Kinda-sorta Satanists play with fire by promising a kinda-sorta Black Mass at kinda-sorta Harvard

posted at 10:01 am on May 8, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

In a series of increasingly absurd claims and walkbacks, what’s clear is that no one seems to know just what neo-Satanists affiliated with a Harvard extension school have in mind, least of all Harvard or the Satanists. At first, a group operating as part of the Harvard Extension Cultural Studies Club teamed up with members of a Satanist temple in New York to promise a Black Mass on Harvard’s campus next week — complete with a consecrated host from a Catholic Church. That got the attention of Women of Grace, which reported it to the online Catholic community:

The Harvard Extension Cultural Studies Club is allegedly hosting a black mass on May 12 to be staged by The Satanic Temple and which will include a consecrated host.

According to a press release from The Satanic Temple, they plan on presenting the black mass at the Queens Head Pub in Memorial Hall, 45 Quincy Street, Cambridge, MA along with “an academic narration that explores the ritual’s unique history and practice.”

Priya Dua, of The Satanic Temple’s Public Relations office confirmed to us in an e-mail that “Yes, there will be a consecrated host at the black mass.”

That got plenty of attention — and rightfully so — from Catholic bloggers, such as my friends Elizabeth Scalia, Deacon Greg Kandra, and Peter Ingemi. Some of their take was skeptical, as was Thomas McDonald’s, who noted that “real Satanists don’t send press releases.” With the suspected theft of a consecrated host — an act that has a long history in regard to satanists — Catholics nonetheless pressed for answers about Harvard’s involvement in this act.

Suddenly, the satanists decided that they weren’t really satanists after all, but merely performance artists, or something:

Members of the Harvard Extension Cultural Studies Club, who posted fliers and notices on campus and online about the Satanic worshipping happening on May 12, said the event is educational and meant to add historical context to a lecture on the subject that will precede it. “Our purpose is not to denigrate any religion or faith, which would be repugnant to our educational purposes, but instead to learn and experience the history of different cultural practices,” the group said in a statement. “This performance is part of a larger effort to explore religious facets that continue to influence contemporary culture.”

The group has teamed up with members from the New York-based Satanic Temple, the same organization that has been fighting tooth and nail to get a bronze Satanic statue installed outsideof Oklahoma’s State House this year, to carry out the demonstration and reenactment of the Black Mass. The Satanic Temple will provide commentary and historical background as the ritual is happening, according to event details posted on the Harvard Extension Cultural Studies Club’s website.

The above-mentioned Priya Dua then recanted his insistence that a consecrated host would be used. That, however, was followed by a “squirrely, and too clever by half” response from another of the group’s members that attempted to parse the word “consecrated”:

My reservation stemmed from what seemed like ambiguous language from Lucien Greaves. After the emphatic walk-back by spokesperson Priya Dua — who stated firmly that no Consecrated Host would be used — Greaves’ remarks to Kaitlyn Schallhorn at Campus Reform seemed squirrely, and too clever by half:

Greaves confirmed the ritual will use a “host” although as the group doesn’t believe in the “supernatural elements,” he couldn’t call it a “consecrated host” as Catholics do.

This is not quite what he had said to me, earlier, and it seems to me to be word-parsing that cannot be overlooked. Did he mean that while he, Lucien Greaves would not call the host consecrated, others would?

At the same time, Harvard was busily insisting that it had little to do with an event that bears its name and will take place on its campus:

In response to some outrage about the planned ceremony, which is scheduled to take place at Harvard’s Queen’s Head Pub, in Memorial Hall, school officials said while they don’t condone this particular type of worship, they have no plans to shut the gathering down. “Students at Harvard Extension School, like students at colleges across the nation, organize and operate a number of independent student organizations, representing a wide range of student interests,” Harvard officials said in a written statement.

As Kate O’Hare and Peter Ingemi note, the entire exercise is a confused mess of relativism and political posturing, not to mention idiocy:

The answers were slow in coming and contradictory, with a spokesperson for the Temple first confirming that a Consecrated Host would be used. However, in a later conversation with Scalia, Temple bigwig Lucien Greaves (a.k.a. former Harvard student Doug Mesner) said that was not the case.

According to an interview conducted with Mesner at Vice.com, the Satanic Temple isn’t the place to go if you really want to seriously worship Lucifer (or any other supernatural being). Mesner sees its mission more as poking religion in the eye and challenging its place in the public square by insisting that Old Scratch also gets a seat at the table (hence the group’s support of a fairly ludicrous-looking statue of Satan and some adoring youngsters at the Oklahoma State Capital, to keep company with a plaque containing the Biblical Ten Commandments).

As Mesner tells Vice writer Shane Bugbee, “While the original thinking was that the Satanic Temple needed to hold to some belief in a supernatural entity known as ‘Satan,’ none of us truly believed that. I helped develop us into something we all do truly believe in and wholeheartedly embrace: an atheistic philosophical framework that views ‘Satan’ as a metaphorical construct by which we contextualize our works.

“We’ve moved well beyond being a simple political ploy and into being a very sincere movement that seeks to separate religion from superstition and to contribute positively to the cultural dialogue.”

Apparently, for the Temple, “contributing positively to the cultural dialogue” consists of taking the “source and summit” of the Catholic faith, the Eucharist, and using it in some sort of quasi-historical/theatrical evening of entertainment.

Or, as DaTechGuy blog said in an extensive post (referring to some other recent cultural events), “The Harvard Cultural Studies group is hosting an event on campus that includes a Satanic black mass from a group that claims not to actually believe in Satan, never performed a black mass, and when called on to explain the university’s position, equated a black mass to a Shinto tea ceremony and Buddhist meditation.”

