John 6 and Eucharist?

[javelin]

Bene7,

This is in response to your assertion that Jesus’ Body cannot be resurrrected at the same time it is present in the Eucharist.

Let’s say for an instant that Jesus’ body was purely physical and fully human as you are saying. Suppose He were to have his ear cut off by someone (like the man who came to arrest Him in the garden), and then have His body miraculously restored (regenerated) like that same man’s ear was healed. Now, looking at the ear that was originally severed from His body, can it be said that it is not, in fact, Jesus’ flesh and blood? Though His fully human body was miraculously restored, the flesh that was removed is still His flesh, is it not?

When Jesus multiplied the loaves of bread to feed the 5000, did the bread need to become divine in order to be multiplied by God? Did it cease to be bread? How fitting is it that Christ pre-figured how He could feed us His own body and blood through multiplication of his human flesh by using bread and fish.

While I follow the gist of your argument, I just can’t see how it is compelling. Even if Jesus’ flesh is no different than yours or mine, it can be multiplied like any other physical thing by the power of God. And while partaking of human flesh, even Jesus’, has no spiritual value in and of itself, it is sacramental and bestows Grace simply because Jesus chose it to be that way. We believe that it is His fullness of Spirit that dwells in the portion of physical flesh and blood He multiplied to give us.

In essence, something similar to physical omnipresence can be achieved through multiplication without any need to “divinize” the physical thing being multiplied.

I do not think the Church teaches that His full humanity is present in each Eucharistic Species, but His full* divinity* along with His true flesh and blood.

Hope this makes sense.

Peace,
javelin

 

[Mickey]

mercygate:

Now I get it. You’re a Nestorian! A full-blown, all-out, card-carrying Nestorian.

Yes. Now I understand also. Isn’t it interesting how old heresies never die.

 

[javelin]

mercygate:

Now I get it. You’re a Nestorian! A full-blown, all-out, card-carrying Nestorian.

With all due respect, I didn’t see bene7 anywhere state that he thought a human Jesus was united with a Divine Son of God, but that they were somehow distinct. Never once did he say that Jesus was not fully the Son of God. Rather, he is insisting that Jesus’ body was fully human, i.e. had all the limitations and aspects of a human body, not that his person was fully human, as the Nestorians claimed (AFAIK).

I’m not saying that he is correct that Jesus’ body was no different than ours, just trying to clarify his view.

If I am wrong, then someone please correct me.

Peace,
javelin

 

[bene7]

Kay Cee:

Omnipresence means God is everywhere spiritually. We don’t mean by the Eucharist that God is everywhere physically.

But that’s just it, Kay Cee, that’s EXACTLY what must happen if the doctrine of transubstantiation is true. For the host to become the actual, physical body of Christ, His material body must be omnipresent. Transubstantiation doesnt teach that His body is being “extended,” it teaches that the host becomes fully Christ, even bodily - yet at the SAME TIME still remaining fully in Heaven, physically, bodily. This isn’t an argument for "extension. It requires omnipresence of physical matter. But the truth of the matter is (pun intended), matter cannot be omnipresent, it is bound by spacial limitations. Otherwise it’s not truly physical. But Jesus proved He still remained in His physical body after His resurrection with the Thomas encounter and He eating broiled fish with His Apostles.

Though Catholics would never admit it, this single truth dispells the whole myth of transubstantiation.

you’re telling me God is not the Master of time. Besides, didn’t Jesus tell us He would be with us always, even to the end of time?

Transubstantiation is not a “time” issue, either. For this doctrine to be true He must remain* fully* in Heaven and be fully in millions of other places at the SAME time. This requires the Divine attribute of omnipresence of a PHYSICAL being. And that just cannot happen, hence, nor can transubstantiation.

Kay Cee, if you were able to go to Heaven right now, you’d see Jesus clothed fully in His glorified, human body. That’s how He ascended, that’s how He remains today, and that’s how He’ll return.

"…who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil. 2:6-8)

Blessings,
Bene

 

[sandusky]

Mickey:

Yes. Now I understand also. Isn’t it interesting how old heresies never die.

Cmon Mickey; you are being a bit harsh here. Nestorius was not a bad guy intent upon evil; he was thinking things through and forced a clearer statement of orthodoxy.

