M
mcq72
Guest
???>>>>>>
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
N
Nicene
Guest
And the text quite frankly isn’t ambiguous, Jesus leaves no room for doubt, and unbelievers walked away from him
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
G
guanophore
Guest
The entire NT is a product of Sacred Tradition. The first letter, at least 20 years after the events, express what the Church believed and taught. Paul, not being an eyewitness to the Teaching of Christ, writes about what he received from the Apostolic teachings through Sacred Tradition.Well, not so sure of apostolic teachings thru their tradition (apart from their writ), but yes, as you said earlier, apparent in some father writings, which then makes it “Tradition”.
The Gospels, also, are products of Sacred Tradition (the teachings of Jesus handed down to the Apostles).
So, yes, all that we have received, whether in writing or by word of mouth, is protected by the gift of infallibility.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
This is why it is so important that we follow the Apostolic command to preserve them!
R
rcwitness
Guest
Yes. And so, when Jesus established His Supper, is that really and truly Him, or is He whoever claiming believers claim Him to be?And the text quite frankly isn’t ambiguous, Jesus leaves no room for doubt, and unbelievers walked away from him
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
Why establish a meal of His body and blood if its manner of real presence is construed to be whoever this sect, or that sect defines Him to be?
What im saying, is Jesus is what He Teaches. The bread of God is the Teachings of God, right? So when Jesus says “I am the bread from heaven” its like saying “I am the Teaching of God” and then when He joins the Teachings of God to His own flesh and blood, He is commiting His Teachings to us. And those who receive His Teachings are receiving His self.
And who has the Teachings of Jesus? Who has the body of Scripture, the Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterial Teaching ability?
Jesus quoted Moses when He refuted the devil:
Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
How do we know the mouth of God? Who speaks as the mouth of God? The denominations contradict one another. Each claims to know the interpretation of Gods Word.
We claim the fullness of faith, the deposit of faith, which is expressed and opened up in each generation. Each generation builds up the kingdom of God.
The body and blood of Christ is where we gather to worship and bring ourselves before Him! We hope to receive Him in a worthy manner! But we know where to come together as one body, since we are made one body by receiving the one body of Him!
M
mcq72
Guest
Or those that took it literally walked awayAnd the text quite frankly isn’t ambiguous, Jesus leaves no room for doubt, and unbelievers walked away from him
Or those that did not belong from the beginning, did not believe in Christ from the beginning, walked away.-
Last edited:
G
guanophore
Guest
I would think it would be impactful to experience what the disciples did in Emmaus.we were talking about Jews, even as first church/members…certainly not clear that they saw it as more than bread and wine remaining or not changing , other than by connotation or figurative means.
Jesus literally demonstrated Himself in the breaking of the Bread. After experiencing Him physically present, I am not sure anyone could go back to a mere figurative explanation.
The two are separate issues. The attempt on the part of Latin Catholics to “explain” the Eucharist using Aristotelian philosophy is separate from the concept of a “valid eucharist” being outside of the bishop, the successor to the Apostles. This is evident because the Orthodox, also having received Apostolic faith, never attempted to “define” the concept, yet practice the Apostolic command that the valid Eucharist is the one that is united with the Bishop.don’t mind any thinking, as long as it is right and especially if we are going to call anything else unlawful
St. Ignatius, 3rd bishop of Antioch around the year 117
in his letter titled: “Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans” on paragraph 8 stated:
“The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him.”
R
rcwitness
Guest
Yes! You see that the “Teachings” are at the heart of the bread of life discourse.
This is the figurative meaning of “bread”.
Its when Jesus makes His crossover into His own flesh and blood that requires a faith that is profound and simple, perpetually deep and also attainable.
He is doing what the Father is doing; committing His Word to His actual flesh and blood! Its the theme of “… For as the Father has life in himself, so He has granted the Son also to have life in Himself”. This was in the Chapter just before the bread of life discourse. Jesus mirrors what the Father does. When the Father offers the bread which is the Teachings of God, Jesus offers the bread of His flesh and blood. The Father has set His seal on Him.
This is the figurative meaning of “bread”.
Its when Jesus makes His crossover into His own flesh and blood that requires a faith that is profound and simple, perpetually deep and also attainable.
He is doing what the Father is doing; committing His Word to His actual flesh and blood! Its the theme of “… For as the Father has life in himself, so He has granted the Son also to have life in Himself”. This was in the Chapter just before the bread of life discourse. Jesus mirrors what the Father does. When the Father offers the bread which is the Teachings of God, Jesus offers the bread of His flesh and blood. The Father has set His seal on Him.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
What did they “experience”, that is exactly what part or aspect of breaking of bread made them see Christ?..were they at last supper ? …did they hear of it from apostles in those few days?..we know for sure they knew of His crucifixion and burial.I would think it would be impactful to experience what the disciples did in Emmaus.
