It's Jesus; NOT a Wheat-Thin
Written by nevercompromise
Posted on Saturday, April 5, 2008 at 11:14 PM.
I wrote this long comment on the Jesus in New York video, partly in response from another user who criticized the belief that Jesus could become bread and to explain, in a take it or leave it way, why Catholics believe Jesus when He said that His body was bread and wine. The user called the host a "cracker" and commented that people who believe that the "cracker" is Jesus "should get their brains checked."
Another user commenting on that same video called the monstrance "satan worshiping". I wanted to clear that up as well, because if it were, the Isrealites would be satan worshipers.
I tried to keep the comment short, ....but I failed. There is a lot more to this topic that would add to the validity of the argument, but who wants to read half the night on a blog?
Read this with your Bible. It is not my logic or points that make the argument, it is the scripture. Read the scriptures I made use of for yourself and you will at least understand the view I present. My comment was as follows:
I pray that what I say will bring peace to those who do not understand the Catholic/Biblical view of the Eucharist. In EXOD 25:8 God tells Moses, "Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will DWELL among them"...then God describes the ark to be built. NOTE, the Ark is beautiful and made with pure gold and other beautiful materials. 2 SAM 6:16 says that David leaped and danced before the Lord as the ark of the Lord was entering the City of David.
Next, LUKE 1:43-44 "But why am I so favored that the mother of my Lord should come to me? As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy" Just like David leaped for joy before the ark, now so does John the Baptist (Elizabeths baby) Why? Because Mary has become the new arc, carrying Jesus.
Now, Hebrews is a great resource to read about the word becoming flesh...but the short version is JOHN 1:14 "The Word became flesh and made his DWELLING among us" Clearly John is speaking of Jesus. Jesus is the new covenant. Why? 2 CORINTH 3:6 "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant-not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."
BTW if you haven't figured, I am Catholic and I believe in Scripture and tradition. IF there is ever a contradiction, I would choose Scripture over tradition, but I have never found a contradiction.
However, for non-Catholics who believe Sola Scriptura, explain how you can call the Eucharist anything but the body and blood of Jesus Christ, when He is ADAMENT that it is His body and blood, over and over again in scripture. Using your only resource, Scripture, where does the Bible say that the bread we break and the wine that we drink for communion in rememberance of Him is not His body? That would be a bold statement in contradiction with Jesus, and in the Bible, you'll be looking long and hard for that verse.
John 6:51 "The bread is my flesh..." 6:56 "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him." I cannot explain how bread and wine become his body, but I also cannot explain how He turned water into wine at Cana. Or how He walked on water or a number of other things. But why can we believe those things, but cannot believe Him when He says his body becomes bread and wine? Was the wine they drank at the wedding in Cana not really wine? Was it water that tasted like wine? By faith I believe it was wine! Was Lazarus not really dead? Do we question all the miracles, or just the ones we don't understand?
Those who question the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist remind me of those who didn't believe Jesus when He said His flesh and blood should be eaten in John 6:60 "On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" and then in 6:66 "From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him." I know it is difficult, but so are all the miracles, if you lack faith.
Your church may teach that it is not his body or blood, but instead some spiritual representation. But if you believe that then you hold your church (or pastors) teaching over Jesus's. Jesus said we should eat His flesh and drink His blood.
No matter what kind of mystery this presents, or how difficult it is to understand, can you imagine yourself at Jesus's table with the disciples at the last supper after He says, "take this all of you and eat, this is my body". Is that the moment where you would stand up and correct Jesus? Would you say, "My pastor says it represents your memory, not your body" or whatever else you and your pastor might think it to be?
Be mindful that even against direct opposition from the Jews and the disciples who deserted Jesus, that Jesus did not water down His word choice when He said "body" and "blood". Jesus did not try to keep those people from leaving by some parable that explained what He meant in a more palatable way.
If it was his body and blood back then, it is the same now. If it is a "cracker" now, then it was a cracker then. But that would go against what Jesus said to everyone during His days. Saying it is not his body and blood makes Him ambiguous when in the Bible He seems adament. Paul agrees, I believe, in 1 CORINTH 10:16. "Is not the cup on thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the BLOOD of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the BODY of Christ?" The verses are overwhelming for the argument that it is His body and blood.
Lastly, the Monstrace (sun looking thing with a window in the middle) holds the Lords body (or cracker, if you are not Catholic). As God instructed Moses to build a beautiful ark where he could dwell EXODUS 25:8, the Monstrance holds the body of Christ, the bread that Jesus told his disciples was His body.
Having a Monstrance is not satan worshipping as some have commented. If it is, then Moses and the Isrealites were satan worshippers for building the ark that God instructed them to build. David too would be a satan worshipper for leaping and dancing before the ark which was the presence of the Lord according to 2 SAM 6:16.
I do not condemn those who do not believe the bread and wine are actually Jesus's flesh and blood. I only believe that it is no more, or no less, the body and blood of Jesus Christ today as it was the night He gave it to His disciples. Those who do not believe it is His actual body could say the exact same thing, saying "It is bread and wine now, it was bread and wine then."
I used a minimal amount of scripture for an argument which I believe has overwhelming scriptural support. I would like to see an overwhelming SCRIPTURAL argument for the opposite view. OVERWHELMING not VAGUE. But if one cannot be presented, then at least try and accept that Catholics believe the host is Jesus's body and the wine is Jesus's blood, and know that we honor His presence where ever He is.
For David and Israel He was in an ark. It wasn't the actual ark David was excited about, there could have been 10 arks made, but it was the presence of the Lord (where God said He would dwell in EXOD 25:8) that David was excited over. And when John the Baptist leaped in the womb it was not for the worship of Mary, it was for Jesus. For Moses God spoke through a bush. Did God command Moses to take off his sandals? Yes. Was that ground holy on it's own, or because God was there? God's presence is Holy, and the honor the Catholic church gives the host is entirely appropriate.
I hope I have spoken accurately. I believe that someone else could have made a better argument for my point of view. I am young and unwise. Therefore, if I have made errors in anyway, please forgive me first, pray for me second, and if you feel a respond is necessary, harsh tones or sarcasm are not necessary. Respond as though I were your own brother. PEACE
