch Jesus in a mistake so they could throw it in His face.
          They lost.
          So do you.

          1. HAH..this is about the 20th time Goober has compared hisself to Jesus.

            This is about a civil Eucharistic debate amongst mortals, sonny…this ain’t Jerusalem and you ain’t Jesus.

            Still waiting for you to address the points others have made…and your obfuscation on my post, no one is buying it.

            Just…leave….or get civil.

        2. AK,

          The Protestant mind set, in my opinion, has a little bit of Martin Luther’s extreme fear of Hell in it, and is consequently somewhat obsessive about making sure their going to be saved, even as Martin Luther was. Martin Luthers character, in fact, could be a case study of what obsessive compulsive disorder is, especially considering that he would confess His sins sometimes on a daily basis, and for up to 3 hours with the same confessor. There is no Catholic in the entire world doing this today, even though the population is probably 100 times greater than it was in 1520.

          And because there is such great fear in many of these Protestants, it seems as if their primary focus is on what Jesus does, or did, for them, i.e.. die on the Cross…. more than their focus of who the most loving Lord Jesus IS. They seem to care most for themselves and their salvation, and the Person of Jesus is just a means of getting it.

          I draw my conclusions through many discussions such as are Micahs, and also from reading the fascinating writings and story of Martin Luther. It seems that the same obsessive lust for salvation eclipses the eternally beautiful Person of Christ Himself, sort of like a person who would marry not for the ‘person’ of the spouse, but what that spouse might do, or provide, for them.

          So, I think Protestantism, at least for the learned Protestants, there is less a seeking for truth and love, which takes a great deal of patience, prayer, study, humility and mortification, and more a search for how to defend their obsessive compulsive determination to guarantee their own salvation. They seem to not want, or trust, God to provide it to them of His own free will.

          Of course I’m not talking about all Protestants, but I find the theme of ‘guaranteeing their salvation’, to be a prominent objective….whereas, with Catholics we seek to love Jesus for who HE IS, and thereby trust Him that He will take care of us for all eternity.

          This is why Catholics don’t need to ‘cherry pick’ scripture, but love the entirety of scripture as a great treasure, knowing that we can daily grow in the understanding of it, and likewise grow closer to God through that understanding. (ie..”This is Eternal Life that you know the one true God and He Whom He sent, Jesus Christ”) So, generally speaking, it seems that Catholics seek to know God, and gain salvation in this manner, but Protestants seek to defend their faith in Jesus’ suffering and death, more than knowing and imitating the Sacred Heart of Jesus. That is, Catholics seek to imitate Christ in this world, and to do what He tells us in the entirety of the Gospel message because we love Him.

          In the end the scriptures will never be our Judge, God will be our Judge. Fortunately for us, we know that Jesus is truly loving; He is meek and humble of heart. And we are happy dying to our own miserable selves so that He can live in us, and then take care of us in all eternity as He sees fit: so that….where He is, we also might be.

          Catholics aren’t obsessed about salvation because we have great love for God. If only Martin Luther could have trusted God more–the love of God more–then this whole fiasco which is Protestantism would probably never have happened.

          This is just a private observation in dealing with many Protestants over the years…but does not apply to all.

          1. AW:

            Interesting observations. I am from New Jersey originally (thank God I escaped many years ago). Grew up around Catholics, Jews and a small number of the descendants of the original Dutch Reformed settlers. I went to undergrad college in southwestern Virginia, not the Deep South, but far enough that the dominant culture was Southern Baptist. My first assignment in the Air Force was in rural Missouri. Same dominant culture. So in both places, I hear a question from sometimes perfect strangers I’d never elsewhere heard: “are you SAY-VED?” I go…huh? From what? “Eternal Damnation? Do you know Jesus?” Well, yeah, I’m Catholic, go to confession, take Holy Communion….

            You can imagine where things went from there.

            So yes, the emphasis on ‘say-ved” is certainly prevalent in evangelical culture (evolved as part of the Second Great Awakening in the US in the 1820’s), not as much in mainstream Protestantism, whose roots are much closer to Catholicism. Your traceback to Luther seems very credible in light of the seeming level of theological insecurity evinced by the whole ‘worry about salvation’ culture in a macro sense, and in a micro sense by the obvious deep insecurities and need to be ‘right’ exhibited by micah (to whom I will refer as Goober until he cleans up his act).

            Contrast with Padre Pio (reading the bio by Bernard Ruffin) whose almost obsessive level of worry was not salvation (though he despaired of it often) but more, have I offended God, who I love and who loves me…? If ever there were an example of the Catholic ethos of belief which you have aptly traced, it would be the good St. Pio.

            My two cents…obsessive worrying about salvation is a bit more self-centered than it would seem Christ would have of His earthly disciples. Concern, rather, with being a good disciple…the rest will take care of itself.

            This blog, BTW, has inspired me to obtain a copy of ‘Letters of Ignatius” and the C.F. Cruse translation of Eusebius’ “Ecclesiastical History.”

  18. Okay, this has gone on long enough. Truly never before has a bigger mountain been made out of a smaller molehill when it comes to an ultra Utraquist (both forms) position. If transubstantiation is true, than the utraquist position has no teeth to it. If I receive under the form of bread, I am receiving Jesus Christ BODY, BLOOD, soul and divinity (ie ALL of Jesus). Likewise if I receive under the form of wine, I am receiving Jesus Christ BODY, BLOOD, soul and divinity. Blood and body are linked. My blood is a major aspect of their body and my body has a lot of blood in it! If you receive the Body of Christ, you are receiving the Blood of Christ! If you receive the Blood of Christ, you are receiving the blood of Christ! This should be simple to understand. The only remaining question is the demand by a recipient to be able to both “eat” solids and “drink” fluids. This is truly an egregious case of straining a gnat to swallow a camel. But let’s inquire. In all the Last Supper narratives, Jesus is speaking to the APOSTLES! He is instituting some kind of ritual that He wants his Church to perform on a regular basis. The “Do this as a memorial” is the command to continue to have the Last Supper in their worship which is what this is all about It’s also sacrificial terminology by the way used in the Old Testament Hebrew frequently and can be read about here:

    http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a78.htm

    And here (especially section 2):

    https://books.google.com/books?id=NWv8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PT31&lpg=PT31&dq=fr+mitch+pacwa+last+supper+sacrifice&source=bl&ots=l_B0GHrHA8&sig=prY1-J8dJVhh5BUdxSC_6zTYc3M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiCodaa6vTOAhUDYyYKHR_IAWcQ6AEITzAJ#v=onepage&q=fr%20mitch%20pacwa%20last%20supper%20sacrifice&f=false

    But back to the topic at hand. Jesus is ordaining the Apostles as priests to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass (the same Sacrifice of the Cross). The commands there are for them and for other ordained ministers (ie priests) to do. The laity cannot just get up and do what Jesus is doing at the Last Supper. They don’t have that authority. It can only be given to them by someone who has it; Jesus to the apostles and the apostles to their successors and so on. Since that duty is not a duty the laity can perform, Christ’s command in the last supper to “do this” does not apply to the laity. It is therefore up to the Church as a matter of Her discipline as to how the laity are to receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Body and Blood. As said before, reception under either form is reception of ALL of Jesus. Furthermore in John 6, what gives eternal life to the one eating/drinking the flesh/blood of Jesus Christ is NOT the act of eating/drinking but WHAT is being eaten/drunk; namely Jesus Christ’s FLESH and BLOOD. Once again, if you “eat” His Flesh, you are in a sense also “drinking his blood.” Likewise if you drink His Blood, you are in a sense “eating His Flesh.”

    This entire issue however, betrays a poor understanding of the Eucharist which in turn betrays a very poor understanding of Jesus Christ. It was agreed earlier that it was within God’s power to accomplish transubstantiation because God is omnipotent. This point was chided however as being obvious and beside the point as to whether or not God actually does accomplish transubstantiation. That would be a fair point, but unfortunately it then was denied to Jesus, who is God, the power to accomplish transubstantiation on grounds that doing so would allegedly “violate His humanity.” The point agreed upon which was labeled “obvious” was unfortunately then contradicted. Furthermore a supernatural event like transubstantiation would no more “violate Jesus’s humanity” than would Jesus walking on water, raising Lazarus from the dead, appearing spontaneously in a locked room, and literally every other miracle He performed. Humans do not have the natural power to do any of those (hence the term “supernatural”) but in doing them, Jesus most certainly did not cease to be human or “violate His humanity” in any way! And then we can see that Jesus Christ’s body is Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ’s blood is Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ is God. Therefore Jesus Christ’s Body and Blood are God and God is omnipotent and can therefore accomplish the supernatural event of transubstantiation by the power of the Holy Spirit (as with all miracles).

