Partaking Of The Divine Nature

[Hesychios]

I will say though that I find the whole notion Catholics have about the bread and the wine being “changed” into literal flesh and blood to be gruesome and repulsive. It doesn’t seem like that’s what the Bible means in John chapter 6 at all.

I can’t help you there. I believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Also; It seems like some believe how that the Eucharist is the best way, but not the only way to partake of the divine nature. Is there any official Catholic teaching on that point?

It is not an either/or kind of thing.

The Holy Eucharist was given to us.

It’s just that some in the west have reduced the concept of ‘Partaking’ to simply the Eucharist and vitually nothing else. That’s why some of the answers you have received focus only on that, as if the terminology is nothing but a scriptural proof for Holy Communion.

It is more like a way of life, striving for the Divine. Baptism and Chrismation (as initiatory sacraments) help begin the process for living human creatures and the church as community nurtures. We are saved in community and strive to be Holy, we seek the Divine. The Eucharist is indeed a fundamental part of this entire process.

I am sorry you find the thought of eating the Body and Blood of Christ repulsive. Others have thought so in the past, but Christianity derives from the communities who really believed it, regardless of how this made them feel. We know it was just as repulsive to peoples sensibilities 2000 years ago as it is today, yet it triumphed and spread in spite of that.

Perhaps we can address that at some other time.

 

[JimG]

Strictly speaking, in a theological sense, one cannot “partake of the Divine nature” in the sense of “sharing” the divine nature. The divine nature is simple, indivisible, and One. God cannot break off a ‘piece’ of himself to share with us, as there are no pieces.

However, Catholics have always considered divine Grace–sanctifying grace–as a “sharing in the life of God.” But it is a created share in the life of God–God creates grace and infuses it into our soul to make us capable of living life like him–i.e., life in heaven. All the sacraments are sources of grace.

The Eucharist in particular is not only a source of grace, but the very person of Christ. Through the Eucharist, Christ makes present in all times and in all places his one sacrifice, breaking the bonds of time and space. Although the appearances of bread and wine may be multiplied, Christ remains one. Each communicant receives the one Christ in his entirety, the one sacrifice, and in so doing, is united to Christ and also is united to all other communicants throughout history.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Protestant101,

It might also help to look at it this way: when God redeems us from the fall of Adam and Eve, he doesn’t simply return us to the pre-fall condition, but adopts us as sons and daughters. This adoption we also describe as theosis or “sharing in the divine nature”.

 

[Protestant101]

The Eucharist in particular is not only a source of grace, but the very person of Christ. Through the Eucharist, Christ makes present in all times and in all places his one sacrifice, breaking the bonds of time and space. Although the appearances of bread and wine may be multiplied, Christ remains one. Each communicant receives the one Christ in his entirety, the one sacrifice, and in so doing, is united to Christ and also is united to all other communicants throughout history.

Thanks to all who have replied; I appreciate EVERY reply.

I must say though that as the posts start to come in for this subject, the above quote likely expresses some points I am interested to dig into/challenge.

Can anyone supply official Catholic references for the points made therein?

 

[Peter_J]

Hi again.

This morning I was reading a document, Salvation: Grace, Justification and Synergy, from a 1998 Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue. I was reminded of this thread when I read the following paragraph:

1. Lutherans, together with the Orthodox, affirm that salvation is real participation by grace in the nature of God as St. Peter writes: “that we may be partakers of the divine nature.” (II Pet. 1:4) That happens through our participation in the death and resurrection of the Lord in His body, in Whom all the fullness of God dwells (cf. Col. 2:9). This is the way in which salvation is realized as purification, illumination and glorification, also referred to as deification (theosis). This terminology has not been central in Lutheran tradition. Lutherans prefer to speak of the sanctification in the body of Christ who is Himself present in the faith of the believers. Lutherans, together with the Orthodox, affirm the reality of the believers’ participation in the divine life, in which they grow by the grace of God.

 

[Protestant101]

Maybe we could break it down a bit, into smaller portions for study?

In post #16 above, can anyone point us to official Catholic writings which would support item #1 there?

1/ This is probably a bigger and subtler question than I am equipped to answer. But at the very least we Catholics understand that Christ comes to us and speaks to us in many ways.

 

[Protestant101]

I can’t help you there. I believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
It is not an either/or kind of thing.

The Holy Eucharist was given to us.

I have thought a lot about this subject; and looked into a number of things connected to it; but to me this whole Eucharist thing is a doctrine gone haywire. Some would call it “heresy.”

