Holy Eucharist

[Soutane]

Are those that do not receive or spurn the idea of eating Christs Body and Drinking His Blood without Life within them?Do we take these words literally as well.If we accept the former as the literal Truth how can we say that the latter is symbolic or mere hyperbole?

 

[SyCarl]

Why limit the discussion to this? Jesus also says:

“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
(Joh 6:51 NASB)

and

"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
(Joh 6:54 NASB)

Are these verses to be taken literally to mean that all that is necessary is for someone to receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church whether they believe or not? If they are not literal why are the rest?

I, myself, take a receptionist view of the Lord’s Supper.

 

[Soutane]

Why limit the discussion to this? Jesus also says:

and

Are these verses to be taken literally to mean that all that is necessary is for someone to receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church whether they believe or not? If they are not literal why are the rest?

I, myself, take a receptionist view of the Lord’s Supper.

To receive the Eucharist one must believe it is truly God,body blood soul and divinity one must also be in atate of grace else one eats and drinks condemnation.

my question is if Christ’s words are literal what happens to the soul who rejects the Eucharist.

 

[SyCarl]

To receive the Eucharist one must believe it is truly God,body blood soul and divinity one must also be in atate of grace else one eats and drinks condemnation.

But that is not what the literal statement says. Transubstantiation means there is an objective change so that anyone who receives it eats and drinks Christ. Jesus puts no qualification on it when He says “if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever”. Is Jesus speaking literally here?

 

[Soutane]

But that is not what the literal statement says. Transubstantiation means there is an objective change so that anyone who receives it eats and drinks Christ. Jesus puts no qualification on it when He says “if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever”. Is Jesus speaking literally here?

yes.provided he/she is properly disposed. Christ gave Peter the Keys and stated whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven and whatever is loosed…etc.This was a transferance of authority to the Catholic Church and Peter’s successors who have the right to enforce proper disposition to receive and BENEFIT from the Eucharist.Just ask Joe Biden ,Patrick Kennedy and hopefully soon Nancy Pelosi…you are playing with sematics here and its rather disengenuous of you.you’re hijacking the intent of the thread.

 

[SyCarl]

yes.provided he/she is properly disposed. Christ gave Peter the Keys and stated whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven and whatever is loosed…etc.This was a transferance of authority to the Catholic Church and Peter’s successors who have the right to enforce proper disposition to receive and BENEFIT from the Eucharist.Just ask Joe Biden ,Patrick Kennedy and hopefully soon Nancy Pelosi…you are playing with sematics here and its rather disengenuous of you.you’re hijacking the intent of the thread.

Where in this passage did Jesus put in the qualification “if he/she is properly disposed”. If we are looking at whether the bread of life discourse is literal or figurative, shouldn’t we look at the whiole thing? If we start adding qualifications to Jesus’ actual words are we really taking it literally.

There was an Ask an Apologist question here a few months ago where it was asked if a dog ate a dropped piece of the host, did it eat Christ? The answer given was yes.

 

[The_Reginator]

Where in this passage did Jesus put in the qualification “if he/she is properly disposed”. If we are looking at whether the bread of life discourse is literal or figurative, shouldn’t we look at the whiole thing? If we start adding qualifications to Jesus’ actual words are we really taking it literally.

Divine revelation is not only found in the bible:

Christ gave Peter the Keys and stated whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven and whatever is loosed…etc.This was a transferance of authority to the Catholic Church and Peter’s successors who have the right to enforce proper disposition to receive and BENEFIT from the Eucharist.

Also,
From the St Paul’s 1st letter to the Corinthians (v 27):

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
RSV – CE (Ignatius)

It seems rather clear that Jesus gave this qualification through His servant St Paul and through His Church.

But for all those who truly believe in Christ Jesus but spurn His Body and Blood … I’ll sleep on that one.

Reggie

 

[Soutane]

Where in this passage did Jesus put in the qualification “if he/she is properly disposed”. If we are looking at whether the bread of life discourse is literal or figurative, shouldn’t we look at the whiole thing? If we start adding qualifications to Jesus’ actual words are we really taking it literally.

There was an Ask an Apologist question here a few months ago where it was asked if a dog ate a dropped piece of the host, did it eat Christ? The answer given was yes.

oF COURSE IF ANYONE SHOULD EAST THE HOST HE/SHR SHOULD EAT GOD BUT ST PAUL SAYS THE ONE WHO DOES SO UNWORTHILY EATS CONDEMNATION.

The church has authority to decide who consunes the Eucharist and to proper disposition as Christ gave the Church All authority of the faith.Tou are trying to create a contradiction which simply does not exist.

 

[Soutane]

Divine revelation is not only found in the bible:

Also,
From the St Paul’s 1st letter to the Corinthians (v 27):

It seems rather clear that Jesus gave this qualification through His servant St Paul and through His Church.

