Protestant Argument of the Eucharist

[Dorothy]

Doreen,

<<In one text, I found that the actual “papal infallibility” wasn’t proclaimed until 1870! >>

Although the declaration of papal infallibility wasn’t made until 1870, that does not indicate that it was invented or made up at that time. Such declarations are made when there is a need to clarify something that the Church has believed all along.

Same with the Immaculate Conception of Mary. (That she was born “full of grace” from the first moment of her conception in her mother’s womb.) This was believed for a very long time…but the proclamation had to be made to clarify any quibbling.

Please try to understand that some of the sources you get your information from are very adept at twisting and mis-representing what is truly taught.

Have you ever read the book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” by Karl Keating? It clears up a lot of misunderstandings.

There is a book called “Roman Catholicism” by Lorraine Boettner that is just filled with these twistings and misrepresentations. Some of them are very sad, and some are actually laughable. Many Protestants (not all) use this as a sourcebook to bash the Catholic Church.

Peace,

Dorothy

 

[Veritas41]

Huguenot:

II don’t believe in it because nobody has been able, until now, to explain how it can comply with Hebrews chapters 9 and 10 that explains that Jesus has sacrificed Himself ONCE ; the Eucharist is considered by Catholics as a renewal of His sacrifice ( that is at least what they have told me on French Catholic forums ) ; can there be a real presence without the renewal of this sacrifice ???
)

Huguenot, may I take a stab at trying to explain it to you from Hebrews?

Hebrews 9 contrasts the sacrificial nature of the Old Covenant, which required bloody animal sacrifices over and over again because they were not capable of taking away sin. Then it compares these ineffectual, repetitious sacrifices to the *one *completely efficacious bloody sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Verse 28, “so Christ was sacrificed *once *to take away the sins of many people. . .” However, if we back up a few verses, to verse 23, it says, “It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices [animal sacrifices], but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.” This verse speaks of plural *sacrifices *of the new covenant. These sacrifices are superior to the old covenant sacrifices, which couldn’t take away sin. These sacrifices *do *take away sin, yet we know Christ died only once. In the Old Covenant, not all sacrifices were bloody. There were drink and grain offerings that didn’t involve shedding blood. The *sacrifices *of the new covenant are the offering of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in an unbloody manner. It is Jesus’ resurrected and glorified flesh offered to the Father as a sacrifice for our sins. Jesus doesn’t suffer and die again. His sacrifice on Calvary is re-presented, not *repeated. *The Sacrifice of the Mass is the *same sacrifice *as Calvary – Calvary renewed, not repeated. A helpful analogy I read somewhere is to compare it to TV reruns – the action in the TV show isn’t *repeated *because the actors don’t have to go through all their previous actions for the show to appear on TV again-- their actions are re-presented to the audience so we can see it again. The Mass makes Calvary present to us, in 2006 and every year since Christ’s death, so we can sacramentally be present at Christ’s offering of Himself to the Father.

Hebrews 13:10, “We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle *have no right to eat.” *Altars are purely for sacrifice, and this passage says “we” (new covenant Christians) have an “altar.” This fits with Heb. 9:23 regarding “sacrifices” of the new covenant. And it says that those who cling to the old covenant have no “right to eat” from it. Something *edible *is offered on the altar, something we as new covenant Christians have a right to eat of. What is eaten must actually able to take away sins, because the sacrifices of the new covenant are superior in that they actually can remove sin. Only Christ’s sacrifice takes away sin, so what is offered on the altar must be Jesus Christ. In the original Passover, the Jews had to not only sacrifice a lamb, but they had to eat the lamb in order to be saved. So Jesus was not only sacrificed, but, like He said in John 6, we must eat His flesh and blood to be saved.

The sacrifices of the new covenant fulfill the prophecy of Malachi 1:11, “My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations,’ says the Lord Almighty.” The “nations” are Gentiles, who were never part of the Old Covenant sacrificial system. These *pure offerings *among them are the sacrifice of the Mass, the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 6:9, 8: 3, 5 describes an altar in heaven and Rev. 5: 6 depicts Christ as Lamb, which is sacrificial imagery. Why would there need to be an altar in heaven if all sacrifice is ended upon Christ’s death upon the Cross?