To me it is disgusting to think of eating the flesh of Jesus, or of anyone else, divine or human. How can such a thing ever “cleanse us from sin”!?? Why would Calvary be needed if all we had to do is go to church and eat little pieces of literal Jesus meat? It doesn’t make sense. And why would we have to do this on such a repeated basis such as Catholics are urged to do once a week? Jesus died once for our sins. He doesn’t die for them every week!!

I recently went to a Mass, and it was awful. I won’t say all that happened when I went, but suffice it to say, I did not have a very good impression.

In the Catechism it says “the Eucharist makes the Church. Those who receive the Eucharist are united more closely to Christ.” 1396 How can it be proved that a Catholic who does this Eucharist thing is any more connected to Jesus than a Protestant who goes to Jesus in sincere, heart-felt prayer, and asks Him directly for forgiveness and cleansing?

I have yet to be convinced of this doctrine.

I know some will likely have another field day with my comments here; but my intentions are not as some will claim. This is the honest truth of how it all hits me as I examine the Eucharist, and try to find proof in the Bible how that the “bread” and the “wine” is literally changed into the flesh of Jesus. That just sounds like a really nasty falsehood to me; and there are other possible explanations for what Catholics say here.

John chapter six can be interpreted several ways; and it alone just cannot be used as “proof” of the literal flesh or blood of Jesus during the Eucharist, or any other sacrament. Nowhere does the Bible tell us to eat Jesus meat to get our sins forgiven or cleansed!

 

[Matariel]

I have thought a lot about this subject; and looked into a number of things connected to it; but to me this whole Eucharist thing is a doctrine gone haywire. Some would call it “heresy.”

Christ wouldn’t. He said, in John 6, “He who eats Me lives because of Me.” Some of his disciples reacted the same way you did, and they walked away from the Lord.

Moreover, the Church had always believed in the Real Presence, for 1500 years, and then some liberal called Zwingi came along and said, “Oh no, Christ was wrong in John six, and the Church is wrong and the Apostles were wrong, and the Church Fathers. It is nothing but an empty symbol.”

But that is all wrong! St. Paul calls it “the partaking of the Body of Christ”.

Please read the link below to find out why we believe what we believe:
catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

To me it is disgusting to think of eating the flesh of Jesus, or of anyone else, divine or human. How can such a thing ever “cleanse us from sin”!?? Why would Calvary be needed if all we had to do is go to church and eat little pieces of literal Jesus meat? It doesn’t make sense. And why would we have to do this on such a repeated basis such as Catholics are urged to do once a week?

This is a gross mischaracterization of Catholic doctrine. Please read above link. Also, the Eucharist does not absolve mortal sin.

Jesus died once for our sins. He doesn’t die for them every week!!

Amen! Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans all believe that Christ died once and for all time for our sins. The Sacrament of the altar is the same as the once and for all Sacrifice of our Saviour Christ, as God is outside of time.

I recently went to a Mass, and it was awful. I won’t say all that happened when I went, but suffice it to say, I did not have a very good impression.

That’s odd. Mass is one of the most beautiful things I’ve ever experienced, and I’m from a Protestant background. Perhaps you went to a Catholic church that is liberal, and disobedient, and does not observe the Mass properly.

In the Catechism it says “the Eucharist makes the Church. Those who receive the Eucharist are united more closely to Christ.” 1396 How can it be proved that a Catholic who does this Eucharist thing is any more connected to Jesus than a Protestant who goes to Jesus in sincere, heart-felt prayer, and asks Him directly for forgiveness and cleansing?

You have to experience it to know it! I’m so much more intimately connected to my holy Lord Jesus, now that I take the Eucharist, His very essence, into me.

(You have to understand, though, that if you take the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin, you are committing sacrilege.)
I have yet to be convinced of this doctrine.

I know some will likely have another field day with my comments here; but my intentions are not as some will claim. This is the honest truth of how it all hits me as I examine the Eucharist, and try to find proof in the Bible how that the “bread” and the “wine” is literally changed into the flesh of Jesus. That just sounds like a really nasty falsehood to me; and there are other possible explanations for what Catholics say here.

John chapter six can be interpreted several ways; and it alone just cannot be used as “proof” of the literal flesh or blood of Jesus during the Eucharist, or any other sacrament. Nowhere does the Bible tell us to eat Jesus meat to get our sins forgiven or cleansed!

You slightly distort Catholic doctrine; only venial sins are erased by partaking of the Blessed Sacrament.

You then, have to explain the **UNIVERSAL CONSENSUS **of all Christians and Church Fathers before Zwingli, and show us why all the historic Churches (Roman, Orthodox, Coptic, Anglican) all hold to the Real Presence.