If you’re attempting to bolster religion by separating it from superstition, conducting a satanic Black Mass is, er, the wrong approach, no? Plenty of people have denigrated consecrated hosts in the past, which hardly makes this a novel approach anyway, even if the neo-satanists know whether or not they will use one in their “ceremony.” If they’re doing it to make a point for atheism, they’re doing it in the worst way possible, but if they actually believe that religion is helpful, why only insult Catholics?

None of this makes any sense at all, but at least we can agree on one thing: Harvard isn’t exactly improving the critical thinking of its student body, especially not through its extension education. And as a Catholic, I’d add that idiocy isn’t the only danger here. Calling on supernatural forces may result in nothing but adolescent giggling on the part of its participants, but other outcomes may be possible, too, and they won’t be pleasant. Maybe they should learn a little about religion before staging its ceremonies, as performance art or anything else.

As I wrote yesterday to Elizabeth Scalia, this reminds me of a passage from The Screwtape Letters, in Letter 7:

“I have great hopes that we shall learn in due time how to emotionalise and mythologise their science to such an extent that what is, in effect, a belief in us (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to belief in the Enemy. The ‘Life Force’, the worship of sex, and some aspects of Psychoanalysis, may here prove useful. If once we can produce our perfect work— the Materialist Magician, the man, not using, but veritably worshipping, what he vaguely calls ‘Forces’ while denying the existence of ‘spirits’— then the end of the war will be in sight.”
Unwittingly or not, that’s the ambition for which Greaves/Mesner strives.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Bigbullets on May 9, 2014 at 2:53 AM

A hundred million! Can I get two? Gimme two gimme two gimme two… the man in the overalls two… who’ll gimme three? Gotta have three have three have three howsabout 2.5? 2.5 from the man with the straw hat. Now howabout three gimme three hundred million, three hundred million…

Akzed on May 9, 2014 at 9:53 AM

See what y’all did? I’ll never get my answer now….

I hope you feel guilty!

OK, I can’t quite keep a total straight face on that…LMAO.

Ok, nonetheless Timothy or James? Somebody step up and give me an answer. Please?

NiteOwl on May 9, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Sigh, ok… no one knows. I give up.

NiteOwl on May 9, 2014 at 10:57 AM

If that date is correct, the why is still a bit of a mystery to me.

NiteOwl on May 9, 2014 at 6:29 AM

It is the great mystery of our faith, yes.

joe_doufu on May 9, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Just my understanding, and perhaps I’m wrong… but Jesus was suppose to have started his ministry at the age of 30 and was crucified at the age of 33. Am I getting any of this right?

NiteOwl on May 9, 2014 at 6:25 AM

I don’t remember if the Bible ever says so precisely, but those are the generally accepted estimates. He was born in December of 1 BC (there’s no year zero… 1 BC is followed by 1 AD), began his public ministry upon the arrest of John the Baptist, and was crucified around 33 AD.

joe_doufu on May 9, 2014 at 3:36 PM

It was first celebrated on the Thursday night of the week of Passover, probably in 33 AD, in an upstairs room in Jerusalem.

joe_doufu on May 9, 2014 at 5:47 AM

Was it in Timothy or James mothers house?

NiteOwl on May 9, 2014 at 6:19 AM

Just my understanding, and perhaps I’m wrong… but Jesus was suppose to have started his ministry at the age of 30 and was crucified at the age of 33. Am I getting any of this right?

NiteOwl on May 9, 2014 at 6:25 AM

Sorry I haven’t been back here till now. Just to add to what Joe said,

Luke’s Gospel tells us Jesus was “about 30 years old” when He started his ministry. And the St. John’s Gospel show 3 or maybe 4 Passovers during His ministry, including the one when He was sacrificed. So that is where Jesus being 33 when He died became the traditional belief. (small “t.”) The “about 30” might have been 31. Or 30 or almost 31. The 4th feast day mentioned in John’s Gospel might not have been Passover.

So it isn’t 100%, but likely that He was 33.

I noted from one of your posts that you have read the Bible several times in the past. What you are probably remembering and thinking of is Acts 12:12 where is it talks about John Mark’s mother. Mark was not one of the 12 Apostles. (This may be St. Mark who wrote the Gospel)

“When he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who is called Mark, where there were many people gathered in prayer.”

While the New Testament never says whose house the upper room belonged to, it is entirely possible that it was John Mark’s mother’s house, since her home was a gathering place after Jesus’ death. But the Gospel’s speak of the “master” of the house for the upper room. (Male) Unless Mark’s father died before Acts 12, it would be curious that Acts called it his mother’s house, instead of his parent’s house.

No one knows whose house was the “upper room.” There is a Church over the traditional site of the upper room built few centuries after Christ.

St. Timothy was a companion of St. Paul in the New Testament, who wrote the 2 Epistles of Timothy. He wasn’t in the Gospels. He wasn’t one of the 12 Apostles.

There were 2 Apostles named James. Zebedee had 2 sons who were Apostles: John and James. And the other Apostle James was the son of Alphaeus, brother of the Apostle Jude. After Jesus’ death the New Testament calls this James “the brother of the Lord” who became the first Bishop of Jerusalem, whose brother wrote the Epistle of Jude.

Their mother was Mary, the mother of James, Jude and Josas (Joseph), who was at the foot of the cross and one of the women at the tomb, per the Gospels.

That’s probably why you were thinking of James’ mother.

Elisa on May 9, 2014 at 10:16 PM

If that date is correct, the why is still a bit of a mystery to me.

NiteOwl on May 9, 2014 at 6:29 AM

Think of it as you are what you eat and we are to become Christlike, as Scripture tells us.

