G
greggy53
Guest
I responded to this…see post 56
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.
U
UNITE_MY_WILL
Guest
I too once question the true and real presence of our Lord in Holy Communion, until I did some research. This article describes how Jesus switches from the word PHAGO (MEANING “EAT”) TO TROGO (MEANING “CHEW” OR “GNAW”) got me started, you may find the entire article at www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com. This along with the studying of other scripture pertaining to the “body” & “blood”, Melkizedek, etc. the writings of the early Church Fathers & early Protestants left me with the choice to believe or to be disobedient in my unbelief. I must say God has opened a whole new love for Him, which has spread into all other areas of my life through the acceptance and participation in His body, blood, soul and divinity through Holy Communion. Search and ye shall find, for "He that eateth [trogo] my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.”
God bless,
T
God bless,
T
G
greggy53
Guest
Amen, it was the biggest reason I came back to the Catholic faith.I too once question the true and real presence of our Lord in Holy Communion, until I did some research. This article describes how Jesus switches from the word PHAGO (MEANING “EAT”) TO TROGO (MEANING “CHEW” OR “GNAW”) got me started, you may find the entire article at www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com. This along with the studying of other scripture pertaining to the “body” & “blood”, Melkizedek, etc. the writings of the early Church Fathers & early Protestants left me with the choice to believe or to be disobedient in my unbelief. I must say God has opened a whole new love for Him, which has spread into all other areas of my life through the acceptance and participation in His body, blood, soul and divinity through Holy Communion. Search and ye shall find, for "He that eateth [trogo] my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.”
God bless,
T
D
Dokimas
Guest
So you just refuse to believe he said what he said because you don’t like what he said?
I’m glad you put a ? after your question or you’d be trying to put words in my mouth which isn’t cool!!!
If this was a statement you’d be very, very wrong. I don’t refuse that Jesus said what is reported He said… If He meant it literally I wouldn’t dislike it even though it might turn my stomach thinking about drinking blood. Have you ever really taught what it means to eat human flesh or drink human blood?Jesus had a human Body that was really torn apart by all the beatings and the crown of thorns. His Blood spilled out through all the holes and piercings. It was awful and He did it for me. I love Him for it.
I believe Jesus said what is reported in the given Scriptures. I don’t believe He meant it literally because it doesn’t make sense for it to be literal. It makes much more sense that He meant it metaphorically or symbolically as He often taught that way. What I mean is that Jesus told us things using time, space, material pictures but meant them in a spiritual sense. The Bride of Christ or the Body of Christ can’t be pictured by looking at our wedding pictures or the nacked statue by Michelangelo (I think it was his sculpture). We are to eat Jesus’ Body spiritually speaking not physically; we are to drink His Blood spiritually speaking not physically.
D
Dokimas
Guest
I didn’t think this was a direct response to my point. Looks like you’re saying we are literally bread.When we partake we become one in the mystical body of Christ; Nothing figurative about that!
D
Dokimas
Guest
I too once question the true and real presence of our Lord in Holy Communion, until I did some research. This article describes how Jesus switches from the word PHAGO (MEANING “EAT”) TO TROGO (MEANING “CHEW” OR “GNAW”) got me started, you may find the entire article at www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com. This along with the studying of other scripture pertaining to the “body” & “blood”, Melkizedek, etc. the writings of the early Church Fathers & early Protestants left me with the choice to believe or to be disobedient in my unbelief. I must say God has opened a whole new love for Him, which has spread into all other areas of my life through the acceptance and participation in His body, blood, soul and divinity through Holy Communion. Search and ye shall find, for "He that eateth [trogo] my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.”
God bless,
T
Chewing and gnawing could be a metaphore for meditating.
Psalm 34:8 Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good; Blessed is the man who trusts in Him!
Can we see the Lord? Not yet but we can see what He does; we can ‘see’ in terms of understanding.
Same as taste; are we to take God into our physical mouth or are we to ‘taste’ in a metaphorical way?
R
Radical
Guest
So a lowly human is still capable of murdering Christ? That is a rather delicate God you perceive. Equating "guilty of the body and blood of Christ” with “guilty of his murder” involves quite an assumption on your part. I note that scripture uses similar wording to describe an offense on a different occasion. The author of Hebrews 10 equates a deliberate sinning after receiving knowledge of the truth (v. 26) with the trampling of the Son and with the treating of his blood as unholy.(v. 29)Perhaps I could see your point of view if St Paul had said it was “degrading” as you put it, or even sinful. But, he states that one partaking unworthily is “guilty of the body and blood of Christ”……in other words guilty of his murder!
