How do you eat a symbol?

[Sy_Noe]

This makes no sense given the fact that many people left Jesus when He told them to eat His flesh…and Jesus did not call them back to correct them.

No one would leave Jesus because He was saying to figuratively eat His Flesh.

Just like no one left Jesus because He said he was figuratively a Door.

Actually it would make total sense if Jesus was speaking figuratively or had he went on to say he was speaking of the spirit, not the flesh giving life. Or if he had meant a spiritual real presence, not a physical one. And if those that walked did so because they were still thinking he was speaking literally and they were hung up on that. Much really depends on one’s faith beliefs and understanding though.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Where are you practicing this “figurative” instruction? And where did you learn this?

MJ

Can you show me where I said I was practicing this? I was merely giving an answer to your question. There is a wealth of information about various beliefs and faiths out there from which to learn. I just happen to be open minded enough to at least try to learn and understand various faith beliefs and POV whether I share them or not. Sometimes I struggle. But honestly Communion/the Eucharist is something that I’ve never had much trouble understanding as to why Catholics and others hold to a physical real presence POV or why other faiths hold to a spiritual presence view or a symbolic one. Understanding why various faiths hold to what they believe on this just has never been all that difficult for me to understand.

 

[adrift]

Actually it would make total sense if Jesus was speaking figuratively or had he went on to say he was speaking of the spirit, not the flesh giving life. Or if he had meant a spiritual real presence, not a physical one. And if those that walked did so because they were still thinking he was speaking literally and they were hung up on that. Much really depends on one’s faith beliefs and understanding though.

Your answer does not make sense unless you believe Jesus mislead people. They understood exactly what Jesus meant that is why He didn’t correct them. They did not understand it figuratively as Jesus did not present it as figurative. When there was a misunderstanding of Jesus said He corrected it. Your explanation makes no sense in the context of scripture. Jesus let them walk away over a misunderstanding? You then must concede that Jesus mislead them.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually it would make total sense if Jesus was speaking figuratively or had he went on to say he was speaking of the spirit, not the flesh giving life. Or if he had meant a spiritual real presence, not a physical one. And if those that walked did so because they were still thinking he was speaking literally and they were hung up on that. Much really depends on one’s faith beliefs and understanding though.

So we are agreed that the folks who heard him understood him to be speaking literally?

 

[Sy_Noe]

So we are agreed that the folks who heard him understood him to be speaking literally?

If one were to believe in the figurative view and one believes that even after he told them he was speaking of the spirit, not the literal flesh, and yet they still walked, then I would guess so and they would have still misunderstood. But then I wasn’t there to really know for sure.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Your answer does not make sense unless you believe Jesus mislead people. They understood exactly what Jesus meant that is why He didn’t correct them. They did not understand it figuratively as Jesus did not present it as figurative. When there was a misunderstanding of Jesus said He corrected it. Your explanation makes no sense in the context of scripture. Jesus let them walk away over a misunderstanding? You then must concede that Jesus mislead them.

No Jesus didn’t mislead people unless you think when he spoke figuratively at other times that he was misleading people. Which I don’t.

 

[PRmerger]

If one were to believe in the figurative view and one believes that even after he told them he was speaking of the spirit, not the literal flesh, and yet they still walked, then I would guess so and they would have still misunderstood.

It’s a hard saying, isn’t it?

One can imagine that God would make certain demands of us, no? Making some hard sayings, that we need to conform our views to?

Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble?

We are agreed that if God makes “difficult statements” our job is to accept the statements, not re-create something that is more palatable, right?

But then I wasn’t there to really know for sure.

Well, it certainly sounds as if you’re sure.

 

[Sy_Noe]

It’s a hard saying, isn’t it?

One can imagine that God would make certain demands of us, no? Making some hard sayings, that we need to conform our views to?

Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble?

We are agreed that if God makes “difficult statements” our job is to accept the statements, not re-create something that is more palatable, right?