    The denial of Jesus Christ’s ability to cause transubstantiation betrays basic Christological errors. In this case, latent Arianism lurks underneath wherever it is denied that Jesus Christ’s Body is divine. Failure to acknowledge that Jesus Christ is FULLY divine was precisely the error of the Arians. I have long suspected that if you start to scratch the surface of protestant (and particularly reformed) theology, it’s at the very least quasi-Arian and here is the proof. Once again as St. Hilary of Poitiers put it:

    “For He says ‘Himself, My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.’ (John 6:55-56) As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this true? Yet they who affirm that Christ Jesus is not truly God are welcome to find it false. He therefore Himself is in us through the flesh and we in Him, while together with Him our own selves are in God.”

    “They who affirm that Christ Jesus is not truly God are welcome to find it false.” I really couldn’t have said it better myself. But why stop there? Nestorianism comes to the forefront when a wedge is driven between Christ’s humanity and His divinity as it pertains to His person. We must be so precise in our language here. Jesus Christ is a DIVINE person WITH a human (and a divine) nature. When the Word became flesh, that “flesh” which the Word became is united to the Word’s person and therefore “becomes” the Word. The Word’s flesh is now inseparable from the Word Himself. The Word didn’t “hide inside flesh,” he BECAME flesh. It’s all to easy to make up a “human Jesus” who does the fleshy stuff while we only worship “the divine Jesus.” This is also what happens when it is denied that Jesus Christ’s Body is divine. The wedge is driven and suddenly there’s a “human Jesus” which I cannot worship.

    But wait! There’s more…Finally what we have seen from so many protestants is a constant over-emphasis on the “spiritual” and an extreme de-emphasis of the “material.” The Church has seen this old Gnosticism rear it’s ugly head more times than I can count. How sad it is that so many minds buy into that old Gnostic creed of “matter bad spirit good!” Yes, God could have avoided matter completely and still save us. He could have completely forgone the Incarnation. But he created matter! He created man! “He saw that it was good!” He loves His creation because He is a loving Father! He loves man so much that He BECAME a Man in order to save man! Why should we be surprised to have it revealed that God wishes to apply His salvation to us THROUGH the very matter which He created and loved? WHICH HE BECAME? And yet, so many protestants revolt at the sacraments and ignorantly and falsely label them as “superstition, magic, idolatry.” Icky matter boo hiss!!! How could God possibly use something as “undignified” as (gasp!!!) MATTER to apply His salvation of our souls AND bodies?

    We can see how such thought comes straight out of the pit of hell. Satan himself is a spirit and he despises matter with everything he has. He despises the Eucharist especially because it is there where Jesus so completely shows him his defeat. He does everything to demean, discredit, confuse, profane, and desecrate the most Sacred Sacrament of the Lord’s Body and Blood. It’s no wonder he has his wicked servants attempt to steal a consecrated Host from a Catholic Mass for their all together profane “black mass” (http://www.charismanews.com/us/45112-church-sues-satanists-for-allegedly-stealing-communion-wafers-for-black-mass). Isn’t it amazing that Satan tends to keep coming back to his “old reliable” heresy of Gnosticism? It’s typical behavior from the father of lies that he should repeat the same lie over and over again. People keep being suckered by it into denying the Sacraments that Jesus Christ established in His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church!

    To all readers of this blog and especially Catholics. Let not your heart be troubled by the ramblings, blusterings, bleatings, and blasphemies said by anti-Catholics here! They are full of heresies that are nothing new. They lurk under the surface but are forced out after examination. Do not be deceived! Spiritual warfare is on full display right here on this blog.

    “The works of the flesh are plain: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, ENMITY, STRIFE, jealousy, ANGER, selfishness, DISSENSION, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you as I warned you before that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is LOVE, JOY, PEACE, PATIENCE, KINDNESS, GOODNESS, faithfulness, GENTLENESS, SELF-CONTROL; against such there is no law.”

    “By their FRUITS, ye shall know them!”

    May God be with you all! Amen and Amen!

    Matthew

    1. MP: If I receive under the form of bread, I am receiving Jesus Christ BODY, BLOOD, soul and divinity (ie ALL of Jesus). Likewise if I receive under the form of wine, I am receiving Jesus Christ BODY, BLOOD, soul and divinity.

      M: All of these are presuppositions that are simply read back into the Text — but the logos…the logic of God, via the brain He has given us to put two and two together, refutes it. The bombastic idea that a “whole Christ” is contained in every single drop and crumb must be repeatedly rejected as wild-eyed fanaticism to the highest degree. Since every drop in the ocean does not contain the WHOLE OCEAN, neither then does every drop or crumb contain the WHOLE CHRIST. Second, the doctrine of T is immediately suspect by the fact that we were strictly forbidden to drink blood in both Old and New Testaments, which casts a black cloud on the RC position, and casts sunshine over the christological metaphors contained in John 6 and the Last Supper, as non-Catholics insist is the case.

      M.P. If you receive the Body of Christ, you are receiving the Blood of Christ! If you receive the Blood of Christ, you are receiving the blood of Christ! This should be simple to understand.

      M: It is not simple to understand. For as previously mentioned, if there is literally a whole “jesus” in every drop and crum, and let’s say there are 200 crumbs and 200 drops in each entity, that would mean a person would be eating or drinking 200 “christ’s” via the one entity of their choice.
      In addition, the whole case is built on a rocky foundation, beginning with the fact that no matter what you say, Jesus said to partake of BOTH elements for a reason. That the RCC has the gall to throw His command straight out the window for the sake of CONVENIENCE (i.e., bringing the wafer to the sick) will not be tolerated. Worse still, Trent said Jesus issued NO such command to consume both elements (!!!)….which shows they were of their father the devil per John 8:44. Even any Sunday school child could figure out: “Now class, did Jesus say we should consume both bread and wine?” Class response: YES. Roman Catholic response: NO. So much then for the RCC being the church He founded. True churches follow Christ’s commands. The RCC does not….even when there is no doubt when he was NOT speaking metaphorically!

      M.P. Jesus is ordaining the Apostles as priests to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass (the same Sacrifice of the Cross).

      M: Under no circumstances whatsoever did Jesus ordain the apostles into a sacerdotal priesthood. Again, this is simply read back into the Text without a speck of biblical support. In a book filled with sacrificial language, Hebrews does not establish any connection between “Eucharist” and “sacrifice”, let alone mention a dynastic succession of priests who were ordained to preside over the metamorphosis of bread and wine! Moreover, Hebrews states that there is now NO MORE OFFERING FOR SIN, which means that if there was some sort of exception to this rule (such as to OFFER the sacrifice of the Mass) the writer would have been sure to mention it. But he did not. Further complicating matters is the bankrupt idea that the Lord was instructing them to offer the ***SAME*** sacrifice as that of the cross…which did not even happen yet! This further strains credulity based on logic alone and the repeated demands from RC personnel to simply embrace it all because it’s all just a myssssstery. HINT: God is not too pleased with a religious entity in the book of Revelation with the word “MYSTERY” written upon it. I wonder what He could have meant by that?

      M.P. The commands there are for them and for other ordained ministers (ie priests) to do. The laity cannot just get up and do what Jesus is doing at the Last Supper. They don’t have that authority.

      M: If you are going to assert that what Jesus was doing was only intended for the apostles and not the laity, it would only follow that the laity should not even be taking communion. If the consumption of bread and wine was happing in the midst of that which you say was intended only for the apostles, you have no right to grant the laity that which you say was reserved only for THEM. More illogic.

      M.P. This is truly an egregious case of straining a gnat to swallow a camel.

      M: No, it is a simple case of the rooster and the caterpillar. Yes, Almighty power could turn the rooster into a caterpillar and vice versa, just as John the Baptist said God could turn these rocks into the sons of Abraham (Matt 3:9). But to make the first thing become a second thing, which hides under the appearance of the first thing, is something Almighty power could not do, since neither could achieve the purpose for which they were made in their original form! To suppose then, that God could turn the rooster into a caterpillar… under the form of a rooster, are the ravings of a maniac. Hence, neither is the bread turned into the body of Christ… under the form of bread.
      No doubt Satan was working overtime when he entered the souls of those who came up with the hideous teaching of T.

      M.P. the Last Supper [contains] sacrificial terminology

      M: So what? That doesn’t prove Transubstantiation at all. In light of the fact that we insist that the Last Supper was meant to ***commemorate*** His sacrifice, we should not be surprised to find elements of sacrificial terminology! More to the point, the disciples would have understood the goings-on against the backdrop of the blood sacrifices of the old covenant (Exodus 24:8). And that sacrifice was blood from a sacrificial victim and NOT a living person, as was Jesus. Rather than Jesus “offering Himself in sacrifice at the Last Supper BEFORE the cross” as the RCC absurdly teaches, true Christians know that the Passover meal was incredibly rich in symbolism, and it is for that reason that His speaking metaphorically carries more weight. They would have eaten and used…

      *** Moror (bitter herbs)… representing the bitterness of Egyptian slavery.
      *** Unleavened bread (Matzah)… representing the haste with which the Israelites left Egypt, for they couldn’t wait for the bread to rise.
      *** Charoseth (mixture of chopped apples, nuts, wine & cinnamon)… representing the mortar used by the Israelite slaves to make bricks.
      *** Ceremonial cups. Different cups were used to represent the various phases of the Exodus.
      *** The Passover Lamb. The blood of that sacrifice was put over their doorposts so the death angel would pass over.