Besides, St. Paul and our Lord both taught the Real Presence of Jesus in His Sacrament.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the Body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

Once again, it was universally believed by Christians up until the liberal revisionist Zwingli destroyed peoples’ faith.

Ignatius of Antioch, who knew Peter and John personally, stated that the first ones to reject the Eucharist (besides the ones who rejected it in John 6) were the Gnostics (!):

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

 

[Protestant101]

Christ wouldn’t. He said, in John 6, “He who eats Me lives because of Me.” Some of his disciples reacted the same way you did, and they walked away from the Lord.

Amen! Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans all believe that Christ died once and for all time for our sins. The Sacrament of the altar is the same as the once and for all Sacrifice of our Saviour Christ, as God is outside of time.

I am sorry; but the cross of Jesus Christ, and the “altar” in some Church are two very different things. They are not the same; or we would not need Calvary. “God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of Jesus Christ my Lord.” (Gal.6:14)

Where did Christ specifically say what you quoted in red, and what Bible version are you using? Is that His exact wording? What have you left out? You quoted just a partial sentence here. Would the rest of the Bible agree with the interpretation you are trying to give it?? I think its about time that this gets discussed.

 

[Matariel]

I am sorry; but the cross of Jesus Christ, and the “altar” in some Church are two very different things. They are not the same; or we would not need Calvary. “God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of Jesus Christ my Lord.” (Gal.6:14)

Huh? You must’ve completely missed the Last Supper… It’s the most wonderful thing, to recieve my Lord so intimately, so personally, in the holy Sacrament. I’ve been brought to tears upon recieving my precious Lord Jesus, and I was so happy to recieve Him for the first time after I converted from Protestantism. I couldn’t join with the others who left Jesus in John 6 anymore. I wanted to recieve my all-holy Lord Jesus Christ at His holy altar, the Table. “This is my Body”… “This is my Blood” not, “This is a symbol of my Body”

Where did Christ specifically say what you quoted in red, and what Bible version are you using? Is that His exact wording? What have you left out? You quoted just a partial sentence here.

John 6:57, and also, He said “My Body is true food, and my Blood is true drink.” or, in other versions, “My Body is food indeed, and my Blood is drink indeed.”

It’s a Catholic Memorial Edition Bible.

“Whosoever eats My Body and drinks My Blood remains in Me, and I in him.”

Would the rest of the Bible agree with the interpretation you are trying to give it?? I think its about time that this gets discussed.

Yes, what He says in John 6 goes perfectly with what He says at the Last Supper, and with what St. Paul says in Corinthians. And with the universal consensus of the Church and the Fathers for 1600 years.

 

[Matariel]

I am sorry; but the cross of Jesus Christ, and the “altar” in some Church are two very different things. They are not the same; or we would not need Calvary. “God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of Jesus Christ my Lord.” (Gal.6:14)

Huh? You must’ve completely missed the Last Supper… It’s the most wonderful thing, to recieve my Lord so intimately, so personally, in the holy Sacrament. I’ve been brought to tears upon recieving my precious Lord Jesus, and I was so happy to recieve Him for the first time after I converted from Protestantism. I couldn’t join with the others who left Jesus in John 6 anymore. I wanted to recieve my all-holy Lord Jesus Christ at His holy altar, the Table. “This is my Body”… “This is my Blood” not, “This is a symbol of my Body”

Where did Christ specifically say what you quoted in red, and what Bible version are you using? Is that His exact wording? What have you left out? You quoted just a partial sentence here.

John 6:57, and also, He said “My Body is true food, and my Blood is true drink.” or, in other versions, “My Body is food indeed, and my Blood is drink indeed.”

It’s a Catholic Memorial Edition Bible.

“Whosoever eats My Body and drinks My Blood remains in Me, and I in him.”

Would the rest of the Bible agree with the interpretation you are trying to give it?? I think its about time that this gets discussed.

Yes, what He says in John 6 goes perfectly with what He says at the Last Supper, and with what St. Paul says in Corinthians. And with the universal consensus of the Church and the Fathers for 1600 years.

Why did you ignore the rest of my posts? Is it that you cannot answer them?

 

[patrick457]

Where did Christ specifically say what you quoted in red, and what Bible version are you using? Is that His exact wording? What have you left out? You quoted just a partial sentence here. Would the rest of the Bible agree with the interpretation you are trying to give it?? I think its about time that this gets discussed.