Well, it certainly sounds as if you’re sure.

Yes I suppose it is hard sometimes for humans with finite and limited understanding to truly understand even God incarnate. And no I’m getting old but I’m not that old. I
truly wasn’t there. I guess maybe I’m just willing to try understanding different POV and faith beliefs and how people arrive at their understandings is all and try to respectfully do so. Though I’m not always successful at doing so. I don’t know. I guess maybe though I was just given a capability of understanding that there is much we don’t know with any strong degree of certainty on this earth or being able to think we know, without it depending on a mountain of faith and what one believes. Actually the more I think about it, I look at it as a blessing that I can even understand that much about myself. But that’s me. And yes before you say it, I understand it is your faith and belief in what Catholicism and the CC teaches that allows you to turn to Her for your answers.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

The Church does not teach that the Host becomes literal flesh and blood. This is apparent if you look at the following.

A cannibal is someone who eats literal flesh and blood. Catholics are not cannibals. Therefore Catholics do not eat literal flesh and blood, nor do they claim to do so. Well- some do, mistakenly, but it’s not doctrinally sound.

A transubstantiated host which contains the substance (but not accidents) of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ is Not repeat Not one and the same as literal flesh and blood. It is not exactly figurative either. But not literal, and that can be a fairly important distinction.

Again, Catholics are not cannibals, nor does Church teaching point you in that direction.

 

[adrift]

No Jesus didn’t mislead people unless you think when he spoke figuratively at other times that he was misleading people. Which I don’t.

When were there other times that the people walked away that Jesus was speaking figuratively?

 

[adrift]

The Church does not teach that the Host becomes literal flesh and blood. This is apparent if you look at the following.

A cannibal is someone who eats literal flesh and blood. Catholics are not cannibals. Therefore Catholics do not eat literal flesh and blood, nor do they claim to do so. Well- some do, mistakenly, but it’s not doctrinally sound.

A transubstantiated host which contains the substance (but not accidents) of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ is Not repeat Not one and the same as literal flesh and blood. It is not exactly figurative either. But not literal, and that can be a fairly important distinction.

Again, Catholics are not cannibals, nor does Church teaching point you in that direction.

Catholic Catechism
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.207
Are Catholics Cannibals?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes I suppose it is hard sometimes for humans with finite and limited understanding to truly understand even God incarnate.

This is very Catholic.

I guess maybe I’m just willing to try understanding different POV and faith beliefs and how people arrive at their understandings is all and try to respectfully do so.

Yes. That is one of the purposes of the CAFs.

I guess maybe though I was just given a capability of understanding that there is much we don’t know with any strong degree of certainty on this earth or being able to think we know, without it depending on a mountain of faith and what one believes.

What I find peculiar about so many of your posts is that you seem to not really believe the above…

Many of your comments are made with such assurance.

So it’s odd to me that you often invoke this “but we can’t be sure about these things” kind of mantra.

Except when it’s useful for you to make some assertion.

#curiousaboutthat.

 

[Sy_Noe]

This is very Catholic.

Yes. That is one of the purposes of the CAFs.

What I find peculiar about so many of your posts is that you seem to not really believe the above…

Many of your comments are made with such assurance.

So it’s odd to me that you often invoke this “but we can’t be sure about these things” kind of mantra.

Except when it’s useful for you to make some assertion.

#curiousaboutthat.