      We see then that before the Supper, the apostles were already thinking symbolically because each of the items on the table was a symbol and a reminder of the escape from Egypt. During the Supper, His physical body was sitting there right there in front of them, and so His human body could not also be in the wafer as well. Too, after the Supper, He continued to use illustrations by washing the disciples feet in response to their arguing who among them was the greatest, (which BTW, also destroys any notion that Peter was the greatest and assigned universal head of the church!). And finally, subsequent to the Supper, Paul used the word “body” figuratively as well, but this time, regarding the church (Romans 12:5, 1 Cor 10:17, 12:12, 20, 12:27; Eph 1:22, 23; 2:16; 4:4; Col 1:18, 24; 3:15).

      Even John Paul II admits: “Did the apostles who took part in the Last Supper understand the [eucharistic] meaning of the words spoken by Christ? Probably not” (“Ecclesia de Eucharistia” #2).

      Of course they didn’t! Their senses would have immediately denied it. Jesus identified the Last Supper memorial as an ***equivalent*** to the Passover memorial when He says, “I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer” (Luke 22:15). (Did Jesus EAT HIMSELF AT THE LAST SUPPER?). In any case, Jesus was saying His doings were an “equivalent” to the Passover. That O.T. event was the annual feast established by God in which the Jews would no more and no less… ***remember*** the night in which the angel of death “passed over” those families which had applied the blood of the lamb to their door-post (Ex 12:14). It served to bring to ***remembrance*** an important event. IT DID NOT REPEAT THE EVENT, but kept it vivid in the memory through a physical representation. God has established the very same premise in the New Testament: “For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed” (1 Cor 5:7). Now we are called, not to a sacrifice, but to a feast: “Let us therefore celebrate the feast…with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor 5:8), not that we should celebrate the metamorphosis of bread and wine into the “truth” of Christ’s body and blood. The bread and wine eloquently symbolize and allow us to affectionately meditate on the most solemn spectacle that ever occurred in all the universe. They are a catalyst to a renewed appropriation of all the benefits Christ has to offer. The Lord’s Supper then, is not a sacrifice; rather, it is a commemoration OF a sacrifice.

      M.P….. A supernatural event like transubstantiation would no more “violate Jesus’s humanity” than would Jesus walking on water, raising Lazarus from the dead, appearing spontaneously in a locked room, and literally every other miracle He performed.

      M: Yes it would violate His humanity. Walking on water, etc…does not violate any DOCTRINE. The multiplicity of Christ’s physical body on a million altars world-wide, DOES. The RCC has eviscerated the doctrine of the incarnation which demands His human nature be in one place forever, and not simultaneously-sacramentally somewhere else in the form of a Ritz cracker.
      I know very well you reject this explanation, but the fact is, what you are proposing can be disproven from another perspective. Your position ultimately ends up with Jesus being physiclly present in the Eucharist, albeit in some sort of spooky, metaphysical SACRAMENTAL form. The only problem is, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SACRAMENTAL PRESENCE! Let the alert reader keep in mind that the RCC is constantly bombarding us with utter nonsense void of biblical precedent!

      Instead of building their theology on the cement of Scripture, Catholicism prefers to use the silly-putty of metaphysics to invent a third kind of ontological existence, unknown to mankind, in a brazen effort to solve all problems. Their solution? They invent the sacramental kind of existence.
      But in fact, there are only TWO categories of existence.

      A. corporeal (i.e., physical)

      B. non-corporeal (i.e., spiritual).

      Notice this horrid explanation from the Pope: “Christ is present whole and entire in His physical ‘reality’, corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place” (Mysterium Fidei, 46).

      Truly, if life is a circus, the Pope is a dancing bear. His juggling act consists of copying directly from Aquinas on the one hand, and on the other, playing fast and loose with the word “corporeal”; namely, that his doctrine be classified as some sort of “sacramental physical reality of the corporeal kind”…and never mind that this oxymoronic concept of “sacramentally physical” is adverse to common sense, not to mention Scripture, which clearly distinguishes between a natural and a spiritual body (1 Cor 15:44) and not a combination of the two!

      After leaving the outrageous impression of some strange metaphysical cosmic christ, we imagine Jesus responding, “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!” (Matthew 23:24).

      What our Lord means here is apropos. When drinking a liquid, they would use a cloth to strain out a gnat that may have somehow gotten into their drink. But when it came to their spiritual lives, Jesus said they were willing to swallow a camel. He was simply saying that they would go to great lengths to keep smaller impurities from entering their bodies, but offered no resistance to the more serious spiritual impurities that entered their souls. Catholics do likewise, by offering no resistance to their leader’s attempt to chisel down their Savior to the size of a coin. To justify it all, they swallow the corporeal camel of, “it is not in a way that a normal body is in a place”, and imagine everything is then okey-dokey. But in fact, everything is inky-stinky. All of this billowing smoke does nothing but confuse and produce stormy controversy, which God despises (1 Tim 1:3-4).

      1. Dear Micah , You seems to think that if the host is separated int two pieces then there is consequentially TWO CHRISTS

        You then think that the Mass is ANOTHER offering distinct from the the sacrifice of the cross . According to your faulty theology and a mistrust of the power of Christ . the same Christ that rose from the dead .

        You believe that believing in a SACERDOTAL PRIESTHOOD is reading back into the text . I am not sure what READING BACK MEANS .Maybe its one of those man made protestant Eisegeses like PRESCRIPTIVE and DESCRIPTIVE texts .

        You then further states that if the mass was a genuine instition then it would probably only have been for the Apostles anyway .ACCORDING TO HIS HOLINESS POPE MICAH

        You says that the teaching of T is hideous and Satanic . Well it looks like Jesus must have been possessed by the Devil when he said THIS IS MY BODY and TAKE AND EAT IT .

        You thinks that because there is symbolism in the Eucharist , it therefore terminates any literalism in the text . Its an either/or for you on this one . You then sites the following references :

        *** Moror (bitter herbs)… representing the bitterness of Egyptian slavery.
        *** Unleavened bread (Matzah)… representing the haste with which the Israelites left Egypt, for they couldn’t wait for the bread to rise.
        *** Charoseth (mixture of chopped apples, nuts, wine & cinnamon)… representing the mortar used by the Israelite slaves to make bricks.
        *** Ceremonial cups. Different cups were used to represent the various phases of the Exodus.
        *** The Passover Lamb. The blood of that sacrifice was put over their doorposts so the death angel would pass over.

        Micah , you seem to exclude the possibility that these SYMBOLISMS reach their fulfilment in the Eucharist . Its called Typology , and Christ fulfils them all . that actually is a good thing as apposed to your either/or analysis

        You said that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES did Jesus institute a SACERDOTAL PRIESTHOOD at the last supper.
        Apparently, according to you Micah , DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME is not an institutional command at all , and our current mass is an invention. Other than making the claim that it was invented you have no real evidence to support his claim , and it’s even more egregious for you to claim such , especially when the mass itself is a faithful representation of the last supper where Christ instituted this command .

        The claims that T violates doctrine > he DEMANDS that the humanity of Christ was to be in one place at a time and therefore T is against doctrine . This is obviously a twofold farce .1 there is no such doctrine of JESUS IN THE ONE PLACE ALL THE TIME . this is pure fantasy of an unimaginable scale . This very same Micah accuses Catholic of shenanigan’s . and misrepresentations : But just have a look at his private interpretation 2. it presupposes that christ is incapable of operating outside of time and space . That is called circumscribing and that my friend is a fatal flaw in your theology . Theology is probably an undeserving title

        You then takes JP2 comments completely out context , assuming that JP2 is somehow making concession in favour of a protestant view , which of course is NOT what he was saying at all . JP2 merely stated that the apostles at the time may not have understood at that very moment what Christ had meant .This IS NOT a denial of transubstantiation as you erroneously think

        You then states that the Pope is a kind of Circus Bear . have a good look in the mirror here brother . Your theories and fantasies are like a trip around Disney land where Mickey Mouse ( YOU ) and the whole cast of Disney characters ( PROTESTANTS ) are the main attraction

  19. Micah, I prayed for you at Mass today. May you find God and may His grace fill your heart and open your eyes to the beauty of the Catholic faith. The church Jesus founded through Peter, of which Christ is the corner stone. Matthew 16:16-20, Ephesians 2:19-20.

    May God have mercy on your soul.