That’s from John 6:57. Here’s the verse in context:

GREEK: 48: "Egō eimi o artos tis zōēs.
49: Oi pateres ymōn ephagon en ti erēmō to manna kai apethanon.
50: Outos estin o artos o ek tou ouranou katabainōn ina tis ex autou phagē kai mē apothanē.
51: Egō eimi o artos o zōn o ek tou ouranou katabas. Ean tis phagē ek toutou tou artou zēsei eis ton aiōna; kai o artos de on egō dōsō ē sarx mou estin yper tēs tou kosmou zōēs."
52: Emachonto oun pros allilous oi Ioudaioi legontes: “Pōs dynatai outos imin dounai tēn sarka [autou] phagein?”
53: Eipen oun autois o Iēsous: “Amin, Amin legō ymin, ean mē phagēte tēn sarka tou Yiou tou Anthrōpou kai piēte autou to aima, ouk echete zōēn en eautois.
54-55: O trōgōn mou tin sarka kai pinōn mou to aima echei zōēn aiōnion, kagō anastēsō auton tē eschatē imera; ē gar sarx mou alēthēs estin brōsis, kai to aima mou alēthēs estin posis.
56: O trōgōn mou tin sarka kai pinōn mou to aima, en emoi menei kagō en autō.
57: Kathōs apesteilen me o zōn Patēr kagō zō dia ton Patera, kai o trōgōn me kakeinos zēsei di’ eme.
58: Outos estin o artos o ex ouranou katabas; ou kathōs ephagon oi pateres [imōn to manna] kai apethanon; o trōgōn touton ton arton zēsei eis ton aiōna.”
59: Tauta eipen en synagōgē didaskōn en Kapharnaoum.

ENGLISH:
48: “*I am the bread of life. *
49: Your fathers ate manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50: This is the bread that comes down from Heaven, that one may eat of it and not die.
51: I am the living bread which came down from Heaven. If any man eats (Greek: phagō) of this bread, he shall live forever; Yes, and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
52: The Jews therefore contended with one another, saying: “How can this man give us (His) flesh to eat?”
53: 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 do not have life in you.
54-55: He who munches (trōgō, also meaning “to chew” or “to gnaw”) my Flesh, and drinks my Blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day; for my Flesh is real food, and my Blood is real drink.
56: He who munches on my Flesh and drinks my Blood abides in me, and I in him.
57: *As the living Father sent me and I live by the Father, so also he who munches me will have life because of me. *
58: This is the bread that came down out of Heaven: not as the fathers who ate [manna] and died, whoever munches this Bread will live forever.”
59: These things he said in the synagogue, as he taught in Capharnaum.

 

[Peter_J]

I have thought a lot about this subject; and looked into a number of things connected to it; but to me this whole Eucharist thing is a doctrine gone haywire. Some would call it “heresy.”

I think it’s worth noting that Martin Luther, although he believed the body and blood of Christ to be present “in, with, and under” the bread and wine, nevertheless said:

And rather than to have mere wine with the enthusiasts I would stick to mere blood with the Papists.

In other words, Luther considered transubstantiation to be a less serious error than the idea that the eucharist is only a symbol and not the real body and blood of the Lord.

 

[Bwsherman]

Protestant101,

I think a lot of the questions you have regarding the Eucharist from a Catholic perspective could be answered by looking into the writings of the council of Trent. history.hanover.edu/early/trent.html

It is a rather voluminous document, but it deals with all of the sacraments. The council gives special attention to the Eucharist. The language in it can come across as harsh, however, it must be read in the correct context to understand the spirit behind which the declarations were made.

In response to the people talking about theosis, I do not believe the Church in any way teaches people soley to focus on the Eucharist and ignore the other ways grace can be poured out to us. The Catholic life is a sacramental life and as such we have access to the graces our Lord has given to us in many ways. I am not trying to start anything new here, but I just felt like it needed to be addressed.

 

[JimG]

Thanks to all who have replied; I appreciate EVERY reply.

I must say though that as the posts start to come in for this subject, the above quote likely expresses some points I am interested to dig into/challenge.

Can anyone supply official Catholic references for the points made therein?

JimG:

The Eucharist in particular is not only a source of grace, but the very person of Christ. Through the Eucharist, Christ makes present in all times and in all places his one sacrifice, breaking the bonds of time and space. Although the appearances of bread and wine may be multiplied, Christ remains one. Each communicant receives the one Christ in his entirety, the one sacrifice, and in so doing, is united to Christ and also is united to all other communicants throughout history.

Par. 1377 of the CCC gives the basic Catholic belief about the ontology of the Eucharist:

“The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species, and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.” (emphasis added)
Source = usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt1art3.htm#v

A person in RCIA once said to me that he could believe nearly everything that the Church taught, but had difficulty believing that holy communion was “a little piece of Jesus’ body.” I said that’s not what we believe. We believe that holy communion is all of Jesus body. It is in fact Jesus in his entirety, body and soul and divinity, God and man.

