How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[KathleenGee]

I was listening to a former Anglican priest who is now Roman Catholic priest…he said in the end he was troubled by affluent people who can afford to take work off for two weeks, and because they are active in their parishes, were selected then, to go to conferences and to be able to ‘vote’ on doctrine.

He also said that when the Anglicans speak of the Divine Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist it is not quite exactly the same as a Catholic’s.

So it was brought up that the Catholic believer sees the Eucharist as the soul, body and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

He is now at peace in the Catholic Church, that he wants to tell everyone that it really is Jesus’ will and desire that people join the Church, and that he knows as such he is truly a priest.

A priest and the Eucharist in the Catholic sense are inseparable.

 

[Radical]

Hello Michael…here we go again…but I **am ** trying to wrap it up!

RE: YOUR CLAIM #1

And my basic point is that there is always a clarification when Jesus uses the metaphor.

From what you have written elsewhere, I believe what you meant was :

And my basic point is that there is always a clarification (by either John or by Jesus) when Jesus uses the metaphor and a misunderstanding is said to have resulted.

In response to an earlier version of this claim I had provided two exceptions. John 2:19-22 and John 4:17-26…by adding (by either John or by Jesus) you have managed to deal with John 2. Your effort, however, to deal with John 4 fails. It went:

The point is that He corrected Her misunderstanding. She thought that He was talking about that particular well, but Jesus indicates that He was not speaking about that well.

She thought that he was talking about a water that would satisfy her thirst (for actual water) forever. Jesus doesn’t correct her misunderstanding. What we see is that in the face of her confusion, he builds on the figure of speech with more figures of speech…the exact thing we see in John 6. You continued:

As I stated earlier, Jesus’s words are not only for the benefit of those listening at that time, but for future generations as well. Any person familiar with the Bible will read verse and know Jesus is not talking about literal water…will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life. And we know He is not talking about literal water because John later clarifies what He meant by “living water” (John 7:38-39)

You are not precise here and if you want to establish an exact pattern, then you must be precise. In John 7:37-39 it is streams of living water flowing within that represent the Spirit. In John 4 Jesus speaks of a spring of (living) water welling up to eternal life. Although some features are shared, these are not the same things and so we cannot say with certainty that Jesus was referring to the Spirit in John 4.

Further, if one is allowed to refer to other passages of John, then anyone familiar with that gospel could obtain clarification of the figures of speech he used in John 6 from the rest of the book. In John 6 he claimed:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead . 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof , and not die . 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

All we need to do is search the gospel of John to see when and where Christ gave his flesh for the life of the world. There is no description of the Lord’s supper in that gospel (which wouldn’t be for the world anyhow), but there is, of course, a description of the crucifixion of his flesh.

Later in John 6 Christ built on that figure of speech with an additional figure of speech:

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

John mentions blood only on one other occasion and that is at Christ’s death on the cross. (again, John has no Lord’s Supper with a reference to any blood). As such, if we are to find our answers within John, then it would seem that Jesus (in John 6) was referring to giving his body and blood on the cross to the world, and that for eternal life we must accept (eat) the work of his flesh and blood on the cross for our salvation. It seems that the gospel does provide an explanation of Jesus’s figures of speech from John 6.

As such, the way I see it, you now have two holes in this point. First, there is no certain explanation for the figure of speech from John 4 (so your “always” fails) and second, if you are prepared to allow explanations from other parts of the gospel, then an explantion for the figures of speech of John 6 are given. There are additional problems that you have with your point. People, for whatever reason, do things differently and break patterns. Think of a murder trial. It isn’t a valid defense if the accused argues, “Look, in the five murders I have been convicted of, I used a gun to kill the victim. In this case the victim was killed with a knife. Therefore, I can’t have been the murderer.” At best, you could build a pattern that establishes a likelihood, but with exceptions that likelihood is diminished. Further, to assess how John would be expected to write if Christ had been speaking figuratively (and never taught a RP), one must actually envision the situation if such was the case. Again, if such was the case then two possiblities exist: Christ was speaking literally and requiring cannibalism or Christ was speaking figuratively and requiring belief in him and acceptance of what did and said. As indicated before, I see no pressing need (on John’s part) to assure his readers that Christ wasn’t requiring cannibalism…so your missing explanation (that you treat with so much importance), is not exactly vital.

As indicated, yours was a good effort…just not rock solid.

