Condemnation of fellow Christians

[porthos11]

jphilapy:

Jesus at the last supper never said that the bread becomes his body. He said “This is my body”. Not beomes. Now logically the bread could not have been his body because his body was already present at the table. And Jesus was in it. And since the Spirit could not come till he ascended it could not have lived in the bread. So it seems to me that Jesus is using the wine and bread symbolically to teach his disciples an important lesson. He wanted to impart to them a message that they were to partake of his body, which they do by suffering in love for one another.

Then why does Jesus say in John 6 we must trogon his his flesh even after telling his disgusted listeners to phagon him? Why disgust them further? In fact, why didn’t he clarify himself when they left over this teaching? He surely did so on several occasions. The yeast of the Sadducees and of Herod, for instance. Or “Lazarus is sleeping” when he was actually dead? He had to make things plain. Not in this case.

Believe me, Jesus was not referring to “partaking in of his body in this people” (although we do believe this wholeheartedly), because his language in John 6 is as graphic as you could get. “Eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” does not conjure up the images you mention. In Semitic cultures, these two phrases mean to inflict grave bodily harm, if taken symbolically. That is why the Jews understood Jesus LITERALLY, otherwise the symbolic meaning would make no sense (“unless you assault me, you have no life in you”). That’s why they left, because they could not see byond the notion of cannibalism. And to make it even clearer, Jesus use of trogo (chew, gnaw, munch) makes it no less than crystal clear, more so than when he used *phago *(eat).

And at the last supper, we need no gymnastics. Given what Jesus said in John 6, when he said “This is my body,” he meant, this IS my body." It’s the only way John 6 would make any sense for his listeners.

Finally, yes indeed, Paul is referring to proper behavior in 1 Cor 11. But why does he warn of grave consequences and even death when they EAT THE BREAD and DRINK THE CUP unworthily? Not when it’s just a symbol.

I lost be faith in the Holy Eucharist before. With what I’ve read from the Bible, it’s impossible for me to deny without doing violence to the Word of God.

 

[RobedWithLight]

uniChristian:

1 a : one that is cursed by ecclesiastical authority b : someone or something intensely disliked or loathed – usually used as a predicate nominative <this notion was anathema to most of his countrymen – S. J. Gould>
2 a : a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication b : the denunciation of something as accursed c : a vigorous denunciation : CURSE"

I’m sure glad this comes from the Romanist church and not God.

**Nothing **in your stated definitions says that the soul is thus automatically consigned to Hell. Anathematization and Excommunication are essentially forms of discipline, the strongest the Church can pronounce, intended to compel the offender to desist and eventually to conform.

I find it strange that you refer to yourself a cradle Catholic and then call the Church a “Romanist” Church.

Gerry

 

[RobedWithLight]

jphilapy:

Reason I tend to disagree with Transubstantiation:

Jesus at the last supper never said that the bread becomes his body. He said “This is my body”. Not beomes. Now logically the bread could not have been his body because his body was already present at the table. And Jesus was in it. And since the Spirit could not come till he ascended it could not have lived in the bread. So it seems to me that Jesus is using the wine and bread symbolically to teach his disciples an important lesson. He wanted to impart to them a message that they were to partake of his body, which they do by suffering in love for one another.

That does not pose a problem for me, since prior to the Last Supper, that same piece of bread which Jesus used, was just ordinary bread. Yet when He said this is my body, the miraculous transformation would have occured in that same piece of bread, wherein through His power, it became truly the body of Christ, though it still “looks” like bread.

Besides, why would you find it impossible for the bread to become truly Christ’s flesh, and the wine truly Christ’s blood, when we likewise don’t find it impossible for Jesus to raise Himself up from the dead? Aren’t we limiting or doubting that Jesus can in fact do such a miraculous feat, considering that as God He is omnipotent ?

Finally, I feel this thread is veering away from the topic at hand concerning the issue of anathemas. The issue is about the alleged condemnation of fellow Christians by anathematization, not the essence of the Holy Eucharist per se.

