P
pocohombre
Guest
The john 6 flesh, flesh vs spirit, -our flesh I suppose.
- Status
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
Augustine explained what that meant when I posted it many posts ago. It wasn’t HIS flesh, it is earthly flesh that avails nothing. Saying that the flesh avails nothing when referring to the Eucharist is quite gnostic of you.
Here, I found Augustine’s explanation I posted. Please be more intellectually honest and read what is presented to you. You shouldn’t make the same argument if it’s already been disproven by patristic knowledge:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10519106&postcount=647
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
First, it is not the verse ‘depart from me’ not being discerned; it is your scenario of who the Lord will tell to depart. He explicitly told us not to make particular judgement on that matter. We know that He will tell some to depart. We just have absolutely no authority in any way, shape, or form to say specifically who.
Secondly, based on historical and traditional understanding of John 6 and the Eucharist, we would have to believe that what we eat is, in fact, His body and blood. Whether people who do not eat it are damned or not, we cannot say. Will one that sincerely repents at his death be turned away by God? I would hope not. Is a deathbed repentance the best way to go about living God’s Word? Not even close. The vocation of every person is holiness above all. The Eucharist, when eaten as commanded and when the sacrifice/celebration is offered by one to whom authority is given, it is a source of unimaginable grace. The source and summit of it, actually (seeing that Christ is God, after all, and all grace comes through Him).
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
Interesting that you say that as a Christian on Good Friday, poco.
For was it not Flesh that saved you on this day 2000 years ago?
If you truly believe that, literally, “flesh availeth little, profiteth nothing”, then you cannot believe that your sins were forgiven by the atoning death of Christ.
B
brb3
Guest
John 6 Flesh …yes ! Avails us much. It’s the Real Presence. Not our flesh, or flesh of sacrificed animals … but, the flesh of Christ, the Supernatural Flesh, the Resurrected Flesh !!!
The flesh of sacrificed animals, the Passover Lamb of Jews, pointed to CHRIST of Calvary Sacrifice. The ‘once for all time’ sacrifice, that “comes down from heaven” … at each Mass, to restore us to NEWNESS of LIFE.
it is all discussed in full detail [manna to Hebrews, Shewbread, the Lord’s Supper, etc] in this 70 minute MP4 Video …or MP3 Audio, by Jewish Christian, Brian Pitre… NotreDame grad.
www.theholyeucharist.com/
view it today, and let us know by Easter if you find error therein.
G
guanophore
Guest
Actually to impose either upon the writings of the Early Fathers would be improper. They are both modern attempts to conceptualize what was taught by the Apostles as the Real Presence.
The Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox also have this same Apostolic understanding, but don 't use these terms, coined and debated only in the West.
I think you misunderstand “dogma”. When a concept is dogmatized, it is proclaimed as the understanding of the Church from the Apostles. It is defining, describing and proclaiming only those things that are within the once for all deposit of faith from the Apostles. We cannot add or subtract anything from that Deposit.
The fact that people later became confused or misled to the point that a Dogma needed to be proclaimed does not change the fact that the belief was there from the beginning.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Sorry you misunderstood. Thread 718,719 would have shown you what I meant. I was NOT referring to Jesus fully God and fully man. Shall I say as you did ,“Please be more intellectually honest and read what is presented to you” ? No, it is Holy Week and I like your “tough” zeal. More specifically, don’t see the efficacy of eating His flesh to my flesh. A lot was being said of the " One Flesh Union". Again, it is in the threads before this.
I did read that part of Augustine.He says you will not drink His blood that was shed on Calvary but it is spiritual. It is certainly not a case for transubstantiation .Augustine fits the Lutheran doctrine . Does he not go on to say Peter ate spiritually, by faith ? Does he not say we don’t eat with our mouth ? Does he not say there is figure for that which is real ? Was Augustine right that they took it literally to eat his parts ? According to Jewish culture it would have been a sign of the new passover . They just had to believe that He indeed was the Messiah, and they did not from the beginning.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10519106&postcount=647
P
pocohombre
Guest
I am not asking you to judge who will go to heaven or not, or resurrect unto life. Jesus put forth the condition of “eating” Him for that good life. Can’t you judge /discern if His words were literal or not, true or not ? Actually, I think council of Trent did judge and discern His words and said if you did not believe in CC real presence you were “anathema”, if I recall correctly .Not sure.