 

[Radical]

RE YOUR CLAIM #2

When Jesus reveals a truth and is not speaking figuratively, He emphatically reaffirms it and generally uses a solemn “Amen, Amen” or “Truly, Truly.”
I had to grab this from an earlier set of posts as it doesn’t appear again in the last set. Your argument is/was that the pattern of John 6 fits with this practice and therefore Jesus would have been speaking literally at 6:53-58.

In response to this claim I had provided two exceptions from John 12 and John 16. I also pointed out that one can compare the pattern of “using a figure, being questioned, building on the figure with another figure etc.” that is found in John 6 with the pattern we see in other passages of John which are purely figurative (John 10 and 15) That building technique is also used elsewhere such as John 4. As such, if we are to draw anything from the pattern of John 6, then I can point to a number of figurative passages in the gospel that utilize that sort of pattern. It comes down to what one selects to make the pattern. In any event, I believe that you have backed away from this point in order to stress your first point.

 

[Radical]

YOUR ANALYSIS OF THE KEY PART(S) OF JOHN 6

There was no misunderstanding of figurative language prior to John 6:51. While He used figurative language (i.e. bread), the Jews understood that He was speaking figuratively and hence there was no need for correction. They didn’t say “How can this man be bread?” They said “How can this man come down from heaven?” They objected to a very literal truth.

they objected to the portion that they thought they could disprove…there is no indication that they understood what Jesus meant by claiming to be the bread of life.

As I stated before, when Jesus uses figurative language and it is taken literally, either He or John corrects it. That does not happen after John 6:51.

First of all, the key verse for my argument is John 6:52 :

52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"
They took Him quite literally. Based on what we’ve consistently seen in the Gospel of John after Jesus’s statement raises a question or causes a controversy, we should find … either from Jesus or John … a correction that indicates that He was speaking figuratively.

As indicated your claim for “what we’ve consistently seen” is exaggerated. Also, as indicated before, I am not at all convinced that they took him "quite literally’. Your assumption seems to be that by asking “how” a thing could be done, they must be envisioning a literal fulfillment. Consider this figure of speech: “I am going out and am gonna paint the town red”…Now, if the fellow I am talking to asks, “How are you gonna paint the town red?” such is not an indication that he is taking my words literally…he is merely asking for my meaning. “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” can be easily understood to mean “How can any sense be made of this?” Christ doesn’t attempt to explain it in a fashion that makes more sense to them. Instead, he does the same sort of thing that we see him do elsewhere, namely building on a figure of speech with a more elaborate and more assertive figure of speech.

60Therefore MANY of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?”

And yet there is no correction even after that.

Right…and again it seems that you cannot see how this is a problem for you. If the eating is done transubstantially, where is some indication that such is the case (along the lines that I have provided previously)? As stated before, there are many Christians who find the concept of “transubstantial eating” to be a wonderful thing and not a difficult statement at all. So why didn’t Christ tell them what the real eating would be like, so that they could make an informed decision as to whether his teaching was really all that difficult?
I believe that your answer to the last question is:

My argument is not that when Jesus speaks literally and those listening don’t understand, He explains it. What I am saying is that when Jesus speaks figuratively and a question is raised or a controversy arises, Jesus or John indicates that the original statement was figurative. What Jesus does beyond that does not affect my argument.

This sort of comment suggests that you categorize the interpretative options as figurative or literal. I would agree, except that a third option is introduced with the development of the idea of a “transubstantial presence”… What you don’t seem to realize is that Jesus isn’t speaking literally in your understanding of John 6. The literal meaning of “gnawing flesh” is simply the actual act of chewing on flesh (aka cannibalism). You want to claim that your understanding is “literal” b/c eating is involved and Christ’s flesh is claimed to be substantially present. However, no gnawing of flesh ever occurs. Nothing known or seen to be flesh is ever placed in one’s mouth. A figurative understanding of John 6:53 is possible, a literal understanding of John 6:53 is possible (but I don’t think anyone would believe that Christ required cannibalism) and the fertile imagination of the pious has added the possibility of an otherworldly understanding of John 6:53 (whereby flesh and blood are consumed transubstantially). If we are to expect patterns to be followed then one can only wonder:

a) on every other occasion where eating is mentioned in the entire Bible, it is either a figure of speech or the thing being eaten is known to the eater’s senses…so why should we think John 6 is any different?;

b) on every other occasion where a corporeal thing is claimed to be miraculously changed to another corporeal thing in the entire Bible, the change can be observed…so why should we think John 6 is considering something different?