Gerry

 

[vern_humphrey]

RobedWithLight:

I find it strange that you refer to yourself a cradle Catholic and then call the Church a “Romanist” Church.

Gerry

That DOES seem odd, doesn’t it?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[vern_humphrey]

RobedWithLight:

Besides, why would you find it impossible for the bread to become truly Christ’s flesh, and the wine truly Christ’s blood, when we likewise don’t find it impossible for Jesus to raise Himself up from the dead? Aren’t we limiting or doubting that Jesus can in fact do such a miraculous feat, considering that as God He is omnipotent ?

Finally, I feel this thread is veering away from the topic at hand concerning the issue of anathemas. The issue is about the alleged condemnation of fellow Christians by anathematization, not the essence of the Holy Eucharist per se.

Gerry

I’m always astonished at how many people want to tell God how to do His business.

Someday I’m going to compile a file of all the times someone has said, “Why didn’t God do such-and-such,” or “He couldn’t have done,” or "It doesn’t make sense for God to have . . ."http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

 

[kevinfraser]

jphilapy:

Reason I tend to disagree with Transubstantiation:

(innovative personal opinion coyly hinting that 2,000 years of Catholic Doctrine regarding the Most Holy Eucharist amounts to some sort of pointless verbal trickery.)

… we as His body Indwelt by Hist Spirit are Christ incarnate.

Jeff

Seems to me the pharisees tried to pull exactly this kind of semantic entrapment when they asked Him about whose wife the woman with seven husbands would be in heaven.

When Jesus lifted the bread and before he spoke, what was the bread?

After Jesus the Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity who had been given all power in heaven and on earth by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Moses, used the same breath that created the entire world to say “This is my Body” in reference to a piece of bread, what do YOU think actually happened?

No really. What.

And no fair using a Clintonian “depends on what you mean by ‘happened’”

 

[jphilapy]

kevinfraser:

Seems to me the pharisees tried to pull exactly this kind of semantic entrapment when they asked Him about whose wife the woman with seven husbands would be in heaven.

When Jesus lifted the bread and before he spoke, what was the bread?

After Jesus the Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity who had been given all power in heaven and on earth by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Moses, used the same breath that created the entire world to say “This is my Body” in reference to a piece of bread, what do YOU think actually happened?

No really. What.

And no fair using a Clintonian “depends on what you mean by ‘happened’”

You are pretty rude and sarcastic person. Really now, there is no need for that type of tone is there. I am open minded and that is why I posted here and am taking the opportunity to research any answers given to me. Any arguments I post here, are valid arguments, because they prevent me from believeing what the catholics teach. It is only a good thing if I test and examine those arguements to see if they old water. Now if you wanna deter that then I have to say you in your own sinking boat.

And I can assure you you sound somewhat arrogant, well your not the first person, i met folks of protestant and eastern orthodox circles who are the same way. From an outside observers point of view all these people are rediclulous because they assert they all know the truth and then they all condemn one another. And you know what? When I talk to Eastern Orthodox about topics, they assert that they have the truth on them, and are as assertivae about their own 2000 years of history as the catholic church and yet they think you are heretics. Gee I know, maybe you want me to do what many false teachers want, just blind follow, or maybe you want me to do what mormons want, accept a subjective burning in my gut that proves you are valid. What ever it is, I can assure you I will do the research and see which is right. Act 17:11

Anyways to answer your question:

The bread was unleavend bread. What was it after he spoke. Let’s see, Jesus the Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity himself also said:

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I go, I will send him unto you.

Scripture is clear that without the Spirit there is no Life. Christ made it clear that unless he goes his Spirit will not come. So inorder for the bread to become His body it would need to contain His Spirit. At that time had Christ ascended yet? That is not a semantic entrapment, that is a valid question. Anyway my point is that Christ can do it however he wants. I am not questioning His ability, I am questioning the catholic explanation.

Jeff

 

[jphilapy]

kevinfraser:

Seems to me the pharisees tried to pull exactly this kind of semantic entrapment when they asked Him about whose wife the woman with seven husbands would be in heaven.

When Jesus lifted the bread and before he spoke, what was the bread?

