A
Atreyu
Guest
Sandusky - I can’t really remember what I was on about; not enough to put it into meaningful words. I’ll have a think about it and maybe start another thread in a couple of days… 
- Status
S
sandusky
Guest
I have never read this by anyone. I have heard people say it, but not those who know what they are doing. In fact, if you re-read my post, you will see that I did not say that. My understanding of what the Lord says is essentially the same as what the writer says below. All notions, but especially in view here, religious notions, that originate in the flesh, impart nothing, much less life, it is the Spirit that communicates life.
Hardly. At issue: is this literal eating, or spiritual eating? Should they take it by the understanding of the flesh, or of the Spirit? As I noted in my post on Jn 6, it is not eating at all that is in view, 6:35, 47 etc., it is coming and believing that is in view; the gospel is about coming and believing, not coming and eating.
How true
In fact He says the words “are spirit and are life,” a strong statement, they are the words of God and are life (Jn 3:34; 6:68; 8:47).
Mickey [/QUOTE said:
No one can come up with the RCC position unless one is in the RCC. What’s your point?
I stated this in my post, re-read it.
S
sandusky
Guest
E.E.N.S.:
I am not twisting scripture. What is one who rejects Christ guilty of, if not His body and blood?
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
You said this verse has NOTHING to do with Christ’s Body and Blood:
27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.
It seems clear enough to me, and it relates perfectly with what Jesus was saying in John 6…a person would have to TWIST Scripture to say anything differently. Paul says “eat” and “drink” NOT “reject.”
M
Mickey
Guest
If you re-read my post, you will see it comes from Catholic Answers. I wish I could take credit.
As someone stated to you earlier–spiritual does not mean symbolic.
You should meditate on John 6 so that the Lord will open your mind and your heart to the truth. Your understanding of this chapter is revisionist theology. Who did you learn it from? I’ve debated this subject a million times and I care not to do it again so I will shake the dust from my sandals and leave this thread.
Blessings on your journey!
John 6:56For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
E
edmondhall
Guest
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying in the above quote, Sandusky. I think, however, that it’s clear St. Augustine, without doubt, affirmed the Real Presence:
*That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (St. Augustine, Sermons 227)
“The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.” (St. Augustine, Sermons 234:2)
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (St. Augustine, Sermons 272) *
source:
americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/augustinecatholic.htm
I think that, generally speaking, attempts to refute Catholic teaching regarding the Eucharist by appealing to the early Church fathers is going to be an uphill battle.
A
Absalom
Guest
Another quote from St. Augustine which is interesting:
“He took earth from earth, because flesh is from the earth, and he took Flesh of the flesh of Mary. He walked on earth in that same Flesh, and he gave that Flesh to us to be eaten for our salvation. Moreover no one eats that Flesh unless he has first adored it . . . and we sin by not adoring.”
And:
“Who is the Bread of heaven except Christ? But in order that man might eat the bread of angels, the Lord of the angels became a man. If this had not happened, we would not have his flesh: if we did not have the Flesh, we would not eat the Bread of the altar.”
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
Absalom!:
Wonderful! I just love St. Augustine!
A
Absalom
Guest
E.E.N.S.:
Yeah, Augustine is great! He’s just so . . . oh, I don’t know . . . so darn Catholic!
L
LSK
Guest
Then you reject Sacred Tradition - which is why Catholics are children of the Word Incarnate, and not just children of the Book.
Ancient Christianity accepted the real presence - to reject it is to reject the Christianity established by Jesus.:tsktsk: :tsktsk:
P
Pax
Guest
Sandusky,
I highly recommend the following article by Phil Vaz found at:
bringyou.to/apologetics/num8.htm
The article puts many of the arguments presented to you in this thread in a tight logical order and covers other dimensions of the discussion as well. It really is worth the read.
I highly recommend the following article by Phil Vaz found at:
bringyou.to/apologetics/num8.htm
The article puts many of the arguments presented to you in this thread in a tight logical order and covers other dimensions of the discussion as well. It really is worth the read.
S
sandusky
Guest
edmondhall, Absalom, E.E.N.S.,
Grabbing quotes, and reading them in a crudely materialistic sense, is going to bring you misunderstanding.
Augustine argued that the sacraments, including the Eucharist, are signs and figures that represent spiritual realities. He made a distinction between the physical, historical body of Christ and the presence of it in the sacrament. He maintained that the physical body of Christ could not be present in the sacrament because it is at the right hand of the Father, and will be there until His second coming (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John by S. Augustine, p 873; pp 677-78). He interpreted the true meaning of eating and drinking in John 6 as faith. (See Schaff’s, *Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, *vol. VII, St. Augustin, *Homilies on the Gospel of John, *Tractate XXVI.I, pg 168). He also uses the John 6 passage discussed on this thread, as an example of a passsage that should be interpreted figuratively (See Schaff’s, *Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,*vol. II, St. Augustin: The City of God and on Christian Doctrine, On Christian Doctrine 3.16.2 p 563).