Surely it is fair to expect that Jesus would offer even a sentence of affirmation with respect to this novel and radical manner of existence that is integral to the RP Eucharist…a thing which is to be repeated in remembrance of him. W/o such a novel and radical manner of existence “this is my body” can only be understood figuratively.

 

[Radical]

Continuing…

We should not approach the matter with a figurative understanding. That’s imposing our own understanding on the words instead of the words shaping our understanding.

Well the gospel describes Jesus using figurative speech over and over again so it should be acknowledged as a very real possibility. Further, we have to have some sort of frame of reference…I would suggest that the frame should be the reality that we know. I understand that you think that I am “imposing my own understanding on the words instead of the words shaping my understanding”, but please understand that from over here it looks like you have manufactured an unknown and unrevealed mode of existence so that you can interpret Christ’s words in a manner that is neither figurative nor literal and so that you can claim that you take Jesus’s words at face value. “Face value” and “literal” both disappear as soon as a new mode of existence must be employed.

We should allow the words of Christ and John to indicate to us whether He is speaking figuratively.

…and we shouldn’t manufacture alternate realities to accommodate whatever interpretation strikes our pious fancy.

In the case of John 6, neither Christ nor John indicate those words should be taken figuratively.

…and nor do they indicate those words should be taken “otherworldly”…how does one even arrive at that possibility, given that such an otherworldly existence is never suggested in all of scripture. It strikes me that the RP is a product of a powerful determination to make Christ’s words be more than just a profound figure of speech.

Hello Radical. I just want to amplify my response to this argument you made regarding Nicodemus. …Jesus made a “figurative” statement, Nicodemus thought He was talking about a second physical birth, and Jesus corrected him by telling Him its a spiritual rebirth. Even after Jesus clearly reveals the literal meaning of what He said, Nicodemus at this point does not understand what Jesus said and is incredulous (v.v. 11-12). Though Nicodemus didn’t understand the nature of this spiritual rebirth, Jesus does not go into further detail about its nature.

I don’t know what you mean by “the nature of this spiritual rebirth”. Wouldn’t the nature of a spritual birth be “spiritual”?

Instead, He reproves Nicodemus for His incredulity and appeals to the divine origin of what He just said… “we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen.” The implication being that Nicodemus should not question this teaching and believe it because it is from God. To reinforce that point, Jesus reveals to Nicodemus His divine origin, that He came down from heaven.

I don’t see it that way…It is more that Jesus clarifies that one must drink milk before one can eat meat, and that with respect to spiritual birth it is centered on belief in Christ as being sent from the Father and as being the source of eternal life. (that is the milk and it is the exact same milk fed to the audience in John 6)

Now regarding what you said about the verses that follow. Apparently it’s not so clear that Jesus is explaining how a person is reborn because Calvinists deny that one is regenerated through faith, as opposed to Arminian Protestants who claim that regeneration is through faith. Calvinists argue that regeneration logically precedes faith and hence it is regeneration that enables a person to believe the gospel.

they disagree on the meat served up by Paul, but I think that they agree on the milk offered in John 3 by Christ. Don’t they both recognize that spiritual birth it is centered on belief in Christ as being sent from the Father and as being the source of eternal life?

 

[Radical]

All of the parts of my argument form an integral whole. You cannot divide what I said about Jesus from what I said about John. The basic point is that in the Gospel of John, there is no room for the reader to mistakenly take something figurative as literal or something literal as figurative because either Jesus and/or John clearly reveal that He is speaking figuratively. John conscientiously clarifies for the reader those figurative staments made by Jesus that were not easily understood. Considering this consistent pattern we find in the Gospel of John, it is odd that the most controversial statement made by Jesus in this gospel is left unexplained if it was meant to be taken figuratively. The obvious reason why it lacks such an explanation is because it was meant to be taken literally.

You can claim seventy times seven times that John 6 “was meant to be taken literally”, but as I said before “face value” and “literal” are both taken off the table as soon as a new mode of existence must be employed. If Jesus meant for his requirement of eating flesh to be taken literally, then he was requiring cannibalism b/c that is the only literal meaning that his audience was capable of discerning.

I also want to add that regardless of whether Saint Augustine believed in the Real Presence or not, and I believe he did, one thing is absolutely clear…Augustine interpreted John 6 as a reference to the Eucharist and did not uphold the common Protestant explanation of that passage.