In one of the Eucharistic prayers for Mass, there is a phrase (I’m relying on memory, so it’s not verbatim) that says something to the effect of “may your angel take this offering to your altar in heaven.” The earthly sacrifice is connected to the sacrifice in heaven

 

[Shiann]

Doreen:

And this explains a little bit of my apprehension with the Catholic thinking.

You are really saying you trust God to protect your church over others.

You are saying that you believe God entrusted His Word to only certain men, who then passed it on to other men.

And you believe that the church you speak of has not changed since the day He ascended into heaven.

In a nutshell, absolutely. He said it would be that way. He promised humanity that’s what he would do.

But here’s the problem: If you look at early church history, you’ll see how the “Catholic” church has seriously changed. The apostles preached that we hold on to the truth and not add to it, but as early as A.D. 70, you will see that, over time, the papacy claimed more and more power for itself, the papal church introduced the following: baptismal regeneration, justification by works, celibacy, confessional rules, purgatory, transubstantiation, indulgences and penance (to name a few) during the dark ages –

The Catholic Church has heard these arguments for EONS. Careful study will reveal these arguments have logical answers. Many of them have been discussed again and again here on the forums. The things you cite may have been made more clear, or may have been defined- but “that which makes the Catholic Church, God’s Church” has NOT changed.

there were serious problems in the church at this time, and pure Christianity was maintained by a few outside the papacy…since these new teachings were a doctrine organized by man…many of the sacraments are only as old as the “Dark Ages”…(A.D. 600-1500) some were not even heard of before that time.

And the church that Christ calls His own was the church of “pure Christianity”…not adding anything to the Sacrifice of Christ, but being “The Church of the First Born” (meaning…we must be “born into” this church by the transforming of our minds.)

The reformation DID challenge and change the church you claim to be infallible and unchanging. The Jesuit priesthood would attest to that, no?

In one text, I found that the actual “papal infallibility” wasn’t proclaimed until 1870!

I know there are Scriptures that say that there is One Church, One Faith, and I believe He will call all “believers” unto Himself…but when I study revelation and history, evidence suggests that many who put their hope in “THE Church” are going to be disappointed. But he whose hope is in the LORD will not be disappointed.

How can this be when THE Church is God here on Earth?

I don’t mean to stir up contention by all this. These are simply the things I see as real events in history that have yet to be adequately explained to me…that I might join you in believing in this idea that Catholicism is “the way”.

I believe that much of faith comes by a simple trust, as you say, Shiann, but I am not going to be led like a lamb to the slaughter. I want to understand EXACTLY who it is I am putting my faith in! (This is why my main source is Scripture…and I know you’ll say, well you can thank the Catholic church for that! But seriously, that is like saying it is all the WORD OF MAN and not God. And if you truly believe THAT…how can you trust a word of it?)

Thanks for your ear. (And I realize now that this should all go to a new thread.)
D.

Forgive my bolding of this statement… but look at what you are saying here! You want to understand EXACTLY what you intend to have FAITH in, before you have Faith in it!

You say you aren’t going to be lead as a lamb to slaughter… I’ve read many of your posts here, and how you see God speaking to you in obvious and creative ways… Funny how you used those words when that is EXACTLY what God did for us, and in return he only asks for Faith.

Look, I’m not trying to put words in your mouth- I understand you just meant that you wish to verify certain aspects of Catholicism, before considering it. That’s only right and proper. God calls us to prudence as well.

But Faith isn’t being lead to slaughter like a lamb as you say. And Faith sometimes requires great acts of trust in the face of seemingly obvious peril. There wouldn’t be so many non-believers out there if Faith were easy.

Please don’t stop asking questions. It is brilliant the way God shines within you!

 

[Huguenot]

Dorothy:

The meaning of the memorial is that it is a LIVING here and now memorial…not just a remembrance of something that happened in time 2000 years ago. Jesus is with us, comes to us, and feeds us with Himself.

Obviously this is something that cannot be explained in words that would cause others to change their mind.

