Clement of Alex. interprets John 6 symbolically?!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Madaglan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
jphilapy:
I really don’t know what the difference is between eating a human being today and eating one in the first century. Please explain the difference?

Jeff
Click to expand...
Good point Jeff.
 
40.png
jphilapy:
folks you gave me a lot of replies 🙂

Anyway here is a question. According to John 6 we are to eat of the flesh and blood in order to have eternal life. Now you say that is the bread and wine. So in order to have eternal life one must eat of the bread and wine. However the Vatican II says that protestants are not charged with the charge of history. Although they have an imperfect communion they can be saved as long as they are properly baptised. Now isn’t that a contradiction? I mean if the eating of the eucharist is necessary for salvation then why aren’t protestants required to take it by the catholic church?

Jeff
Click to expand...
I have always been confused with this one as well. It would seem that V2 changed to accomidate an increasingly relativistic and postmodern culture. I understand that this is an unacceptable interpretation to Catholics, and I am not trying to offend anyone, but V2 became accomidating in ways that cannot be explained by the “development of doctrine” theories of Rome.

Eating flesh is either salvific or it is not. It becomes trifle when when it is relativised in such a way. If it is not an objective ontological requirement for salvation, God can’t really “require it at all.”

Just my thought. I know that everyone will agree. 😉 And give me one of these: :amen:

Michael
 
40.png
Maccabees:
You don’t understand St Ignatius studied only under the author of John 6 Saint John the apostle himself I mean what does he know?

jphilapy studied under his pastor Billy Bob Jr who sudied under pastor Bill Bob Sr; oh well forget it this what we call a tradition of man. Misinterpreting the Bible 2000 years after the fact.
Show me a denial of the body and blood in the early church’s eucharistic theology and I will convert to BIlly Bob’s church’s tomorrow.
Click to expand...
Well you know pastor Bob Sr. studied under pastor Jim.
 
I just recently read “Not by Bread Alone” by Robert Sungenis. He had several quotes in his book from the Church Fathers, but there was one from either Augustine or Athanasius or Jerome which was very good. It mentions that there is none of the bread or wine remaining.I can’t recall it so hopefully someone here owns the book.
 
40.png
michaelp:
Eating flesh is either salvific or it is not. It becomes trifle when when it is relativised in such a way. If it is not an objective ontological requirement for salvation, God can’t really “require it at all.”
Click to expand...
Hi Michael,

That is an excellent point and I agree!

Jeff
 
I thought all this “cannibalism” stuff was settled in the third Century. Nothing new under the sun, I guess. “Sign of contradiction” and all that.

Truly to “eat” and “drink” the Body and Blood of the Lord is done through the “spirit” – not to be understood as “analogical” or “metaphorical.” For Christians, “the spirit gives life” – not the carnal. So the Body of Christ we receive in the Mass, because it is in the matrix of the Body of Christ, his Church, is “meat indeed” and “drink indeed.”

Yes. It is a mystery. If you look at John 6, this is where Peter, in confusion, says he’s sticking with the Boss because “you have the words of eternal life;” and it is here that Jesus states that Judas will betray him.
 
40.png
Maccabees:
Quote from jphilapy:

“Jesus said the he is is the bread. That is symbolic implying that he is our life.”

Oh many your calling out Jesus I can’t beleive you went there. **This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” **
The bread is symbolic and he tells us right here what the bread symbolizes "This bread is my flesh,"
Are you calling Jesus explanation wrong?
Oh you did you have some nerve to call Jesus wrong does Jesus say the bread symbolize anything else besides his flesh. Here’s a hint No. He gives the one explantion you deny.
Think about what you are saying. The tradition of your pastor should not surpass the words of Jesus.
Click to expand...
Macc I am probably not the best person to explain this but I will give it a shot.

I believe that Jesus is Fully God and Fully man, that he was Truly put to death and then Truly resurrected back to life.

However even though Jesus really died, it wasn’t the meat on his bones that he was giving for the world. It was his entire humanity.
The greek word sarx which is translated flesh does not only mean the meat on your body. look it up and you will see that all the places where it is used it has various meanings.

One place of specific interest is a verse where we are told to crucify our flesh.

(Gal 5:24) And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Now when we are told to crucify our flesh, we are truly supposed to crucify it right? However we can do that without actually being killed (though we may be put to death for our confession) because Jesus made it possible by his own death. Now the death that we die is the same death that was given for the world. Jesus flesh was crucified just like ours must be.

So you see I can say that without holding to a literal interpretation of John 6 “eat of my flesh” and still not deny the fact that Christ came in the flesh.