First, what is the common Protestant explanation of that passage? The real presence of Luther? The spirtual presence of Calvin? Something else more akin to my view perhaps?

Second, I would have would have pointed to the Tractates on the Gospel of John (#26) where Augustine discusses John 6:41-59 and connects the eating to the Eucharist on a few occasions. That said, Augustine says nothing that takes away from his clear statement that the requirement to eat Jesus’s flesh meant that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. For Augustine there was the correct figurative understanding and the incorrect cannibalistic understanding. There is no hint of any other option. Augustine also says some very Protestant things in that Tractate such as:

For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food.

This, then, is the bread that comes down from heaven, that if any man eat thereof, he shall not die. But this is what belongs to the virtue of the sacrament, not to the visible sacrament; he that eats within, not without; who eats in his heart, not who presses with his teeth. and

*And thus He would have this meat and drink to be understood as meaning the fellowship of His own body and members, which is the holy Church in his predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified saints and believers. *

Hmmmm, Augustine reflects on those 19 verses for a considerable length and no specification of a Real Presence.

Instead of focusing on whether the Church Fathers believed in the Real Presence per se, I want to focus on whether any of the early Church Fathers believed John 6 was a reference to the Eucharist. Why? Because many Protestants who deny the Real Presence also deny that this passage is about the Eucharist. So if every reference in the New Testament to the eating of the Body and drinking of the Blood of Christ outside of John 6 is a reference to the Eucharist, how is it that suddenly the eating of the Body and drinking of the Blood of Christ in John 6 is not about the Eucharist? The natural reading of the text is that Christ is referring to the Eucharist.

I would say that the natural reading of the text is that it refers to his sacrificial death. The Lord’s supper commemorates his sacrificial death by eating bread and drinking wine. This is not coincidence, but was planned by Christ. It is Christ’s death on the cross that was required for eternal life and not eating the Eucharistic elements. As such, John 6 anticipates the Lord’s Supper where we eat bread in memory of the sacrifice of his body for us and where we drink wine in memory of his blood which was poured out for us. By that act, we proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes again.

May God Bless you

 

[KathleenGee]

Radical,

Try as you may, when the Lord was ending His mission, He had His apostles begin His church and the practices fro early on was that the Eucharist was Divine.

You have to look at the practices of the early beginning of the Church…St. Justin the Martyr is a reference who was specifically asked to explain the Mass. The great heresy of that day was not to believe, that it was just a memorial.

It would be interesting to visit the Palestinian Christians as they are the descendents of the ancient Jewish Arab Christian believers.

You can’t prove anything in the Bible on itself. You have to study how it was incarnated among the believers. Revelations ended at the beginning of the Church. So you have to study the Church with an open and objective mind.

To put the Word of God back into symbolic would never last. The Jews had carnate means to worship God…they did not sit around books. They had the temple, ritual, liturgies, the priesthood. That is, a Jewish institution of faith.

The Church is Christ’s institution of faith that contains and integrates the Word of God Made Flesh into its entire being. You can’t draw on one statement by an early Church Father unless it is in context of a Council—in union with the Holy Father and the Bishops…Our church does not stand on the teachings of man, especially a single man.

I don’t get into it much with going back and forth with Bible quotes because it never can prove anything.

The Lord gave us the concrete as well to avoid arbitration and division…and this was the reason the Anglicans are now leaving and joining the Catholic Church because it alone does not change. Now you will draw probably references to that. But what I am referring to that does not change are our doctrines. And they come from the Word of God and integrated into the daily life of a universal, apostolic Christian – a Catholic.

 

[larkin31]

You can claim seventy times seven times that John 6 “was meant to be taken literally”, but as I said before “face value” and “literal” are both taken off the table as soon as a new mode of existence must be employed. If Jesus meant for his requirement of eating flesh to be taken literally, then he was requiring cannibalism b/c that is the only literal meaning that his audience was capable of discerning.

First, what is the common Protestant explanation of that passage? The real presence of Luther? The spirtual presence of Calvin? Something else more akin to my view perhaps?

Second, I would have would have pointed to the Tractates on the Gospel of John (#26) where Augustine discusses John 6:41-59 and connects the eating to the Eucharist on a few occasions. That said, Augustine says nothing that takes away from his clear statement that the requirement to eat Jesus’s flesh meant that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. For Augustine there was the correct figurative understanding and the incorrect cannibalistic understanding. There is no hint of any other option. Augustine also says some very Protestant things in that Tractate such as:

For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food.