But Jesus is with us and feeds us even when we are not commemorating his death : when we read the Bible, when we pray, when we sing hymns …collectively or alone in our house …
and of course when we remember his death …but not only …

 

[Huguenot]

St.Eric:

Good points. As a convert I can see both sides. When I was a “born again” fundamentalist, it was all about the “ME-ology”, how I FELT about Christ and my “Personal relationship” with him. In retrospect it was all about how “I” “felt” in my “walk”. Now I see the truth of the real “theology” rather than the “me-ology”. Christ has died, Christ has risen: and is the Lord and King of all, regardless how I feel about it on any given day. Even when I am having a bad day and don’t “feel” particularly spiritual, I know he is still there in all his glory; and now I don’t have to deal with the frequent “crisis of faith.”

Well, I’m Evangelical and we are also taught to look to Jesus, to God to be saved, not to our faith itself or to our feelings …

 

[Huguenot]

Veritas41:

Huguenot, may I take a stab at trying to explain it to you from Hebrews?

Hebrews 9 contrasts the sacrificial nature of the Old Covenant, which required bloody animal sacrifices over and over again because they were not capable of taking away sin. Then it compares these ineffectual, repetitious sacrifices to the *one *completely efficacious bloody sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Verse 28, “so Christ was sacrificed *once *to take away the sins of many people. . .” However, if we back up a few verses, to verse 23, it says, “It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices [animal sacrifices], but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.” This verse speaks of plural *sacrifices *of the new covenant. These sacrifices are superior to the old covenant sacrifices, which couldn’t take away sin. These sacrifices *do *take away sin, yet we know Christ died only once. In the Old Covenant, not all sacrifices were bloody. There were drink and grain offerings that didn’t involve shedding blood. The *sacrifices *of the new covenant are the offering of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in an unbloody manner. It is Jesus’ resurrected and glorified flesh offered to the Father as a sacrifice for our sins. Jesus doesn’t suffer and die again. His sacrifice on Calvary is re-presented, not *repeated. *The Sacrifice of the Mass is the *same sacrifice *as Calvary – Calvary renewed, not repeated. A helpful analogy I read somewhere is to compare it to TV reruns – the action in the TV show isn’t *repeated *because the actors don’t have to go through all their previous actions for the show to appear on TV again-- their actions are re-presented to the audience so we can see it again. The Mass makes Calvary present to us, in 2006 and every year since Christ’s death, so we can sacramentally be present at Christ’s offering of Himself to the Father.

Hebrews 13:10, “We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle *have no right to eat.” *Altars are purely for sacrifice, and this passage says “we” (new covenant Christians) have an “altar.” This fits with Heb. 9:23 regarding “sacrifices” of the new covenant. And it says that those who cling to the old covenant have no “right to eat” from it. Something *edible *is offered on the altar, something we as new covenant Christians have a right to eat of. What is eaten must actually able to take away sins, because the sacrifices of the new covenant are superior in that they actually can remove sin. Only Christ’s sacrifice takes away sin, so what is offered on the altar must be Jesus Christ. In the original Passover, the Jews had to not only sacrifice a lamb, but they had to eat the lamb in order to be saved. So Jesus was not only sacrificed, but, like He said in John 6, we must eat His flesh and blood to be saved.

The sacrifices of the new covenant fulfill the prophecy of Malachi 1:11, “My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations,’ says the Lord Almighty.” The “nations” are Gentiles, who were never part of the Old Covenant sacrificial system. These *pure offerings *among them are the sacrifice of the Mass, the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 6:9, 8: 3, 5 describes an altar in heaven and Rev. 5: 6 depicts Christ as Lamb, which is sacrificial imagery. Why would there need to be an altar in heaven if all sacrifice is ended upon Christ’s death upon the Cross?

In one of the Eucharistic prayers for Mass, there is a phrase (I’m relying on memory, so it’s not verbatim) that says something to the effect of “may your angel take this offering to your altar in heaven.” The earthly sacrifice is connected to the sacrifice in heaven

Thanks for taking a long time to give me this answer, but I really can’t see the difference between “representation” and “renewal” …
sooooooooooorry !!!
( maybe there are problems of vocabulary too : the usual misunderstandings between Catholic and Protestant terminology, plus the fact that English is not my native language …)

 

[Huguenot]

Doreen:

I can say that I have a “personal” relationship with Christ…which when I first heard of such a thing, baffled me…but now I understand how very personal it can be. I DO NOT however believe that I don’t need anything but God…and I don’t believe my counterparts feel that way either. That is a silly generalization based on a few who decide to isolate themselves when the pressure is on.

