C
clmowry
Guest
In a related question, what does it mean to be gathered in His name?
Are there any requirements for that gathering?
Chuck
Are there any requirements for that gathering?
Chuck
- Status
A
Atemi
Guest
You cannot eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood if it is not physically present. Flesh and blood, by definition, are physical.
Christ, by definition, is physical. He is a man.
"The substance of bread and wine becomes everything which makes Christ, Christ…everything which is Christ, the whole Christ…Does this include the physical properties of Christ? Yes. Does it include the physical organs? Yes. It is Christ, whole and entire.”
(Fr. John Hardon, Advanced Catechists Course, Explanations of Questions, Vol II: The Sacraments)
"When we pray before the Blessed Sacrament, we are adoring Christ in the fullness of His human nature, including His physical properties, which include His heart of flesh, now glorified but living and, we may add, pulsating out of love for us.”
(Fr. John Hardon, Advanced Catechists Course, Explanations of Questions, Vol II: The Sacraments)
“Since the Eucharist is simply and unequivocally Jesus Christ, then He is present in the Eucharist with the fullness of His humanity and this means also with His physical, human heart.”
(Fr. John Hardon, cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a021.html)
“The important aspect of this is the fact that we have in the Holy Eucharist not only the physical Christ in His human and divine natures and therefore His heart of flesh substantially united to the Word of God”
(Fr. John Hardon, cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a021.html)
“the sacrifice of Christ is made physically present to every Christian in all places in every age”
(The Eucharist: The Lord's Supper)
“Christ is physically present in the Eucharist”
(Fr. Michael Sliney, Homepage - Regnum Christi)
"A Basilian monk, having suffered doubt in the physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, prayed for relief…What he beheld as he consecrated the bread and wine caused his hands to shake, indeed his whole body…he slowly turned around to the people…The host had turned into flesh, the wine had turned into blood.”
(This Is My Body, This Is My Blood, Miracles of the Eucharist; (Westlake Village, CA; Journeys of Faith, 1986). Pg. 20.)
“So the totus Christus is the entire Christ, His physical properties, His intellect, His will, both human and divine, His entire divine self as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity” (Understanding the Eucharist - The Real Presence: Christ's Body)
“Jesus is really, truly, fully and physically present in the Eucharist”
(Fr. Thomas Washburn, members.aol.com/tomwas/memory1.htm)
“he is truly and physically present in our midst”
(Fr. Thomas Washburn, members.aol.com/tomwas/memory1.htm)
“On the last page of that Encyclical he wrote this beautiful tribute to our Blessed Mother showing the unbroken link that has to exist between her and Christ who is physically present in the Eucharist”
(Our Lady and the Eucharist)
“our union with Christ can only be physical if He is actually giving us something physical, that is Himself, which is His body and blood to consume” (scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html)
“We realize more clearly that the physical body and blood of Jesus Christ are as truly present as they are in heaven, or as they were when he labored in his workshop in Nazareth.”
(Catholic.net - Catholics on the net)
“Divine power changes bread and wine into the real body and blood of Christ, and he dwells physically on earth in every tabernacle, and comes physically into us in Holy Communion.”
(Catholic.net - Catholics on the net)
…
M
Michael_Howard
Guest
Yes, he is physical yet fully God, huge difference. The scriptures clearly show us that Christ could be touched and even was hungry, but He also was pure spirit as He walked through walls, doors and so on. This is a profound mystery that our limited minds cannot comprehend. So I do not think we can equate His physical nature with ours and do the discussion any justice.
A
Atemi
Guest
Not enough for this thread, though.
No. Christ rejected any notion that He was pure spirit. He rejected it totally.
Spirits do not have flesh and bones.
Also, the Scriptures NEVER record Christ walking through any walls or doors. We must be more accurate when we speak of this, IMO.
…
M
Michael_Howard
Guest
Ok you are right in a sense, the scripture does not say He walked through the door but appeared to them, agreed. But, it is fair to say that Jesus being God is not physical in the same sense that we are, he is not limited to the laws of earthbound physics and dimensions as we are and is capable of being many places at once in His fleshly body if He so desired?
A
Atemi
Guest
The Scriptures are clear that Christ is physical in the same sense as we are. He is a man.
If you mean the miraculous, then many other men have had similar experiences and they were not God, but this has nothigng to do with how physical Christ is. That is another thread…
M
Michael_Howard
Guest
He is man but FULLY God brother, huge difference. If you reduce Him to merely being a man, the same as we are then sure, your arguement aginst the Eucharist being the flesh and blood of Christ is valid. But since Christ is FULLY man and FULLY God there are no limits to how He divides Himself correct? Sure is is fully man Atemi, but He also hears and responds to a billion different prayers, a billion situations perfectly being God.
