Protestants: Why a Symbolic Eucharist?

[NDfan]

That’s impanation, and it is considered a heresy by the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church believes in transubstantiantion, not impanation.

Hello Metaron from a fellow Marylander. Just a question and sorry to barge in. When Jesus said this is my body while holding a piece of bread, it seems logical that Jesus wanted the Apostles to see HIM. Same as the cup. Notice that Jesus says this cup is the covenant in my blood. The covenant is in Jesus blood. The cup represents the covenant. It’s not this is a cup of my blood. So when we see the cup we remember that this is the new covenant. When we see the bread we see Jesus body. It would be like me giving you directions to baltimore. I draw a line and point to it saying this is I95 south. The line is not I95 south it’s a representation of it. As you carry the directions with you that line gives you a sense of direction. Crude I know but trying to make it simple.

I believe in Jesus’ presence but I see it spiritually because he says the flesh means nothing. The physical presence of bones, nerves, flesh, and actual blood definitely has a platonic connotation to it. But the one thing that bothers me with transubstantiation is anyone eating the host supposedly is eating Jesus. This would include an Atheist. Then if the host infuses grace and forgiveness into you, it would do the same for an Atheist. This is why I don’t see it as something the Priest does. I believe Jesus makes HIMSELF present but only to those who truly believe. So if an Atheist partakes in communion he’s only eating bread and drinking wine and not receiving Jesus. Unless Jesus wants to be present for whatever reason as he can do anything HE wants. For true believers when we partake in the Supper Jesus comes to us. This makes more sense to me. I think this is why many early church Fathers didn’t like Transubstantiation but held to the real presence as more spiritual.

Thoughts

PEACE

 

[Metaron]

Hello Metaron from a fellow Marylander. Just a question and sorry to barge in.

You’re not barging in, welcome to the discussion, and the forum, NDfan.

When Jesus said this is my body while holding a piece of bread, it seems logical that Jesus wanted the Apostles to see HIM. Same as the cup. Notice that Jesus says this cup is the covenant in my blood. The covenant is in Jesus blood. The cup represents the covenant. … Crude I know but trying to make it simple.

So, I’m assuming you’re a consubstantiationist?

I believe in Jesus’ presence but I see it spiritually because he says the flesh means nothing.

If that is so, then His physical dying on the Cross, and his physical suffering would not mean anything.

No, when ever “flesh” and “spirit” are contrasted in the Bible, they usually mean, the “old, carnal man” (as St.Paul says, “put off the old man”) and “grace”.

The physical presence of bones, nerves, flesh, and actual blood definitely has a platonic connotation to it. But the one thing that bothers me with transubstantiation is anyone eating the host supposedly is eating Jesus.

The Sacrament is beyond human understanding.

This would include an Atheist. Then if the host infuses grace and forgiveness into you, it would do the same for an Atheist.

Unless you are in a state of mortal sin, (like the atheist) then you are “partaking unworthily, and are guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.” as St.Paul says (in I Corinthians, on the discourse on the Eucharist.)

This is why I don’t see it as something the Priest does.

It isn’t done by the priest. Christ, of His own power, does it by the Holy Orders indelibly marked on the priest ordained in Apostolic Succession.

I believe Jesus makes HIMSELF present but only to those who truly believe.

Then it would be impossible to partake of it unworthily, as St.Paul says in I Corinthians.

So if an Atheist partakes in communion he’s only eating bread and drinking wine and not receiving Jesus.

No, he’s “guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord” as St.Paul states. He’s committed a vile act of sacrilege, of the worst kind. St.Paul says that many who partook unworthly were sick and died.

Unless Jesus wants to be present for whatever reason as he can do anything HE wants. For true believers when we partake in the Supper Jesus comes to us. This makes more sense to me. I think this is why many early church Fathers didn’t like Transubstantiation but held to the real presence as more spiritual.

That last section intrigues me. Let’s look at what the Fathers really said:

Ignatius of Antioch

…They abstain from the Eucharist [heretics] 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]).