I am fully aware of the need to fellowship together, encourage one another, and spur one another on to love and good deeds. That is a HUGE part of my walk and I do need to be held accountable by my husband and my Christian brothers and sisters.

You are misunderstanding something here. Many protestants do not reject the Saints. They understand the role of the Saints differently than you do, but they count them as members of the Family of God who will be present at the marriage supper of the Lamb one day.

The reason Protestants (many of them) have spectacular church families, is because they take seriously the command to love one another, and to love thy neighbor as thyself…just as many Catholics do.

Just as I feel the need for more of Him in my life…through times of quietness and prayer.

You don’t have to explain this to me. I know His satisfaction. This is why I am asking this question. I am thinking…“Hello! How can there be more than this?” Not saying that I am at the end of my journey…not saying that I think I know and have experienced ALL of Him that there is to know and experience…but that, I feel satisfied in my soul. I feel connected with my God and King, and I have truly sought FIRST the kingdom of God…and all these things are being added unto me. So it seems odd that He’d require me to perform acts of penance on top of a simple confession and surrender and trust.
D. (to be continued)

I just wanted to tell you I agree with most of what you say …but it is difficult for me to engage in such “lengthy” discussions because my knowledge of English doesn’t allow me to do so …
I sometimes really “recognize” myself in your posts, I wanted you to know it …

 

[mercygate]

Huguenot:

But Jesus is with us and feeds us even when we are not commemorating his death : when we read the Bible, when we pray, when we sing hymns …collectively or alone in our house …
and of course when we remember his death …but not only …

Indeed.

 

[mercygate]

Huguenot:

Thanks for taking a long time to give me this answer, but I really can’t see the difference between “representation” and “renewal” …
sooooooooooorry !!!
( maybe there are problems of vocabulary too : the usual misunderstandings between Catholic and Protestant terminology, plus the fact that English is not my native language …)

I think you are onto something here. Despite the fact that your English is excellent (REALLY excellent), these words are loaded with a lot of theological meaning. We have a common expression in English – maybe you use it in French also – “It doesn’t matter an iota.” That comes from the controversy over homoousion versus homoiousion. So Christianity has a long history of needing to clarify meanings in seemingly similar words: renewal, representation. I share your inability for this argumentum to see the difference between renewal and representation.

“Renewal” would appear to claim re-offering the sacrifice.
“Representation” would appear to mean “symbolic.”

So I don’t like either word. If you put a hyphen in representation and make it re-presentation, it is clearer: presenting again to us in time and space the eternal sacrifice which had its time-and-space moment at Calvary but was “from the foundation of the world.” “He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake.” (I Pet I:20)

But I still prefer the image of piercing the veil between time and eternity. To my mind it better describes our relationship with God as the Incarnation as offered in this sacrament.

 

[Dorothy]

Huguenot:

But Jesus is with us and feeds us even when we are not commemorating his death : when we read the Bible, when we pray, when we sing hymns …collectively or alone in our house …
and of course when we remember his death …but not only …

I agree with all you have written above. But, I also believe in the great Gift of Himself in the Holy Eucharist.

 

[Doreen]

Huguenot:

I just wanted to tell you I agree with most of what you say …but it is difficult for me to engage in such “lengthy” discussions because my knowledge of English doesn’t allow me to do so …
I sometimes really “recognize” myself in your posts, I wanted you to know it …

Thank you, H. For that confirmation and word of encouragement. I am sorry I get so long-winded in my posts.

I guess I am very passionate in my pursuit of truth.

I am grateful to those on here who are so willing to hash all this out with us. It has brought me to a new level of respect for the Catholics around me. This is a healing of my soul that I know I needed badly, so the Lord is truly at work through all this.

I have two things to share that happened in my quiet time over the past 24 hours…now you challenge me to share them in some “brief” and simple way…

Ugh!! I am a writer by nature…full of words and thoughts. A gift from the Lord, but one that I am sure has its down-side.