So if Christ is fully God and fully man as we both agree, why dispute that he can be in heaven fully God and fully man and make the sacrifice of the cross ( the once for all sacrifice) present in every mass?
R
Romulus
Guest
Agreed…it is beyond our reasoning. Now, yes, nowhere in scripture does it say he walked through walls, doors and so on…but we can use our reasoning to infer or conclude that he could do so…
*Matt 28:18 “And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.” *
The “power”…we have no idea how it works, but we can sometimes see what it produces…i.e. miracles…if we are true believers in GOD, we can conclude that this power is capable of doing anything…infinite
Matt 19:26 “but with God all things are possible.”
So going back to Ignatius’ contrapositive statement…If there is not the Catholic Church, then no where Jesus Christ is. Was he talking about the “true presence”?? He personally knew the beloved apostle John, who wrote the things concerning the “flesh and blood”…Can we say he didn’t get it right? Or we are taking this statement out of context?? Sure…it is possible, but we cannot deny that it is reasonable to say that whatever Ignatius truly learned from the beloved apostle John, in regards to the eucharist…is TRUE.
So, assuming Ignatius’ contrapositve statement is TRUE in regards to the “true prescence”. Then from here…we need to look closely into the contrapostive version of John 6:55, “If He hath not everlasting life or I will not raise him in the last day, then He not eateth my flesh or not drinketh my blood.” Now, there is no way of us knowing whether or not this hypothesis is TRUE or FALSE…since it deals with the future (we’ll find out sometime in the future if we got everlasting life) and Jesus’ judgement (we will not know if he will raise us up on the last day, until the last day). But we know for sure, without a doubt, using logic…that if the hypothesis is TRUE…then the conclusion can never be FALSE…i.e…then He eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood.
Let me know what you all think.
peace be with you
A
Atemi
Guest
Not if we are talking about His physical presence. Jesus Christ made it clear that He is physical and not spirit.
Nowhere did I ever reduce Christ to being “merely” a man.
I said He is a man.
This is incontrovertible.
No doubt.
It is not a matter of CAN. It is a matter of DOES.
What did God reveal that He does?
We all already know God CAN do anything. But this is nothing to base doctrine on.
What did He say He does?
- He said He was going away.
- He said He left us (physically).
- He said that if He does not go away, we cannot have the Holy Spirit.
- He said that He is coming a second time, and a second time only.
- He said that coming would be seen by ALL.
- He said that if anyone says “Here is Christ,” don’t believe them.
If we focus on what God CAN do, errors are sure.
If we focus on what He said He DOES, then we can be sure.
…
M
Michael_Howard
Guest
Again, apples and oranges…Christ is fully God and fully man, no seperation can be made between the two natures, they are one.
All the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily.
We know for a fact that Christ instituted the memorial act of the Last Supper. A continuation of the Passover that God said was to be continually observed throughout all generations, did God lie? Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of me.” The Greek word as you probably know for remembrance, anamnesis, does not simply mean to recall but to bring the past into the present and the present into the past. Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, is made present to us, and we are made present to Him. This is far more dynamic than merely remembering something.
This obviously parallels the Jewish understanding of the Passover feast. Ask any Orthodox Jew and they will tell you that Passover is not a one-time, historical event but an exodus **relived. **
***-
**
Keep in mind brother that all who reclined at the table with our Lord new excatly what He meant when He said, “Do this in remebrance of me” in relation to the Passover.
I think the paralells between the traditional Seder meal and the Last Supper demolish any arguements raised against the institution of the Eucharist.
**
Eucharist means ‘Thanksgiving’. I find it fascinating that the Jewish sages spoke of this offering ( Todah Offering) or ‘Thank Offering’ as the only offering that would remain after the coming of the Messiah as no other sacrifice would be neccesary.
Rabbinic teaching says: “In the coming Messianic age all sacrifices will cease, *but the thank offering [todah] will never cease.”(*1) What is it about this sacrifice that makes it stand alone in such a way that it would outlast all other sacrifices after the redemption of the Messiah?
Food for thought, no pun intended. Peace of Christ to you!
R
Romulus
Guest
Interesting posts Michael and Atemi,
Atemi, it appears that you are a SOLA SCRIPTURIST a.k.a. BIBLE ALONE…am I correct? If so, the discussion of the issue of the “real prescence and the eucharist” is just gonna go back and forth…since your source of the WORD OF GOD comes from scripture only…while Catholic Christians’ source of the WORD OF GOD comes from sacred scripture and sacred tradition.