Jeff
 
40.png
mercygate:
I thought all this “cannibalism” stuff was settled in the third Century. Nothing new under the sun, I guess. “Sign of contradiction” and all that.
Click to expand...
What do you mean it was settled? How?

Thanks,
Jeff
 
40.png
michaelp:
I have always been confused with this one as well. It would seem that V2 changed to accomidate an increasingly relativistic and postmodern culture. I understand that this is an unacceptable interpretation to Catholics, and I am not trying to offend anyone, but V2 became accomidating in ways that cannot be explained by the “development of doctrine” theories of Rome.
Click to expand...
This is off-topic, but I’ll bite…what exactly do you think Vatican II changed?
40.png
michaelp:
Eating flesh is either salvific or it is not. It becomes trifle when when it is relativised in such a way. If it is not an objective ontological requirement for salvation, God can’t really “require it at all.”
Click to expand...
Again, you confuse can and will be saved. Vatican II changed nothing regarding the Eucharist, it is still the normative way of receiving sanctifying grace. For the record, the Catholic Church still teaches Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Don’t confuse invincible ignorance with a decision not to accept the Truth.
40.png
michaelp:
Just my thought. I know that everyone will agree. 😉 And give me one of these: :amen:

Michael
Click to expand...
Actually, I think you need a better understanding of Vatican II
 
40.png
jphilapy:
Stumbler,

When Jesus said “eat my flesh” what did the disciples who left understand that to mean? Eat my flesh only has one meaning. Either that meaning is literal or it isn’t.

Even Augustine understood it as I do.

Jeff
Click to expand...
Sorry, Jeff I already explained this verse. Augustine, who believed in the Real Presence does not share your view. He believed that the Lord truly gave us His body and blood to consume. Augustine actually calls fools those who believed he meant that Our Lord was going to cut off pieces of his body to eat (your cannibalism claim). Instead, he insists the words must be understood spiritually (not symbolically). In other words, it is a mystery how he gives us his flesh to eat, but gives it he does, and we are to celebrate it visibly:
But when our Lord praised it, He was speaking of His own flesh, and He had said, “Except a man eat My flesh, he shall have no life in him.”(8) Some disciples of His, about seventy? were offended, and said, “This is an hard saying, who can hear it?” And they went back, and walked no more with Him. It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”(10) Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. **Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.(**1)
St. Augustine, *Sermon on Psalm 99, *8 [emphasis mine]
Click to expand...
As a piece of advice, it is futile to use the Catholic Saints in arguments against the Catholic Church. They wouldn’t be Saints if they disagreed with Church doctrine.
 
40.png
jphilapy:
When Jesus said “eat my flesh” what did the disciples who left understand that to mean? Eat my flesh only has one meaning. Either that meaning is literal or it isn’t.
Click to expand...
Answered above in:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=450721&postcount=55
You’re arguing in circles.
40.png
jphilapy:
Even Augustine understood it as I do.
Click to expand...
You’re going in circles again. Answered above in
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=444806&postcount=8
and
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=445649&postcount=16
and
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=452404&postcount=70

Now if only you would believe as Augustine when he talks about the literal Flesh and Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist. 😉
 
40.png
jphilapy:
John also didn’t tell them that smoking dope is wrong. What part of what I am saying is incorrect?
Click to expand...
Your refusal to accept the Eucharist as the real “body and blood, soul and Divinity” of Our Lord.
 
40.png
michaelp:
I have always been confused with this one as well. It would seem that V2 changed to accomidate an increasingly relativistic and postmodern culture. I understand that this is an unacceptable interpretation to Catholics, and I am not trying to offend anyone, but V2 became accomidating in ways that cannot be explained by the “development of doctrine” theories of Rome.

Eating flesh is either salvific or it is not. It becomes trifle when when it is relativised in such a way. If it is not an objective ontological requirement for salvation, God can’t really “require it at all.”
Click to expand...
Whoa! This grossly distorts V2. Since your new issue is so far afield of this thread’s topic, may I suggest starting a new thread?
 
40.png
stumbler:
Answered above in:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=450721&postcount=55
You’re arguing in circles.

You’re going in circles again. Answered above in
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=444806&postcount=8
and
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=445649&postcount=16
and
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=452404&postcount=70

Now if only you would believe as Augustine when he talks about the literal Flesh and Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist. 😉
Click to expand...
Actually, none one of those answered Jeff’s statement. I think that is why Jeff continues to say these things. If they answered it, the conversation would not still be going on.

Michael
 
40.png
jphilapy:
Macc I am probably not the best person to explain this but I will give it a shot.