Actually many of Jesus’ disciples in John chapter 6 also could not understand it and grumbled about “how could he give us his flesh to eat” and “this saying is hard; who can accept it?” . . . As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.” These were men who knew Him, followed Jesus around as disciples. Not just some people who happened to hear Jesus preach one day. They left Him and no longer followed Him. And Jesus let them go. He didn’t call after them, “no, you misunderstand. I was speaking figuratively.” (As John clearly says in the next chapter about “living water.” John 7:37-39)

In Exodus the Israelites were instructed by God to “eat the flesh” of the unblemished lamb. And in John 6 Jesus tells us to “eat my flesh.”

1 Corinthians 10:16: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”

It is not (as you know) cannibalism or a bloody thing, which would be abhorrent to the Jews. (another reason Jesus wouldn’t have used that imagery unless He meant it as really eating His flesh.)

It is a “bloodless sacrifice.” A “pure offering” mentioned in Malichi.

Like Joe said, the Eucharist is a great mystery. But we trust in Jesus’ Word. Like the Apostles did. After those other disciples left in John 6:

“Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”

Think of it like this. Besides being with us spiritually in prayer and in Scripture reading, out of love for us, Jesus allows us to be with Him in another added dimension as well. Physically. We take Him into our bodies, into our hearts, both spiritually and physically.

A priest once told me, it was like getting a hug and kiss from Jesus. Being able to hug a loved one is always better than talking to them on the phone or in a letter or feeling them with you in spirit.

When Jesus said, “I am with you always,” He didn’t just mean spiritually.

Elisa on May 9, 2014 at 10:41 PM

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Jn 6:63″

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 8:33 AM

John 6:63:
“It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.”

You can’t quote that sentence without Jesus’ next sentence related to it. Or take the verse out of context of the whole chapter.

Some take this one sentence out of the whole chapter and thinks it negates all the direct and strong language in the chapter.

Was Jesus saying that eating His flesh is important over and over again in definitive language throughout the whole chapter, then saying, “never mind, not important, my flesh is meaningless, it’s of no avail.”

Verse 63 isn’t talking about Jesus’ flesh, it’s talking about OUR flesh. Jesus wasn’t saying His flesh was “of no avail.” How could Jesus’ flesh EVER be described as being of no avail? “The Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us.” Flesh that died on the cross; flesh that was sacrificed for our salvation. Flesh that rose again and ascended into Heaven (His actual Body, His Flesh, not just His Spirit) and His flesh that will come again, His resurrected and glorified Body.

When Jesus is saying “spirit” here it means that one can only understand this truth about the Eucharist and trust His Words here with faith. The Spirit gives us faith to believe His truth on the Eucharist. Without the Spirit we have no faith and our lives, our bodies, our flesh is useless alone to come to the truth. Our flesh is of no avail on our own. So some of the disciple who followed Him could not have faith in Jesus’ Words about the Eucharist because they were using their human judgment, not relying on the Spirit to help them understand. As the excerpt below says, “natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable.”

Spirit does not mean symbolic. I’ve read once that “the word Spirit is never used that way in the Bible.”

John 6 begins with Jesus multiplying the loaves and fishes and feeding the multitude with regular food. Then the next day the people return to Jesus and He says in verses 26 and 27:

“Jesus answered them and said, “Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled. Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him the Father, God, has set his seal.” ”

Jesus is telling them that they only came back to be fed physical food to sustain their bodies and not their souls. Then He discusses the “bread from Heaven”, Himself, (the Eucharist to Catholics and Orthodox.)

Then in the final paragraph of the chapter verse 63 it says,
“It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

Christ is wrapping up the whole Chapter here and going back to what he said in verses 26 and 27. Telling them not to look for food for their bodies, because “the flesh is of no avail.” The words he spoke, the bread of life, “are spirit and life.” Not the bread He gave them the day before. The bread He will give us all at the Last Supper and for all eternity are life itself. He is saying our souls are more important than our bodies.

So taken in context:
“Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” 61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? 62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. 65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” 66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.”

Some of His disciples (not the Twelve) who followed Jesus said that what Jesus was saying was hard to believe. Jesus did not say they misunderstood and He was being figurative so they could accept His Words, so His Words weren’t “hard.”

Instead Jesus explains why they do not believe. Because they are trying to use their own human judgment and not RELYING ON THE SPIRIT, not trusting the Word of God, not having faith which is given by the Spirit. Faith does not come from their own flesh, but from God. And that if they do not trust in His Word and rely on the Spirit, how could they believe what is yet to come, His rising from the dead and ascension.

They did not believe, so they left Jesus and He let them go. He didn’t say they misunderstood Him.

RELYING ON THE SPIRIT, ON FAITH, NOT ON OUR HUMAN UNDERSTANDING.

Elisa on May 10, 2014 at 11:19 AM

As the excerpt below says, “natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable.”

Spirit does not mean symbolic. I’ve read once that “the word Spirit is never used that way in the Bible.”

Just reread the excerpt I had kept and saw the second quote was also from Catholic Answers.

Here is an excerpt from Catholic Answers:

“In John 6:63 “flesh profits nothing” refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.” So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for “symbolic”? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 “flesh” does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. “The words I have spoken to you are spirit” does not mean “What I have just said is symbolic.” The word “spirit” is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them.”

(end of excerpt)

Elisa on May 10, 2014 at 11:26 AM

They didn’t eat Jesus’ actual flesh, or drink his actual blood, that night.

It was symbolic. Jesus taught that Salvation was by faith alone. When someone receives Christ by faith, Christ saves them.

He said ‘This do in remembrance of me’. Why? Because of what He’s already done for us.

The idea that you are eating Jesus actual body is pagan.

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Jesus said He was the door. Was that symbolic? Was Jesus an actual piece of wood?

Jesus said He was the way. Was that symbolic? Do you think Jesus was an actual road?

If the host really became the body of Christ, you could do test to prove it. It’s that simple.

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 4:21 PM

OH, hey, Bigbullets, since you like this stuff, and you’re calculator prone:

http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm

Unless you include the introduction of an infectious disease as genocide (where did those Genoese ships pick up the plague?), looks like the winner is…….