Justin Martyr

…For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and** had both flesh and blood **for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, **the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood **of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

…When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported) **how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord **and is in fact a member of him? (Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus

“And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table” [Proverbs 9:1] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper * (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, **the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ **(Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

Theodore

When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, “This is the symbol of my body” but, “This is my body.” In the same way when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say. “This is the symbol of my blood,” but, “This is my blood,” for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the** body and blood of our Lord**. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup) but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).*

 

[justasking4]

Metaron;3365527]So Jesus didn’t keep his Promises (to Peter, to the Disciples, to the Church)?

Where did Jesus specifically promise that the church would be protected from teaching error?

Remember, St.Paul calls the Church the “Pillar and Bulwark of Truth.” How could it be, unless it is infallible in doctrine, faith, and moral teaching?

To call the church itself the “Pillar and Bulwark of Truth” is not really what the scriptures are saying here. Rather the church is the “support” of the truth and not truth itself.

Secondly, this does not mean the church cannot teach error for a number of reasons. Not only did Jesus not promise protection from teaching error but that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. See 2 Peter 2:1

Their influences are felt, but none of their doctrines have been declared by the Roman Catholic Church, since it is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth.

Can you give me a couple of examples of this influence?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hello Metaron from a fellow Marylander. Just a question and sorry to barge in. When Jesus said this is my body while holding a piece of bread, it seems logical that Jesus wanted the Apostles to see HIM. Same as the cup. Notice that Jesus says this cup is the covenant in my blood. The covenant is in Jesus blood. The cup represents the covenant. It’s not this is a cup of my blood. So when we see the cup we remember that this is the new covenant. When we see the bread we see Jesus body. It would be like me giving you directions to baltimore. I draw a line and point to it saying this is I95 south. The line is not I95 south it’s a representation of it. As you carry the directions with you that line gives you a sense of direction. Crude I know but trying to make it simple.

I believe in Jesus’ presence but I see it spiritually because he says the flesh means nothing. The physical presence of bones, nerves, flesh, and actual blood definitely has a platonic connotation to it.

The difference here is to see Jesus in the bread symbolically, is to see him with the flesh, to see Jesus in the bread literally like he claims to be, is to see him with the Spirit, for the Spirit is in us. We are no longer of the flesh, but of the Spirit. Spirit does not mean symbolically.

But the one thing that bothers me with transubstantiation is anyone eating the host supposedly is eating Jesus. This would include an Atheist. Then if the host infuses grace and forgiveness into you, it would do the same for an Atheist. This is why I don’t see it as something the Priest does.

Jesus is made present in the Eucharist sacramentally. The church does not distribute the mysteries to anyone who does not believe, but that is another topic. “For anyone who drinks and eats without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgement on himself.” 1 Cor.11:29

I believe Jesus makes HIMSELF present but only to those who truly believe. So if an Atheist partakes in communion he’s only eating bread and drinking wine and not receiving Jesus. Unless Jesus wants to be present for whatever reason as he can do anything HE wants. For true believers when we partake in the Supper Jesus comes to us. This makes more sense to me. I think this is why many early church Fathers didn’t like Transubstantiation but held to the real presence as more spiritual.

Thoughts

PEACE

Another aspect of this Eucharistic celebration is to enter into the new and everlasting covenant. A covenant is a marriage, that only a death can seperate, but Jesus lives. And in this marriage supper of the Lamb. Is an apocolyspe of the bride and groom. Jesus and his bride the church coming together as one, upon the bride saying I do, amen, to the words of Jesus Christ, this is my body, the two are consumated into one, by the consuming of the groom, and the entering body, blood, soul and divinity into the bride, making both one, Jesus the head, The Catholic church the bride a body of Jesus Christt. Why else does Jesus refer to his mother as “Woman” it was not an insult to her, Jesus diginified her with that title, The new eve, Is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh, this one shall be called woman, for out of her man this onehas been taken (Gen.2:23)

Just a thought for you peace be with you.

