John 6 and Eucharist?

[wpr]

quote=bene7 The Bible is a “stand-alone” Book. No other writing presently or historically is theopnueustos (inspired, God-breathed).

**Bene, show me where it says that in Scripture. **

It is grossly erroneous to say “the Church” produced the Bible. The Holy Spirit came upon specific men through whom He worked to generate the written Word of God.

Bene, please name all the individual men who wrote the epistles. Be careful when you get to Hebrews. How do you know the Spirit came upon them? By whose witness? Also, it would be better said that the Church protected the writings and discerned which were to be included in the Canon.

In fact, none of the O.T. writers were even part of the Church Christ is building today (the topic of another thread). The rest of what you say regarding the so-called “living magisterium of the body of Christ” is pure Roman Catholicism.

**Bene, it is reality. The Magisterium is shown in it’s infancy in ACTS and from AD 80 by the same ECF you do not accept. The Church did not start with 600 Million members. **

Inherently their letters were not ever meant to be “interpreted” or filtered through some “infallible Magisterium” which neither they nor such a concept existed in their day (another much later development). Nor did Paul address his Roman letter this “living Magisterium” in Rome. He didn’t even address it to be interpreted by Peter for the people who, according to your tradition, was presiding there as Pope at the time.

Bene, again, where does Paul or any author tell us the teaching of the faith is to be limited to his writings or any group of writings? I see Sripture where he says exactly the opposite! What about Peter’s warning that Paul’s letters are confusing?

When Jesus confronted the Jews He didn’t ask them what their Pharisees taught, but what did Moses teach?

**Bene, He told them to listen to the Pharisees, just not do as they do as hypocrites. Did you miss that passage? **

He appealed to the Scriptures themselves and their own responsibility to interpret them correctly.

Bene, really? You mean he really did not teach them how to interpret them by taking the written words further? He said, read Scripture and it will be clear? What about Mt 5?

Actually, I see it quite differently. It is the Scriptures, especially the Epistles, that shine light on the faith, and those early writers are to be tested in light of what God had already written and revelaed concerning the faith through His chosen human authors. You’re actually placing the writings of the “ECFs” in a position of higher authority than God’s Word, making it (God’s Word) subordinate to the writings of non-inspired men.

**Bene, you are fond of straw men. Did we not lay this to rest yesterday? Men cared for the writings, copied the writings, diseminated the writings, and men established the Canon. Could they have been wrong? **

Interesting how you stress the “ambiguities of Scripture” compared to the clarion writings of the “ECFs.” Nice commentary on the work of the Holy Spirit there, Mercygate. I’m sure He appreciates it. Good thing the “ECFs” came along to help Him out, right? Especially with words like “real presence.”

**Bene, that some Scriptures are ambiguous is apparent in our dialogue here. It is shown rather nicely by the over 22,000 different Protestant Denominations as well. That an ECF may be more pointed in a remark concerning a teaching strikes you as odd? I wonder why? These men were the keepers of the Faith. It was their duty to clarify the teaching left to them! You seem to fail to understand reality. Christians at the time relied primarily on men for catechesis, not the writings. **
[/quote]

 

[bene7]

MariaG:

The Church is not the* support* of the Truth it is the foundation. Nor is Scripture the Church. Nowhere in Scripture does it tell us that

Church=Scripture

:bible1: 1Tim3:15 But if I should be belayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

That’s what a foundation does, Maria. It supports. The Church itself is not the truth, it is to support the truth. It is to hold it up in purity of doctrine, the Gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ, who IS the truth.

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (Jn. 14:6).

Blessings,
Bene

 

[bene7]

AquinasXVI:

To say that the CC has forgotten Christ’s humanity is ignorance of history. Check out the early heresies in which the humanity of Christ was defended by the church at great cost from the monophysites.

I was speaking in reference to modern day Catholicism. Hence my reference to the swing of the pendulum.

The average Catholic mindset today is far closer to Monophysitism than the orthodox in the 5th century when the controversy was settled at the Council of Chalcedon.

Its heretical roots are traced back to Apollinaris (c. 370) who laid tremendous stress in the FUSION of the divine and the human. Which is, actually, how it’s been presented on this thread, especially in respect to the so-called “mystery” of the Eucharist. And the idea that since Jesus is God He can do anything with His body.

Alexandria became the citadel of this doctrine, fueled by Cyril, his successor Dioscorus and Eutyches of Constantinople who denied that Christ’s body was the same in essence as the bodies of men. A similar idea has been expressed on this thread in that Jesus was not resurrected with the SAME body in which He died. In other words, His humanity no longer remained truly human, His body took on Divine powers.