    1. S…Micah, I prayed for you at Mass today. May..God open your eyes

      M: Rather, may God open your eyes to act like a man and admit it when he has made a mistake, such as foolishly claiming that the Didache… quote… “is the historical proof of the Real Presence of God in the Eucharist”.

      It is no such thing, as you have been told. I notice you don’t want to submit any further evidence for the “Real Presence”. Most likely, because you know it can be easily refuted by those who know the Scriptures.

      1. Micah, you are technically correct that claiming that “the Didache is the historical proof of the Real Presence of God in the Eucharist” is incorrect. However, the Didache IS historical proof that those who were taught by the Apostles, i.e., the earliest Christians, firmly believed in the Real Presence of God (Christ Himself) in the Eucharist. Since those who were the first-generation Christians believed it, you have no reasonable basis on which to doubt it.

    2. In response to Dan September 3, 2016 at 3:58 pm

      Dan you are right on the money > I noticed that Micah responded to your assessment with the very arrogance that you said he possesses . He then gets upset that you characterise him in the way that he presents himself , i.e. arrogant

  20. A.K. Didache 9:5 “Allow no one to eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized in the name of the Lord. For concerning this, the Lord has said, “Do not give what is holy to dogs.” 10:1 After the Eucharist when you are filled, give thanks this way….”

    does that sound like a metaphor?

    M: Apparently you’re another one who chooses to be willfully ignorant. Any logical thinking person who has read that document knows it does not support all the metaphysics behind the RC Eucharist. NO WHERE does it even HINT at it.
    You are completely and absolutely refuted. I respond only so other lurkers can see the desperation tactics used to support your your unbiblical doctrine.

    1. Again, your personal twisted opinion, not justified by any kind of historical proof, does not cut it in this debate.

      You haven’t disclosed the origin of your faith but I can tell that it is all about you. Where is love of God and neighbors in the teaching of your faith? Are you following mere men? Let us know to understand you completely.

      1. S…Again, your personal twisted opinion, not justified by any kind of historical proof,

        M: The perceptive reader will notice that Spencer continues to blow smoke, insisting that the D supports the “Real Presence”, when, if he were smart, he could at least upload some opinions from history which supports his view.
        Obviously, he can’t do that, so like the big bad wolf, he must huff and puff.

        1. Hey Goob – here’s cut/pasted post from matthewp, 4 Sept @5:12AM. you never addressed the clear language of “Iggy.” It’s one of several to which you never responded, in your haste to send us all running with our forked Papist tails between our legs. I figure you just missed it….right? Between the **

          **I’m afraid it is what the protestants have done by their mental gymnastics with Ignatius that as I said to Craig earlier, would make Simone Biles jealous, is what is truly absurd beyond reason. Here is Ignatius of Antioch in his own words:

          ” They refrain from the eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father of his goodness raised up.”

          Once again, Ignatius does not say that they (Docetics) refrain from the Eucharist because they do not confess that the Eucharist is “about Christ’s sacrifice.” Ignatius does not say that the Docetics refrain from the Eucharist because they do not confess that the Eucharist is “thanksgiving for the cross-work of our Savior.” No rather Ignatius says that “they refrain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist IIIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSS TTHHHHHHHEEE FLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESH!!!!!!!!!!
          of our Savior Jesus Christ!

          It’s truly astounding that so many protestants, like a certain president from the 90s, can’t figure out the meaning of the word “is.” They just can’t handle the truth.**

          C’mon Goober…what’s yer Parster say Iggy *really* means by “the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ”? Maybe salvation through sola fide and Reeses cups?

        2. Micah,

          You – The perceptive reader will notice that Spencer continues to blow smoke, insisting that the D supports the “Real Presence”, when, if he were smart, he could at least upload some opinions from history which supports his view.
          Obviously, he can’t do that, so like the big bad wolf, he must huff and puff. End of your rant.

          You have not intelligently and objectively supported why you believe Real Presence is a hoax. You go against writings and teachings of the people who walked with Christ on the Eucharist. You against Scholars and writers of the Scriptures. You against St. Paul. Now if you take off your blinders and really read 2000 years of Church history it will do you some good, you owe it to yourself. Don’t let any blind men or women lead your soul to perdition. Be careful out there.

          1. S….You have not intelligently and objectively supported why you believe Real Presence is a hoax

            M…. Don’t be ridiculous. I have done JUST THAT. I just don’t live up to your standard of “intelligence”, and THAT, I might add, is your SUBJECTIVE opinion.
            But how about a little objective reasoning from the Lord Himself –as a fire extinguisher to put out all the smoke coming out of your ears?

            Scripture declares that the physical presence of Jesus was GOING AWAY! That being so, the “REAL PRESENCE” is a hoax. You cannot have the physical presence of someone who has promised to go away! Simple as that!

            “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, we should not submit to any doctrine which bids us to extinguish every biblical principle of common sense and reason.
            Jesus said, “if I go not away, the Comforter will not come; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you” (John 16:7). “Receive the Holy Spirit” (16:22). Words could not be clearer. Any claim to the physical or sacramental presence of Christ, other than by the third person of the Trinity, is nothing but a frenzy of religious delusion (2 Thess 2:11-12).

        3. You have got more twist and turns in your theology than a packet of pretzels . you have a nerve to call anyone out on twists and turns

          Get over yourself dude

    2. “Hey, you just ran a stop sign.”

      “No, I didn’t.”

      “Yes you did. It is red, situated at an intersection, big block letters that say “STOP.”

      “No it doesn’t. It’s green and says ‘drive through.’ The metaphysics don’t support the concept of the stop sign at that location.”

      “There’s no car with the flashing lights, right behind us either, I suppose.”

      Rii-iiiight, then. Enjoy the reality bubble you’ve created.

      I doubt there “lukers” here, aught but you, Goob. How many ‘vangerlilercal converts you think you have gotten since you started ranting several days ago? Show of hands?

      1. And, Goob, you STILL haven’t addressed the references I made to other posts, that stopped you cold, in my post of 4 Sept @4:45. Regarding the use of Greek, and the direct quotes of “Iggy” on the Eucharist.

        I’ll keep reminding you as long as you keep posting.

    3. Micah: Didache 9:5 “Allow no one to eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized in the name of the Lord. For concerning this, the Lord has said, “Do not give what is holy to dogs.” 10:1 After the Eucharist when you are filled, give thanks this way….”

      does that sound like metaphor?”

      Me: What part Micah…the admonition of the Didache or the saying of Christ. Clearly these are two different things.
      1. “Allow no one to eat or drink of your Eucharist is clearly not a metaphor.
      2. “unless they are baptized” is also clearly not a metaphor…unless you think that water isn’t needed, in some metaphysical way, for baptism.
      3. Then the author of the Didache implies that the Eucharist is ‘holy’, and shouldn’t be given to any except those who love and believe in Jesus ie..(not unbelieving ‘dogs’). This ‘holiness’ of the Eucharist is also not a metaphor. It is the ‘New Testament’ in my Blood.

      This is an interpretation by the Early Christian Church which used and taught the Didache literature extensively throughout the pre Nicaean Roman Empire, as is taught in Eusebius’ Church History.

  21. Obviously, Mr. Heschmeyer is deleting my comments, and most recently the FACT of the Didache not supporting the “Real Presence”. Instead of dealing with it, he deletes it, including a few other things I posted.
    It’s pretty obvious the truth is beginning to scare him.

    1. On the Lord’s Day of the Lord gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled by the Lord: “In every place and time let there be offered to me a clean sacrifice. For I am a Great King,” says the Lord, “and My name is wonderful among the Gentiles.” (Didache 14:1-2)

      The key part here is that the didache refers to communion as a sacrifice (breaking bread is an early euphemism for communion, and “give thanks” is from the greek “eucharist”). We know that there is only one sacrifice in the New Testament — namely that of Christ on calvary: “For by one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” Hebrews 10:14. Therefore, there can be no New Testament sacrifice without the real body of Christ, for having a different offering makes it a different sacrifice. Therefore, communion is the real body of Christ.

      Devils Advocate: We are called to offer up our bodies as a living sacrifice in obedience (Romans 12:1). This is our own body, therefore, there can be a New Testament sacrifice without the real body of Christ.

      Answer: Even in this, it is part of Christ’s sacrifice, since our offering up of ourselves has merit because we are part of the mystical body of Christ. “Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.” 1 Corinthians 6:15 Since our bodies are members of Christ, this New Testament sacrifice is also of the real body of Christ.

      1. In anticipation, Devil’s Advocate: We can offer up the Body of Christ symbolically and still have it be the same sacrifice.

        Answer: A symbolic action isn’t a sacrifice, it’s a ritual. There has to be a real offering to be a sacrifice.

      2. And again, Devil’s Advocate: We can pray that Christ offer up His body as we symbolically offer up bread representing His body, and it is still a sacrifice.

        Answer: The didache refers to people seeking forgiveness of sins to that their sacrifice can be pure. Therefore the didache is referring to the actual elements of communion as the offering of the sacrifice.