 

[ChristianRoots]

Hello Metaron from a fellow Marylander. Just a question and sorry to barge in. When Jesus said this is my body while holding a piece of bread, it seems logical that Jesus wanted the Apostles to see HIM.

When Jesus took bread and said this is my Body, it seems logical to conclude that the bread became his Body.

Same as the cup. Notice that Jesus says this cup is the covenant in my blood. The covenant is in Jesus blood. The cup represents the covenant. It’s not this is a cup of my blood. So when we see the cup we remember that this is the new covenant. When we see the bread we see Jesus body.

 

[Roy5]

ibkc, Gabriel of 12, guanophore

A few quick, off-the-cuff comments.

1. How can you say that God didn't 'kill himself' in that he destined the murder of his Son, who was God? John 3:16. How can it be argued that it wasn't Christ's will but the Will of God? The church too often explains such things by claiming it's all a mystery that we are simply to accept without any questions.

2.  Some won't like this, but I have not been as overwhelmed by the crucifixion as many Christians are. Jesus suffered terribly for a relatively short time, and his passion moves me certainly - as a Christian. But when I reflect, I remember that all the time he knew that he would rise from the grave and return to his celestial throne etc. A pretty bright future. And not too different, in some ways, from Muslims and early Christian martyrs who went to their death courageously because they anticipated the joys of heaven. Millions of people suffer daily - from hunger etc - without the assurance that they will spend eternity in paradise.

3. This idea that God's justice demanded a blood sacrifice - sounds mighty pagan to me. Primitive, too. I thought that notion had been dismissed when Abraham was told by God not to kill his son. 

 4. Now this "God is love" mantra. I actually believe that, but it's difficult to prove. I recall a friend whose child was born severely afflicted. He stopped going to Mass. Why? "When I go to Mass and hear that God is love, then come home and see my baby boy so shortchanged for life, I can't take it. Where was God's love when he was born?"

  5. As for God being somehow more fully present in the Eucharist than elsewhere. Hm! I don't comprehend. How is God more here than there? There is something untenable about the notion that the bread and wine become literally the body and blood of God. Borrowed obviously from mystery religions. As I have mentioned previously, when I receive the sacrament and remember the death of Christ, I think of all the millions who have been killed, tortured, enslaved, lived in abject poverty, etc, over the centuries. To me Jesus on the cross symbolizes their suffering and calls each of us to reach out to help a neighbor and to stand up for those who are victims of war and injustice by speaking out for peace and equal opportunity.

   6. As for the Bible being the inerrant Word of God - lots of good stuff in the Bible but some outrageous stuff, too. Like the genocide allegedly commanded by Jehovah against the inhabitants of Jericho and Ai, the slaughter of the Amalekites by Saul - and much, much more in the Old Testament. My God would never order such cruel 'ethnic cleansing' so that invaders could seize their land.

   That's all folks. Keep smiling. I worry far more about following Jesus than worshiping him. "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?"

 

[guanophore]

Good question. However, did the diciples think that after Jesus said this He was now a piece of bread sitting in front of them? This is what you are forced to believe if we take the literal view.

Statements such as this reveal a deep soul wound from an authority figure that abused power. Catholics are not “forced” to believe anything. We are all invited to take Jesus at His word. The disciples had been with Christ for three years, and they had seen more things than they could recount to bring them to the point where they realized that everything is not always as it appears. If Jesus said something was so, then it was so, whether it appeared that way to their senses, or not. I was just listening to the Bible on CD of the book of John. There, Nathaniel encounters the Man from Nazareth, who tells him that he saw him under the tree. For reasons that are not given, Nathaniel is convinced that He is the Christ.

“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” John 21:25

The question is, why would you reject the understanding5years later?

 

[guanophore]

The apostles dealt with the false teachers while they were alive but the leaders of the church at times did not always do a good job of dealing with false teachings and the catholic church has incorporate some of them into their doctrines and practices.

I guess you will have to show this. Are you saying that the Real Presence is a “false doctrine” from Paganism?