And here all this time I thought I’ve been clear on numerous occasions that I’m among the human race that has finite understanding of an infinite God. So I not only don’t but can’t truly know the ultimate truth with the degree of certainty that many Catholics here proclaim and have come to believe they know. And the best I can do is to be open, including being open to new and evolving understandings as I grow and walk by faith. Not by sight. And I’m quite fine and at peace with that. I know I’ve repeatedly said I’m one who doesn’t need everything in black and white and spelled out for me. I’m very comfortable in gray when it comes to matters of faith. At a greater peace actually when I’m not confined to a box and when I don’t confine God to one. But others I know have a sense of greater peace when things are more spelled out. But since you seem to have misunderstood me, let me very clearly state that I have enough humility to know I could be wrong on any number of things. I am only human afterall and wasn’t actually around 2000 yrs ago to hear Jesus with my own ears. I may fail in my human understanding and all I can do in that case is to trust that my loving and merciful Creator can understand my heart and mind and soul. Now I know some may shout relativism. But no. It’s not relativism. It’s just the fact of being human and still being on this earth. And understanding faith is a big part of it. And in faith til Jesus comes again, that’s really all I or any of us can truly do. I believe. And for faithful Catholics I know this includes faith in the CC’s teaching authority and in her interpretations including interpretations of ECFs. And that’s in part the faith you have as you walk your journeys.

 

[Kliska]

The Church does not teach that the Host becomes literal flesh and blood. This is apparent if you look at the following.

A cannibal is someone who eats literal flesh and blood. Catholics are not cannibals. Therefore Catholics do not eat literal flesh and blood, nor do they claim to do so. Well- some do, mistakenly, but it’s not doctrinally sound.

A transubstantiated host which contains the substance (but not accidents) of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ is Not repeat Not one and the same as literal flesh and blood. It is not exactly figurative either. But not literal, and that can be a fairly important distinction.

Again, Catholics are not cannibals, nor does Church teaching point you in that direction.

Sorry, but you are wrong about how it is viewed and taught. That is why many in the RCC point to miracles that reveal literal and real flesh and blood via the transubstantiated host; a hunk of real flesh and real blood (that is the contention).

 

[PRmerger]

And here all this time I thought I’ve been clear on numerous occasions that I’m among the human race that has finite understanding of an infinite God

Oh, yes, you invoke this mantra quite often.

Except when you don’t invoke it and assert some dogma with great certainty.

To wit:

“By discerning with all your heart that Christ gave up His body on the cross for each of us. And having the faith understanding that you are eating as a remembrance of that sacrifice He made for us. And fervently believing and consuming with all your heart in what He did on that cross for us. With the understanding that to eat was spoken figuratively meaning to believe, to consume what He did for us with all your heart.”

So I not only don’t but can’t truly know the ultimate truth with the degree of certainty that many Catholics here proclaim and have come to believe they know

Well, if you truly don’t know, you shouldn’t assert anything. Nothing at all here.

But I know that you don’t really believe that you don’t know what’s true.

[SIGN1]What you profess, you profess because you believe it to be true.[/SIGN1]

And you certainly profess lots of beliefs here.

 

[PRmerger]

And the best I can do is to be open, including being open to new and evolving understandings as I grow and walk by faith. Not by sight.

Excellent.

And I’m quite fine and at peace with that. I know I’ve repeatedly said I’m one who doesn’t need everything in black and white and spelled out for me.

Yet, curiously, you continue to make black and white statements. Like the one above, and like “I grow and walk by faith. Not by sight”.

#veryblackandwhite

I’m very comfortable in gray when it comes to matters of faith. At a greater peace actually when I’m not confined to a box and when I don’t confine God to one.

Not a gray statement at all.

But since you seem to have misunderstood me, let me very clearly state that I have enough humility to know I could be wrong on any number of things.

I am heartened to hear this.

Which are the things you’ve asserted that you believe are higher on the list of things you “could be wrong on”?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Oh, yes, you invoke this mantra quite often.

Except when you don’t invoke it and assert some dogma with great certainty.

To wit:

“By discerning with all your heart that Christ gave up His body on the cross for each of us. And having the faith understanding that you are eating as a remembrance of that sacrifice He made for us. And fervently believing and consuming with all your heart in what He did on that cross for us. With the understanding that to eat was spoken figuratively meaning to believe, to consume what He did for us with all your heart.”