Grabbing quotes, and reading them in a crudely materialistic sense, is going to bring you misunderstanding.
Augustine argued that the sacraments, including the Eucharist, are signs and figures that represent spiritual realities. He made a distinction between the physical, historical body of Christ and the presence of it in the sacrament. He maintained that the physical body of Christ could not be present in the sacrament because it is at the right hand of the Father, and will be there until His second coming (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John by S. Augustine, p 873; pp 677-78). He interpreted the true meaning of eating and drinking in John 6 as faith. (See Schaff’s, *Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, *vol. VII, St. Augustin, *Homilies on the Gospel of John, *Tractate XXVI.I, pg 168). He also uses the John 6 passage discussed on this thread, as an example of a passsage that should be interpreted figuratively (See Schaff’s, *Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,*vol. II, St. Augustin: The City of God and on Christian Doctrine, On Christian Doctrine 3.16.2 p 563).
E
edmondhall
Guest
I think that quotes of what Augustine actually said are more directly helpful than references to books where his sermons are published.
Are you claiming that Augustine taught that the sacrament is a symbol that only signifies the body and blood of Christ? That is, Augustine’s understanding of the Eucharist is the same as the protestant understanding?
Are you claiming that Augustine taught that the sacrament is a symbol that only signifies the body and blood of Christ? That is, Augustine’s understanding of the Eucharist is the same as the protestant understanding?
E
edmondhall
Guest
Here’s a fuller discussion of Augustine’s belief in the Real Presence.
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ125.HTM
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ125.HTM
Code:
P
Pax
Guest
This is simply a one sided set of presentations of Augustine. Augustine rightly taught that the Eucharist possesses the dimension of symbol and also the dimension of the real presence of Jesus. Protestants selectively quote Augustine in order to claim that he taught something other than the real presence.
Catholics would not proclaim Augustine a Saint if he taught something other than the real presence. So what is the symbolic part of the Eucharist. The fact that the Eucharist is under the separate species/accidents of both bread and wine provides us with a symbolic representation of Christ’s death. When the body and blood of a person are separated they have died. This is where the symbolic part can be readily discerned. The whole of Jesus is, however, present in both.
P
Pax
Guest
You have made a number of statements but you are not giving us an exegetical refutation of our position.
You must first prove from scripture that “spirit” means “symbolic.”
It has been pointed out to you that there is not a single passage of scripture that has a usage to support this contention.
You must also prove from scripture that believing is the only thing that is meant as opposed to eating. Jesus speaks of eating his flesh and drinking his blood in four different phrases and changes terms from the Greek “phago”(generic for eating) to “trogo”(to gnaw or chew). The Lord does this for emphasizing the literal meaning of his message.
You need to prove from scripture that when Jesus says “the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” that he means something other than the Catholic interpretation. And please note that it doesn’t get any more real than the “spirit.” It is by the spirit that Peter and the apostles cast out demons. It is by the spirit that he and Paul healed people. It is by the spirit that the scriptures were inspired. It is by the spirit that Christians receive the gift of tongues, prophecy, teaching, healing, and miracles.
Many disciples didn’t believe the literal words that Jesus spoke about giving them his flesh and blood to drink and they left him. Nowhere in the discourse is there an indication that they misunderstood him. If they had a misunderstanding surely Jesus would have explained it to them. The apostles didn’t misunderstand him and he even asked them if they were going to leave him. Peter answers Jesus in John 6:68-69 by saying, “You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” Then Jesus points out that there is one among them that doesn’t believe what he told them and that person is Judas the betrayer. You must prove from scripture that they misunderstood him. There is nothing in the passages to indicate a misunderstanding.
So Jesus says that his words are spirit and life, and the apostles believe him and Peter says that Jesus has the words of eternal life. So what are the “words” of spirit and life that Jesus used? Jesus used very graphic terminology and four extremely clear statements that convey his intention to give us his body and blood as “true food” and “true drink.” His language is not symbolic and his intention is not symbolic.
You might also consider the fact that at the marriage feast of Cana, Jesus turned water into wine. Then just before the Discourse on the bread of Life, Jesus feeds the five thousand and further demonstrates what he can do with food. This is almost immediately followed by Jesus walking on the water. With this miracle Jesus demonstates what he can do with his body. Jesus was leading the disciples and preparing them for the great gift of the Eucharist. Moreover, in the Discourse Jesus compares his promised miracle of the Eucharist to the miracle of the manna in the desert and then to his ascension[see John 6:62]. It is clear that what he is promising is a miracle of greater proportions than either the manna or the ascension. The miracle is the Eucharist.