      3. A.F. “Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist;

        M: This is proof of false doctrine from very early on. How many times do I have to say it? Hebrews says there is now NO MORE OFFERING FOR SIN, so if the D was referring to Christ as an offering for sin in the Eucharist, it was WRONG. And paleeeze do not start up on that tired old excuse that because “we are offering the SAME sacrifice, it does not mean we are offering ANOTHER”. You’re not only NOT supposed to be offering ANY sacrifice whatsoever, but the science fiction idea of bringing a past event, long gone, into the future, (it being hence, “the same”) is categorically impossible.

        A.F. “but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, `Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]” (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

        M: As I said before, this document does not contain the slightest indication that the elements are transformed into the sacramental, anatomical structure of Christ AT ALL…. or that it is a proptitiatory sacrifice as defined by the RCC. Furthermore, the use of the phrase “so that YOUR sacrifice may be a pure one” seems logically to refer to the Eucharist as the BELIEVER’S sacrifice, reflecting the idea of self-giving through an offering of praise and thanksgiving for the finished work of Christ. You belittle this “devil-advocate” response, but Irenaeus confirms it, which I shall show shortly.

        I notice you are bent on the word “sacrifice”; but you’re not even considering the word in a general sense, but are demanding it be referring to the Mass! You are trying to squeeze The Didache quote of Malachi 1:11 like a dishrag to imply a connection to the Mass, but it will never work. The word used there in the KJV is not sacrifice, but “offering”, and in context, it is being used of a grain or food offering–which was a voluntary act of gratitude and NOT a sacrifice for sin (Lev 6:14-23), which demolishes your position. (The Israelities were offering defiled sacrifices, thus the D’s request for a pure one.).
        Roman Catholics typically use Malachi to imagine that this was a prohecy of the Mass when they read, “From the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall be offered…..” (CCC #2643). Suffice it to say that since the Mass came into vogue centuries ago, Malachi 1:11 is not a prophecy that can be looked at as having been fulfilled in the Mass, fulfilling a time wherein the Lord’s name is considered great. On the contrary, the Lord’s name has always been the #1 curse word of choice among Gentiles of every generation to this very day. Ergo, He must be referring to an event still in the future following the second coming of Christ, at which time His name will indeed be great among “every nation, tribe and tongue” (Rev 5:9). Irenaeus also referred to Malachi’s prophecy and characterized the Eucharist as a thank-offering. He maintained that the real sacrifice intended were the prayers of true believers which came from pure hearts undefiled by sin (The Writings of Irenaeus, by Roberts & Donaldson, p. 430, in Against Heresies IV.17.5-6).

        Now for all this talk about T, the only Transubstantiation the Bible speaks about is He, “having made Himself of no reputation, taking upon Himself the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of men” (Phil 2:6-8). Through the incarnation, He now takes on the form of a servant, NOT of bread and wine. The word, “form” has reference to the outward expression of an inward quality or character. And this is precisely what “being made in the likeness of men” demonstrates: the outward expression of an inward quality of servitude. But for the Catholic, it is not enough. They gnash their teeth (Acts 7:54) at the Bible’s utter silence in regard to the INWARD essence of bread and wine changing, and the OUTWARD appearance remaining untouched. Hence, the stage is set for a metaphysical, category 5 hurricane ready to make landfall in the chemical laboratories of Catholic theology. Philippians 2:6 has already told us what form He would take when He came into this world and what form He will take when He comes back (Acts 1:11). That is enough. Moses said, “you saw no form at all on the day the Lord spoke to you…be strictly on your guard therefore, not to degrade yourselves …You shall not carve idols in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters” (Exodus 20; Deut 4:15; 5:8). No image that man could ever draw, engrave, paint, sculpt, or conjure up in his mind could truly represent the infinite One, nor was it to be tolerated (Deut 4:28; 2 Chron 32:19). The only image permitted was the manifestation of the Lord Jesus Christ to mankind, who reflected “the image of the invisible God” and who was the “exact representation of His being” (Col 1:15, 2:9; Heb 1:3).

        Foolishly, the Roman church has wasted countless man hours obsessed with the abstract jargon of the “form” Jesus takes in the Eucharist. Contrary to God’s orders to leave the issue of “form” alone, she cheerfully dispenses with these warnings by not only forming an image, but then bowing down, worshipping it and then consuming their god at Mass (CCC 1377).

        1. Micah. You have zero authority and yet you refer to your own opinions as authoritative and treat such things as – I have already said this -or I have already said this or How andy times do I have to say this.

          I can understand why so many find this type of arrogance irksome but I find it amusing in a sort of Foghorn Leghorn way; that is, comical.

          It is clear you have, at best, a surface level acquaintance with Christian Doctrine and you have no idea of who it s is you are dealing with.

          I will include a link to the Chapter of John as Catholic Tradition explicates it and you can either accept it or reject it as you desire but, as it is the case that we Catholics wrote every single letter of the New Testament, we OWN IT LOCK STOCK AND BARREL.

          https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/gospel-of-john-commentary/cornelius-a-lapide-on-john/chapter-1/chapter-2/chapter-3/chapter-4/chapter-5/chapter-6

          1. M.J. we Catholics wrote every single letter of the New Testament, we OWN IT LOCK STOCK AND BARREL.

            M: Thank you for that last hilarious laugh as I make my exit. I shall remind you, however, if you ever wake up out of your spiritual coma, that not one credible source on this planet will attest to the bombastic claim that members of the RCC exclusively WROTE AND DO NOW OWN THE BIBLE! Nothing of the sort is even written or IMPLIED at the beginning of any Bible on earth! Actually I have never heard a more obnoxious thought in my entire adult life, so I must hand it to you for breaking the record. It seems obvious to me that by saying such things, God had ordained you be deluded, per 2 Thess 2:11-12. Since that’s the case, I certainly cannot even begin to overcome it. It will be up to Him if He ever chooses to allow you to see the gross error of your ways.

        2. Claiming that the prayers are the offering of the sacrifice in Holy Communion is not something I thought to cover. Good catch, Micah.

          First, let’s double check your citation from Ireneus (source – http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103417.htm):

          Against Heresies – Book IV – 17:5-6: 5. Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things— not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor ungrateful— He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, This is My body. Matthew 26:26, etc. And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence the first-fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament, concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand: I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord Omnipotent, and I will not accept sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, unto the going down [of the same], My name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Omnipotent; Malachi 1:10-11 — indicating in the plainest manner, by these words, that the former people [the Jews] shall indeed cease to make offerings to God, but that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and that a pure one; and His name is glorified among the Gentiles.

          6. But what other name is there which is glorified among the Gentiles than that of our Lord, by whom the Father is glorified, and man also? And because it is [the name] of His own Son, who was made man by Him, He calls it His own. Just as a king, if he himself paints a likeness of his son, is right in calling this likeness his own, for both these reasons, because it is [the likeness] of his son, and because it is his own production; so also does the Father confess the name of Jesus Christ, which is throughout all the world glorified in the Church, to be His own, both because it is that of His Son, and because He who thus describes it gave Him for the salvation of men. Since, therefore, the name of the Son belongs to the Father, and since in the omnipotent God the Church makes offerings through Jesus Christ, He says well on both these grounds, And in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice. Now John, in the Apocalypse, declares that the incense is the prayers of the saints. (emph. mine)

          1. Ireneus says that our Blessed Lord confessed that the cup (namely the fluid in the cup) was His blood. You can’t confess something to be something else while maintaining that it’s a symbol only. When you are speaking of a metaphor you say that it is “A”. When you are speaking of a reality you confess that it is “A”. Ireneus in this passage confirms that he believes the real presence. Concerning Christ’s body, he is more ambiguous, but not here in the case of the sacred blood.

          2. You said that he believed the prayers of communion are the sacrifice part. He does compare prayer to an incense offering, *BUT* he says: “He says well on both these grounds, And in every place incense is offered to My name, AND a pure sacrifice.” Ireneus teaches that the prayers are a separate offering from the sacrifice, namely Holy Communion. In the case of the prayers, separate from communion, the offering is still of Christ. This is because it is done in the name of Christ by the mystical body of Christ, the Church — so the prayers are still one with the same sacrifice on Calvary. In the case of Holy Communion itself, the offering is of the sacred elements, as Ireneus confirmed earlier: “Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His own, created things…He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, This is My body. Matthew 26:26, etc. And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant…”

          And again:

          Devil’s advocate: In regards to communion, the sacrifice part is the prayer rather than the sacred elements, therefore the sacred elements can be symbols without a physical change in substance.