Some of their influences are still felt today in the catholic church.

Yes, I agree, the influences of the false teachers are still felt today in the Catholic Church. The Church is continually in need of defending the True Teachings from falsehoods such as “symbolic” eucharist, sola fide, sola scriptura, etc.

 

[guanophore]

Hello Metaron from a fellow Marylander. Just a question and sorry to barge in. When Jesus said this is my body while holding a piece of bread, it seems logical that Jesus wanted the Apostles to see HIM.

I believe this is true. This is why the Early Fathers identify the Risen Christ as present in the Eucharist.

Same as the cup. Notice that Jesus says this cup is the covenant in my blood. The covenant is in Jesus blood. The cup represents the covenant. It’s not this is a cup of my blood. So when we see the cup we remember that this is the new covenant.

"And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; 28 for **this is my blood **of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Matt 26:26-29

Pardon me, but I don’t see the idea of “represents” here. Jesus clearly says “this is my blood of the covenant”. It seems to me that you are subtracting words you don’t like and adding words that make the scripture easier to accept. .

When we see the bread we see Jesus body. It would be like me giving you directions to baltimore. I draw a line and point to it saying this is I95 south. The line is not I95 south it’s a representation of it. As you carry the directions with you that line gives you a sense of direction. Crude I know but trying to make it simple.

I understand. But in Jn. 6, Jesus had a chance to “make it simple”. Instead, he repeated Himself more forcefully:

"So Jesus said to them, “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; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” John 6:52-55

I believe in Jesus’ presence

This is a start!

but I see it spiritually because he says the flesh means nothing.

He was speaking of the fleshly (carnal) effort of the perfidous Jews to understand by the natural reason what He was teaching. It is a Divine Mystery, and defies the senses. If all “flesh means nothing” then the flesh He gave on the cross is also of no avail.

The physical presence of bones, nerves, flesh, and actual blood definitely has a platonic connotation to it.

Yes. But how Jesus gives us His flesh in the Bread and the Cup are a Mystery. We do not see HIs actual corpus, but since He tells us He is there, we accept it by faith.

But the one thing that bothers me with transubstantiation is anyone eating the host supposedly is eating Jesus. This would include an Atheist. Then if the host infuses grace and forgiveness into you, it would do the same for an Atheist.

I understand your reasoning here too, and this is what Paul is talking about when he speaks of profaning the Body and Blood. A person cannot “profane” what is not present.

This is why I don’t see it as something the Priest does. I believe Jesus makes HIMSELF present but only to those who truly believe.

Well I can’t argue with that. Jesus does make HIMSELF present. He has only chosen to work through those He has called to preside.

So if an Atheist partakes in communion he’s only eating bread and drinking wine and not receiving Jesus.

No, he is profaning the Body and Blood, just as Paul shows us in Corinthians.

Unless Jesus wants to be present for whatever reason as he can do anything HE wants. For true believers when we partake in the Supper Jesus comes to us. This makes more sense to me.

It may, but when Jesus says “the flesh is of no avail” He is speaking about what makes sense to the listeners.

I think this is why many early church Fathers didn’t like Transubstantiation but held to the real presence as more spiritual.

the concept of "transubstantiation’ is a Western philisophical attempt to explain a divine mystery.

Thoughts

Thank you for sharing yours.

PEACE

 

[guanophore]

Where did Jesus specifically promise that the church would be protected from teaching error?

" And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” Matt 28:18-20

" Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth."John 17:17-19

It is by the power of Jesus, and the HS, that the Church is preserved in Truth.

To call the church itself the “Pillar and Bulwark of Truth” is not really what the scriptures are saying here. Rather the church is the “support” of the truth and not truth itself.

In fact, this is exactly what scripture states. A pillar and bulwark is something that upholds the Truth, who is Jesus.

Secondly, this does not mean the church cannot teach error for a number of reasons. Not only did Jesus not promise protection from teaching error but that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. See 2 Peter 2:1

In fact, Jesus meant exactly that His disciples would be preserved in Truth.