After Jesus the Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity who had been given all power in heaven and on earth by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Moses, used the same breath that created the entire world to say “This is my Body” in reference to a piece of bread, what do YOU think actually happened?

No really. What.

And no fair using a Clintonian “depends on what you mean by ‘happened’”

You are pretty rude and sarcastic person. Really now, there is no need for that type of tone is there. I am open minded and that is why I posted here and am taking the opportunity to research any answers given to me. Any arguments I post here, are valid arguments, because they prevent me from believeing what the catholics teach. It is only a good thing if I test and examine those arguements to see if they old water. Now if you wanna deter that then I have to say you in your own sinking boat.

And I can assure you you sound somewhat arrogant, well your not the first person, i met folks of protestant and eastern orthodox circles who are the same way. From an outside observers point of view all these people are rediclulous because they assert they all know the truth and then they all condemn one another. And you know what? When I talk to Eastern Orthodox about topics, they assert that they have the truth on them, and are as assertivae about their own 2000 years of history as the catholic church and yet they think you are heretics. Gee I know, maybe you want me to do what many false teachers want, just blind follow, or maybe you want me to do what mormons want, accept a subjective burning in my gut that proves you are valid. What ever it is, I can assure you I will do the research and see which is right. Act 17:11

Anyways to answer your question:

The bread was unleavend bread. What was it after he spoke. Let’s see, Jesus the Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity himself also said:

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I go, I will send him unto you.

Scripture is clear that without the Spirit there is no Life. Christ made it clear that unless he goes his Spirit will not come. So inorder for the bread to become His body it would need to contain His Spirit. Did Christ ascend yet? That is not a semantic entrapment, that is a valid question.

Jeff

 

[kevinfraser]

jphilapy:

You are pretty rude and sarcastic person… And I can assure you you sound somewhat arrogant,

Well, you have a nice day, too.

To your credit you did answer my first question, essentially ‘what was the bread when Christ lifted it up at the last supper?’

jphilapy:

The bread was unleavend bread.

Excellent, we agree. Next you recapped my second question:

jphilapy:

What was it after he spoke.

Hooray! I think: ‘he’s going to give a straight answer to my question…’

jphilapy:

Let’s see, Jesus the Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity himself also said:

But NOOO! He goes to a proof-text about a question I DIDN’T ask.

Unfortunately, people who have been taught anti-Catholic apologetics by osmosis will often use these tactics without even realizing what they are doing. If they sense the battle is in jeopardy, they will use secondary redirection techniques like calling your personal character into question. (See above). Works well for comedy, too.

YOU decided to personally insult me in writing, then attempt evasion by misdirection instead of answering my simple question. By saying that, I’m not being insulting or arrogant, I’m just evaluating what you did. Am I wrong?

Once again, the question you WILL not answer:

What did Jesus share with the Apostles:

a) Jesus’ divine body blood soul and divinity after God willed the bread and wine to literally and substantially become Jesus’ precious divine person (“This is my body… This is my Blood”)
b) plain bread and wine

Your answer is going to be either the letter a or the letter b. If it’s anything else, that proves you’re back onto the misdirection thing again because you still won’t have answered my question.

You want to weigh research? Try this one: read all of John 6 and ask yourself “What if Jesus was speaking metaphorically only in the first part, and then spoke concretely and literally in the second part?”

Don’t pay any attention to me. Don’t pay any attention to any minister or friend who has ever “interpreted” scripture for you. Ask the Holy Spirit to help you, then read John 6 --ALL of it.

What if by “This is My body” JESUS ACTUALLY MEANS “This is My Body.” What if Jesus was saying EXACTLY what He meant: that He willed the bread and wine to literally become his own sacrifice on Calvary, offered by the Divine Priest-Victim in an un-bloody way on the night before His passion and death.

What if God was powerful enough to do that out of love for you and me?

I’ve heard non-Catholics talk about a “simple gospel message” but I find it so odd that non-Catholics NEVER want to attribute THAT much simplicity to Jesus’ speech at the last supper as recorded in the canon of sacred scripture.

