John 6:53 about the flawed Church on earth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cathy

Guest
Ron Rollheiser (HOLY LONGING), p.127, quotes Jesus, “Unless you eat my flesh, you cannot have life within you.”
Then Rolheiser says, “When Jesus says this, as we have already seen, he is referring to his sarx, his flawed, exzemed body, as it is met in the community of believers and he is mandating that we must also deal with this if we wish to deal with God.”
Does the Church teach this about the Eucharist, or is this Rolheiser’s own idea? :confused:
 
I’ve never heard that before. Also, it would seem that Jesus would not have a “flawed” body, since imperfection entered the world with original sin, and Jesus did not inherit original sin. Those are just my unprofessional thoughts.

Yours,
Jessica
 
40.png
Cathy:
Ron Rollheiser (HOLY LONGING), p.127, quotes Jesus, “Unless you eat my flesh, you cannot have life within you.”
Then Rolheiser says, “When Jesus says this, as we have already seen, he is referring to his sarx, his flawed, exzemed body, as it is met in the community of believers and he is mandating that we must also deal with this if we wish to deal with God.”
Does the Church teach this about the Eucharist, or is this Rolheiser’s own idea? :confused:
Click to expand...
The first thing you need to realize is that Jesus was not good looking as we deem that today; not that it matters anyway, but Isaiah says something about this. Isaiah 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he has no stately form nor splendor; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. But it does not say that He was diseased in any way. Yet, the Bible talks about how He took our infirmaties upon Himself:

Isaiah 53:3-12 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when you shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days, and the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he has poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

He is our bread and water, but remember, He said, John 6:61-64 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Does this offend you? What if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who would betray him.
The part in red is what most people don’t realize. God took it upon Himself to suffer for His creation. This is my burden, because most people do not understand what we really need to be thankful for. The whole Bible speaks to that and as a catholic I had to come to grips with it. Through the providence of Almighty God, I have a good priest who has taught us these important truths. Perhaps to some here it may seem contradictory to Roman Catholid tradition, but to those of us under his tutelage, we couldn’t be more grateful. I do thank God everyday for this priest.

I have learned that the whole Bible concerns Jesus and that is all, and once we can understand that one point, everything else falls into place. Our priest has taught us to search the Scriptures and use other avenues of reference, and that is why you will see in some of my posts Lexicon references. He told us that if we want to be accurate make sure we have it all straight. Therein lies the plumbline.
 
Ruth101 - I fail to see how your post addresses the issue raised at the beginning of the thread.

Did Jesus have a “flawed” body?
Wasn’t the whole point of His sacrifice that He was NOT flawed in any way - and still offerred Himself up for us that ARE flawed?

Where in scripture does it say that prior to His willing sacrifice for our sins - that his body was flawed? And I’m not talking about whether or not He was good looking.
 
40.png
Cathy:
Ron Rollheiser (HOLY LONGING), p.127, quotes Jesus, “Unless you eat my flesh, you cannot have life within you.”
Then Rolheiser says, “When Jesus says this, as we have already seen, he is referring to his sarx, his flawed, exzemed body, as it is met in the community of believers and he is mandating that we must also deal with this if we wish to deal with God.”
Does the Church teach this about the Eucharist, or is this Rolheiser’s own idea? :confused:
Click to expand...
I believe that Mr. Rolheiser is wrong in his interpretation. If Christ was (physically or spiritually) flawed in any way, he wouldn’t be perfect. If he wasn’t perfect, his death on the cross would be nothing more than a Jew being punished for heresy.

But he wasn’t flawed! That’s the thing. He was perfect in every way, and because of this, he was able to die on the cross and save us from eternal damnation.
 
40.png
Lorarose:
Ruth101 - I fail to see how your post addresses the issue raised at the beginning of the thread.

Did Jesus have a “flawed” body?
Wasn’t the whole point of His sacrifice that He was NOT flawed in any way - and still offerred Himself up for us that ARE flawed?

Where in scripture does it say that prior to His willing sacrifice for our sins - that his body was flawed? And I’m not talking about whether or not He was good looking.
Click to expand...
This refers to the way the elite of His day saw him.He was flawed because He did not behave as they expected.Flawed in the human standards of pride, power and prestige.
 
This refers to the way the elite of His day saw him.He was flawed because He did not behave as they expected.Flawed in the human standards of pride, power and prestige
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly.
But not flawed in God’s eyes - that was the whole point of His sacrifice.
 
40.png
BecomeLowly:
I’ve never heard that before. Also, it would seem that Jesus would not have a “flawed” body, since imperfection entered the world with original sin, and Jesus did not inherit original sin. Those are just my unprofessional thoughts.

Yours,
Jessica
Click to expand...
I agree. Nothing evil was created by God. The human body is perfect in design and being. It is our sinful orientation that is corrupt.