M
Milliardo
Guest
Bingo! Sandusky, you’re losing ground very fast, and that’s just the early Church Fathers. There is a unity in what the Bible, the Church Fathers, and the Church teaches, a unity so great that it took Luther to deny the Church’s authority in order to deny the Eucharist. Luther knew that he cannot deny the Eucharist directly, and so he did as any Protestant would do: deny first the authority of the Church, then from there deny the Eucharist. Now, as for John 6 itself, the Protestant argument claims that it hinges on Jesus’ words: it is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is no avail. If that’s the Protestant’s defense, it’s a very poor one: the Eucharist is Jesus present flesh and blood, soul and divinity. It is the Real Presence, really present in every way. In fact, that verse perfectly fits into Transubstantiation, that the bread and wine, consecrated, becomes really the flesh and blood of Jesus. Exactly as Jesus said it: the spirit gives life. It is not anymore just plain bread and wine. It is not anymore a symbol, but the Spirit gives life to it. The Protestant defense quickly shatters from thereon, once the connection is established between that verse and the bread and wine consecrated to become Jesus’ flesh and blood. It is not “magic”. It is not the priest doing it; it is Jesus acting in a very real way, His Presence making it all real. Protestants fail to see this.
S
SpiritualBeing
Guest
There is a conjunction of the Lord with man, and of man with the Lord, not with the bread and wine, but with charity and faith of the man who has done the work of repentance, is also introduction into heaven.
Charity or love is meant by the Lord’s flesh
Faith or truth is meant by the Lord’s blood.
“He who eats My flesh, and drinks My blood, has eternal life, said the Lord.” This means, those who keeps charity and faith from the Lord in themselves, and live according to them, by doing the works of repentance have eternel life.
William
Charity or love is meant by the Lord’s flesh
Faith or truth is meant by the Lord’s blood.
“He who eats My flesh, and drinks My blood, has eternal life, said the Lord.” This means, those who keeps charity and faith from the Lord in themselves, and live according to them, by doing the works of repentance have eternel life.
William
J
janman55
Guest
How about St Francis of Assisi, a little further down stream…
St. Francis of Assisi (1182-1226)
“His Words of Sacred Admonition
to all the Brothers”
In the 2nd paragraph:
“Whence all who saw the Lord Jesus according to the Humanity and both did not see and believe according to the spirit the Divinity also, that He Himself is the true Son of God, have been damned; so even now all who see the Sacrament, which is sanctified by the words of the Lord upon the Altar by the hand of the Priest in the form of bread and wine, and does not see and believe according to the spirit the Divinity also, that this is truly the Most Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, have been damned, since the Most High Himself testifies, who said: “This is My Body and My Blood of the new testament (which is poured forth for the many” (Mt. 14:22,24); and “He who eats My Flesh and drinks the Blood of the Lord.” All Others, who do not have according to this same spirit and presume to receive Him, eat and drink judgement upon themselves (cf. 1 Cor. 11:29). Whence: “Sons of men, how long with a heavy heart?” (Ps 4:3) So that you may know the truth and believe in the Son of God (cf. John 9:35))”
St. Francis of Assisi (1182-1226)
“His Words of Sacred Admonition
to all the Brothers”
In the 2nd paragraph:
“Whence all who saw the Lord Jesus according to the Humanity and both did not see and believe according to the spirit the Divinity also, that He Himself is the true Son of God, have been damned; so even now all who see the Sacrament, which is sanctified by the words of the Lord upon the Altar by the hand of the Priest in the form of bread and wine, and does not see and believe according to the spirit the Divinity also, that this is truly the Most Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, have been damned, since the Most High Himself testifies, who said: “This is My Body and My Blood of the new testament (which is poured forth for the many” (Mt. 14:22,24); and “He who eats My Flesh and drinks the Blood of the Lord.” All Others, who do not have according to this same spirit and presume to receive Him, eat and drink judgement upon themselves (cf. 1 Cor. 11:29). Whence: “Sons of men, how long with a heavy heart?” (Ps 4:3) So that you may know the truth and believe in the Son of God (cf. John 9:35))”
P
Pax
Guest
You have made a statement but you have not given any exegesis to support your thinking. John Chapter 6 does not state your contention either implicitly or explicitly as opposed to the Catholic acceptance of the clear and straight forward words of the Lord.There is a conjunction of the Lord with man, and of man with the Lord, not with the bread and wine, but with charity and faith of the man who has done the work of repentance, is also introduction into heaven.
Charity or love is meant by the Lord’s flesh
Faith or truth is meant by the Lord’s blood.
“He who eats My flesh, and drinks My blood, has eternal life, said the Lord.” This means, those who keeps charity and faith from the Lord in themselves, and live according to them, by doing the works of repentance have eternel life.
William
- Status