So, how about you supplying me with an answer - no one else will. The Council of Chalcedon determined that Jesus Christ is ONE Person possessing TWO natures: one divine, the other human - eternally separated. This being established Catholic orthodoxy. The doctrine of Transubstantiation, if it is at all true, demands that the eternally, human, material body of Christ be omnipresent. And if it is at all true, then how does this doctrine not violate the true humanity of Christ? How does it not go against what the Council of Chalcedon determined as true, Catholic orthodoxy?

Blessings,
Bene

 

[AquinasXVI]

Bene:

If you noticed, after the resurrection, the body of Christ did not quite behave like yours and mine. Going through walls, looking like someone else and then at the right time revealing who he is (to the disciples walking to Emmaus). Any calculating logician will have his head turn for this doesn’t make physical sense. Now, in regards to the Holy Eucharist, who is man to say God cannot provide Himself generously in this manner? Finding manna on the desert is just as mysterious yet it happened. No one seems to have a problem believing that…yet when in plain words Christ said: my body is food indeed…there’s so much lateral movement stemming from doubt. If all we’re trying to do is get the syntax to completely satisfy the mystery, that’s a lost cause. In the end, faith will make one see. What you think is bread is the body of Christ per Christ.

in XT.

excellent research there Bene.

 

[mercygate]

bene7:

The average Catholic mindset today is far closer to Monophysitism than the orthodox in the 5th century when the controversy was settled at the Council of Chalcedon.

Although I do not believe the average Catholic is any more guilty of this than the average Protestant, Catholics do not rely on anybody’s “average mindset” for the determination of doctrine; that is one of the blessings of having a body of doctrine.

Its heretical roots are traced back to Apollinaris (c. 370) who laid tremendous stress in the FUSION of the divine and the human. Which is, actually, how it’s been presented on this thread, especially in respect to the so-called “mystery” of the Eucharist. And the idea that since Jesus is God He can do anything with His body.

Alexandria became the citadel of this doctrine, fueled by Cyril, his successor Dioscorus and Eutyches of Constantinople who denied that Christ’s body was the same in essence as the bodies of men. A similar idea has been expressed on this thread in that Jesus was not resurrected with the SAME body in which He died. In other words, His humanity no longer remained truly human, His body took on Divine powers.

Of course Christ rose in the SAME body in which he died. But *any *body which rises from the dead and does what he did, is clearly not entirely the same as your body and mine. Bene7, this reads like something drawn from a published resource. If it is, please indicate the source. Christ’s “body” did not “take on” divine powers, because his divine and human nature are united at the moment of the Incarnation. But that’s another whole subject.

So, how about you supplying me with an answer - no one else will. The Council of Chalcedon determined that Jesus Christ is ONE Person possessing TWO natures: one divine, the other human - eternally separated.

No. The natures are eternally separate natures. That is not the same thing as “separated.”

This being established Catholic orthodoxy.

Not just “Catholic” orothodoxy. Mainstream Protestants hold the Chalcedonian definition.

The doctrine of Transubstantiation, if it is at all true, demands that the eternally, human, material body of Christ be omnipresent.

Again, watch your language. We do not claim that the Body of Christ is omnipresent. It is present under the forms of bread and wine in the Eucharist.

And if it is at all true, then how does this doctrine not violate the true humanity of Christ? How does it not go against what the Council of Chalcedon determined as true, Catholic orthodoxy?

Blessings,
Bene

That is another thread. But if your understanding of “true humanity” is limited by the experience of humanity as we live it in its fallen nature, subject to sin and death, you will not even begin to comprehend the words: This is my body.

I once heard of a theology professor who was fond of saying: “Only God is truly human.” That is a quirky way of saying that by virtue of God’s comprehension of the universe, true humanity is humanity as created by Him – before the fall – and that the flawed humanity of our experience is only a distorted shadow of the divine intention.

 

[bene7]

mercygate:

Although I do not believe the average Catholic is any more guilty of this than the average Protestant, Catholics do not rely on anybody’s “average mindset” for the determination of doctrine; that is one of the blessings of having a body of doctrine.

It’s not a blessing if you don’t align your own theology with it. Don’t claim a doctrine and then believe differently.

Of course Christ rose in the SAME body in which he died. But *any *body which rises from the dead and does what he did, is clearly not entirely the same as your body and mine.

The point that seems to keep flying over your head, Mercy, is that His body never stopped being HUMAN, a material body. Glorified, yes, but never stopped being human. It did not take on Divinity.