 

[Mickey]

sandusky:

Cmon Mickey; you are being a bit harsh here. Nestorius was not a bad guy intent upon evil; he was thinking things through and forced a clearer statement of orthodoxy.

Nestorius became Patriarch of Constantinople in 428. On coming to office, he exercised great energy in persecuting heretics.1 Among his victims were those who did not forthrightly confess the two distinct natures in Christ. Nestorius, however, understood “distinct” to meant separate. Nestorius conceived of the divine Logos and the human Jesus as two separate persons who were joined together in some sort of moral or sympathetic union. According to Nestorius, the Son of God had joined Himself to the child or man named Jesus because of Jesus’ own moral excellence. And so Jesus was born, grew to manhood, hungered and thirsted, suffered pain, and was crucified, dead, and buried. The Son of God, on the other hand, endured none of these things. He was with Jesus — so much so that Nestorius taught that the man Jesus ought to be worshipped — but He was a different person altogether, one incapable of experiencing anything human.

Are you nestorian, Sandusky?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Mickey:

Scripture does not support your interpretation.
Church history does not support your interpretation.
Sacred Tradition does not support your interpreation.
Not even Martin Luther supports your interpreatation.

Hmmmm.
That ought to give anyone pause.

VC

 

[sandusky]

Mickey:

Nestorius became Patriarch of Constantinople in 428. On coming to office, he exercised great energy in persecuting heretics.1 Among his victims were those who did not forthrightly confess the two distinct natures in Christ. Nestorius, however, understood “distinct” to meant separate. Nestorius conceived of the divine Logos and the human Jesus as two separate persons who were joined together in some sort of moral or sympathetic union. According to Nestorius, the Son of God had joined Himself to the child or man named Jesus because of Jesus’ own moral excellence. And so Jesus was born, grew to manhood, hungered and thirsted, suffered pain, and was crucified, dead, and buried. The Son of God, on the other hand, endured none of these things. He was with Jesus — so much so that Nestorius taught that the man Jesus ought to be worshipped — but He was a different person altogether, one incapable of experiencing anything human.

Are you nestorian, Sandusky?

Slow down Mickey. Nestorius was not the only who persecuted heretics.

The point is, heresy presumes orthodoxy, and, like it or not, without heresy there would be no development of doctrine.

Are you against the development of doctrine?

 

[Mickey]

sandusky:

The point is, heresy presumes orthodoxy, and, like it or not, without heresy there would be no development of doctrine.

Aha! You are reverting to Catholicism!

 

[sandusky]

Verbum Caro:

Hmmmm.
That ought to give anyone pause.

VC

Only if they are true, and the first one is not, and the last one is questionable.

That leaves one with history, which proves only that things happened with no assurance that truth was attained, and it leaves one with tradition, which, according you, is what Rome says it is and cannot be challenged.

Rome’s tradition, is Rome’s tradition.

 

[sandusky]

Mickey:

Aha! You are reverting to Catholicism!

And you wonder why I like you! You’re a pip, Mickey.

Just to clarify, the most important thing that heresy accomplishes, is not the development of doctrine, but the clearer statement of orthodoxy, IMHO.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

sandusky:

Only if they are true, and the first one is not, and the last one is questionable.

:crying: Well, two and a half out of four isn’t too bad. Okay, so no pause. Maybe a tremor of askance?

VC

 

[Mickey]

sandusky:

And you wonder why I like you! You’re a pip, Mickey.

Just to clarify, the most important thing that heresy accomplishes, is not the development of doctrine, but the clearer statement of orthodoxy, IMHO.

Ah yes, you are learning my friend. To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant.

 

[Mickey]

sandusky:

Only if they are true, and the first one is not, and the last one is questionable.

That leaves one with history, which proves only that things happened with no assurance that truth was attained, and it leaves one with tradition, which, according you, is what Rome says it is and cannot be challenged.

That’s why I like you too Sandusky, you are also quite the pip!
Scripture is clear. It is your interpretation that has been skewed. But then as you have said, we both can’t be correct–either it is the “Real Presence”—or it is not. Either Scripture is literal on this issue, or it’s not. Either the early Church fathers (including Ignatius the disciple of St John) were correct, or Zwingli and those of like mind were correct.