If they heard about last supper, they may have been alerted by the unusualness of a stranger breaking/serving the bread to the hosts…being the last thing Jesus did/taught the apostles
Some also suggest that the closeness/intimacy of breaking bread and handing it out finally revealed His pierced hands (any garments being rolled/pulled up at least revealing the hands)
J
jcrichton
Guest
Well, in one of their “sharing Scriptures” moments it was pointed out that the “Almighty” does not have a body; they intimate that Jesus (I guess for that matter the Holy Spirit as well) having a body cannot be Divine; they promote this as a proof-positive (gotcha) kind of knowledge/reckoning.
The passage you’ve cited states that in Christ, God’s Divinity (Deity) dwells bodily (has a body).
Maran atha!
Angel
The passage you’ve cited states that in Christ, God’s Divinity (Deity) dwells bodily (has a body).
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Exactly!
What we are Commanded to Commemorate is not a symbol but His Offering of Life through His Body/Flesh and Blood: take and eat My Body; take and drink My Blood–Jesus did not say have some meals as a symbol of this meal with Me nor did He Bless the Bread and Wine and pronounced, ‘this is like my body and this is like my blood.’
The problem men have is selective reasoning and understanding; sure they can accept that the prophet Called on the Holy Spirit to give life to the exposed bones, bringing to life an army (which there’s no much info given on the reason why they were brought back to life nor whatever became of them)… sure they can believe St. John the Baptist when he admonished that God can give offspring to Abraham from stones found in the road… but no they cannot give credence to Christ when He Commands: “eat/chew My Flesh (Body) and drink My Blood for My Body is True Food and My Blood is True Drink.” (paraphrased)
Maran atha!
Angel
What we are Commanded to Commemorate is not a symbol but His Offering of Life through His Body/Flesh and Blood: take and eat My Body; take and drink My Blood–Jesus did not say have some meals as a symbol of this meal with Me nor did He Bless the Bread and Wine and pronounced, ‘this is like my body and this is like my blood.’
The problem men have is selective reasoning and understanding; sure they can accept that the prophet Called on the Holy Spirit to give life to the exposed bones, bringing to life an army (which there’s no much info given on the reason why they were brought back to life nor whatever became of them)… sure they can believe St. John the Baptist when he admonished that God can give offspring to Abraham from stones found in the road… but no they cannot give credence to Christ when He Commands: “eat/chew My Flesh (Body) and drink My Blood for My Body is True Food and My Blood is True Drink.” (paraphrased)
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
…which brings us to a definite “Triune God” moment: Jesus Raised Himself; was Raised by the Holy Spirit, and was Raised by the Father!But kill, yes. Jesus allowed Himself to be killed as in human frailty. And He also raised it by His own power
Maran atha!
Angel
G
guanophore
Guest
St. Ignatius, 3rd bishop of Antioch around the year 117
in his letter titled: “Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans” on paragraph 8 stated:
“The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him.”
“Jesus himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him.” Luke 24
"When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?” Luke 24
To be honest, I don’t know what "aspect: it was that made them recognize Him. Maybe the blessing that was pronounced the same as the last supper?
As far as them knowing of events:
“Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” 19 And he said to them, “What things?” And they said to him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since this happened."
They were “in the know” so to speak, as they knew that was reported by the women who went to visit the tomb.
Barukh ata Adonai Eloheinu, melekh ha’olam, hamotzi lehem min ha’aretz.
in his letter titled: “Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans” on paragraph 8 stated:
“The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him.”
There is no evidence that they were at the last supper.I would think it would be impactful to experience what the disciples did in Emmaus.
What did they “experience”, that is exactly what part or aspect of breaking of bread made them see Christ?..were they at last supper ?
“Jesus himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him.” Luke 24
"When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?” Luke 24
To be honest, I don’t know what "aspect: it was that made them recognize Him. Maybe the blessing that was pronounced the same as the last supper?
As far as them knowing of events:
“Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” 19 And he said to them, “What things?” And they said to him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since this happened."
They were “in the know” so to speak, as they knew that was reported by the women who went to visit the tomb.