Muslim conquest of India. I’ve seen as low as 3 million and as high as 80 million.

And since you seem to like the highest numbers, well…….

WryTrvllr on May 10, 2014 at 6:20 PM

OH, hey, Bigbullets, since you like this stuff, and you’re calculator prone:

http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm

Unless you include the introduction of an infectious disease as genocide (where did those Genoese ships pick up the plague?), looks like the winner is…….

Muslim conquest of India. I’ve seen as low as 3 million and as high as 80 million.

And since you seem to like the highest numbers, well…….

WryTrvllr on May 10, 2014 at 6:20 PM

I’m not sure what you’re point is.

I agree every day, and twice on Sunday, that the Muslims have slaughtered their share.

But I don’t see anyone here defending the Muslims. Or trying to minimize what the Muslims have done. They’re a brutal bunch.

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 6:27 PM

According to a 1999 report from the Institute of Medicine, 44,000 to 98,000 Americans die unnecessarily every year from medical mistakes made by health care professionals. (30 Nov. 1999 Washington Post, 30 Nov. 1999 AP, or pretty much any news source that day.)

wow, multiply that obviously accurate statistic by say 1500 years, and damn, you’re safer being a heretic!

WryTrvllr on May 10, 2014 at 6:31 PM

But I do find myself looking at that list and trying to find which one the RCC was responsible for.

WryTrvllr on May 10, 2014 at 6:33 PM

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 6:27 PM

No your original point was to select out the RCC for it’s atrocities, over 1500 years (and all a LONG time ago) while ignoring that EVERYONE was at it during that time period. Damn it was almost hip. from what I keep reading.

WryTrvllr on May 10, 2014 at 6:36 PM

wow, that website is, like, fascinating.

WryTrvllr on May 10, 2014 at 6:42 PM

No your original point was to select out the RCC for it’s atrocities, over 1500 years (and all a LONG time ago) while ignoring that EVERYONE was at it during that time period. Damn it was almost hip. from what I keep reading.

WryTrvllr on May 10, 2014 at 6:36 PM

You’d almost think this thread has something to do with the Catholic Church or something.

No, that couldn’t be it. That couldn’t have anything to do with it.

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 7:08 PM

If the host really became the body of Christ, you could do test to prove it. It’s that simple.

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 4:21 PM

No, it’s under the “appearance” of bread and wine. Again, human understanding instead of faith. The Eucharist is Our Lord Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. The whole Jesus, in His Glorified Body, physically there. But to our senses (including tests) it looks like bread and wine.

“Thou shalt not put the Lord, thy God, to the test” anyway. We examine and reason, but in the end we “walk by faith and not by sight.”

However, if someone wants to truly know (NOT TEST THE LORD,) I would suggest praying once a week for a few months in front of the Eucharist in the tabernacle of a Catholic or Orthodox Church or at Eucharistic Adoration. (Some Churches are locked during the day, but I’m sure you can find one open in most areas.) Ask the Lord to please show you if it’s true or not, if it be His holy Will. Sincerely and humbly. Not as a test.

You don’t have to pray differently than you ever prayed or more often. Just for a few months, once a week, say your regular prayers in front of the Eucharist. Then see if there are any changes in your life or within yourself. See if you do not feel even closer to Jesus. (For no matter how close any of us are to Christ, we can always get closer.)

I have seen many graces, blessings and even miracles in my own life through the Eucharist. Thanks be to God.

For those of you who do not even believe in Christ (or God), but truly want to know if it’s true, just sit there. Just say one sentence. God or Jesus if you are true, please show me. Just sit and meditate on your life.

Elisa on May 10, 2014 at 8:26 PM

Jesus said He was the door. Was that symbolic? Was Jesus an actual piece of wood?

Jesus said He was the way. Was that symbolic? Do you think Jesus was an actual road?

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 4:21 PM

A way is not necessarily a road. A way to do things is often not a physical thing. But I get your point for door/gate or maybe a vine or living water.

Here is where you’re reasoning is faulty. The context in the other passages plainly show it to be a metaphor or figurative. Even explained as such in the next sentence. And mentioned only once. Not over and over again with graphic language, like in John ch 6. To the point that Jesus actually lets those disciples who were followers of Him leave without telling them they misunderstood Him.

John 10:
“I am the gate. Whoever enters through me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture.”

Jesus explains the metaphor in the next sentence. Enter into salvation through him, like a door. What does Jesus explain “eating His flesh” to be? He never does explains it as a metaphor.

In fact the opposite is true, when they murmur against His choice of words, He says, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” (some translations say “food verily” or “real food.”

John 15:

“I am the true vine,* and my Father is the vine grower.
He takes away every branch in me that does not bear fruit, and everyone that does he prunes* so that it bears more fruit.
You are already pruned because of the word that I spoke to you.
Remain in me, as I remain in you. Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me. I am the vine, you are the branches.
Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing.”

People aren’t actually pruned by words, yet Jesus said they are already pruned because of the words he spoke to them. So He is clearly being figurative.

Then He clearly explains the metaphor. “Just as” “so neither” Showing the metaphor of the vine in one half of the sentence and what it means in the second half, “unless you remain in me” you can’t bear fruit. People don’t bear actual fruit. Fruits of the Spirit, good fruits, were widely talked about then and now. We can’t be apart from Jesus our vine.

Jesus’ words were clearly figurative to them. No one said His words were “hard” and muttered about it and left Him because of it.

Eating flesh was not a typical metaphor, like bearing fruit. In fact the idea of drinking blood was an abhorrent thing to the Jews. And eating someone’s flesh figuratively to them meant to conquer that person or tribe. Was Jesus telling us to conquer Him?