Look, he didn’t say “This is a SYMBOL of my body” or “Think of this as being LIKE my body” or “this represents my body.” Read the words. It says “This IS my Body… This IS my blood”

What if that’s EXACTLY what he means. How’s that for a simple gospel message?

If He was so powerful He could create everything from nothing, what would make it so difficult for Him to create Himself from something?

Why not let Him speak for himself? After all He was a Man like you. We shouldn’t put words in His mouth.

Now you may not like the in-your-face directness and forthrightness of my writing, but I don’t think handing me personal insults would be His choice of behaviours, would it?

This is how I am radical for Christ alive in the Eucharist. How are you radical about the supreme gift?

 

[Stephen-Maguire]

dsanford.com/miraclehost/hostvideo.wmv

 

[jphilapy]

YOU decided to personally insult me in writing, then attempt evasion by misdirection instead of answering my simple question. By saying that, I’m not being insulting or arrogant, I’m just evaluating what you did. Am I wrong?
<<

No you attacked me first.
Your answer is going to be either the letter a or the letter b. If it’s anything else, that proves you’re back onto the misdirection thing again because you still won’t have answered my question.
<<

No there was no misdirection. I already answered your question, that is why you are responding to me is because I said I don’t believe his body becomes the bread. On the contrary you are being sarcastic and retorical. You don’t really want me to answer the question because you already no my answer.

I simply jumped to the reason for my answer. Now you tell me didn’t I already answer your question even before you asked?
Look, he didn’t say “This is a SYMBOL of my body” or “Think of this as being LIKE my body” or “this represents my body.” Read the words. It says “This IS my Body… This IS my blood”
<<

Likewise Jesus didn’t say “I am symbolized by a vine” but he said “I am the true vine” but he most certainly didn’t mean he was a real vine now did he? Joh 15:1-16 He was using the analogy of a vine to teach us how we are to relate to Him and depend on Him. And likewise we are not really branches, but we are like branches in that we need Jesus in order to produce fruit. And we don’t really produce fruit as in apples and oranges, instead we produce the works of the Spirit which is symbolized by fruit. So it is with the analogy of the bread being His body. The only true body that Christ has now taken on is our human bodies which is his temple where he lives by his Spirit. Now that is a true miracle that far exceeds any idea about becoming a piece of bread.

I am the vine seems pretty simple doesn’t it?

Hmmm for God to become a piece of bread or to become flesh? Which is the most wonderous of the two?

Christ in the Flesh, crucified, buried, resurrected, ascended to the right hand of the Father only to be turned into a cracker. Nah it makes a whole lot more sense that the wafer is a symbol of the reality and the reality is Christ in us. And likewise it makes more sense that the vine is a symbol of Christ and the reality is us in Christ. Christ in us and us in Christ. There is no other way to partake of someone more than that.

Jeff

 

[kevinfraser]

So you mean to say that when Jesus said “This is my Body” he meant “This is nothing but a cracker?” Doesn’t that make “This is my Body” a lie? Who is the father of all lies?

Cracker is another word you have chosen for the express purpose of hurting. Here you mean to hurt not only me but all Catholics for their faith in Jesus’ words. In this context it can have no other purpose than to hurtfully dismiss as nonsense our deeply held Catholic faith in Christ alive as our “real food and real drink” just as he promised.

At least before, you were confining your hurtful words to me personally. Now you’ve scoped your veiled accusation of material idolatry up to include all Catholics. Is that what you intended?

Nobody chooses the word “cracker” to describe the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist unless they expressly intend to hurt Catholic Christians for their belief in the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (John 6.) Do you persecute Christians for their faith in Christ?

God’s power is such that consuming the Eucharist transforms us more and more into the image of Jesus, by the way. All we have to do is avoid sin and sacramentally confess with imperfect or perfect contrition and a firm purpose of amendment whenever we fall into sin.