This, then, is the bread that comes down from heaven, that if any man eat thereof, he shall not die. But this is what belongs to the virtue of the sacrament, not to the visible sacrament; he that eats within, not without; who eats in his heart, not who presses with his teeth. and

*And thus He would have this meat and drink to be understood as meaning the fellowship of His own body and members, which is the holy Church in his predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified saints and believers. *

Hmmmm, Augustine reflects on those 19 verses for a considerable length and no specification of a Real Presence.

I would say that the natural reading of the text is that it refers to his sacrificial death. The Lord’s supper commemorates his sacrificial death by eating bread and drinking wine. This is not coincidence, but was planned by Christ. It is Christ’s death on the cross that was required for eternal life and not eating the Eucharistic elements. As such, John 6 anticipates the Lord’s Supper where we eat bread in memory of the sacrifice of his body for us and where we drink wine in memory of his blood which was poured out for us. By that act, we proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes again.

May God Bless you

I find this a very reasonable argument.

 

[Nicea325]

You can claim seventy times seven times that John 6 “was meant to be taken literally”, but as I said before “face value” and “literal” are both taken off the table as soon as a new mode of existence must be employed. If Jesus meant for his requirement of eating flesh to be taken literally, then he was requiring cannibalism b/c that is the only literal meaning that his audience was capable of discerning.

First, what is the common Protestant explanation of that passage? The real presence of Luther? The spirtual presence of Calvin? Something else more akin to my view perhaps?

Second, I would have would have pointed to the Tractates on the Gospel of John (#26) where Augustine discusses John 6:41-59 and connects the eating to the Eucharist on a few occasions. That said, Augustine says nothing that takes away from his clear statement that the requirement to eat Jesus’s flesh meant that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. For Augustine there was the correct figurative understanding and the incorrect cannibalistic understanding. There is no hint of any other option. Augustine also says some very Protestant things in that Tractate such as:

For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food.

This, then, is the bread that comes down from heaven, that if any man eat thereof, he shall not die. But this is what belongs to the virtue of the sacrament, not to the visible sacrament; he that eats within, not without; who eats in his heart, not who presses with his teeth. and

*And thus He would have this meat and drink to be understood as meaning the fellowship of His own body and members, which is the holy Church in his predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified saints and believers. *

Hmmmm, Augustine reflects on those 19 verses for a considerable length and no specification of a Real Presence.

I would say that the natural reading of the text is that it refers to his sacrificial death. The Lord’s supper commemorates his sacrificial death by eating bread and drinking wine. This is not coincidence, but was planned by Christ. It is Christ’s death on the cross that was required for eternal life and not eating the Eucharistic elements. As such, John 6 anticipates the Lord’s Supper where we eat bread in memory of the sacrifice of his body for us and where we drink wine in memory of his blood which was poured out for us. By that act, we proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes again.

May God Bless you

Augustine a Protestant? It is nice to dream,until one wakes up!

ST. AUGUSTINE (c. 354 - 430 A.D.)

“That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” (Sermons 227)

“The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.” (Sermons 234:2)

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)

“How this ‘And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.” (Psalms 33:1:10)

“Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED.” (Letters 98:9)

“Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him.” (City of God 10:20)

Want more?

 

[larkin31]

Augustine a Protestant? It is nice to dream,until one wakes up!

ST. AUGUSTINE (c. 354 - 430 A.D.)

“That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” (Sermons 227)

“The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.” (Sermons 234:2)

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)

“How this ‘And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.” (Psalms 33:1:10)

“Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED.” (Letters 98:9)

“Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him.” (City of God 10:20)

Want more?

This reiterates exactly what Radical argued.

 

[cruisin]

**Radical **I’m curious on what you think of this thought I have on the passage of John 6.

I understand how one could get the idea of the Eucharist in this passage because it looks like it. I also believe just because it looks like a duck doesn’t mean it is a duck.

i began to ask myself, why John included this story and not place any mention of the last supper in the upper room, in the later parts of this letter.

When I read John I try to read it through his eyes. he had a particular reason for writing what he did and that was to prove Jesus to be who he said he was, the son of God.