John clearly talks in the next chapter about “living water.” John 7:37-39

“On the last and greatest day of the feast, Jesus stood up and exclaimed, “Let anyone who thirsts come to me and drink.
Whoever believes in me, as scripture says:
‘Rivers of living water* will flow from within him.”
He said this in reference to the Spirit that those who came to believe in him were to receive. There was, of course, no Spirit yet,* because Jesus had not yet been glorified.”

Here we see St. John telling us specifically that the living water we will receive is figurative of the Holy Spirit, not real drink.

Also in John 6, Jesus says He is the “bread that came down from Heaven” and compares Himself to the manna “bread from Heaven” that the Israelites ate. Manna was a real physical miracle, actual miraculous bread from Heaven. And Jesus said that we should eat the Bread from Heaven that is Himself. All the Old Testament prefigurements are lesser signs that point to the New Testament fulfillment. All the types, covenants and precursors are greater in the New Testament. Like the new Adam or Jesus being our Davidic King forever, He is the new Pasqual Lamb of God, the new covenant in His blood, etc.

This would be the only time it would be the reverse, if Jesus was only speaking figuratively or as a metaphor. It would be actual miraculous bread from Heaven pointing to only a symbol or sign in the New Covenant. A symbol and analogy is less than a physical miracle. And the manna was real bread to eat and a real miracle. So Jesus being bread from Heaven was not real and not a miracle? Only a sign and symbol of the salvation He gave us? Or was one miracle of the old covenant pointing to a greater miracle in the new? That is how the rest of the Bible works. So why should John 6 be different?

The analogy would have to be an even greater miracle in the New Testament. (Like the miracle of the Eucharist in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.)

It’s not just important how Catholics and Orthodox today interpret John 6 and all the many New Testament passages on the Eucharist. The fact is that the early Christians in the first few centuries of the Church interpreted it the same way. (See my previous posts here about what the early Christians said,)

Elisa on May 9, 2014 at 1:49 AM

Elisa on May 9, 2014 at 1:54 AM

Bishops and martyrs hand picked by the Apostles and taught by them at a time when orthodox teaching and the true Gospel was paramount to them.

And there were no early Christian writings to the contrary.

Elisa on May 10, 2014 at 8:36 PM

No, it’s under the “appearance” of bread and wine. Again, human understanding instead of faith. The Eucharist is Our Lord Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. The whole Jesus, in His Glorified Body, physically there. But to our senses (including tests) it looks like bread and wine.

“Thou shalt not put the Lord, thy God, to the test” anyway. We examine and reason, but in the end we “walk by faith and not by sight.”

However, if someone wants to truly know (NOT TEST THE LORD,) I would suggest praying once a week for a few months in front of the Eucharist in the tabernacle of a Catholic or Orthodox Church or at Eucharistic Adoration. (Some Churches are locked during the day, but I’m sure you can find one open in most areas.) Ask the Lord to please show you if it’s true or not, if it be His holy Will. Sincerely and humbly. Not as a test.

You don’t have to pray differently than you ever prayed or more often. Just for a few months, once a week, say your regular prayers in front of the Eucharist. Then see if there are any changes in your life or within yourself. See if you do not feel even closer to Jesus. (For no matter how close any of us are to Christ, we can always get closer.)

I have seen many graces, blessings and even miracles in my own life through the Eucharist. Thanks be to God.

For those of you who do not even believe in Christ (or God), but truly want to know if it’s true, just sit there. Just say one sentence. God or Jesus if you are true, please show me. Just sit and meditate on your life.

Elisa on May 10, 2014 at 8:26 PM

That’s nice and all. But it isn’t based in scripture. Either it is the actual body of Christ, or it isn’t.

What does the Bible say? Is it His actual body, or not?

I’m not testing the Lord. I’m testing a ridiculous pagan theory propagated by the Catholic Church. You make a claim that is testable.

Does the bread at least taste like human flesh? Would you say that it’s cooked or raw? If it’s cooked, that would seem to diminish it’s efficacy to save, don’t you think?

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 8:59 PM

Elisa on May 10, 2014 at 8:26 PM

PS I just thought of something, in case there is someone out there that would like to go pray in front of the tabernacle.

Roman Catholic Churches have the tabernacle plainly in front of the Church. Should be in the center of the altar, but unfortunately sometimes on the side of the altar.

Byzantine Catholic Churches, Maronite Catholic Churches,Coptic Catholic Churches,the other various Eastern Catholic Churches, as well as Greek Orthodox Churches, Russian Orthodox Churches, Coptic Orthodox Churches, the other Orthodox Churches

often have the tabernacle hidden behind the altar or I think I heard sometimes suspended from the top, also hidden behind the altar.

So you may not see it, but it’s there and He is there physically.

Elisa on May 10, 2014 at 9:00 PM

What does the Bible say? Is it His actual body, or not?

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 8:59 PM

Obviously the Bible says it is Jesus’ actual Body. “This is my Body” “for my flesh is food verily” “for my flesh is true food.”

As to your other comments. I said “to our senses.” All our senses, including taste.

It’s not cooked after it’s consecrated. After 15 minutes or so in our bodies, as the host breaks down, Jesus’ actual physical presence leaves. But He is always with us in Spirit.

Elisa on May 10, 2014 at 9:05 PM

Bigbullets, tomorrow is Mother’s Day and I have a cake to bake and people are coming here tomorrow.

So forgive me if I don’t get a chance to answer you.

Elisa on May 10, 2014 at 9:06 PM

What does the Bible say? Is it His actual body, or not?

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 8:59 PM

Before I go,

1 Corinthians 10:16: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

And then Paul says, “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

The King James Version is even stronger. “shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. . . . eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”

So we are to discern the body. And both these translations mean one would be guilty of a crime against the body of Jesus Himself. Clearly this is not a mere symbol of Christ. Strong language. With strong consequences. His actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. His actual presence, His substance.