And again coming back to Ignatius’ statement…which is by the way the topic of this thread
Catholic christians receive their knowlegde of the “real prescence” from both sacred scripture, sacred tradition and a teaching authority…Now, Ignatius’ was an early church father…and it is biblical that “apostolic tradition” existed…and not everything was written in the books of the NT…and i’m sure you know which scripture catholics use to support this belief.
Now does Ignatius’ statement “hold any water”? …Did he not personally know the beloved apostle John for many years and was his disciple?? Can anyone say for sure that Ignatius didn’t learn correctly from John the beloved apostle himself in regards to what the real prescence was? I’ve mentioned this in earlier posts…but you nobody is giving me any feedback
As christians, we are all called to teach, not quarrel, be gentle, be patient and to gently warn each other if we are being led astray by false doctrines. And I believe that we can use LOGIC to help us understand and not be ignorant of the scripture’s LOGICAL statements…of course LOGIC will not completely help with explaining divine mysteries…But will help for possibly finding someones illogicalness…and teaching them.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
He is both. We are both.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
If you believe that Jesus is a man but not God, then you have in essence reduced Him to being “merely” a man.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
N
Nita
Guest
Hi Romulus,Hello everyone…I will like some feedback and thoughts on a logical result I figured out about an Ignatius statement…since I’m learning Logic.
I was comtemplating Ignatius’ early writing of, "“Where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is,** there is the Catholic Church**.” St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans 8, 107 A.D…
Using logic:
Let A = If where Jesus Christ is, then there is the Catholic Church
The contrapositive of A is A’
Let A’ = If there is not the Catholic Church, then ** no where Jesus Christ is**
We know from Logic that a statement A and its contrapositive A’ are “logically equivalent.” That is a technical way of saying that they mean the same. They will either both be true or both be false.
If we as catholics believe that St. Ignatius is making a TRUE statement, i.e. A is TRUE…then A’ is TRUE…therefore, we must conclude that for all non-catholic churches, Jesus Christ is not there. Or if Jesus is really in a non-catholic church…then that non-catholic church is really Catholic.
This sounds like a “harsh statement”…I am in no way wanting offend non-catholics. But is it a logical conclusion?? Have a made an error somewhere?
But maybe the next questions is…what did Ignatius mean by, “where Jesus is”??? Or does it matter in what form he is in?? Also, what did he mean by, “Catholic Church”…is it visible or invisible or both??
Is this Ignatius statement considered an “infallible teaching one”…or was this his personal opinion??Am I taking his statement out of context??
You answers and feedback is greatly appreciated
Peace be with you.
I realize this thread has taken off in a different direction, but my brain wouldn’t let go of your original post.
In case you’re still interested, I think I’ve discovered the error in Ignatius’ statement - why it is false when logical principles are applied.To reiiterate the contrapositive principle:
If A, then B is true, then the contrapositive
If not A, then not B must also be true.
In assertions where “is” is being used in an equating way **about **some aspect, then B must be equal to or greater than A **(in that ****aspect) **for the statement to be true. This is where Ignatius’ statement fails, for the Catholic Church is not equal to or greater than Jesus in regards to where it can exist or be present.
(We do not teach that Jesus is present only within the boundaries of the Catholic Church and cannot “be” anywhere else.)
Ignatius’ statement can be stated in a logically true way by simply switching the order of A and B in the original assertion:
Where the Catholic Church is, there is Jesus. True
Where Jesus is not, the Catholic Church is not. True
“Lo, I am with you always till the end of the age.” Mt 28:20
Nita
R
Romulus
Guest
A
Atemi
Guest
Yes.
No.
But you are not celebrating the Passover as God told the Jews to observe through all generations.
BTW, the Scripture is also clear that the Eucharist will be celebrated until Christ comes again. Does that sound like all generations to you?
Did God lie?
Wrong.
The Greek here is not complicated. Get a Greek dictionary.
It means to recollect, to recall, to bring into memory.
It is not a term that means something magical is happening.
Too bad that is not what anamnesis means.
They do not teach is any Real Presence of the Passover during the Seder.
You are manipulating Jewish understanding to promote Catholic doctrine.
That is unacceptable.
I do not doubt that they did.
The Jewish practice of the Seder has no “Real Presence” doctrine of the Passover.
Why do you promote a teaching that rejects Catholicism and the Mass?
You quote the teaching that ALL sacrifices will cease as some sort of authoritative evidence.