“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Luke 10:16

This is why we keep telling you that you have rejected the authority that Jesus appointed.

Luke 10:16 Can you give me a couple of examples of this influence?

I see that this was already done above, where another poster gave you quotes from the fathers about those that believed the Eucharist is “symbolic”.

 

[ibkc]

3. This idea that God's justice demanded a blood sacrifice - sounds mighty pagan to me. Primitive, too. I thought that notion had been dismissed when Abraham was told by God not to kill his son.

You’re not getting it, and I am not going to try any more. You are like I was 5 years ago. I was convinced I knew it all, and my mind was closed. Maybe someday you’ll come around, but this isn’t your time yet.

 

[guanophore]

ibkc, Gabriel of 12, guanophore

A few quick, off-the-cuff comments.

1. How can you say that God didn't 'kill himself' in that he destined the murder of his Son, who was God? John 3:16. How can it be argued that it wasn't Christ's will but the Will of God? The church too often explains such things by claiming it's all a mystery that we are simply to accept without any questions.

I understand your dilemma here. This is pretty impossible to understand without understanding the history of God’s revelation to the Jews.

2.  Some won't like this, but I have not been as overwhelmed by the crucifixion as many Christians are. Jesus suffered terribly for a relatively short time, and his passion moves me certainly - as a Christian. But when I reflect, I remember that all the time he knew that he would rise from the grave and return to his celestial throne etc. A pretty bright future.

Indeed! “… Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.” Heb 12:2

And not too different, in some ways, from Muslims and early Christian martyrs who went to their death courageously because they anticipated the joys of heaven.

Millions of people suffer daily - from hunger etc - without the assurance that they will spend eternity in paradise.

3. This idea that God's justice demanded a blood sacrifice - sounds mighty pagan to me. Primitive, too. I thought that notion had been dismissed when Abraham was told by God not to kill his son.

Then you misunderstood what God was asking from Abraham.

“Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” Heb 9:22

1. Now this “God is love” mantra. I actually believe that, but it’s difficult to prove. I recall a friend whose child was born severely afflicted. He stopped going to Mass. Why? “When I go to Mass and hear that God is love, then come home and see my baby boy so shortchanged for life, I can’t take it. Where was God’s love when he was born?”

Such things happen so that the works of God can be made manifest:

“Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3 Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him.” John 9:2-4

  5. As for God being somehow more fully present in the Eucharist than elsewhere. Hm! I don't comprehend.

Had you considered reliquishing the bondage of your human comprehension?

How is God more here than there? There is something untenable about the notion that the bread and wine become literally the body and blood of God.

No, only untenable to the hard of heart. God was “more” present in the burning bush than He was down in the camp. He was “more” present on the mountain than He was in the camp. He was “more” present in the Ark of the Covenant than He was in the palace. This is how God prefers to reveal HImself. Who are you to dictate to Him how He will appear?!

"Woe to him who strives with his Maker,
an earthen vessel with the potter!
Does the clay say to him who fashions it, ‘What are you making’?
or ‘Your work has no handles’?
10 Woe to him who says to a father, ‘What are you begetting?’ Isa 45:9-10

Borrowed obviously from mystery religions.

No. But there are many pre-figurements in history of the Revelation of God. He has revealed HImself since the beginning of creaton in all that has been made.

As I have mentioned previously, when I receive the sacrament and remember the death of Christ, I think of all the millions who have been killed, tortured, enslaved, lived in abject poverty, etc, over the centuries. To me Jesus on the cross symbolizes their suffering and calls each of us to reach out to help a neighbor and to stand up for those who are victims of war and injustice by speaking out for peace and equal opportunity.

Excellent! You are very near to the Kingdom of God.

 6. As for the Bible being the inerrant Word of God - lots of good stuff in the Bible but some outrageous stuff, too. Like the genocide allegedly commanded by Jehovah against the inhabitants of Jericho and Ai, the slaughter of the Amalekites by Saul - and much, much more in the Old Testament. My God would never order such cruel 'ethnic cleansing' so that invaders could seize their land.