Well, if you truly don’t know, you shouldn’t assert anything. Nothing at all here.

But I know that you don’t really believe that you don’t know what’s true.

[SIGN1]What you profess, you profess because you believe it to be true.[/SIGN1]

And you certainly profess lots of beliefs here.

Oh my. PRmerger, I can only assert that by your “to wit” quote of me, you misunderstood in thinking I was asserting some “dogma with great certainty”. As I explained to the author of the thread, I was merely giving a plausible, possible answer to his question. And that I can understand how various faiths arrive at their POV on Communion/the Eucharist/the Supper. But you seem to have left that out or overlooked it or missed it.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Which are the things you’ve asserted that you believe are higher on the list of things you “could be wrong on”?

Well honestly I don’t keep such a list of rankings from high to low. Why would I even do such a thing? As I know it takes me even some degree of faith to believe in God my Creator and in the Risen Savior Christ since I’m not an atheist nor Jewish for instance. I could be wrong on most anything. That’s one reason I don’t practice the Catholic faith. I don’t feel comfortable nor at peace telling others my faith is the only right one and the one holding revealed truth, and I’m right and everyone else is wrong. But then I don’t have the need to convince myself that I am right either. I tried walking your way. I was baptized and confirmed, spent time in the CC and I just find it too confining for me but I am so happy it works for you and brings you and so many others peace and contentment. The CC I do know is a wonderful place for those who find it feeds them spiritually. Others find God and food for their spirits in other places of faith and worship.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh my. PRmerger, I can only assert that by your “to wit” quote of me, you misunderstood in thinking I was asserting some “dogma with great certainty”. As I explained to the author of the thread, I was merely giving a plausible, possible answer to his question. And that I can understand how various faiths arrive at their POV on Communion/the Eucharist/the Supper. But you seem to have left that out or overlooked it or missed it.

Well, if you don’t even believe this* to be true, then why should anyone else believe it?

*“By discerning with all your heart that Christ gave up His body on the cross for each of us. And having the faith understanding that you are eating as a remembrance of that sacrifice He made for us. And fervently believing and consuming with all your heart in what He did on that cross for us. With the understanding that to eat was spoken figuratively meaning to believe, to consume what He did for us with all your heart.”

It seems rather odd to assert something of which you have no belief in yourself.

Imagine if someone came to town to ask us for directions. You respond with, “You have to drive down Brodrinsky Road, and then take a left on Marshall Ave. But, I have to warn you, I don’t really believe this is the right way”

And I respond with, “You take Shanghai Road and then go right on Epistle Street. And I’m certain of that because that’s how I drive every day.”

Who is the better source?

#me

 

[PRmerger]

Well honestly I don’t keep such a list of rankings from high to low. Why would I even do such a thing? As I know it takes me even some degree of faith to believe in God my Creator and in the Risen Savior Christ since I’m not an atheist nor Jewish for instance. I could be wrong on most anything. That’s one reason I don’t practice the Catholic faith. I don’t feel comfortable nor at peace telling others my faith is the only right one and the one holding revealed truth, and I’m right and everyone else is wrong. But then I don’t have the need to convince myself that I am right either. I tried walking your way. I was baptized and confirmed, spent time in the CC and I just find it too confining for me but I am so happy it works for you and brings you and so many others peace and contentment. The CC I do know is a wonderful place for those who find it feeds them spiritually. Others find God and food for their spirits in other places of faith and worship.

Ok.

So let’s just take this dogma you asserted:

These kinds of military equipment have absolutely no place on our streets in the hands of city or small town cops, sheriffs, deputies or state troopers.

Surely you could give it a rating as to how certain you are of this assertion. Especially since you used the word “absolutely”.

1 through 10–what would you rate it?

1 being “almost totally unsure it’s true”
10 being “I am confident that if I told my 5 yr old daughter this it would be a correct assertion and I would feel good knowing that she, as a 25 yr old woman, asserted it as true as well.”