The idea of the human body per se being corrupt is itself a corruption. So ironically, we learn from this false teaching that one’s theological ideas can be corrupt because they are ours, but our bodies cannot be corrupt because they are His.
 
I think “flawed body” is kind of subjective. I think Jesus was perfect in that He had no disease or deformities. I mean, people have different ideas of a perfect body. I doubt Jesus had six-pack abs or something like that, which some people think are part of the perfect body.
 
Hello Adnauseum,
Code: 
I do not want to misinterpret what you are saying, but I'd like to add something. Our bodies of course are not corrupt in the sense of being evil, but are subject to corruption meaning disease and imperfection. Jesus, it would seem, would not have had any disease or physical malady for two reasons: his humaity did not inherit original sin, and since He is the perfect Lamb, the fulfilment of the ultimate Passover sacrifice, He must be like the Passover lambs that prefigured Him-- without blemish, meaning no physical aberrations. That is what I was driving at in my previous post.
Yours,
Jessica
 
40.png
BecomeLowly:
Our bodies of course are not corrupt in the sense of being evil, but are subject to corruption meaning disease and imperfection.
Click to expand...
I think I understand, but I want to push the point to its sort of mystical conclusion:

The idea of something being corrupt is not in any way bad.

St. Thomas Aquinas describes all of life as a process of coming to be, of change, actualization, and corruption. Snow melting is corruption, in the sense that is passively “suffers” a change in its being.

So my point is that even in the sense that you have described, there is nothing that needs to be fixed about a corruptible thing. It is what God made it to be.

Do you think Pope John Paul II would wish that his Parkinson’s disease could be fixed? Or do you rather suspect he accepts it as the natural process of living, aging, and ultimately reaching fulfillment in Christ?

I do see your point insofar as Jesus was not “corrupt” in the body. Maybe my point is directed more to the point of the thread, which was the [false] assertion that somehow the body is flawed by nature, and a forteriori the Church. The argument just feels icky to my way of thinking.
 
Hello Adnauseum,
Code: 
I agree with you about flawed nature of the assertion quoted in the first post. I also agree with you that corruption-- the natural end of man and nature after the fall-- is not something to be feared or faught. Suffering must be embraced and offered to God is communion with the suffering of Christ, and is very beneficial to the soul that is able to do this. 
It is true, though, that all suffering, death, and decay entered the world with sin, and that Christ taking suffering upon Himself was necesary for redemption and regeneration, and that in the new heavens and the new earth there will be no decay, which is the sense in which I was using the term corruption. 
So, I think that we agree, and any difference arises from the use of the word in different ways. I have enjoyed reading your posts!
Yours,
Jessica
 
40.png
BecomeLowly:
It is true, though, that all suffering, death, and decay entered the world with sin, and that Christ taking suffering upon Himself was necesary for redemption and regeneration, and that in the new heavens and the new earth there will be no decay, which is the sense in which I was using the term corruption.
Click to expand...
We were using the term corruption in different ways but we agree about the nature of humans versus the nature of Christ.

But after thinking it over, I realize that you articulated it correctly and I didn’t. I was wrong when I suggested that being corruptible is not a form of evil. It most certainly is. God created the Universe with differing degrees of perfection, and human nature is pretty far down the ladder of perfection whereas Christ is obviously not. We need regeneration and repair, He does not.

Your comments maintain the perfection of Christ alone, and mine contained a hint that maybe there is no difference in the worth of a human being and the being of Christ. On re-reading it, I don’t much like what I posted before.

I learned much from this exchange. Thank you.
 
Sigh…Before I posted this answer, I checked on the name Ron Rollheiser because I’d never heard of him. From his statement in the original post, I figured he was some kind of Evangelical or fundamentalist. You can imagine my surprise when I discovered he’s a Catholic priest. Apparently, he’s from the Diocese of Los Angeles. My surprise diminished (I’ll probably get into trouble for that one).
In any event, the correct interpretationn of John 6:53 can be found in the Catechism – surrise!
Paragraph 1384 states, "The Lord addresses an invitation to us, urging us to receive him in the sacrament of the Eucharist: “Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” Jn 6:53
Paragraphs 2835 - 2837 also address this verse in reference to the Our Father. The marginal references have even more teaching, all Eucharistic.
I’m afraid poor father’s got it wrong.
 
Howdy folks, I didn’t want to start a new thread and I thought this thread would be an appropriate place to pose my questions since it has something to do with Jesus humanity. I am interested to know how the catholic church views the following.:

What exactly does it mean that Jesus was born without original sin?

Are you saying that Jesus doesn’t have the basic elements of sin in his flesh?

I guess what I am confused about is that scripture says Jesus was tempted like all men are. Does that mean he was tempted in event only, but he never felt sinful temptations?

Are all men except Jesus born in bondage to sin? Or are they born free from the bondage but later bring themselves into bondage?

Thanks,

Jeff
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top