It always saddens me to see someone leave the Catholic Church, but my heart tells me that you will return! I know, I know, you are chuckling right now–but with God, all things are possible. :dancing:

 

[javelin]

bene7:

But that’s just it, Kay Cee, that’s EXACTLY what must happen if the doctrine of transubstantiation is true. For the host to become the actual, physical body of Christ, His material body must be omnipresent. Transubstantiation doesnt teach that His body is being “extended,” it teaches that the host becomes fully Christ, even bodily - yet at the SAME TIME still remaining fully in Heaven, physically, bodily. This isn’t an argument for "extension. It requires omnipresence of physical matter.

No it doesn’t – it merely requires that some physical matter be multiplied.

I really don’t think the Church has ever taught that Jesus’ entire body is present in every Eucharistic species. It simply teaches that the bread becomes His flesh and blood – not *all *of His flesh and blood.

bene7:

Kay Cee, if you were able to go to Heaven right now, you’d see Jesus clothed fully in His glorified, human body. That’s how He ascended, that’s how He remains today, and that’s how He’ll return.

"…who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil. 2:6-8)

Blessings,
Bene

Which does not at all invalidate the Eucharist – Christ’s flesh is multiplied for us. It’s really that simple.

Peace,
javelin

 

[javelin]

bene7:

"…who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil. 2:6-8)

By the way, Jesus being “in the likeness” of man and having the “appearance” of man doesn’t mean that Jesus was exactly the same as a man. These are statements of similarity, not of equality.

Peace,
javelin

 

[Kay_Cee]

bene7:

But that’s just it, Kay Cee, that’s EXACTLY what must happen if the doctrine of transubstantiation is true. For the host to become the actual, physical body of Christ, His material body must be omnipresent. Transubstantiation doesnt teach that His body is being “extended,” it teaches that the host becomes fully Christ, even bodily - yet at the SAME TIME still remaining fully in Heaven, physically, bodily. This isn’t an argument for "extension. It requires omnipresence of physical matter. But the truth of the matter is (pun intended), matter cannot be omnipresent, it is bound by spacial limitations. Otherwise it’s not truly physical. But Jesus proved He still remained in His physical body after His resurrection with the Thomas encounter and He eating broiled fish with His Apostles.

Though Catholics would never admit it, this single truth dispells the whole myth of transubstantiation.Transubstantiation is not a “time” issue, either. For this doctrine to be true He must remain* fully* in Heaven and be fully in millions of other places at the SAME time. This requires the Divine attribute of omnipresence of a PHYSICAL being. And that just cannot happen, hence, nor can transubstantiation.

According to my dictionary, omnipresence is defined as “the quality of being everywhere present at the same time.” That is not what we claim for the Eucharist. We don’t claim that the Eucharist is present everywhere. We do claim that Christ is both fully present in the Eucharist and fully present in Heaven. It is “both/and,” not “either/or.” How this happens is a mystery. Are you saying God cannot accomplish this?

Kay Cee, if you were able to go to Heaven right now, you’d see Jesus clothed fully in His glorified, human body. That’s how He ascended, that’s how He remains today, and that’s how He’ll return.

"…who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil. 2:6-8)

Blessings,
Bene

Bene, since your understanding of the Incarnation differs from ours, why don’t you start a thread to explain it to us?

 

[bene7]

javelin:

With all due respect, I didn’t see bene7 anywhere state that he thought a human Jesus was united with a Divine Son of God, but that they were somehow distinct. Never once did he say that Jesus was not fully the Son of God. Rather, he is insisting that Jesus’ body was fully human, i.e. had all the limitations and aspects of a human body, not that his person was fully human, as the Nestorians claimed (AFAIK).

Thank you. I think “mercygate” was just making a desperate attempt to poison the discussion or he truly doesn’t understand the Nestorian controversy.

I’m not saying that he is correct that Jesus’ body was no different than ours, just trying to clarify his view.

I am sorry to hear you say this. Because this is the true wonder of the virgin birth: God the Son actually incarnated into true humanity, becoming one of us - having immense theological significance in that as a man He became the “second man,” actually another “Adam,” but not just a living soul, but a “life-giving spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45).