Bene7, this reads like something drawn from a published resource. If it is, please indicate the source.

It’s from my notes. I was accused of being ignorant of Church history, but I’ve had classes on C.H. and the development of Church doctrine.

Christ’s “body” did not “take on” divine powers, because his divine and human nature are united at the moment of the Incarnation. But that’s another whole subject.

This is what I mean by your being far closer to Monophysitism than true Catholic orthodoxy. Here you’re claiming that the human and divine natures of Christ were fused (united) at the moment of the Incarnation. That is not Catholic orthodoxy. Hence, you’re actually stating He was never really human. Go back and read my previous posts. I covered all this.

No. The natures are eternally separate natures. That is not the same thing as “separated.” Not just “Catholic” orothodoxy.

No, Mercy, they are eternally SEPARATE. The human did not become divine and the divine did not become human. They did not* fuse* via the Incarnation.

Mainstream Protestants hold the Chalcedonian definition.

Of course, but you, personally, veer from it.

Again, watch your language. We do not claim that the Body of Christ is omnipresent.

Of course you don’t claim it -but the doctrine itself demands it.

It is present under the forms of bread and wine in the Eucharist.

In order to be physically “present” under those “forms,” the physical, human body of Christ must be omnipresent. We’re talking multi-millions of places all fully present, all at the same time. You claim that Christ is FULLY present in the Eucharist (BODY, BLOOD, soul and Divinity). This, mercy, demands omnipresence of His physical body and blood, and such a notion denies the true humanity of Christ.

But if your understanding of “true humanity” is limited by the experience of humanity as we live it in its fallen nature, subject to sin and death, you will not even begin to comprehend the words: This is my body.

You utterly fail to comprehend the true wonder of the Incarnation. The Son became a true man - certainly not a man with a fallen, adamic nature, but a true man with a fully human nature, nonetheless. This includes His material body via the virgin birth. And that body, though now glorified, can be in only ONE place at ONE TIME. That’s just the nature of it. According to your Christology, the Son never really took on true humanity but was a hybrid. Never really one of us.

The point is, mercy, the Catholic view of the Eucharist denies it own “orthodoxy.” That which was settled at the Council of Chalcedon way back in the 5th century. Your view of the Eucharist demands the divine attribute of omnipresence of the humanity (body) of Christ, and that just cannot happen without destroying the orthodox doctrine of the true humanity of Christ.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[sandusky]

AquinasXVI:

If you noticed, after the resurrection, the body of Christ did not quite behave like yours and mine. Going through walls, looking like someone else and then at the right time revealing who he is (to the disciples walking to Emmaus).

AquinasXVI, there are no statements of the Lord’s body “going through walls”. It seems that He did come suddenly, and would then be suddenly gone, but nothing says that He walked through walls. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that He “looked like someone else” when He was with the two at Emmaus, but that is not the case. Luke says, “their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him,” and then later, says that “their eyes were opened, and they recognized Him, and He vanished.” This could have been done in the same manner as Phillip and the Ethiopian Eunuch. Scripture is not that clear on how all of this appearing and vanishing was accomplished.

 

[AquinasXVI]

Bene:

Check out what ESCATHOLOGICAL MAN mean. John Paul gives it a really good explaination in the Theology of the Body.

in XT.

 

[mercygate]

bene7:

No, Mercy, they are eternally SEPARATE. The human did not become divine and the divine did not become human. They did not* fuse* via the Incarnation.

We do not claim fusion. And no: separate does not mean the same thing as *separated. “*Separated” means “apart.” Separate means “distinct.”

 

[Mickey]

bene7:

This is what I mean by your being far closer to Monophysitism than true Catholic orthodoxy. Here you’re claiming that the human and divine natures of Christ were fused (united) at the moment of the Incarnation. That is not Catholic orthodoxy. Hence, you’re actually stating He was never really human. Go back and read my previous posts. I covered all this.No, Mercy, they are eternally SEPARATE.

Wrong. Perhaps you should review your notes on Church history.

The Council of Chalcedon was the fourth ecumenical council of the Christian church. Convoked in 451 by Marcian, Roman emperor in the East, it was primarily concerned with settling theological disputes about the person of Jesus Christ. In 449 a council meeting in Ephesus had upheld the position of Eutyches, archimandrite in Constantinople, that Christ had a single, divine nature (see Monophysitism). Pope Leo I immediately rebuked the Ephesus assembly as a “Robber Synod” (Latrocinium) and convinced Marcian to convoke a new council at Chalcedon. The council formally condemned the Robber Synod and promulgated a dogmatic statement called the “Faith of Chalcedon,” which described Christ as having two natures, divine and human, “without confusion, without change, without division,” perfectly united in a single person. The council also attempted to raise the status of the patriarch of Constantinople and make his see second only to Rome; this position was steadfastly rejected by the papacy.