So if we lok at the two passages we see:
a) in 1 Cor 11 Paul said, “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” in the context of the Lord’s Supper
b) In Hebrews 10, to “deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth,” is equated with trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him. In that passage there is no indication that there is one and only one way to “deliberately keep on sinning “ (namely by eating the bread or drinking the cup in an unworthy manner) In fact, there is no indication that the Lord’s Supper is in any way under consideration.
c) Since the Eucharist is the one and only thing claimed to involve a RP, and since Hebrews 10 does not indicate that the Lord’s Supper is in any way involved, there must be a way to trample the Son of God under foot and to treat Jesus’s blood as an unholy thing w/o having anything to do with a RP.
d) Further, the consequences described in the two passages for the wrongful actions are different. In 1 Cor 11 eating/drinking in an unworthy manner results in sickness and possibly death. In Hebrews 10, deliberate sinning after knowledge results in damnation. The penalty in Hebrews 10 appears to be the more significant and so “trampling the Son of God under foot and with treating as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him” would appear to be more significant than " profaning the body and blood of the Lord".
e) Therefore, I would suggest that your assumption that a RP must be involved (at 1 Cor 11) b/c the offense is described in such a serious manner fails b/c Hebrews 10 describes a more serious offense against the body (what else would one trample) and against the blood of Christ w/o a RP being involved.
R
Radical
Guest
I believe that your interpretation is misguided…Paul continues with * " 18 Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? 19 What do I imply then? That food sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. "*I just quoted it before. Here it is again.
1st Cor 10, 16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread
…. He asks the Corinthians: ”Is it not the chalice the communion of the blood of Christ? And The bread… “Is it not the partaking of the body of our Lord?”
No hint of a metaphor here either.
Paul indicates that one could be a partner with demons by eating food sacrificed to idols even though an idol isn’t anything. As such, a real presence is not necessary for the partnership Paul envisions.
R
Radical
Guest
A Doctor of your Church by the name of Augustine disagreed with your view. He stated very clearly in OCD bk III, c.16 that it was figurative: “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.Does Jesus say “Truthfully, truthfully I tell you.” ? Does he repeat it, and emphasize it over and over? The metaphor here is clear as we can see that the Disciples did not take it literally either. Taken in context and with the reactions of those around Jesus there is no way one can logically say that he was speaking metaphorically in John 6.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Interesting!!A Doctor of your Church by the name of Augustine disagreed with your view. He stated very clearly in OCD bk III, c.16 that it was figurative: “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.
G
greggy53
Guest
It’s nice to see that some of our Protestant brethren are interested in the history of the Christian faith. While I don’t know much about what Augustine taught I’ll bet that quote was taken out of context. I do know and have read some of the Letters of earlier Church fathers. In a letter St Ignatius of Antioch wrote on his way to be martyred in Rome he warned the faithful to shun a certain heretical sect because they did not believe that the Eucharist was the body and blood of our Lord. This was written about 110 AD. In this letter he also referred to the Church as Catholic. From him and other early Church fathers we know that the 1st century Church was liturgical, and hierarchal and That the worship did not center around the priest or presbyter or the Holy Spirit. Christian worship centered on the Holy Eucharist…Just as it does to this day.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Sounds like, if you follow Ignatius, you should shun many of us non-catholic Christians and call us heretics. Oh yes, I’ve been called a heretic. I’m glad I answer to God, that’s scary enough for me. Oh for the mercy of Jesus upon us all.It’s nice to see that some of our Protestant brethren are interested in the history of the Christian faith. While I don’t know much about what Augustine taught I’ll bet that quote was taken out of context. I do know and have read some of the Letters of earlier Church fathers. In a letter St Ignatius of Antioch wrote on his way to be martyred in Rome he warned the faithful to shun a certain heretical sect because they did not believe that the Eucharist was the body and blood of our Lord. This was written about 110 AD. In this letter he also referred to the Church as Catholic. From him and other early Church fathers we know that the 1st century Church was liturgical, and hierarchal and That the worship did not center around the priest or presbyter or the Holy Spirit. Christian worship centered on the Holy Eucharist…Just as it does to this day.