I believe that Jesus is Fully God and Fully man, that he was Truly put to death and then Truly resurrected back to life.

However even though Jesus really died, it wasn’t the meat on his bones that he was giving for the world. It was his entire humanity.
The greek word sarx which is translated flesh does not only mean the meat on your body. look it up and you will see that all the places where it is used it has various meanings.

One place of specific interest is a verse where we are told to crucify our flesh.

(Gal 5:24) And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Now when we are told to crucify our flesh, we are truly supposed to crucify it right? However we can do that without actually being killed (though we may be put to death for our confession) because Jesus made it possible by his own death. Now the death that we die is the same death that was given for the world. Jesus flesh was crucified just like ours must be.

So you see I can say that without holding to a literal interpretation of John 6 “eat of my flesh” and still not deny the fact that Christ came in the flesh.

Jeff
Click to expand...
Again Jeff, very good answer. Way to force people back to the text. Ad fontes my friend . . . ad fontes!

Michael
 
40.png
John_Henry:
I am not going to get into the various interpretations of various texts by various fathers. I will only say that every sacrament contains a symbol. To pit a symbolic interpretation of a particular verse against a “literal” interpretation of the verse is a false dichotomy. Baptism symbolizes cleansing. Baptism effects cleansing. Bread symbolizes the Lord’s flesh. Bread effects the Lord’s flesh. Wine symbolizes the Lord’s blood. Wine effects the Lord’s blood.

In the Fathers (I am not saying this pertains directly to the above quotes), there is a much less explicit differentiation between the symbol and the effected symbol. To speak of the real presence symbolically is not to deny the real presence. Heck, the catechism speaks of it as a symbol too, and surely the Church does not thereby deny the real presence.

i

Then you have hyper-spiritual interpretations of texts where bread becomes symbolic of something like God’s word. That texts could thus be interpreted spiritually does not mean that the person didn’t also interpret the text quite literally (as the above-mentioned literal quotes from Augustine and Clement suggest). As the catechism teaches, all interpretation starts with the literal. But as Cardinal Newman says, the history of the Church goes hand-in-hand with bringing spiritual interpretations of verses to bear on disputations. We believe in the literal, but not only in the literal.

(All of which
various people have said already.)
Click to expand...
Exactly, tHANK YOU.
How can it truly be his flesh and blood and not also be other things? John 6 exemplifies all of these and ends with the real presence, hence the Fathers also indulging all for a thorough explaination. Jesus took great time to do thisconveying Himself first as understandable *things, *familiar things, and then hammers it home so to speak. “The bread of life” and "my flesh is food, indeed. One as **something new(**I give you a new commandment) and one as something true and real.
Peace and Love
 
**Matthew 26:26-29 **26 While they were eating, Jesus took *some *bread, and after a blessing, He broke *it *and gave *it *to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave *it *to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

If you take Christ to mean that the eucharist literally turned into the body and blood and that this verse proves it, what about verse 29? Do you take that literally as well. If so, then it was literally the fruit of the vine (wine). Which is it? Can’t be both.

Michael
 
40.png
mtr01:
Sorry, Jeff I already explained this verse. Augustine, who believed in the Real Presence does not share your view. He believed that the Lord truly gave us His body and blood to consume. Augustine actually calls fools those who believed he meant that Our Lord was going to cut off pieces of his body to eat (your cannibalism claim). Instead, he insists the words must be understood spiritually (not symbolically). In other words, it is a mystery how he gives us his flesh to eat, but gives it he does, and we are to celebrate it visibly:

As a piece of advice, it is futile to use the Catholic Saints in arguments against the Catholic Church. They wouldn’t be Saints if they disagreed with Church doctrine.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how Augustine is saying anything different than me. I am saying that they understood Jesus to be teaching canniblism. That is what Augustine is saying too. It is stumbler who says they didn’t understand it that way.

In essence they understood it that way because they understood it literally.

If it is to be understood spiritually then it is no more literal. Why would you disagree with that?

The definition of literal means the most obvious sense. What is the most obvious sense of the words?


  1. *]lit·er·al
    adj.

    1. *]Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.
      *]Word for word; verbatim: a literal translation.
      *]Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment; factual; prosaic: a literal description; a literal mind.
      *]Consisting of, using, or expressed by letters: literal notation.
      *]Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words.

      Now don’t the primary meaning of Jesus words mean canniblism word for word?

      Jeff
 
40.png
jphilapy:
If it is to be understood spiritually then it is no more literal. Jeff
Click to expand...
Hey Jeff,

Since when does spiritually equate to symbolically? :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top