But for all those who truly believe in Christ Jesus but spurn His Body and Blood … I’ll sleep on that one.

Reggie

Did you sleep on it?This question is bothering me more and more as I love those members of my family and my friends who are living in yhis needless darkness.Do you think it falls under invincible ignorance I hope?

 

[djeter]

I don’t know if this contributes to the thread here but I was posting today on John Paul II’s encyclical *Fides et Ratio *and considered the topic here in relation to the following:

*Faith is said first to be an obedient response to God. This implies that God be acknowledged in his divinity, transcendence and supreme freedom. By the authority of his absolute transcendence, God who makes himself known is also the source of the credibility of what he reveals.

By faith, men and women give their assent to this divine testimony. This means that they acknowledge fully and integrally the truth of what is revealed , because it is God himself who is the guarantor of that truth. They can make no claim upon this truth which comes to them as gift and which, set within the context of interpersonal communication, urges reason to be open to it and to embrace its profound meaning.

This is why the Church has always considered the act of entrusting oneself to God to be a moment of fundamental decision which engages the whole person. In that act the intellect and the will display their spiritual nature, enabling the subject it to act in a way which realizes personal freedom to the full.” It is not just that freedom is part of the act of faith: it is absolutely required. Indeed it is faith that allows individuals to give consummate expression to their own freedom.*

Now wouldn’t you say that participating in the Eucharist is one of those acts where we entrust ourselves to God and engages the whole of our being? We withhold ourselves when we question transubstantiation.

Other reading selections from Fides et Ratio here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/02/23/fides-et-ratio-%e2%80%93-john-paul-ii-part-i/

dj

 

[Soutane]

I don’t know if this contributes to the thread here but I was posting today on John Paul II’s encyclical *Fides et Ratio *and considered the topic here in relation to the following:

*Faith is said first to be an obedient response to God. This implies that God be acknowledged in his divinity, transcendence and supreme freedom. By the authority of his absolute transcendence, God who makes himself known is also the source of the credibility of what he reveals.

By faith, men and women give their assent to this divine testimony. This means that they acknowledge fully and integrally the truth of what is revealed , because it is God himself who is the guarantor of that truth. They can make no claim upon this truth which comes to them as gift and which, set within the context of interpersonal communication, urges reason to be open to it and to embrace its profound meaning.

This is why the Church has always considered the act of entrusting oneself to God to be a moment of fundamental decision which engages the whole person. In that act the intellect and the will display their spiritual nature, enabling the subject it to act in a way which realizes personal freedom to the full.”* It is not just that freedom is part of the act of faith: it is absolutely required. Indeed it is faith that allows individuals to give consummate expression to their own freedom.

Now wouldn’t you say that participating in the Eucharist is one of those acts where we entrust ourselves to God and engages the whole of our being? We withhold ourselves when we question transubstantiation.

Other reading selections from Fides et Ratio here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/02/23/fides-et-ratio-%e2%80%93-john-paul-ii-part-i/

dj

Thank you for your insight and the sudggested readings.

 

[CMatt25]

Why limit the discussion to this? Jesus also says:

and

Are these verses to be taken literally to mean that all that is necessary is for someone to receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church whether they believe or not? If they are not literal why are the rest?

I, myself, take a receptionist view of the Lord’s Supper.

So do I and so did Christ in Jn 6:37 Everyone whom my Father gives me will come to me. I will never turn away anyone who comes to me

If a Christian discerns and believes in how Christ came down from heaven and sacrificed on the cross for us all, then how can that possibly be receiving him unworthily?

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
(Joh 6:51 NASB)

and

"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
(Joh 6:54 NASB)

These verses are beautiful examples of the way John uses the literal as a key to the spiritual. Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood does mean taking his body and blood in the eucharistic elements. But it also means feasting on the majesty and spendour of his saving grace and his wonderous words.

I think it’s not an “either/or” but “both/and”.

God is so loving!

 

[The_Reginator]

Did you sleep on it?This question is bothering me more and more as I love those members of my family and my friends who are living in yhis needless darkness.Do you think it falls under invincible ignorance I hope?

Soutane,

I should actually do some research about the wording in the CCC, but here’s how I try deal with the issue: God knows what is in our hearts. Should a person spurn His Body and Blood because they cannot accept the true teachings then I suppose that they are at least obeying their conscience.
For example: When I was a protestant I could not accept the teachings about Mary. I know that if I had prayed the Rosary I would have been lying to myself and to God.

Maybe someone else can expand on this or correct any false ideas.

Reggie

 

[CMatt25]

Soutane,

God knows what is in our hearts. Should a person spurn His Body and Blood because they cannot accept the true teachings then I suppose that they are at least obeying their conscience.

:tiphat:: Yes I would leave it to God and a good conscience and if someone is wrong, then to His infinite mercy and love.