Is not the Mass a SACRIFICE with a victim and all?
The old sages would reject that the Messiah has come if they saw the Mass.
…
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
I am sure you have the grace to admit that no one claimed that magic was happening.
Anamnesis means to ‘unforget.’ If you will remember Plato posited a kind of awareness and being in which humans participated in perfection. Then their awareness fell and they forgot perfection. However, occasionally they have episodes of anamnesis or anagnorisis in which they ‘unforget’ perfection.
So to say that amamnesis is merely ‘recalling’ or ‘remembering’ is not a fair representation of the ancient Greek understanding of the word. Is it?
Who is ‘they’? I thought this was explained to you. Are you adopting a position of merely repeating your position over and over with disregard for what others have posted? If you are, then that would be a shame.
The acid test is whether or not it is reasonable. Not whether or not you like it.
And you know this how?
To which old sages do you refer please? Explain to us the Mass and the origin of each element please. If you have to start a new thread to do this, then please feel free to do so. Thank you.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Atemi is making up terminology to support his preconceived notion. He did the same thing with anamnesis.
Word of God = Logos = Jesus.
By Jesus not by text.
Take it up with New Advent who have the Nihil Obstat on what they publish.
By Jesus not by text.
You tell me. Consider this: what did the illiterate, poor, non-clerical Christian masses read before Gutenberg invented the printing press? That’s like 300 years of no Bible at all. And more than 1000 years of bibles so precious they were chained to pulpits to prevent theft.
Consider the Gospel of John.
Totally. And before that how the ‘Word’ was understood among the Jews.
R
Romulus
Guest
Hi Nita, of course, I’m still interested…we should all be interested in hearing different views. You said Ignatius’ statement is FALSE…Logically, you can only say that if you know the hypothesis is TRUE and you know the conclusion is FALSE. Look up the IF-Then truth table.Hi Romulus,
I realize this thread has taken off in a different direction, but my brain wouldn’t let go of your original post.
To reiiterate the contrapositive principle:
If A, then B is true, then the contrapositive
If not A, then not B must also be true.
In assertions where “is” is being used in an equating way **about **some aspect, then B must be equal to or greater than A **(in that ****aspect) **for the statement to be true. This is where Ignatius’ statement fails, for the Catholic Church is not equal to or greater than Jesus in regards to where it can exist or be present.
(We do not teach that Jesus is present only within the boundaries of the Catholic Church and cannot “be” anywhere else.)
Ignatius’ statement can be stated in a logically true way by simply switching the order of A and B in the original assertion:
Where the Catholic Church is, there is Jesus. True
Where Jesus is not, the Catholic Church is not. True
“Lo, I am with you always till the end of the age.” Mt 28:20
Nita
Logical Implication
A B A → B
F F T
F T T
T F F
T T T
Assuming you truly know what Ignatius’ meant with his statement and you are able to truly tell where “Jesus Christ is”. You disproved Ignatius’ IF-THEN statement by counterexample, saying I found Jesus somewhere else. Ok…but based on the the assumption you truly know what Ignatius’ meant.
By the way, upper half of the truth table, where A is FALSE…produces a vacuously TRUE IF-THEN statement…I’m still learning this idea.
Now, Ignatius original IF-THEN statement is either TRUE or FALSE. Now which is it? That needs to be established first and foremost…then we can use logic to establish the truth or falsity of a view of Ignatius’ statement. Logic can both discover new views and confirm them by judging their truth or falsity according to certain rules…rules like contrapositive, DeMorgan’s etc and many more.
Ok, so let’s determine if Ignatius’ original statement is TRUE or FALSE. If Ignatius was with us right now sitting next to us, would you believe him if he said whether or not he talking about “is” is being used in an equating way?? Or if he said something else like hmmm…say “is” is being used as “found” and that he is talking about “the real prescence” as Catholic Christians believe?? Or anything else he meant to say…as mysterious as it may be.
Again, I’ve mentioned this before in previous post…did he not personally know the Beloved Apostle John for many years and was his disciple?? Don’t we think that he would know what John meant in his gospel? Don’t we think that the succussor of Ignatius’ and his disciples know what he meant when he said, “where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”?? And so on so forth…
I see that you believe that Ignatius’ IF-THEN statement is false as it is…and you are disproving on the basis that you know what “is” meant in his statement. Then you took the converse of his statement to make it TRUE the way you believe it to be. What proof do you have that “is” is being used in an equating way?? Will it boil down to “faith”? A going back and forth of My scholar knows this, but my scholar knows this?? My “Church” knows this, your “Church” knows this??
peace be with you
- Status