Did you say your native language is French?

Have a blessed day, Brother!
D.

 

[mercygate]

Doreen:

Have a blessed day, Brother!
D.

Huguenot is really our little “Huguenotte” – a sister!

Mornin’, Doreen! :tiphat:

 

[Doreen]

1) The Catholic Church has heard these arguments for EONS. Careful study will reveal these arguments have logical answers. Many of them have been discussed again and again here on the forums.

1. The things you cite may have been made more clear, or may have been defined- but “that which makes the Catholic Church, God’s Church” has NOT changed.

1. One of the things that happened in the past 24 hours, that I eluded to in an earlier post, is that I came across a book in my own library that is called “Points of Controversy” and is written by a Catholic man…in 1869!!! And the lectures in the book are all arguments for the Catholic church and against the Protestant movement. It has been interesting to see that the same arguments, AS YOU SAY continue today…
2. I surely want to believe you when you say this. I know God’s purposes can be maintained even when the devil tries to throw things off track. And you are right, that I need to see where these arguments have gone as I am certain I am not the first one to ask these questions!

How can this be when THE Church is God here on Earth?

Now, this surprised me…because it seems you’re saying that Christ didn’t mean the Catholic church after all when He said His church would prevail…but this goes against some of your counterpart’s understanding of that Scripture.

Forgive my bolding of this statement… but look at what you are saying here! You want to understand EXACTLY what you intend to have FAITH in, before you have Faith in it!

Okay, you got me there! I think you know what I mean, though. I don’t want to be a Joseph Smith, and so I am very prayerful about my faith, and I wait on the Lord to answer things for me, to guide me, to confirm things, and to speak to my heart…and that makes me think of the second thing that was revealed to me this morning in my quiet time…

See next post:

 

[Doreen]

Before opening the Word, I often journal what is on my heart. I always pray before reading the Word, and as you would do before the partaking of the Eucharist, I prepare my heart to receive Him, through quiet reflection, worshipful prayer, confession and often with some supplication (direct request) in mind. (I love to journal these thoughts though, because it provides clear evidence to how He directly hears and answers my cry.)

When I don’t write my thoughts down —because my prayer time can get lengthy and complex, I sometimes will wonder what it was I was really asking of the Lord by the end because my thoughts are often vast and sometimes generalized, as opposed to specific. (hope this makes some sense – hard to explain)

Anyway, today I wrote in my prayer journal, “Lord, I am truly seeking Your truth. I know you can direct me and show me whether the Catholic teaching has gone wrong. Set my heart straight on the matter, Lord!”

I then intended to head right to Acts because I consider it a book that includes early direction for the churches…but my Bible fell open to John 6…as I opened it in the general vicinity of Acts…

And I read John 6:53-69.
And the points that hit me hard were:

Verse 63: The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

He went on to say…
Vs 65: **This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him./B]

And then when he questioned the Twelve, Peter’s reply is:
Verse 68-69 "Lord, to whom shall we go? You HAVE THE WORDS of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

And finally, John 7:37…Jesus says IN A LOUD VOICE…
**If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. **
Verse 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.
39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were later to receive.

As someone said in another post somewhere,
I count myself as a “whoever” since I “believe” and so I trust that the Spirit is the living water that flows from within me.

When He says, the SPIRIT gives life…the “flesh” counts for nothing…that says to me that the Eucharist is not what brings me into communion with Him… the SPIRIT is! I believe that He CAN meet you wheresoever He wishes…so if He is searching our hearts as it says He does in the OT…then He meets us in our hearts.

I cannot judge you for your belief in communion through the Eucharist…if I want you to accept that He has met me outside of it.

You say you aren’t going to be lead as a lamb to slaughter… I’ve read many of your posts here, and how you see God speaking to you in obvious and creative ways… Funny how you used those words when that is EXACTLY what God did for us, and in return he only asks for Faith.

I guess my point was that WHAT we put our faith in is of vital importance. I believe God wants us to trust HIM, and nobody else … nothing else…nothing we do, no words we say…but simply a heart condition of surrender and trust.