Elisa on May 10, 2014 at 9:10 PM

A way is not necessarily a road. A way to do things is often not a physical thing. But I get your point for door/gate or maybe a vine or living water.

Here is where you’re reasoning is faulty. The context in the other passages plainly show it to be a metaphor or figurative. Even explained as such in the next sentence. And mentioned only once. Not over and over again with graphic language, like in John ch 6. To the point that Jesus actually lets those disciples who were followers of Him leave without telling them they misunderstood Him.

Nope. The context is clearly symbolic. No one ate his literal flesh or drank his literal blood on that day or during his life.

John 10:
“I am the gate. Whoever enters through me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture.”
Jesus explains the metaphor in the next sentence. Enter into salvation through him, like a door. What does Jesus explain “eating His flesh” to be? He never does explains it as a metaphor.

And, He never explains your magical process of turning the bread into human flesh, does He? Nope.

Why didn’t he explain that it was symbolic? He said His words were ‘spiritual’. That was pretty plain.

In fact the opposite is true, when they murmur against His choice of words, He says, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” (some translations say “food verily” or “real food.”

John 15:

“I am the true vine,* and my Father is the vine grower.
He takes away every branch in me that does not bear fruit, and everyone that does he prunes* so that it bears more fruit.
You are already pruned because of the word that I spoke to you.
Remain in me, as I remain in you. Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me. I am the vine, you are the branches.
Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing.”
People aren’t actually pruned by words, yet Jesus said they are already pruned because of the words he spoke to them. So He is clearly being figurative.

Clearly.

Then He clearly explains the metaphor. “Just as” “so neither” Showing the metaphor of the vine in one half of the sentence and what it means in the second half, “unless you remain in me” you can’t bear fruit. People don’t bear actual fruit. Fruits of the Spirit, good fruits, were widely talked about then and now. We can’t be apart from Jesus our vine.

Clearly.

Jesus’ words were clearly figurative to them. No one said His words were “hard” and muttered about it and left Him because of it.

Eating flesh was not a typical metaphor, like bearing fruit. In fact the idea of drinking blood was an abhorrent thing to the Jews. And eating someone’s flesh figuratively to them meant to conquer that person or tribe. Was Jesus telling us to conquer Him?

According to whom? The Catholic Church?

Of course their going to tell you that.

John clearly talks in the next chapter about “living water.” John 7:37-39

“On the last and greatest day of the feast, Jesus stood up and exclaimed, “Let anyone who thirsts come to me and drink.
Whoever believes in me, as scripture says:
‘Rivers of living water* will flow from within him.”
He said this in reference to the Spirit that those who came to believe in him were to receive. There was, of course, no Spirit yet,* because Jesus had not yet been glorified.”
Here we see St. John telling us specifically that the living water we will receive is figurative of the Holy Spirit, not real drink.

Clearly the water is figurative. Just like eating His flesh.

Also in John 6, Jesus says He is the “bread that came down from Heaven” and compares Himself to the manna “bread from Heaven” that the Israelites ate. Manna was a real physical miracle, actual miraculous bread from Heaven. And Jesus said that we should eat the Bread from Heaven that is Himself. All the Old Testament prefigurements are lesser signs that point to the New Testament fulfillment. All the types, covenants and precursors are greater in the New Testament. Like the new Adam or Jesus being our Davidic King forever, He is the new Pasqual Lamb of God, the new covenant in His blood, etc.

The manna was still bread. No where in the Bible does it mention miraculously turning bread into the flesh of Jesus Christ. No where. So again, a baseless assertion.

This would be the only time it would be the reverse, if Jesus was only speaking figuratively or as a metaphor. It would be actual miraculous bread from Heaven pointing to only a symbol or sign in the New Covenant. A symbol and analogy is less than a physical miracle. And the manna was real bread to eat and a real miracle. So Jesus being bread from Heaven was not real and not a miracle? Only a sign and symbol of the salvation He gave us? Or was one miracle of the old covenant pointing to a greater miracle in the new? That is how the rest of the Bible works. So why should John 6 be different?

That’s ridiculous. Jesus was the true bread. Just as he was the door and the way and the vine.

But no one ate his actual flesh. In John 6 or anywhere else in the gospels.

The analogy would have to be an even greater miracle in the New Testament. (Like the miracle of the Eucharist in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.)

It’s not just important how Catholics and Orthodox today interpret John 6 and all the many New Testament passages on the Eucharist. The fact is that the early Christians in the first few centuries of the Church interpreted it the same way. (See my previous posts here about what the early Christians said,)

Bishops and martyrs hand picked by the Apostles and taught by them at a time when orthodox teaching and the true Gospel was paramount to them.

And there were no early Christian writings to the contrary.

Elisa on May 10, 2014 at 8:36 PM

You mean, no writings that you’ve been told about.

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 9:21 PM

Bigbullets, tomorrow is Mother’s Day and I have a cake to bake and people are coming here tomorrow.

So forgive me if I don’t get a chance to answer you.

Elisa on May 10, 2014 at 9:06 PM

No problem. Whenever you get a chance to respond.

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 9:22 PM

Obviously the Bible says it is Jesus’ actual Body. “This is my Body” “for my flesh is food verily” “for my flesh is true food.”

Did Jesus cut off one of his fingers and give it to them? Nope.

And, since he hadn’t died yet, his actual body hadn’t been broken yet. So Jesus word’s were obviously symbolic.

As to your other comments. I said “to our senses.” All our senses, including taste.

It’s not cooked after it’s consecrated. After 15 minutes or so in our bodies, as the host breaks down, Jesus’ actual physical presence leaves. But He is always with us in Spirit.

Elisa on May 10, 2014 at 9:05 PM

It doesn’t trouble you that none of this in found in the Bible? Jesus’ actual physical presence leaving? And why wouldn’t you just keep wafer Jesus with you, instead of eating him? Then he would never leave.