P
pocohombre
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
Eternal life is the life of the Spirit within us.
The verse says nothing about whether Jesus will tell us, “Depart from me.”
Again, that is above our pay grade, and anyone who tells you that Jesus will tell you that someone is in hell is lying to you, poco.
P
PRmerger
Guest
What is it about “anathema” that makes you think the Church declares that Jesus has said, “depart from me”?
P
pocohombre
Guest
Happy Easter PR and all fellow forum sojourners but I was referring to our flesh-though we are the Temple, our flesh avails little, hence didn’t see the value of One Flesh Union.Spiritual union yes, remembering His sacrifice as full man, full God.
G
guanophore
Guest
The Real presence taught by the Apostles. It is not “symbolic”. He did not say “this symbolizes my Body”. The fact that it is spiritual does not mean it isn’t literal.
It would be inappropriate to interpolate or impose a modern term into the thought of someone who did not use that language or think with that terminology.
I think you are confused. It is a rememberance and thanksgiving in the same way that the Passover is! It is anamnesis. It is a ritual enactment, in which the Lamb is literally eaten. The Lamb is literally sacrificed.
The prayer that is said is the one that Jesus gave to the Apostles. “This is My Body”. Where during the last supper did Jesus designate or refer differently? Or are you saying He mispoke?
When He held the Cup and the Bread, and declared them to be His Body and Blood, there was no “digestion” occuring.
Christians were accused of cannabilism because they professed to eat the literal Body and Blood of Jesus. they were also accused of “drowning their offspring” because they baptized their infants.
As opposed to cutting and eating the raw flesh of a human being. He does not say that the bread and wine do not become the Body and Blood.
No, the Justin is Catholic, just like Augustine. They believed in the Real Presence, as taught by the Aposltes.
Right!
There were those who denied the real presence, who were considered non-Christians, apostates, or heretics.
But, just like the Trinity, the Theotokos, and the hypostatic union, the dogmatic proclamation did not change or add anything. It just clarified the once for all divine deposit of faith.
Only Christians that were in error, or improperly catechized claimed that the Bread and the wine were not the Body and Blood.
What the Apostles taught is valid for all Christians. To depart from it is to depart from the One Faith. However, I agree that trying to find a rationalization for the Real Presence is not necessary. I prefer the theology of the East where such things are left in mystery.
Yes, and may God grant that such harmony soon come to pass.
Because things were being disputed by Christians. Yes some were heretics before but many were Christians on both sides of the issue before any council with each particular issue. ARAR is valid for you but not for all. The nature of Christ, Trinity and other things the Church got right. I and many other Christians think Transubstantiation is one or two steps too many.
There is a time for milk and a time for meat. Milk is predigested food. That is the discussion, if I were to believe today as a Catholic, would I be in complete harmony with the first Christians ?
P
PRmerger
Guest
'zactly.
So the Eucharistic Flesh avails us much.
And right back at 'cha, poco. * Feliz Pascua*!
G
guanophore
Guest
Ignatius of Antioch
“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
And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
“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
And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Indeed He did put forth this condition. Those who deny it have denied the Truth given to the Apostles by Christ. They passed that Truth to their disciples, the Bishops.
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is an interesting comment, poco.
Are you saying that there were those from the earliest days of Christianity who held the position that the bread and wine were the Body and Blood of Christ?
G
guanophore
Guest
You are surely slicker than a swath of butter!
B
brb3
Guest
Trent’s words were needed, due to error being taught/believed/practiced by certain Protestants.
What does Trent say, on the Eucharist, that you have problems with ? Has the CC withdraw, repealed, annulled Trent …on the Eucharist?
Doesn’t matter what G-4 believes, with regards to taking matters a ‘step or two too far’ ---- beyond the Eastern Church declarations. I hold to what Brant Pitre teaches. That’s the correct Western CC understanding…based on Sacred Scripture & Traditions, ---- those Apostolic understandings they received from the Lord, which the RCC has taught & protected.
P
PRmerger
Guest
You are surely slicker than a swath of butter!
- Status