 

[ncgolf]

bene7:

We’re talking multi-millions of places all fully present, all at the same time. You claim that Christ is FULLY present in the Eucharist (BODY, BLOOD, soul and Divinity). This, mercy, demands omnipresence of His physical body and blood, and such a notion denies the true humanity of Christ.You utterly fail to comprehend the true wonder of the Incarnation.

No !!! What you are saying is that we have split Christ … into separate natures. If I understand you correctly you must reason that only the divine part of Christ is present in the Eucharist. Catholic theology never says only a piece of Christ is present i.e. only His divine nature. Catholics have always said Christ is totally present. That means all Christ has to be present totally which logically means that both natures must be present. It cannot be any other way. You would have us believe we only get a half Christ. NOT TRUE.

St. John Chrysostom says “Let us submit to God in all things and not contradict Him, even if what He says seems to contradict our reason and intellect; let His word prevail over our reason and intellect. Let us act in this way with regard to the Eucharistic mysteries, and not limit our attention just to what can be perceived by the senses, but instead hold fast to His words. For His word cannot deceive.”

I guess some of us submit to God in almost all things.

 

[ncgolf]

St. Bonaventure also says: "There is no difficulty over Christ’s being present in the sacrament as in a sign; the great difficulty is in the fact that He is really in the sacrament, as He is in heaven. And so believing this is especially meritorious. "

 

[bene7]

ncgolf:

No !!! What you are saying is that we have split Christ … into separate natures. If I understand you correctly you must reason that only the divine part of Christ is present in the Eucharist.

Well, if Christ is “present” at all in the Eucharist (which is not my argument), He could not at all be present bodily unless His human, material body can be omnipresent.

Catholic theology never says only a piece of Christ is present i.e. only His divine nature. Catholics have always said Christ is totally present. That means all Christ has to be present totally which logically means that both natures must be present. It cannot be any other way. You would have us believe we only get a half Christ. NOT TRUE.

THANK YOU. Now, for the Eucharist to become the WHOLE Christ, both natures, both human and divine, the human BODY of Christ would have to have taken on Divinity (contrary to the Council of Chalcedon). For the BODY of Christ to be in multi-millions of places, FULLY, AT ONE TIME, throughout the world, DEMANDS that His physical, human, material body (flesh, blood and bones) be omnipresent. Hence, contrary to the Council of Chalcedon, He is NOT TRULY HUMAN !!! The Son did not truly become one of us.

But the truth is, He did become one of us, the Son took on true humanity and subjected Himself, bodily, to the limitations of this material universe. From the time Jesus was conceived in the womb and born into this world He was subject, bodily, to the spacial limitations of this created, material world, as well as to all other human frailties (save sin). There is not one instance in Scripture where Jesus is recorded as being, bodily, in two places at ONE time (muchless millions). That’s because a human body IS NOT, nor CANNOT be omnipresent. That attribute belongs only to His Divinity, not His humanity.

He has retained His humanity even in Heaven. In Acts chapter one He ascended BODILY as His disciples watched on. The angels then said that He will return in the SAME way in which He left, in other words, He will descend bodily.

Jesus is the “first fruits” of the bodily resurrection of all redeemed humanity (1 Cor. 15:6), i.e, those who belong to Him through faith in Him. The redeemed will not be raised with glorified bodies that have the power of omnipresence. That attribute uniquely belongs to Divinity only - not humanity (not even angels, who are spirits, possess the attribute of omnipresence).

Bottom line, my friends, in order for Jesus to be FULLY present in the Eucharist, according to Catholic belief (and ncgolf’s), His human, physical body would have to be omnipresent - “and that just ain’t happening.” It is impossible for a human body to be omnipresent without first forfeiting its very nature, its material substance, it true humanity.

Sorry folks, but you’re believing in something that just is not happening. And this is just ONE of the huge obstacles in the way of trying to prove the doctrine of transubstantiation. I know you say you don’t have to prove it, just believe it. But true Christianity was never to be based on the irrational - true Christian faith is not a “leap of faith.” Even our redemption, justification and hope of our future, bodily resurrection, are all based on historical events.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[tdandh26]

The problem is not wheather Jesus Can change bread into His Body but rather it is that most people do not and cannot comprehend the immense love that God has for us. So before assending to heaven He gave to us the mystery of His love by giving us His actually body and blood hidden ( because of our weakness) in the form of bread and wine which while the accidents or the appearence remains the same it is no longer bread and wine but the body and blood of christ. Read what St. Paul says about those who do not discern the body and blood when receiving. Or read what the earily church fathers had to say. Either way it is what it is even if you dont believe it!