          Answer: When we are looking at a new testament sacrifice, we must seek to find the Lord being offered in it, or else it cannot be a lawful New Testament sacrifice, for there is only one sacrifice in the New Testament — namely of Christ on Calvary. Any offering in the New Testament must necessarily be offering Christ, or else it is a different sacrifice with a different offering than Christ. Christ did not only abolish sin sacrifices, but all sacrifices of the Old Testament, save of the sacrifice of Himself. Our Lord teaches, in reference to the sacred elements, in the institution narrative: “This is my body”. Therefore, our Lord teaches that in this sacrifice, what we are to consider as the actual offering of the sacrifice is the sacred elements themselves. Since the sacred elements are referred to as Christ’s body in Holy Communion, then the offering cannot be of Christ’s mystical body, the Church, since He has in mind that the sacred elements are to be considered His body. Therefore, we cannot consider the prayer to be the offering of communion, since Christ specified what we should consider to be His body, and it isn’t us. If the sacred elements did not change in substance and were bread and wine only, then it would be a different offering, and therefore, a different sacrifice. Therefore, the sacred elements become the body and blood of Christ.

          1. I meant to say: “since Christ specified what we should consider to be His body, and it isn’t us, at least in this particular offering. “

    2. Micah, you don’t have the facts on the Didache. You are trying to distort the Truth. Tell me if you go back to 1 AD will your position hold? No, in fact, you will be to the early Christian a Gentile. You need the Eucharist, Baptism, Bishop, Priest, Church, Confession in order to belong to the early Christan Church. Very Catholic….. for 2000 years the likes of you tried to smear and destroy it but failed.

      Tell me who founded your church and I can tell you it was founded by mere men. History will tell you. Be careful out there.

      1. S….You need the Eucharist, Baptism, Bishop, Priest, Church, Confession in order to belong to the early Christan Church. Very Catholic…..

        M: On the contrary, it is very ***satanic***.
        In the book of Galatians, Paul blew a gasket over the idea of adding even ONE thing to the gospel as being necessary for salvation. He would be even more furious with the RCC, which has added FAR MORE! To complete your list, let’s recall all these addendums to the gospel which will incur God’s wrath on those who believe them come that final day…

        1) Being a member of the Roman Church is N.F.S. (“necessary for salvation”, per Vatican 1 & 2)

        2) Penance is N.F.S…. (CCC 1446)

        3) Proper conduct is NFS (CCC 16)

        4) Keeping the commandments is NFS (CCC 2068)

        5) Service & Witness are N.F.S… (CCC 1816)

        6) The sacraments are N.F.S…. (CCC 1129).

        7) Good works are N.F.S…. (CCC 1821).

        8) Being in subjection to the Pope is N.F.S…. (Boniface VIII, in, “Unan Sanctam”)

        9) The poisonous concoction of God’s grace mixed in with His LAW, is NFS (CCC 16) directly contradicting Acts 13:39.

        10) Reliance on Mary to bring you the “gifts” of eternal salvation is N.F.S…. (CCC 969)

        11) Sorrow and Misery are N.F.S…. “Sins must be expiated through the sorrows and misery and trials of life” (V-2)

        12) Indulgences are N.F.S… “The church commands the use of indulgences…for the task of winning salvation” (V- 2)

        13) Purgatory is N.F.S…. Sins are “atoned” for by the suffering of the sinner and NOT the sufferings of Christ, per “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 485.

        1. Satanic coming from your mouth, you must have known satan very well. We did not add one thing to the bible and that is precisely why you need to read your history books. BTW, did you also miss what St. Paul said in the Bible that he is a Priest, a Catholic priest, he pointed you to the Eucharist but sadly you don’t believe. Hmmmm, your propaganda and tactics will not scare us here because we hold the Truth. Your true colors will show however you want to hide it. Repugnant and evil! You think you can come in here and preach your evil atheist ideas or maybe 7D Adventist ideas and try to confuse the faithful with your rants and insults? Well sister, I believe you have just started, now show us how evil can you get. We’ve heard all of these before, we pray for the likes of you to come to the light. And yes, do not be afraid to call on Mary when someday you come out of this evil spell. She will lead you to her Son, Jesus the Christ. Have you called Mary Blessed lately? It is very biblical and so is Mother of Christ and Mother of my Lord. Be careful out there, wolves are out there looking for people like you.

          1. S…We did not add one thing to the bible

            M: YES YOU DID, as it regards being “necessary for salvation”. I gave you 13 reasons and you are therefore refuted.

            S. BTW, did you also miss what St. Paul said in the Bible that he is a Priest, a Catholic priest

            M: CATHOLICS don’t even believe Paul was an RC priest! Who in the world is teaching you this garbage? You are indeed just as lost as those self-proclaiming Christians in Matt 7 & 25, and your fate will be likewise.

      2. I think you mean 100 AD?

        In 1 AD Joseph and Mary would be arguing with Micah in Egypt somewhere…trying to convince him to be more patient, wise and loving…like they were. Mary said very few words in the Gospel, and was quite hidden after the Resurrection of Christ. Yet, what other woman in history had an angel say: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” And after this saying of the Angel, Mary herself says to her cousin Elizabeth ” from this day all generations will call me blessed”.

        It’s actually quite amazing that pretty much only Catholic and Orthodox fulfill this prophesy and call Mary “blessed” on a regular basis. I call her ‘blessed’ 50 times per day while praying the Rosary with my wife every night.

        1. Absolutely nothing you have said refutes one word I wrote. Instead you switch the subject to Maria Marvelous.
          Pathetic.
          But since you bring up the subject, the ridiculous command to bring “ALL” our cares to Mary (#2677)…let alone 50 times a day as you do, completely contradicts the word of God and you must be condemned (Phil 4:6-7, 1 Peter 5:7, Heb 4:15-16).

          1. Micah, continue reading Philippians 4 verse 8 should remind you of the Blessed Mother of Christ:

            8 Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. 9 Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.

            Verse 9, you need to put into practice what St. Paul told you about the Eucharist and the God of peace will be with you.

            St Paul teaches the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He states that the cup of blessing is the participation in the blood of Christ and the bread we break is the participation in the body of Christ (see 1 Corinthians 10:16). What must the cup and the bread be to make possible this participation in the blood and body of Christ? The most obvious and logical answer is that the bread and cup of wine must really be the body and blood of Christ. St Paul also said that whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord; and any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself (See 1 Corinthians 11:27, 29). How can eating mere bread and wine unworthily be so serious? Paul’s comments make sense only if bread and wine become the real body and blood of Christ.

          2. Micah,

            Read your bible, the Didache and early Church history and you will find that it is consistent that Bishops and Priest are needed to concentrate the Eucharist. St. Paul told you he is a priest and you won’t even believe him.

            You said Paul is not a priest, you were shocked and said it is a garbage teaching. But that is what the Bible say, he is a priest, he said so in Romans 15. He is a Catholic priest because he proclaimed Jesus and the Eucharist.

            Romans 15:14-22
            14 I myself am convinced, my brothers and sisters, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with knowledge and competent to instruct one another. 15 Yet I have written you quite boldly on some points to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me 16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles. He gave me the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

            17 Therefore I glory in Christ Jesus in my service to God. 18 I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done— 19 by the power of signs and wonders, through the power of the Spirit of God. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. 20 It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation. 21 Rather, as it is written:

            “Those who were not told about him will see,
            and those who have not heard will understand.”[g]
            22 This is why I have often been hindered from coming to
            You.

        2. Awlms, thank you for your witness and love of our Blessed Mother. I concentrate the hearts of my family to the immaculate heart of Mary and the most Sacred Heart of our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus’ heart beats with Mary while He was in her womb. I feel their heartbeats whenever I touch the beads of my Rosary. Praise be to Jesus.

    3. Micah,

      Obviously, Mr. Heschmeyer is deleting my comments, and most recently the FACT of the Didache not supporting the “Real Presence”. Instead of dealing with it, he deletes it, including a few other things I posted.
      It’s pretty obvious the truth is beginning to scare him.

      Actually, I haven’t deleted any of your comments. That said, you’ve been an obnoxious boor who has been hurling unjust accusations at everyone, and generally drawing out the worst of most of the people you’ve spoken to (I still think that they shouldn’t have indulged your trolling in the first place). At this point, I’m going to have to ask you to leave and to stop trolling my blog. If you don’t respect this, I will delete your previous comments. If you have any authentic questions about Catholicism, you’ve got my e-mail, but this current awfulness isn’t benefiting anyone or drawing anyone closer to Christ.

      I.X.,

      Joe

      1. Joe: “I will delete your previous comments.”

        If you do go ahead and do this, please delete my responses along with them, thanks!

    4. You have got to be kidding , your about as frightening as as a tadpole .

      Your ego is incredible beyond belief . the fact that you think that could frighten this man shows just how stupendously arrogant you are , and totally detached from reality .

      You keep blowing that horn of yours man , coz you’re the only one who possibly would

  22. Joe, these kind of exchanges are all over the internet and our young generations are bombarded with this kind of propaganda and they have been successful in converting lukewarm Catholics. A little dose of their own medicine might not be a bad thing, the lies they propagate sadly becomes the truth if they go unchallenged at the cost of some of our brethren. My hope is that a seed of doubt is planted. This might be an interesting blog for you, when do we go Matthew 10:14 when defending the faith, most especially the Eucharist and the Blessed Virgin? I have been wondering about that.