In essence, something similar to physical omnipresence can be achieved through multiplication without any need to “divinize” the physical thing being multiplied.

What you’re actually describing in your “multiplication theory” is Jesus miraculously cloning Himself. You’ll probably respond with “that’s not what I mean,” but that is exactly what you’re postulating. And then based on this theory one must conclude that throughout the centuries there have been multi-billions of Christs cloned, invisibly, in the Eucharist.

Rome’s doctrine of transubstantiation claims that the Eucharist does not become just His physical body and blood, but His soul and Divinity, as well. If we follow through with your cloning theory, then even His Divinity is cloned. Remember, according to the doctrine, at a definite point in time common bread suddenly BECOMES, on command by the priest, something completely other than what it previously was: the whole Jesus.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[Mickey]

**"‘And your floors shall be filled with wheat, and the presses shall overflow equally with wine and oil.’ . . . This has been fulfilled mystically by Christ, who gave to the people whom He had redeemed, that is, to His Church, wheat and wine and oil in a mystic manner. For the wheat is the mystery of His sacred Body; and the wine His saving Blood; and again, the oil is the sweet unguent with which those who are baptized are signed, being clothed in the armaments of the Holy Spirit.", **

St Ephraim–“On Joel 2:24”, Commentaries on Sacred Scripture

​

 

[javelin]

bene7:

I am sorry to hear you say this. Because this is the true wonder of the virgin birth: God the Son actually incarnated into true humanity, becoming one of us - having immense theological significance in that as a man He became the “second man,” actually another “Adam,” but not just a living soul, but a “life-giving spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45).

As you said earlier, since so much doctrine is based on suppositions of other doctrine, perhaps it would be good to start a different discussion on the Incarnation, as Kay Cee suggested, so that we can at least try to start form a common understanding.

I believe that Jesus was fully human, just as you do. But He was also fully God. That is the mystery of the Incarnation and the Trinity.

bene7:

What you’re actually describing in your “multiplication theory” is Jesus miraculously cloning Himself. You’ll probably respond with “that’s not what I mean,” but that is exactly what you’re postulating. And then based on this theory one must conclude that throughout the centuries there have been multi-billions of Christs cloned, invisibly, in the Eucharist.

No. You are equating the physical body with the person. This is not the case. When Jesus’ body hung dead on the cross, it was not His whole person; it was ony his body – his flesh and blood. A piece of that body is still his flesh and blood, but it is not Christ the person. Cloning brings to mind the picture of many people, while there is only one Christ.

Christ simply takes what is his – his body – and multiplies it to feed his people, for “my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink”. In the process, his body is not lost, just as the “burning bush” was not consumed by the fire. He can do this, for he is God.

The mystery of Transubstantiation is that Christ engages in the complete giving of his whole self to us through the appearance of bread and wine. This exchange is the essence of the covenant, just as the marital act, as the expression of the marital covenant, is the complete giving of one person to the other, so much so that it is described as the two becoming “one flesh”. For Christ to give us his whole self, he must include His body and blood, for his humanity is a critical part of His Being. He doesn’t just give His Spirit, but His Body as well. The establishment of this new covenant is what Christ came to do. We seal that covenant with him and renew it when we receive Him in the Eucharist, just as the Jews renewed their covenant with God through the passover meal.

But I digress from the specific point of clarification. Christ’s body does not cease to be a physical body when his flesh and blood is multiplied for us.

bene7:

Rome’s doctrine of transubstantiation claims that the Eucharist does not become just His physical body and blood, but His soul and Divinity, as well. If we follow through with your cloning theory, then even His Divinity is cloned. Remember, according to the doctrine, at a definite point in time common bread suddenly BECOMES, on command by the priest, something completely other than what it previously was: the whole Jesus.

Blessings,
Bene

Oh, yes, His divinity is present, and is given to us for our benefit. Are you going to claim now that Christ’s divinity cannot be omnipresent? That is another issue altogether. I’m still trying to help you understand how it is possible that Jesus multiply His flesh and blood for us, and how this does not detract from his humanity.

Peace,
javelin