I sense now that your purpose is to hurt. So I pray for you and all those who cannot understand Him in the Eucharist, and I ask others to pray with me:

Holy Spirit please come in your gentleness to we your children who don’t see that you are alive and reserved, waiting for us to come and visit you alive and present in any Catholic Tabernacle in the world. Have mercy on them for their insults against your Eucharistic presence. May we all receive from your Sacred Heart the mercy of a deep thirst for you present there, and inflict through your Blessed Mother upon us the sweet desire to know you and be of you fully by ever more worthily receiving your true and substantially real Eucharistic presence in the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass until you judge us after our death. Amen.

God bless you.

 

[jphilapy]

This is how I am radical for Christ alive in the Eucharist. How are you radical about the supreme gift?
<<

By supreme gift you mean Christ in a wafer. By supreme gift I mean Christ in me.

1Jo 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
Col 3:4 When Christ, who is our life, shall be manifested, then shall ye also with him be manifested in glory.

Col 3:3 For ye died, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me.

2Co 4:11 For we who live are always delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh.

2Co 4:10 always bearing about in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our body.

1Co 15:45 So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

I think those verses do well to illustrate the supreme gift and to show what I am radical about. Now tell me what does Christ becoming a wafer have mechanically to do with Christ our Life in us?

Jeff

 

[jphilapy]

Cracker
<<

Keven I apologize for taking an intentional swap there at the catholic tradition but it was by no means a swap at the Lords Supper as he ate a meal and broke from a loaf of bread which a loaf is also used elsewhere by Paul to describe the body of believers. A cracker was never understood to be used in those verses. Any way the loaf is a means to further illustrate my point of symbolism.

And yes you are right I shouldn’t resort to such attacks. And no it isn’t my attention to hurt. I was offended at the fact that I was accused of intentionally trying to entrapt Christ and that is what was meant by the statment:

"pharisees tried to pull exactly this kind of semantic entrapment "

I think those kinds of attacks are un called for and unessary. And one reason they bother me is because people who resort to them think they are being warriors for God or something. However I see this same attitude from protestants, catholics and eastern orthodox alike and I can assure you that just because we make statements like that, that doenst make us spiritual. To put it another way, these attacks are a form of intimidation used by all religions.

Jeff

 

[kevinfraser]

Apology accepted.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Christ in the Eucharist

catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

 

[adnauseum]

You must keep in mind that the statements of the various councils were most often in response to an attack or error from the outside.

It is perfectly within the duty of one who possesses the truth to condemn those who attack it.

Yes, it’s hard for secularists to hear, but I repeat: it is GOOD to judge. Thank God we have a Church that is willing to JUDGE.

 

[uniChristian]

jimmy:

You also see what you want to see, you skip over every word in the definition and go straight to the very last one. Definition 2 most fits what the church teaches. You underline the word curse. It is a vigorous denunciation as the definition says. By rejecting the doctrines of the church, you also reject the authority of the church, and consequently you reject Christ who founded the church. So they vigorously denounce you.

When it says curse, it does not mean some voodoo curse or anything like that. It means exactly what the preceding two words mean, a vigorous denunciation.

See what I want to see? Jimmy read the post at the top. I was raised Catholic and I do not believe in Transubstantiation. I do believe in the real presence but I believe he is present in the Spirit and not the flesh John14: 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. He meant by the Holy Spirit and not his presence in the host. Jimmy once something becomes canonized the Romanist Church considers it law.

 

[Church_Militant]

uniChristian:

I agree with this completely!

If you really believe that then you need to look much closer into the Eucharistic teachings of the Catholic Church. My own personal studies have led me to the incontrovertible opinion that the Catholic Church is the only church that does communion scripturally & that because of Jesus promises & commands concerning communion, we participate in the greatest miracle of Christainity at every Mass. With tears of love, joy, and humble awe I can only whisper “My Lord and my God” during the consecration of every Mass I attend.
Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts. Heaven and earth are filled with Your glory. Hosanna in the highest!

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

uniChristian:

See what I want to see? Jimmy read the post at the top. I was raised Catholic and I do not believe in Transubstantiation. I do believe in the real presence but I believe he is present in the Spirit and not the flesh John14: 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. He meant by the Holy Spirit and not his presence in the host. Jimmy once something becomes canonized the Romanist Church considers it law.