    1. “the lies they propagate sadly becomes the truth if they go unchallenged”

      This reminds me of King Solomons famous trial, where the two mothers are claiming the same infant for their own. And, because of the ‘foul’ attitude and words of the criminal mother, who indeed switched her dead baby with that of the innocent mother, the whole world could distinguish the truth of the matter disputed.

      And what was the wisdom used in solving this problem?

      Solomon tested them of their motives and love love. He wanted to gauge the quantity of love that both mothers had for the one living baby. And, clearly the real mother demonstrated it by loving the life of her child even more than her own desire to raise the baby.

      So, when Jesus says, “you will know my disciples by their love’ on the night before He died….it is very similar to this story of Solomon. Divine love always tries to raise up a sinner out of a hole, and not to push him down deeper. This is due to divine love.

      So, when you see Catholics taking their time to lovingly explain and clarify the faith to others, this motive of the love that they have for the other should not be ignored. Like in the story of Solomon, all the people could distinguish the truth and victory of the dispute by the love exhibited by the one side, and the careless and brutish attitude of the other side.

      Long live Jesus, meek and humble of Heart! Long live His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church…who follows with great love their meek and humble Shepherd and King…now and forever!

    2. Guys: I have to say with admiration, you all, when dealing with “him”… were a lot better at living Matt 10:16 than I was. I have been at CQB distance with characters like him for too long…it has cost me personally and i don’t take well to that brand of abuse.

      Little doubt in my mind, from some of his online behaviors, that he was a plant. Why? My son is at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary, and he says that the staff there refer to the period of the 60’s to the mid-80’s as the Great Exodus. Many reasons for that, but with some of the Vatican II reforms and especially the New Evangelization of St JP (The Great, for a reason) there is a slow but steady reversal. The ‘Jesus Freak’ movement of the 70s’ that picked off the weak and vulnerable, is starting to run out of steam. After awhile, after the hands-in-the-air glow starts to wear, and people see the truth behind what they have been asked to believe, they start searching again. The spiritual resurgence of the Catholic Church can showcase prominent converts from evangelicalism like Scott Hahn, Stephen Ray, Ulf Eckman, and Alex Jones who came over due to a close examination of their evangelical beliefs vis. Catholicism. This trend has to scare the daylights out of the evangelicals, because they are a mile wide and an inch deep; I believe they will take any opportunity possible to undermine good, erudite, Scripturally defensible work such as Joe is doing with this blog. I believe Micah didn’t have an original thought in his head…the disappearances between periods after he had been properly skewered were to go back to whomever his handler was, and re-fit with more cut/pasted and twisted nonsense. Sow discord and shut down debate. Forlorn hope, but disquieting nonetheless.

      The lesson learned? I have been on Protestant blogs where any dissent is shut down immediately. Kids today see through that, right away with a ‘what do you have to hide,’ so Joe was right to let him have his say, even to the level of abuse. But when the result is chaos, and that’s like one judge’s definition of pornography (“I know it when i see it”) then it’s time to Luke 9:5…..

      I am proud and humble to associate with you all here.

      1. “I am proud and humble to associate with you all here.”

        You too, AK.

        Regarding the 60’s – mid 80’s I can only say that it seems Protestantism thrives when ignorance thrives. With the internet, and widespread Catholic radio and television, the truth is being revealed regarding the true nature of Christianity. And a lot of this was due to the general difficulty of access to historical sources and evidence in the recent past, such as the writings of the Church Fathers. In American history, pretty much any charismatic ‘snake oil salesman’ could start a mobil tent revival tour, wherein he could travel through the country expounding the scriptures in any way he wanted, and with little evidence available for the ignorant ‘little house on the Prairie’ populations to refute him. And because Catholicism was in the minority for centuries, Christian ignorance reigned, and thus Protestantism and fundamentalism reigned. Now that we have the internet, the truth is readily available for all who want to study a little.

        Best to you, and keep up the great comments. There are plenty of nuggets of Christian wisdom contained in the quotes from early Christian History, that are brought to the surface in the comments here. For myself, at least, they are very valuable for both my own spirituality, as well as for others with whom I talk, when used to answer their questions concerning Catholic faith and practices.

        1. awlms: Simplicity is brilliance. And so of your observations. The scholars I referenced, as soon as they began seriously to research the roots of Christianity, and cease to engage in partaking of the self-licking ice cream cone of confirmation bias through, for example, twisted and obviously contrived inventions of metaphor (where have we seen that before?) they discovered the Truth and crossed the Tiber. I am glad many of us are properly and already encamped on that blissful shore.

      2. Spare us all the ridiculous notion that I was a “plant” set up to abuse everybody! The accusation is ludicrous beyond measure, and contrary to you, ***I*** am “proud and humble to be associated with the true Christ of the Bible, not the christ you worship who is dressed in an apron and carrying a feather duster, and one who demands we speak like a charity church mouse under any and all circumstances.
        Mr. Heschmeyer knows that I came here as a direct result of hearing his radio interview, not that I was a “PLANT” by some evil wizard of oz.
        Furthermore, I never consulted ANYBODY on what I submitted here – contrary to your other idiot accusations, neither did I CUT AND PASTE ANYTHING, for if I did…where did I cut and it from? If you had the evidence, you would have posted it here to my shame. But as anyone can see, you did no such thing, and that is because you are simply very full of hot air and unfounded accusations to no end!
        Again, I laugh out loud at the, “he didn’t produce ONE original thought” blabber! Oh really? If you were to debate me in person in a public forum, that innocuous thought would vaporize within the first 10 minutes, and of course, you would lose the debate after it was all over. If it were possible, I would debate the Pope, but of course, he’s too busy packing his bags for Sweden next month to celebrate the REFORMATION! What a joke.

        What in the world you mean by my “DISAPPEARANCE BETWEEN PERIODS” I have no idea. All of this conversation took place between the course of a FEW DAYS! You suppose that because I didn’t answer you within 5 minutes, that there was something sinister going on? Get a life.

        1. Secret’s out, huh, Goob? I’m sure it hurts.

          You’re right Joe….exposure does result in a certain degree of contamination. I’ll work on that.

  23. I used to be a “Micah”. Reformed baptist antiCatholic rage righteous guy. It took 30 years before I saw that Pauline spirituality demanded real presence, the Maura’s understanding of the NT led to the theology and practices of the early church (Catholic Copt orthodox malabar Ethiopian)
    It terrified me that I had put words in Jesus mouth that could be spoken directly to me, sending me to hell.
    “YOU TWIST THE SCRIPTURES, ignoring the words their sense and their history for the sake of your proud opinions.
    Now, depart from me.”
    So I became catholic

    1. Welcome aboard, Wayne!

      I have multiple friends who can witness to the same experience, with a similar timeline. 1 Corinthians 13:11 applies.

    2. Hi Joe , Micah is a pain for sure . I think at the end of the day , you need to decide if he is on this blog for the right reasons .

      Consider the following

      1 Is he here to troll
      2 Is he here to dialogue

      I personally think he is here to troll . In one of his posts he calls the pope a dancing bear in the circus of life .

      This is getting beyond theological debating and is becoming rather nasty and i have reacted uncharitably towards him as result . thats not his problem , thats mine and i own it

      Compare this guy to Craig Truglia , they are poles apart

      Time to cut this guy loose Joe , its just becoming too nauseating

      AK is right

  24. It seems to me that, at least with Micah and those who pursue similar avenues, God’s Truth is to be determined by the strength and technique of the debater. Of course good debaters come and go for both sides, which means logically that Truth becomes nothing more than a traveling trophy.

    Or maybe, just maybe, God’s Wisdom and Truth was left in deposit with a selected few, to be passed down through the ages and protected by the Holy Spirit.

    But that would be logical.

  25. M.J. we Catholics wrote every single letter of the New Testament, we OWN IT LOCK STOCK AND BARREL.

    M: Thank you for that last hilarious laugh as I make my exit. I shall remind you, however, if you ever wake up out of your spiritual coma, that not one credible source on this planet will attest to the bombastic claim that members of the RCC exclusively WROTE AND DO NOW OWN THE BIBLE

    You’re welcome. A good laugh is a useful act.

    For those who are unaware of it, the claim I cited is taken from the Introduction Place of the Bible in the Church from the 1953 Thomas A Nelson published work, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture edited by Dom Bernard Orchard (and others) with a forward by The Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster,Bernard Cardinal Griffin.