I don’t think that Chapter 6 can be partially read. One must read it as a whole, from the moment the people found him to the point of Peter saying

**Joh 6:67 So Jesus said to the twelve, Have you a desire to go away?
Joh 6:68 Then Simon Peter gave this answer: Lord, to whom are we to go? you have the words of eternal life;
Joh 6:69 **And we have faith and are certain that you are the Holy One of God. **/B]

This is all one story that demands to be understood as a whole, or we miss the point John is trying to make. and one must not ignore what Peter says

Why would Jesus be teaching about the last supper ( the Eucharist ) to unbelievers?

Should they not, first believe that he was the Messiah? Even Judas was not with the disciples in the upper room when Jesus said “this is my body”. He left before that.

**Joh 6:63 The spirit is the life giver; the flesh is of no value: the words which I have said to you are spirit and they are life. **

This is what John Understands later in life. The flesh, which is our bodies, have no value without the life giving spirit that only God gives.

Paul understood it when he wrote to the Ephesians

**Eph 6:12 For our fight is not against flesh and blood, but against authorities and powers, against the world-rulers of this dark night, against the spirits of evil in the heavens. **

I believe that those in the crowd understood exactly what Jesus was saying but it had nothing to do with the Eucharist. They fully understood that Jesus was telling them that he was “THE” Messiah, and that is what they where objecting to. He then turned to the twelve and asked them do you believe that I am the Messiah? This is the question from Jesus, Peter was answering.

I realize that there are those here that are going to reject what I said above, but I have not been convinced otherwise. thank you**

 

[KathleenGee]

There are many good non-Catholic Christians that I share Christ with through His Spirit among us and the sharing of our daily experiences with them.

But a pastor once told us that we must consider it a privilege that we have faith in the Eucharist. This understanding and practice among Christians goes back to the very history of Christianity. There is a discipline as well that is required to believe, and that is, we must submit to our lawful authority of faith found in the Church.

Catholicism provides tremendous nurturing of faith on a personal level through many means. But we also have to follow the disciplines of holding firm the truth of Jesus Christ and in our receptions of the sacraments because they are divine.

Our teachings our concrete, not arbitrary. May be in Catholicism we are cultivated to use a certain part of our intellect —faith with certitude, – and not this ongoing questioning of authority, passages, and words.

 

[KathleenGee]

For non-Catholics having difficulty accepting much of anything the Catholic Church teaches, Fr Thomas DuBay, SM, wrote this book, ‘Faith and Certitude’. Some of the issues touched are that there are people who just do not trust authority and have passion to interpret everything to their own particular taste.

 

[mikeledes]

Hello Michael…here we go again…but I **am ** trying to wrap it up!

RE: YOUR CLAIM #1

From what you have written elsewhere, I believe what you meant was :

And my basic point is that there is always a clarification (by either John or by Jesus) when Jesus uses the metaphor and a misunderstanding is said to have resulted.

In response to an earlier version of this claim I had provided two exceptions. John 2:19-22 and John 4:17-26…by adding (by either John or by Jesus) you have managed to deal with John 2. Your effort, however, to deal with John 4 fails. It went:
She thought that he was talking about a water that would satisfy her thirst (for actual water) forever. Jesus doesn’t correct her misunderstanding. What we see is that in the face of her confusion, he builds on the figure of speech with more figures of speech…the exact thing we see in John 6

.

Hello Radical! I’m trying to wrap this us up too! This week is going to be a very busy week so I may not respond as promptly as I would like to.

Yes, and I stand by what I originally argued. There is a big difference between what He does here and what He does in John 6. In John 4, there is a correction of an original misunderstanding by contrasting what she originally* thought *with what He was actually talking about. He is not talking about the water in the well and is clearly not talking about ordinary water…“will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” All of this indicates that there is a disconnect between the truth He is revealing and the woman’s understanding of what He just said. No such disconnect is indicated by either Jesus or John in John 6. That the woman fails to understand that He is speaking figuratively even after the correction and Jesus does not correct her again does not undermine my argument. My argument is that there is a correction when He is misunderstood and in John 4 there is a correction. In John 6 there is no correction. John 4 would contradict my argument if there were no correction at all. That Jesus doesn’t correct her again after indicating to her that she was mistaken does not undermine my original argument. Jesus corrects *at least *once. If they still don’t get it, He moves on as He does here and as He does with Nicodemus in John 3. Even after Nicodemus failed to understand what He said about regeneration, Christ did not attempt to explain it to the point that Nicodemus would finally get it. He simply reproved Him and moved on to another topic, His divine origin. He does the same thing here. The question He asks her is designed to set up His revelation of His divine origin. Within a few verses she perceives Him to be a prophet (v. 19) and finally He reveals that He is the Christ sent by God (v.26). Why He doesn’t continue to explain to Nicodemus or the woman… after He corrects them and they still don’t get it… is another question that does not affect my argument. My argument that when He says something figuratively and is taken literally, there is a correction. If they still don’t get it after the correction and Jesus doesn’t go into it any further, then that’s a different story.

You continued:

You are not precise here and if you want to establish an exact pattern, then you must be precise. In John 7:37-39 it is streams of living water flowing within that represent the Spirit. In John 4 Jesus speaks of a spring of (living) water welling up to eternal life. Although some features are shared, these are not the same things and so we cannot say with certainty that Jesus was referring to the Spirit in John 4.

They are exactly the same:

John 4:13-14

**13Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again;
14but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” **

In John 7:37-38, Jesus says that “from his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.” Both John 4 and John 7 talk about a living water that is within the person and satisfies thirst. And in John 7:39, the meaning of the figure “living water” is revealed.

I have to go. I will try … emphasis on* try *since this will be a very busy week…to respond to your other arguments another time. In the mean time, may God richly bless you in Christ.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Radical]

**Radical **I’m curious on what you think of this thought I have on the passage of John 6.

I think you made some good points

i began to ask myself, why John included this story and not place any mention of the last supper in the upper room, in the later parts of this letter.

Obviously, until a community embraces a RP, the Lord’s Supper would be significant, but would not be the centrepiece that the RPers see it as…

I don’t think that Chapter 6 can be partially read. One must read it as a whole, from the moment the people found him to the point of Peter saying

**Joh 6:67 So Jesus said to the twelve, Have you a desire to go away?
Joh 6:68 Then Simon Peter gave this answer: Lord, to whom are we to go? you have the words of eternal life;
Joh 6:69 **And we have faith and are certain that you are the Holy One of God. ****/B] agreed absolutely…the most important lesson Christ had to teach his disciples that day was that he was the Holy One of God…any connection to the Lord’s Supper is secondary

Why would Jesus be teaching about the last supper ( the Eucharist ) to unbelievers?

agreed…they were disciples, but at the same time they did not believe (that he was the Holy One of God)…in John 6 Jesus was still offering milk and not meat

I believe that those in the crowd understood exactly what Jesus was saying but it had nothing to do with the Eucharist. They fully understood that Jesus was telling them that he was “THE” Messiah, and that is what they where objecting to. He then turned to the twelve and asked them do you believe that I am the Messiah? This is the question from Jesus, Peter was answering.

You could be right…

 

[Radical]

I find this a very reasonable argument.

Thanks…you’ve said some reasonable stuff yourself

 

[Nicea325]

This reiterates exactly what Radical argued.

Sorry,Augustine did not teach a symbolic Eucharist. Go ahead and believe what you wish,but the early church has a lot more weight on its side teaching it was NOT symbolic.

 

[Nicea325]

There are many good non-Catholic Christians that I share Christ with through His Spirit among us and the sharing of our daily experiences with them.

But a pastor once told us that we must consider it a privilege that we have faith in the Eucharist. This understanding and practice among Christians goes back to the very history of Christianity. There is a discipline as well that is required to believe, and that is, we must submit to our lawful authority of faith found in the Church.

Catholicism provides tremendous nurturing of faith on a personal level through many means. But we also have to follow the disciplines of holding firm the truth of Jesus Christ and in our receptions of the sacraments because they are divine.

Our teachings our concrete, not arbitrary. May be in Catholicism we are cultivated to use a certain part of our intellect —faith with certitude, – and not this ongoing questioning of authority, passages, and words.

Exactly! Look at what the last 500 years of ongoing questioning of authority, passages and words has created? Thousands upon thousands different churches.

 

[Nicea325]

For non-Catholics having difficulty accepting much of anything the Catholic Church teaches, Fr Thomas DuBay, SM, wrote this book, ‘Faith and Certitude’. Some of the issues touched are that there are people who just do not trust authority and have passion to interpret everything to their own particular taste.

Yep! The mentality: It is what I say it is and no church is going to tell me otherwise.I do not care what history has to say or recorded.

Foolishness which has led to theological chaos and madness.

 

[larkin31]

Sorry,Augustine did not teach a symbolic Eucharist. Go ahead and believe what you wish,but the early church has a lot more weight on its side teaching it was NOT symbolic.

The quotes are symbolic.