 

[tdandh26]

There are a great many things that we mere humans cannot explain about God one is how 3 persons make up one God, but does any christian reject it because something does not work according to our physical world? Then why doubt that the entire Christ is present in even the smallest particle of any Eucharist that has been consecrated by an apostolic priest. Or shall we then say as I have seen that Christ didnt have authority to create His Church on earth with a visible head and a hierarchial structure. Or the other example I have heard that the faith was lost after the apostles died, which is the most absurd of all since that is the same as saying Jesus is a fake. Since He says Himself the gates of hell shall not prevail.

 

[AquinasXVI]

Way I see it; those who cannot accept that the Most Holy Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ, should be having the same problem accepting God becoming man and then allowing his own creatures to kill him in the most humiliating way. It’s the same “unbelievable” dogma.

It’s about Love. God loved us so much he died for our redemption…AND THEN for our continual edification and living truly not symbolically with him, he provided us with this sacrament-HIMSELF(Body, blood, soul and divinity).

Of all the intimacy that man seeks, it is the unity with God that after everything is said that is the core of man’s desire. Well, He is that generous that we are invited to be one flesh with him through the eating of His own FLESH! It is over the top! The marital embrace, a hug, a kiss, a handshake, all of these do not have any comparison compared to the intimacy that Christ invites us in receiving him bodily by actually eating him! We are in Him and He in us. When we say NO ONE CAN OUT DO GOD IN GENEROSITY, the Eucharist is the proof positive of that dictum.

The joy of the blood of Christ surging with our blood is priceless. It truly is heaven on earth. It is in every practicing Catholic’s heart to share this great joy with the whole of human race, to every human person. May this prayer be granted.

God bless you all.

in XT.

 

[tdandh26]

Well said my friend! Well said!

 

[bene7]

“Following the holy fathers , we unanimously teach one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, complete as to his Godhead, and complete as to his manhood; truly God, and truly man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; consubstantial with the Father as to his Godhead, and consubstantial also with us as to his manhood; like unto us in all things, yet with out sin;…”

consubstantial = of one and the same substance, essence or nature.

Blessings
Bene

 

[bene7]

tdandh26:

There are a great many things that we mere humans cannot explain about God one is how 3 persons make up one God, but does any christian reject it because something does not work according to our physical world?

No true Christian rejects it because it is implicitly revealed in Scripture.

Then why doubt that the entire Christ is present in even the smallest particle of any Eucharist that has been consecrated by an apostolic priest.

Because to believe this one MUST believe that Jesus is not truly human. Do you believe that the human body, blood, bones and soul of Jesus possesses the Divine attribute of omnipresence? You must if you believe even the slightest particle of the host transubstantiates into the whole human nature of Christ, even at the same time in millions of places throughout the world. Nothing less than omnipresence can accomplish this.

Can you give me an example in Scripture where Jesus was, bodily, in more than one place at one time?

Do you believe the Son took on true humanity via the virgin birth?
“Consubstantial with us” as to His manhood, like unto us in all things, yet without sin?

Blessings,
Bene

 

[Tonks40]

bene7:

No true Christian rejects it because it is implicitly revealed in Scripture.

Had to put my two cents in after following this thread for a while…

Bene - getting back to the OP - wouldn’t it appear to you, then, in John 6, and the letters of Paul that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ would then be implicitly acknowledged? If it’s understood by many of the Christians even today about the trueness Trinity, what’s stopping you from believing in the validity of the concept of transubstantiation, of Christ being present - His Presence - in the Eucharist??

bene7:

Because to believe this one MUST believe that Jesus is not truly human. Do you believe that the human body, blood, bones and soul of Jesus possesses the Divine attribute of omnipresence? You must if you believe even the slightest particle of the host transubstantiates into the whole human nature of Christ, even at the same time in millions of places throughout the world. Nothing less than omnipresence can accomplish this.

Why do you insist on keeping seperate the natures of Christ as being both Divine and human? Christ is the Lord, begotten of the Father - not created. Being one with the Father, He is capable of being in many places at once - even you must believe that “when two or three are gathered in My Name” Christ is among them. Why limit your idea of who Christ is and where He is present?

No offense, but you seem to be going around in circles on this.

Peace.