G
greggy53
Guest
The nature of the Holy Eucharist is not my interpretation. It has been and continues to be the interpretation of mother Church. It is the teaching of countless saints, and Holy men and women spanning a 2000 year period. In order to convince me it is wrong you are going to have to do better than the misguided teachings of a few 15th century men.I believe that your interpretation is misguided…Paul continues with * " 18 Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? 19 What do I imply then? That food sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. "*Paul indicates that one could be a partner with demons by eating food sacrificed to idols even though an idol isn’t anything. As such, a real presence is not necessary for the partnership Paul envisions.
G
greggy53
Guest
In my opinion St Ignatius was doing what the Holy Spirit instructed him in order to keep the Church from falling into error. I think “shun” in this sense means not to listen to them. If so we are doing just fine. The label of heretic is not used today by the Church to describe those who have fallen into error. I can understand the offense you take from it, but I did not write the letter.Sounds like, if you follow Ignatius, you should shun many of us non-catholic Christians and call us heretics. Oh yes, I’ve been called a heretic. I’m glad I answer to God, that’s scary enough for me. Oh for the mercy of Jesus upon us all.
D
Dokimas
Guest
I did not intend you to think I was offended. I was just making an observation. Please don’t misunderstand me but I don’t care what others say about me as long as what God thinks of me is as His child, even if He’s seeing me as a needy child. It is ONLY God’s opinion that matters (unless I give non-believers a bad understanding of God’s love and mercy and grace - that would concern me greatly.)In my opinion St Ignatius was doing what the Holy Spirit instructed him in order to keep the Church from falling into error. I think “shun” in this sense means not to listen to them. If so we are doing just fine. The label of heretic is not used today by the Church to describe those who have fallen into error. I can understand the offense you take from it, but I did not write the letter.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
As some find this interesting, I disagree with your interpretation of St. Augustine’s writing. St. Augustine also taught, more specifically:A Doctor of your Church by the name of Augustine disagreed with your view. He stated very clearly in OCD bk III, c.16 that it was figurative: “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.
Augustine
I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know that you have received what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. 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 (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
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 is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction (ibid. 272).
R
Radical
Guest
Not much to interpret…he clearly said that eating Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood was to be understood figuratively. Not literal. Figurative…and then he gave his understanding as to the figurative meaning. Very clear in that he quotes Christ’s words and very specific in that he gives the proper manner of interpretation and the meaning of the command.As some find this interesting, I disagree with your interpretation of St. Augustine’s writing.
More specific than “this means that”? I doubt it. In any event, in those two sermons Augustine also states that the members of the congregation are what is placed on the table (in other words, they are the bread and the wine). Like Christ, he is not speaking literally.St. Augustine also taught, more specifically:
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Seems like a matter of convenience of what you can fit to your theology. That is, the first you consider literal, the second becomes symbolic.Not much to interpret…he clearly said that eating Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood was to be understood figuratively. Not literal. Figurative…and then he gave his understanding as to the figurative meaning. Very clear in that he quotes Christ’s words and very specific in that he gives the proper manner of interpretation and the meaning of the command.
More specific than “this means that”? I doubt it. In any event, in those two sermons Augustine also states that the members of the congregation are what is placed on the table (in other words, they are the bread and the wine). Like Christ, he is not speaking literally.
Of course we have to consider it probably would take a Catholic to understand a Catholic writing…
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
It is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord. It says nothing of ‘figuratively’. And it goes on to explain in more detail, ‘…and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.’ Eating the flesh and drinking the blood gives us a sweet and profitable memory. Reading this in context with his other writings, it becomes more clear.“Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.
Bread and chalice, having been ‘sanctified’, is the body of Christ and the blood of Christ.Augustine
I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know that you have received what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. 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 (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
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 is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction (ibid. 272).
What your eyes see…your faith obliges you to accept, ‘…is the body of Christ…is the blood of Christ’.
Yes, very clear indeed.
D
Dokimas
Guest
The bread literally becomes the Body of Christ. Does that means the bread becomes the CC which you think is the Body of Christ?It is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord. It says nothing of ‘figuratively’. And it goes on to explain in more detail, ‘…and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.’ Eating the flesh and drinking the blood gives us a sweet and profitable memory. Reading this in context with his other writings, it becomes more clear.
Bread and chalice, having been ‘sanctified’, is the body of Christ and the blood of Christ.
What your eyes see…your faith obliges you to accept, ‘…is the body of Christ…is the blood of Christ’.
Yes, very clear indeed.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.