    In fact, the claim is even more extensive than the one I originally cited; it claims the following:

    It is the teaching of the Church that the Old Testament Scriptures were transferred to her ownership by Christ himself in view of her position as the new “Israel of God” and heir of the OT promises; and that the New Testament Scriptures being written within the Church by some of its members for the benefit of all (or more precisely with the society of the Catholic Church by Catholics and for Catholics), are likewise her exclusive property, of which she is the absolute Owner, Guardian, Trustee, and interpreter. To those outside her Communion the stay seem a fantastic clim, quite out of touch with reality…

    Prolly not too many men know that one criterion for whether or not a book would be included in the Canon of the New Testament was whether or not it had been read at Mass for not too many men understand that the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church existed prior to the writing of the New Testament.

    Isn’t it a shame we no longer proclaim these truths publicly?

  26. Micah says, Get a life and in saying that he, inadvertently, recalls to all the words of Jesus he repudiates.

    Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

    What an strange thing life and free will is, for he who is being arrogant, sarcastic, and angry towards others issues a dismissive throwaway that he, more than anyone else in this thread, must obey if he is to attain unto eternal life but Pride is leading him unto an eternal fall.

    1. There are many physical actions that Jesus commands us to do in this life with the threat of eternal damnation if we do not do them. Protestants only complicate matters when they say that these physical actions, such as ‘carrying our cross and following Him’ aren’t necessary for salvation, but only faith is, as if obeying Christ words are optional for salvation. Jesus clearly means by the sum total of His sayings and parables, that we are to first to have faith by learning about and coming to know Him, and then this leads to imitating Him, even as St. Paul said…”Be imitators of me as I am of Christ’.

      So, where they get the notion that these actions are not necessary, when Jesus explicitly says so, seems to deny the reality that we actually need to live in a physical, God created world. Their ‘faith alone’ doctrine actually seems more suited to angels then man, it seems. Moreover, that our actions in this world have real consequences for our salvation, Jesus even says: “That which you do to the least of My brothers, you do to Me.” What is simpler to understand? Jesus is %100 literal in this Gospel precept, as is even proven by St. Paul’s miraculous conversion, and words of Christ to him, on his way to Damascus.

      There is way too much philosophical gymnastics in Protestant theology.

        1. Reading this guy’s rants for days, I kept thinking, where have I heard this before….? Finally realized it….his speech usages, patterns, and ways of interacting with us all were identical to what I have seen and read from both the Westboro Baptists, and from a ‘campus preacher’ named Micah Armstrong. The insults, the homey midwesternisms (“Heaven’s to Betsy????”), the arrogance, the almost unmitigated “God Hates You” could have been from a “Thank God For Dead Soldiers” Phelps’ family gathering at a combat KIA funeral.

          Brain bleach in the form of a few Rosary’s, and a nice sampling of the Sacraments…..that’s better….and yes, some for “him” as well….

          And grateful, again, for the friends here I will probably never meet, in this life.

  27. What about John 6:63: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. “, doesn’t that prove the protestant view? That’s the answer on gotquestions.com

    1. Dan,

      Good question. Short answer; to read John 6:63 as rejecting the involvement of the Flesh would render the Passion of Christ worthless. “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” (John 6:51).

      Longer answer: here.

    2. Hi Dan : I would like to offer an explanation of this problem , though i am sure it will nor be as concise as Joe’s burt here goes

      THE FLESH IS OF NO AVAIL

      FIRST EXPLANATION It makes no sense for Christ to undervalue such strong language regarding the eating and drinking of his flesh and blood with a phrase like “the flesh is of no avail” . Instead He uses this phrase for the following reason . 1 To distinguish between the eating of his flesh and blood as spiritual food for the nourishment of the soul and the act of pure cannibalism which would be of course would be of “no avail”.

      SECOND EXPLANATION : It has also been said that the phrase could also have been used To distinguish between the light of Faith by which the faithful believe that Christ can and does give his flesh and blood as real food and real drink , and those that cannot accept this truth of faith . The flesh can be considered to be human understanding which is limited and relies only on whats it can perceive through the senses . I Think the first explanation fits better with the context , but we have seen in other scriptural passages where flesh and blood have been use as an equivalence to human understanding , i.e. when Peter declares Christ to be the Son of the Living God . Christ states that it WAS NOT flesh and blood ( Human understanding ) that revealed that truth , but the Father in heaven

      Hope that helps somewhat

  28. It is an obvious metaphor. If anything Jesus is saying “my words are real” because he believes metaphors are more powerful than such a shallow belief that all you have to do is eat a wafer and you are eating God and getting for-filled! My gosh why can’t anybody see that? Believing in Him/Jesus is the culmination of what he talked about before, claims to divinity, working on the Sabbath, etc. he’s not changing the subject! He’s clarifying it with a metaphor! Which is much deeper, powerful, and logical by the way than Sunday wafer munching. Catholics claim their faith doesn’t contradict Logic but in this case it clearly does! BTW you are also wrong about no one else turning away from Jesus and his hard sayings. The Rich Young man went away sad because Jesus told him to give up everything! And it’s really the same message their too! If we were to follow “catholic logic” here just go empty out your bank account every week and you will be saved. He’s saying give 100% effort to my message like I am giving it all too on the cross. Another perfect example is Nicodemus! It’s the same message there too! Just swap people Jesus says really people? You are Jewish teachers and you do not understand what I am saying? It’s a metaphor! We are not going back into the womb of are mother Yooooo hoooooo wake up!

    1. My My…another Calvintard/Baptard with the roooooling vowels. You a Jimmy White sock puppet too?

      How about Philemon 10? Heb 12: 7-9? Acts 7:2? Romans 4: 16-17?

      We can proof text too….difference is, our religion isn’t INVENTED BY A MAN like yours.

      1. I’ve never seen “Father” used as a title in the Bible. Yes Paul mentored other men and used the word father (we are not forbidden from using the word father! Big difference. Big difference than having a whole congregation call him Father.

        Matthew 23:9 is as explicit and as literal as it gets, how could you interpret this any other way?

        “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”

        ‘One’ Father in Heaven. It’s almost like something devious is going on in Catholicism to deliberately disobey this! You should read that whole chapter; there are some pretty stern warnings in there!

        And the reference to Abraham as father, that’s just so far off base, using the old testament where there actually was the priesthood in place to do sacrifices. The veil is torn, we don”t do sacrifices anymore. Jesus is the final sacrifice. He goes on in Matthew 23 to say call no man Rabbi either or no man Master For I am you Master. Rabbi is a title in a religion the exact same as “Father” in the Catholic religion!

        1. In translation, you went on for five paragraphs saying “You’re wrong because I say you are…”

          Hey, if it makes you happy….

          Go do something useful – grind some grains and bake some real bread… 🙂

    2. Clear language of John 6: 53 and the best you can do is “metaphor?” One of your retarded paint-chip-eating fellows tried that already.

    3. “It is an obvious metaphor. If anything Jesus is saying “my words are real” because he believes metaphors are more powerful than such a shallow belief that all you have to do is eat a wafer and you are eating God and getting for-filled! My gosh why can’t anybody see that?”

      Did you **really** just say that? This is the same character who just said “call no man father” is literal.

      My God, the human capacity for self-delusion is limitless.

      1. AK,

        although I’m in agreement with you, your biggest mistake here was taking any of the bait that Andrew left with his comment spree. There’s no point in answering him.

        Before answering guys like him, just ask yourself honestly whether you think he would be convinced by anything we say.

        he’s winning because everything he says is infuriating you and as a result eliciting a response – probably not good ones.

        Just a thought for future reference 😉

        Marius Lombaard

        1. Marius – glad to meet you, and yes, I do allow myself to get sucked in. Appreciate your pulling on the tether…

          I am outta here on this one, having made my comment on the hilarity and hypocrisy of the ‘metaphor’ argument.

      2. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.

        Colossians 4:6

        sorry, not picking on you, just helping before things go too far south.

  29. I think it’s obvious why AK is upset, because he’s wrong! “I am the Bread that came down from Heaven.” <—– METAPHOR

    So Jesus is a loaf that fell from the sky? No, it's a Metaphor. Here's verse 57 & 58: "so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

    58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

    Right there he is equating "Eating him" with "Living by him." His message. "… shall live forever" How is this accomplished? How do we live forever? By Believing in Jesus and his message! Case closed

  30. Did you know we’re not even supposed to eat Bread? The carbs in it are crazy, yeah it’s giving everybody diabetes. So there’s another reason it can’t possibly be literal.

    1. Sigh…Genesis 3:19 (KJV, D-R, RSV).

      Unless it was a metaphor for tofu. Reformed’s seem to find a lot of metaphors in the most unexpected places.

      Best to you….as well, my case is…closed.

    2. By the way…there’s a great big difference between the bread people buy off a shelf today and what they ate back then. People 2000 years ago would not recognize a loaf of Wonder Bread as something one might eat.

      Buy a Nutri-Bullet with the milling blade, buy some non-GMO whole barley, oats, or wheat grains from Whole Foods, get a recipe and make your own. I guarantee you’ll see a difference in bread that is a meal by itself….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *