T
Tomdstone
Guest
I read it as it says: “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”
- Status
G
goout
Guest
To which I replied (to another poster) thus:
Isn’t it good to speak the same language? Otherwise we will next be interpreting the tower at Babel.
Let’s speak the same language if possible.
I asked Tom how he reads the bible, to which he responded “slowly”.
Good start.
G
goout
Guest
So then you believe those who don’t take the Eucharist are dead, end of story?
1
1neophyte
Guest
I’m not sure about Tom, but you and I speak the same language. We both agree that fundamentalism is wrong, and that any interpretation of scripture must be done in proper context. Step one, check!
So let’s move on to step two. In the context of the whole, what do you think is the correct interpretation of this particular passage?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Isn’t that what Jesus said? Who am I to disagree with what God has said?So then you believe those who don’t take the Eucharist are dead, end of story?
V
Vico
Guest
The statement is literally true. Unless or except is not restricted to mean all people. It is addressed to the Jews and the Apostles in these verses. Not every person receives the body and the blood of the Lord, for not all are worthy. Also not all can receive because it requires baptism first, which is sufficient in itself for salvation, some receiving that baptism of blood in martyrdom or baptism of desire, such as catechumens, never able to receive baptism of water.
Also
1 Cor 11: 27* Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. *
And
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
John 6
47 Amen, amen, I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 *Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and they died.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any one eat of it, he may not die.
51 I am the living bread, which came down from heaven.
52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world.
53 The Jews, therefore, disputed among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
56 *For my flesh, is meat indeed: and my blood, is drink indeed:
57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.
58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.
59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and died. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.
Haydock commentary:
Ver. 54. Unless you eat … and drink, &c. To receive both the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both the body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind: (ver. 52.) If any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever: and the bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world: (ver. 58.) He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me: (ver. 59.) He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. (Challoner)
G
goout
Guest
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
Wouldn’t one remove the plank in his eyes before he takes the speck out of his brother’s?
F
fladreamer
Guest
Then what’s the use of reading the bible, slowly or not, if every comma is not an ordinary comma but needs to be viewed in the context of a semi-colon, which, you guessed it, can NOT be see as an ordinary semi-colon etc. etc. etc. That’s my first point.
My second point: how many people did that stern warning affect? The 12 plus the whole of israel? Only the Israelites who had heard Jesus saying those words?
My third point is you make it sound like Jesus’ words aren’t that big of a deal. ‘‘Jesus said what?’’ Nah, he didn’t mean that at all. ''Did he really say that not eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood means you have no life in you (Christians know what I just did)? He did, but actually never mind that, baptism is all you need. I may be mistaken but I think it’s based on that passage that we have the eucharist. So the sacrament that is the source and summit of Christian life was based on meaningless words that were addressed to a handful of people in 1st century Palestine?
Lastly, if baptism is all it takes for salvation, what did Jesus had in mind when he said ‘‘no life in you’’? ‘You have no life, but, hey, don’t worry about heaven, it’s taken care of by baptism’’. John 3:3 took care of baptism, shows how essential it is. This passage is different. What did Christ want people who heard him say that to think, concretely?
V
Vico
Guest
As you read the various books of the Bible notice that the message is differently expressed to each people and situation. Only some are more general.
John 8:23-24 And he said to them: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin.
John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
John 8: 42 Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: 43 Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. 45 But if I say the truth, you believe me not. 46 Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me? 47 He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God.
What Jesus Christ said to a group may not apply without qualification to others outside of the group. This is especially important because there are many statements made which appear to conflict. Since Jesus Christ speaks the truth always, there must be qualifications. I posted it earlier in 192 that it must be understood as a whole that for salvation there are:
- Faith (cf. Rom 1:16),
- Baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Mt 28:19; Acts 2:40-41; 16:30-33)
- Eucharist (cf. Jn 6:53)
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I didn’t follow this thread and just reached this part, so this post might be addressed already.
The thing here is what it means by mortal sin. There are some mitigating factors to it which is one reason why we cannot know for sure whether a person goes to hell or not; not even Judas.
As for whether it is mortal sin, not only we know it is grave matter but we must also be intentionally doing it and knowing its consequence. There are sins that are categorized as mortal but it may not be mortal sin to that person, depending on the situation/condition he/she commits it.
V
Vico
Guest
For Judas,that it would have been better that he never was born, sounds certain.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
How do you know he did not repent at the last moment?
R
Reuben_J
Guest
There are some thought in saying that we do not know because we do not know his heart. There are people who do very sinful things outwardly but we cannot judge them because we do not know the circumstances of their hearts.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Yes, exactly. We just do not know his fate unless we judge him.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
From New Advent here
But, apart from this consideration, it may be urged that in exaggerating the original malice of Judas, or denying that there was even any good in him, we minimize or miss the lesson of this fall. The examples of the saints are lost on us if we think of them as being of another order without our human weaknesses. And in the same way it is a grave mistake to think of Judas as a demon without any elements of goodness and grace. In his fall is left a warning that even the great grace of the Apostolate and the familiar friendship of Jesus may be of no avail to one who is unfaithful. And, though nothing should be allowed to palliate the guilt of the great betrayal, it may become more intelligible if we think of it as the outcome of gradual failing in lesser things. So again the repentance may be taken to imply that the traitor deceived himself by a false hope that after all Christ might pass through the midst of His enemies as He had done before at the brow of the mountain.* And though the circumstances of the death of the traitor give too much reason to fear the worst, the Sacred Text does not distinctly reject the possibility of real repentance. And Origen strangely supposed that Judas hanged himself in order to seek Christ in the other world and ask His pardon** (In Matt., tract. xxxv).*
But, apart from this consideration, it may be urged that in exaggerating the original malice of Judas, or denying that there was even any good in him, we minimize or miss the lesson of this fall. The examples of the saints are lost on us if we think of them as being of another order without our human weaknesses. And in the same way it is a grave mistake to think of Judas as a demon without any elements of goodness and grace. In his fall is left a warning that even the great grace of the Apostolate and the familiar friendship of Jesus may be of no avail to one who is unfaithful. And, though nothing should be allowed to palliate the guilt of the great betrayal, it may become more intelligible if we think of it as the outcome of gradual failing in lesser things. So again the repentance may be taken to imply that the traitor deceived himself by a false hope that after all Christ might pass through the midst of His enemies as He had done before at the brow of the mountain.* And though the circumstances of the death of the traitor give too much reason to fear the worst, the Sacred Text does not distinctly reject the possibility of real repentance. And Origen strangely supposed that Judas hanged himself in order to seek Christ in the other world and ask His pardon** (In Matt., tract. xxxv).*
G
goout
Guest
Exactly:
Grave matter does not necessitate mortal culpability.
This seems to be a very difficult concept for many people, hence the accusation that the Church condemns people when it observes and proclaims moral principles.
The Church does not canonize the damned.
V
Vico
Guest
It was Jesus Christ that said it.
V
Vico
Guest
It was Jesus Christ that said it, so we are not making the determination, but the Lord did.
1
1neophyte
Guest
And when Jesus Christ advised that one should self-mutilate by removing an eye, was He making the determination that two eyes is one too many? Or is it possible that there is a (somewhat vast) disparity between the language used by a 1st century Hebrew-speaking man and the understanding of a 21st century English-speaking audience?
- Status