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 9:27 PM

You’d almost think this thread has something to do with the Catholic Church or something.

No, that couldn’t be it. That couldn’t have anything to do with it.

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 7:08 PM

Wow, I ….almost…. would have expected better that that from you.

Hey check it out, the Isrealites had their fun too.

Isn’t that web site soooo much fun?

WryTrvllr on May 10, 2014 at 9:31 PM

And the polytheists!!! Wow. I am beginning to feel inadequate here.

WryTrvllr on May 10, 2014 at 9:43 PM

Maybe, if mormons and jehovah’s witnessses get their act together, over the next millenia or so, they can make the big time too.

WryTrvllr on May 10, 2014 at 9:45 PM

Wow, I ….almost…. would have expected better that that from you.

Hey check it out, the Isrealites had their fun too.

Isn’t that web site soooo much fun?

WryTrvllr on May 10, 2014 at 9:31 PM

Because you didn’t realize that this particular thread/post was about the Catholic Church?

I understand that. It can happen to anyone.

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 9:49 PM

Maybe, if mormons and jehovah’s witnessses get their act together, over the next millenia or so, they can make the big time too.

WryTrvllr on May 10, 2014 at 9:45 PM

Joseph Smith was killed breaking out of jail.

The mormons did their fair share of massacres, given their small size and age as a movement.

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 9:52 PM

Excellent!!! So it IS ubiquitous. So what was that point of yours?

WryTrvllr on May 10, 2014 at 10:00 PM

If my house catches on fir from all the door to door handouts…….

WryTrvllr on May 10, 2014 at 10:01 PM

fire

WryTrvllr on May 10, 2014 at 10:01 PM

Because you didn’t realize that this particular thread/post was about the Catholic Church?

I understand that. It can happen to anyone.

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 9:49 PM

C’mon Big, that was still lame. gotta do better.

WryTrvllr on May 10, 2014 at 10:02 PM

Excellent!!! So it IS ubiquitous. So what was that point of yours?

WryTrvllr on May 10, 2014 at 10:00 PM

If you want to discuss groups that claim to be Christian, but didn’t persecute other groups, we could have that discussion.

How many people did the Albigenses kill? The Waldenses? The Huguenots? The Anabaptists?

Let me know when get some figures on those groups.

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 10:04 PM

C’mon Big, that was still lame. gotta do better.

WryTrvllr on May 10, 2014 at 10:02 PM

You’ve set the bar for lame at an almost unattainable level.

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 10:05 PM

How many people did the Albigenses kill? The Waldenses? The Huguenots? The Anabaptists?

Let me know when get some figures on those groups.

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 10:04 PM

You didn’t explore the link. Shame on you.

WryTrvllr on May 10, 2014 at 10:09 PM

You didn’t explore the link. Shame on you.

WryTrvllr on May 10, 2014 at 10:09 PM

What link?

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 10:10 PM

This link.

http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm

I just looked at it. Not sure what your point is.

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 10:14 PM

Unfortunately, Big, I gotta go. This has, and will, in the future, be fun again.

PS. The Huguenots emigrated. Some of them, kicking the shyt out of Catholics where they went.

No-one is blameless here big.

WryTrvllr on May 10, 2014 at 10:20 PM

Unfortunately, Big, I gotta go. This has, and will, in the future, be fun again.

PS. The Huguenots emigrated. Some of them, kicking the shyt out of Catholics where they went.

No-one is blameless here big.

WryTrvllr on May 10, 2014 at 10:20 PM

My bad. I didn’t mean to include Protestants in the mix.

On their behalf, though, I would say that fighting back against persecution is different than persecuting. Were the Huguenots were burning Catholics at the stake? That’s interesting. Tell me more.

The other groups I mentioned weren’t protestants. They never came out of the Catholic Church. And I doubt you’ll find any of them.

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 10:37 PM

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 10:37 PM

Ok. At work now. Gotta be quick. Busy.

“fighting back against persecution” implies the others were there first. Statistically against you, cumulatively.

The others, I WILL find and research. I am sure they are bloodless.

WryTrvllr on May 10, 2014 at 11:13 PM

I think you mean 6,000 years and no more.

antisense on May 8, 2014 at 4:55 PM

No, I meant tens of thousands…

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 11, 2014 at 6:04 PM

Sorry I was so busy on Mother’s Day and tired at night.

Why didn’t he explain that it was symbolic? He said His words were ‘spiritual’. That was pretty plain.

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 9:21 PM

“Spiritual” is not the same thing as “symbolic.” Plus Jesus didn’t say “spiritual,” He said, “the spirit.”

Besides that, as I said in my previous posts, when Jesus said “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail, “ He wasn’t talking about His flesh being of no avail, He was talking about OUR flesh. How could Jesus’ flesh EVER be described as being of no avail? Flesh that was sacrificed for our salvation.

When Jesus is saying “spirit” here it means that one can only understand this truth about the Eucharist and trust His Words here with FAITH. The Spirit gives us faith to believe His truth on the Eucharist. Without the Spirit we have no faith and our flesh, our human understanding, is useless.

Jesus’ words were clearly figurative to them. No one said His words were “hard” and muttered about it and left Him because of it.

Eating flesh was not a typical metaphor, like bearing fruit. In fact the idea of drinking blood was an abhorrent thing to the Jews. And eating someone’s flesh figuratively to them meant to conquer that person or tribe. Was Jesus telling us to conquer Him?

Elisa on May 10, 2014 at 8:36 PM

According to whom? The Catholic Church?
Of course their going to tell you that.

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 9:21 PM

No, not just Catholic scholars, anyone can research this on their own and see that drinking animal blood to 1st century Jews was abhorrent and against their faith. And eating someone’s flesh back then in the whole Middle East area (not just Jews) meant to conquer them.