I think that Jesus used the standard Jewish blessing for the breaking of the bread.If they heard about last supper, they may have been alerted by the unusualness of a stranger breaking/serving the bread to the hosts…being the last thing Jesus did/taught the apostles
Barukh ata Adonai Eloheinu, melekh ha’olam, hamotzi lehem min ha’aretz.
It is possible, but there is nothing in the text that might confirm this.Some also suggest that the closeness/intimacy of breaking bread and handing it out finally revealed His pierced hands (any garments being rolled/pulled up at least revealing the hands)
J
jcrichton
Guest
…not sure what you mean… do you mean that the Apostles did not have Tradition or that it became Tradition after others deemed it “Tradition?”Well, not so sure of apostolic teachings thru their tradition (apart from their writ), but yes, as you said earlier, apparent in some father writings, which then makes it “Tradition”.
Right in the inking of the New Covenant’s Writing we find St. Paul Teaching about the Tradition (Oral and Written) that we must allow to be used for strengthening, correcting, teaching…
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
What is very telling is that St. Paul Calls Jesus Ordination of the Eucharist Jesus’ Ordination and he does not contradict Jesus’ Supper nor the practice of the Apostles before him–rather, he adamantly states that to sin against the Partaking of the Bread is to sin against the Lord’s actual Body and Blood!The entire NT is a product of Sacred Tradition. The first letter, at least 20 years after the events, express what the Church believed and taught. Paul, not being an eyewitness to the Teaching of Christ, writes about what he received from the Apostolic teachings through Sacred Tradition.
Talk about no wiggle room!
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
…and it has remained the center of Worship–so important it is to the Church that there would be Extraordinary Minister of the Holy Eucharist designated to bring the Body and Blood of Christ to those where were unable to attend the Mass! Though I must clarify that they did not share such definitions as Extraordinary Ministers or Holy Eucharist–they simply designated some to Bring the Body and Blood to those of the Fold that could not make it to the Feast.The body and blood of Christ is where we gather to worship and bring ourselves before Him! We hope to receive Him in a worthy manner! But we know where to come together as one body, since we are made one body by receiving the one body of Him!
Reason fails today; why would the Church designate deliveries of a bit of bread and a little wine to the homes or places where people lived when they could very well feed themselves from what they had at their own places?
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Isn’t that the “not of the fold” argument?Or those that did not belong from the beginning, did not believe in Christ from the beginning, walked away.-
Obama claimed to be Christian; yet, he had no problems sharing with Islamics–only the term IHS gave him reason to pause and demand that all such depiction be covered before he would accept an “honorary” whatever from a “Catholic” school… so was he not from the Fold?
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Can you explain this again, I’ve missed your explanation completely.
Maran atha!
Angel
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
This exchange demonstrates how man truly misses Jesus’ Teachings.
Why did they not know Him?
Jesus told them that for a little while He would leave them and return to them.
He also told them that the world could not Believe and accept Him and that they would/could because the Holy Spirit would Reveal the Fullness of Truth to the Church.
…as for the Jewish Blessings, why would Jesus go back to a Jewish Passover and Blessing?
…where in the Jewish Blessing is there the same prayer used by Jesus: bread: My Flesh/Body; wine: My Blood?
Maran atha!
Angel
Why did they not know Him?
Jesus told them that for a little while He would leave them and return to them.
He also told them that the world could not Believe and accept Him and that they would/could because the Holy Spirit would Reveal the Fullness of Truth to the Church.
…as for the Jewish Blessings, why would Jesus go back to a Jewish Passover and Blessing?
…where in the Jewish Blessing is there the same prayer used by Jesus: bread: My Flesh/Body; wine: My Blood?
Maran atha!
Angel
M
mcq72
Guest
No. Per the text…actually was also stated in John 2 or 3…Isn’t that the “not of the fold” argument?
S
SnoopSword
Guest
John 1:1,14 “…the Word was God…and the Word was made flesh…” (St Basil: This Word is NOT a HUMAN word…There was NOT ANY word of man in the beginning, nor of Angels)When God said ‘Let there be light’ it was spoken into existence by His Word. The Word that spoke light into existence, is the very same Word that took bread and said " take eat, this is my body".
because: “God has NO NEED of separate syllables; for he is NOT SUBJECT to time.” (CCC:102)
John 1:1,14 “…the Word was God…and the Word was made flesh…” (This is an analogy/metaphor/literary device. Likewise, Jesus is also NOT a LITERAL lamb, root, star, vine, stone etc.)
“Jesus [is] his ETERNAL Son made man” (CCC:430) -Not an actual ‘word’ because: “God has NO NEED of separate syllables; for he is NOT SUBJECT to time.” (CCC:102)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.