And the breaking of the Eucharistic species neither divides nor multiplies Christ. Christ has but one body. Each communicant in every place and time receives the one Christ, and because of that fact, all communicants are inevitably united not only with Christ but with one another. The Eucharist does not multiply Christ.

 

[Protestant101]

had difficulty believing that holy communion was “a little piece of Jesus’ body.” I said that’s not what we believe. We believe that holy communion is all of Jesus body. It is in fact Jesus in his entirety, body and soul and divinity, God and man.

And the breaking of the Eucharistic species neither divides nor multiplies Christ. Christ has but one body. Each communicant in every place and time receives the one Christ, and because of that fact, all communicants are inevitably united not only with Christ but with one another. The Eucharist does not multiply Christ.

The way I see it now is that this is a classic, textbook case of making an entire doctrine out of just one text, which in effect, makes it a pretext.

One can argue till the cows come home about if it’s just a piece of Jesus’ body, or if it’s His whole body, or anything in between. it is all too easy to make the Protestant out to be one who “misunderstands” by trying to bring up points like this. Everyone, on both sides of this knows full well that Jesus is omiscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

If you say that it is “the whole body” of Christ, then there are many ways that makes no sense.

I would like to ask you a question. What is meant by the Bible when it says “divine nature?” What is required if we are to “partake” of it?

2Pe 1:4

through which He has given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, so that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

 

[Peter_J]

I would like to ask you a question. What is meant by the Bible when it says “divine nature?” What is required if we are to “partake” of it?

Um, would you mind first responding to what I’ve already posted regarding “partaking of the divine nature” (posts #23 and #25) before asking for more posts about it?

 

[Matariel]

The way I see it now is that this is a classic, textbook case of making an entire doctrine out of just one text, which in effect, makes it a pretext.

One text?

Matthew 26:26-28

Genesis 14:18, a pre-figurement

Luke 22:20

John 6

1 Cor 10:16

1 Cor 11:27

Mark: 14:22-24

1 Cor 11:29 ("…without discerning the Body…" doesn’t get much clearer than that!)

One can argue till the cows come home about if it’s just a piece of Jesus’ body, or if it’s His whole body, or anything in between. it is all too easy to make the Protestant out to be one who “misunderstands” by trying to bring up points like this. Everyone, on both sides of this knows full well that Jesus is omiscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

Of course! This is why it is easy to believe how Christ makes Himself present in this way.

If you say that it is “the whole body” of Christ, then there are many ways that makes no sense.

Why wouldn’t it? The Sacrament is the same as Calvary, one and the same event. Not a “repeat”.
If you think God’s not omniscient, then I can see why it doesn’t make sense.

I would like to ask you a question. What is meant by the Bible when it says “divine nature?” What is required if we are to “partake” of it?

Although this may be related to the Eucharist, I really think St. Paul was referring to Theosis when he speaks of partaking of the Divine Nature.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Of course! This is why it is easy to believe how Christ makes Himself present in this way.

You would think it would be that easy for Reformed/Zwinglian Christians to understand!

Why wouldn’t it? The Sacrament is the same as Calvary, one and the same event. Not a “repeat”.
If you think God’s not omniscient, then I can see why it doesn’t make sense.

I would see it more as taking what that event did and making it present to us in the present age. Fr. Corapi explained it really well once by saying that the sacraments are like a divine baseball; they take the grace that was won for us at the cross and hurl it through time so that those of us who are not witness to the time-bound event of the crucifixion may participate in it.

Although this may be related to the Eucharist, I really think St. Paul was referring to Theosis when he speaks of partaking of the Divine Nature.

St. Peter mentions this. I believe it is in the context of the resurrection at the end of the age. We will be glorified in our bodies as Christ was glorified.

 

[Protestant101]

Um, would you mind first responding to what I’ve already posted regarding “partaking of the divine nature” (posts #23 and #25) before asking for more posts about it?

Well; I just went back and looked at those two posts, you did not invite or ask for a response in either of them. I didn’t know until right now that you would demand a “response” to those posts before you would answer any more questions. But my questions were to anyone reading here; not just to you.

It can sometimes take a series of questions to form thoughts and conclusions; and to me, that is what I will need to do here. Then I will add up the info offered, and try to see what God is saying.

Besides, in my mind I did respond by quoting the following and asking the questions I posted in my last note to this subject:

2Pe 1:4 through which He has given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, so that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

This text is actually very relevant to defining the “divine nature;” and is essential to answering the questions about the Eucharist. If you do not want to comment to my questions, that’s fine. I have no problem with that at all; and I am sure others will help me out.