Any scholar will tell you these things. Not just Catholics. Research it if you want.

Chick tracts are not research. May I suggest you go to a large library or book store and read an encyclopedia or a book that isn’t written in the 18th century about “popery” or “romanism.” lol

The manna was still bread. No where in the Bible does it mention miraculously turning bread into the flesh of Jesus Christ. No where. So again, a baseless assertion.

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 9:21 PM

Lol. I know I am not going to get you to agree with me, but clearly I do see the Bible talking about Jesus turning bread into His Flesh, His Body. So just telling me “it’s not in the Bible” doesn’t make it so. It is in the Bible.

“This is my Body” (REPEATED 4 TIMES IN 4 DIFFERENT BOOKS OF THE BIBLE. (Gospels and 1 Corinthians)

Repetition is important in Scriptural interpretation. And in all 4 of those times, He never once says He is being figurative. Like Jesus always explains plainly in His other teachings.

“for my flesh is food verily” “for my flesh is true food.”

Pretty clear, strong and graphic language.

Not to mention that the original Greek Kione word used for “flesh” is “meat,” like animal meat. Meat is meat. Meat never is used to distinguish our physical and spiritual lives. Flesh can be used that way in other contexts. And the word used here for “eat” in today’s Greek can mean any kind of eating. But in the 1st century Kione Greek it meant “gnaw” or “munch.” Again, graphic, clear, strong language.

And manna was bread, yes. But manna was miraculous bread. How is the bread used for the Lord’s Supper miraculous if it was only a symbol? It can be inspiring to replay what Jesus did using symbols, but it wouldn’t be miraculous.

You haven’t shown me from Scripture how it can’t be as Catholics believe and how it is merely figurative or symbolic. (And you never responded to my last post about 1 Corinthians. Shows how it cannot be merely figurative.)

All of Scripture taken in its entirety shows it not to be merely figurative or symbolic. I already showed you why you can’t compare John 6 or the Last Supper Gospel passages to a “gate/door” or “vine.” Completely different contexts.

Do you have any other Scripture to convince me? Cause just repeating “it’s not in the Bible” when I read it in the Bible, won’t convince me.

It’s not just important how Catholics and Orthodox today interpret John 6 and all the many New Testament passages on the Eucharist. The fact is that the early Christians in the first few centuries of the Church interpreted it the same way. (See my previous posts here about what the early Christians said,)
Bishops and martyrs hand picked by the Apostles and taught by them at a time when orthodox teaching and the true Gospel was paramount to them.

And there were no early Christian writings to the contrary.

Elisa on May 10, 2014 at 8:36 PM

You mean, no writings that you’ve been told about.

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 9:21 PM

Maybe you would like to show me something to the contrary from the first few centuries of the Church? Because I and others have looked and it doesn’t exist. You would be the first to find it.

We still have records of heresies from the 1st century about the Trinity and Jesus’ nature and other Christian beliefs. We still have the stupid Gnostic “gospels.” But nothing from Christians saying the Eucharist is merely symbolic and figurative, not His Body.

You are entitled to believe that the Apostles screwed things up or the people they preached to distorted the Gospel But in the first few centuries, they believed in the Eucharist as Catholics and Orthodox do today.

The early Christians, bishops and martyrs in good standing, some who were taught by the Apostles themselves, believed the “Eucharist” to be:

the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (110AD)

“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” (150AD)

Elisa on May 12, 2014 at 12:16 PM

And, since he hadn’t died yet, his actual body hadn’t been broken yet. So Jesus word’s were obviously symbolic.

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 9:27 PM

In John 6, Jesus doesn’t say WHEN they would be “eating His flesh.” He wasn’t giving it to them then.

He gave it to them at the Last Supper and said, “this is my body which will be given for you, do this in memory of me. . . . This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.” (NAB)

Some translations, like my Catholic NAB, on this passage are not as good as the NIV and KJV, because the original Greek word used, “ekchunnomenon,” is not “will be shed” (future tense), it is “is being shed” (present participle.)

And why wouldn’t you just keep wafer Jesus with you, instead of eating him? Then he would never leave.

Bigbullets on May 10, 2014 at 9:27 PM

Because we follow Jesus command from the Last Supper and “take and EAT.” In John 6, He said we are to “EAT the flesh of the Son of Man” and “EAT my flesh.”

So we “EAT.”

And when we take Him into our Bodies, it is an intimate bonding of His love, into our hearts. Like a hug and kiss from Jesus.

The Eucharist that has not been distributed is kept in a Tabernacle (or in a monstrance for Eucharistic Adoration where we adore Our Lord Jesus Christ.) So we do have his physical presence with us to worship and be near. A peasant once said, “I look at Him, and He looks at me.”

And it’s important that everyone remembers, He is always with us spiritually.

“Remember, I am with you always, even until the end of the world.” (end of Matthew)

All Christians find joy in that.

God bless you always and your family.

Elisa on May 12, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Elias,

When he says in Heb 10:29 “who hath trodden under foot the Son of God”, do you think people are actually stepping on Jesus’ body?

If you don’t think it’s symbolic, then I won’t convince you otherwise. Especially since it’s part of your (Catholic) salvation. I do appreciate you taking the time to explain your position.

Bigbullets on May 12, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Bigbullets on May 12, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Obviously the Bible has lots of things that are figurative language. I agree with that. Like the Hebrews quote.

And when one reads the sentence in context of the paragraph it’s in and taking the whole Bible into consideration, they are obviously figurative and cannot be taken any other way.

But the Eucharist quotes are not obviously figurative (quite the other way) to most Christians today and to the early Christians.

I understand that I presented alot of Scriptural and historical quotes to you and it is probably difficult for you to address it all, especially on an article that will now get lost off the front page.

So we will just agree to disagree.

Elisa on May 12, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5