Look, I’m not trying to put words in your mouth- I understand you just meant that you wish to verify certain aspects of Catholicism, before considering it. That’s only right and proper. God calls us to prudence as well.

Thanks for your understanding and your ability to see what I mean over what I say. You’re sensitivity is appreciated!

But Faith isn’t being lead to slaughter like a lamb as you say. And Faith sometimes requires great acts of trust in the face of seemingly obvious peril. There wouldn’t be so many non-believers out there if Faith were easy.

True. A grain of truth that helped me with my faith…was realizing that the source of my faith is HIM! In other words…I can’t drum up more faith…it comes from a surrender!

Please don’t stop asking questions. It is brilliant the way God shines within you!

Thanks for your welcome and your patience with me.

(Now, I’m praying I haven’t once again gone over the word limit!)


D.**

 

[Mickey]

Doreen:

When He says, the SPIRIT gives life…the “flesh” counts for nothing…that says to me that the Eucharist is not what brings me into communion with Him… the SPIRIT is!

For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what “the flesh is of no avail” means? “Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time”—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then “your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished” (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

In John 6:63 “flesh profits nothing” refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.” So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for “symbolic”? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 “flesh” does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. “The words I have spoken to you are spirit” does not mean “What I have just said is symbolic.” The word “spirit” is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

(Catholic Answers)

 

[Doreen]

mercygate:

Huguenot is really our little “Huguenotte” – a sister!

Mornin’, Doreen! :tiphat:

Good Morning! Thanks for the correction, MG!
My humble apologies H!


D.

 

[Veritas41]

Doreen:

And I read John 6:53-69.
And the points that hit me hard were:

Verse 63: The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

He went on to say…
Vs 65: **This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him./**B]

And then when he questioned the Twelve, Peter’s reply is:
Verse 68-69 "Lord, to whom shall we go? You HAVE THE WORDS of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

And finally, John 7:37…Jesus says IN A LOUD VOICE…
**If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. **
Verse 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.
When He says, the SPIRIT gives life…the “flesh” counts for nothing…that says to me that the Eucharist is not what brings me into communion with Him… the SPIRIT is! I believe that He CAN meet you wheresoever He wishes…so if He is searching our hearts as it says He does in the OT…then He meets us in our hearts.

D.

Let’s take a look at those passages again, starting with John 6:63. Is “the flesh” that “counts for nothing” that Jesus speaks of here *His *flesh? If His flesh counted for nothing, then His sacrifice would count for nothing, because it was in His flesh that He died, not in His Spirit. And please look throughout the New Testament – when you see “the flesh,” it refers to *fallen human nature. *Jesus has just instructed His disciples and others on the Eucharist. In verse 52 it says, “Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” They understood Jesus to literally be speaking of the need to His flesh and drink His blood. How does Jesus respond? Verse 53, “Jesus said to them, 'I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. . .” Jesus REPEATS what He said before, He doesn’t correct the Jews’ perception of His teaching, indicating their perception was correct. Jesus always corrected people when they misunderstood Him. Now in verse 60 we see His disciples saying, “. . .This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” Jesus is responding to their question regarding the difficulty of the teaching, to which He replies about “the flesh” counting for nothing and His words being “spirit and life.” In other words, in our carnal nature, we cannot understand or accept His teaching on the Eucharist, but by the Holy Spirit we can. Something similar happened when He taught on the indissolubility of marriage in Matthew 19:1-12. The disciples replied in verse 10, “. . .'If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” (in other words, it’s too hard to accept the idea marriage is permanent, no matter what). In verse 11 Jesus replies, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage becuase of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Jesus clearly says His teaching on marriage and celibacy cannot be accepted by God’s grace, “given to him.” It is not in our fallen nature to accept such divine truth that goes so against our nature.

It really isn’t necessary to pit the Holy Spirit against Christ. They are two Persons of the Triune God. We have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and we also receive the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist. We do not have to choose between the two

 

[mercygate]

Doreen:

Anyway, today I wrote in my prayer journal, “Lord, I am truly seeking Your truth. I know you can direct me and show me whether the Catholic teaching has gone wrong. Set my heart straight on the matter, Lord!”
When He says, the SPIRIT gives life…the “flesh” counts for nothing…that says to me that the Eucharist is not what brings me into communion with Him… the SPIRIT is!

You are saying that the Eucharist, which Jesus commands us to “do” is futile? That Jesus, present in the Eucharist cannot be present in the Eucharist spiritually? If God is spirit, how can the Eucharist not participate in the Spirit that gives life?

The prayer, “Show me whether the Catholic teaching has gone wrong . . .” is virtually an a priori denial.

In John 6, latching onto verse 63 after having read the previous 10 verses is like dismissing the the previous 10 verses. All through John 6, Jesus says “my flesh” – only here does he say “the” flesh. To say “the flesh counts for nothing” as if it negates the rest of the chapter is to dismiss the flesh of the Incarnation.

I cannot judge you for your belief in communion through the Eucharist…if I want you to accept that He has met me outside of it.

We KNOW God meets people in all kinds of places, that the Holy Spirit calls people wherever he finds them, that God operates wherever he pleases.

 

[Doreen]

mercygate:

You are saying that the Eucharist, which Jesus commands us to “do” is futile? That Jesus, present in the Eucharist cannot be present in the Eucharist spiritually? If God is spirit, how can the Eucharist not participate in the Spirit that gives life?

I didn’t say it is futile, just that it can be misconstrued because, as was the case with me, your people might look to the THING vs. the Savior. That’s not saying God can’t do supernatural things. Of course, I know that He can and does.

The prayer, “Show me whether the Catholic teaching has gone wrong . . .” is virtually an a priori denial.

Please speak in English here …my Latin is weak. What are you saying exactly? I really just don’t get the a priori part. Does that mean “out right?” or “outright”?

I am not denying anything…I am simply questioning the things that have not been confirmed in my Spirit.

In John 6, latching onto verse 63 after having read the previous 10 verses is like dismissing the the previous 10 verses. All through John 6, Jesus says “my flesh” – only here does he say “the” flesh. To say “the flesh counts for nothing” as if it negates the rest of the chapter is to dismiss the flesh of the Incarnation. We KNOW God meets people in all kinds of places, that the Holy Spirit calls people wherever he finds them, that God operates wherever he pleases.

I hadn’t, in my mind, ignored or dismissed the previous verses, but I looked at them in immediate relation to each other.

Example: Right after many of the disciples turned away …Jesus looks to the Twelve and asks them what they think…and the very trusting Peter, says, YOU HAVE THE WORDS of Eternal Life.

This comes directly after Jesus has just said, “The WORDS I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are Life.”

So…it seems to me they are showing each other the understanding that it is Christ who is the WORD of Life.

And regarding the use of the term “flesh”…you make an excellent point about the change in the pronoun “my” to the article “the”…I will have to review the chapters and pay close attention to that, but even as I consider it now, it simply points to the idea that Christ IS explaining to those who are still able to listen, that the references to flesh are not to be taken literally… so that’s how I understand that.

And again…that sends us back over to the other topic “can a normal Joe interpret Scripture.” :crying:

I have to rest on this for awhile, read some more, and get back to you all.

I know I keep saying this, but I do appreciate your endurance with this topic. I’m wondering now how Billy Graham, et al… worked this out in his/their mind/heart.
D.

 

[Mickey]

Doreen:

I really just don’t get the a priori part.

Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.

Doreen:

Example: Right after many of the disciples turned away …Jesus looks to the Twelve and asks them what they think…and the very trusting Peter, says, YOU HAVE THE WORDS of Eternal Life.

And here are those words:
I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.

Truly, 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;

he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

Doreen:

This comes directly after Jesus has just said, “The WORDS I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are Life.”.

Yes. Jesus’ words are spirit and they are life!

Doreen:

So…it seems to me they are showing each other the understanding that it is Christ who is the WORD of Life.

Christ is the Word made Flesh!

Doreen:

as I consider it now, it simply points to the idea that Christ IS explaining to those who are still able to listen, that the references to flesh are not to be taken literally… so that’s how I understand that.

The earliest Christians did not adhere to your interpretation. I know you have read this before but it is worth looking at again. A disciple of the Apostle St John says this:

From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead.
(St Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans)

---

---

St Ignatius was born in 50AD and martyred in Rome between 98-117AD.