“For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction” Rom 15:3-4

God uses such events to show us that those who reject Him will surely die. It is not an “ethnic” cleansing but a cleansing from unbelief. All those people were free to become part of Israel.
That's all folks. Keep smiling. I worry far more about following Jesus than worshiping him. "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?"

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

ibkc, Gabriel of 12, guanophore

A few quick, off-the-cuff comments.

1. How can you say that God didn't 'kill himself' in that he destined the murder of his Son, who was God? John 3:16. How can it be argued that it wasn't Christ's will but the Will of God? The church too often explains such things by claiming it's all a mystery that we are simply to accept without any questions.

The most beautiful things in the universe are not seen with the eye, but felt with the heart. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the Word became flesh.John 1:1… Here is an example: I have a son, I love my son as myself. But my son is heading over a cliff to his death and he doesnt know it, but I see it coming, My son cannot stop, because the speed is humanly impossible. So inorder to save my son from going over the cliff, I willingly interupt his speed to his death and stop it with my body, at the impact of my son hitting me, he is saved, but I kowing what is going to happen if I jump in his way for him, to prevent him from dieing, I will give up my life for my son inorder for him to live.
When I look at a crucifix this is what I see, Jesus died for me so that I might have eternal life.

2.  Some won't like this, but I have not been as overwhelmed by the crucifixion as many Christians are. Jesus suffered terribly for a relatively short time, and his passion moves me certainly - as a Christian. But when I reflect, I remember that all the time he knew that he would rise from the grave and return to his celestial throne etc. A pretty bright future. And not too different, in some ways, from Muslims and early Christian martyrs who went to their death courageously because they anticipated the joys of heaven. Millions of people suffer daily - from hunger etc - without the assurance that they will spend eternity in paradise.

These crisis in world, are for you and me to see, because the Father in heaven sees them also. The poor is here so that we can give gifts of grace that the father has given us, The sick is here so that we can heal them, the suffering is here, so that we can console them, the prisoners are in prison so that we can visit them, the hungry are hungry so that we can feed them. God can take life and give life, God takes good care of his children, the ones we see are the ones he puts in our view, so that in helping them we are helping ourselves be like him. Jesus suffered everything a human can suffer in life to death, and then rose from the dead. That is God;s promise to you and me, yes we will experience these things, but know this, at the end Jesus will be waiting for you on the other side of time, and say to you, well done good and faithful servant.

3. This idea that God's justice demanded a blood sacrifice - sounds mighty pagan to me. Primitive, too. I thought that notion had been dismissed when Abraham was told by God not to kill his son.

**Well yes, remember our first parents Adam and Eve. They lived in a paradise garden of eden. They were given a command, have anything in the garden except one fruit of a tree. Another words, excercise your free will, to love me, and obey this one command. But they didnt, so God expelled them from the garden, and so humanity began to decay, age, and ultimately die, our first parents cursed all humanity to die from this original sin. The Word of God made flesh, takes on the result of all sin and buries it on the Sabbath day rest. Then to raise it up in a new and everlasting covenant, returning humanity back to better eternal life in eternity for those who believe in his son Jesus. **

 4. Now this "God is love" mantra. I actually believe that, but it's difficult to prove. I recall a friend whose child was born severely afflicted.

God does not allow us to be tested beyond our strength. It is when we are weak, we are made strong in Christ Jesus. There are many blessings that follow, God makes himself know in these cases for his glory so that man can come to know the ways of God, and have hope in him. God wants all of us to tell him we love him in good times and in bad, for rich or for poor, in health and in sickness. these are the vows between the groom Jesus and his bride the Church, you and me.

 5. As for God being somehow more fully present in the Eucharist than elsewhere. Hm! I don't comprehend. How is God more here than there?

Your heart is not far from the kingdom of God. Jesus makes himself present in the Eucharist, not for all, but for you singular, God wants that intemacy with you, like Adam in the garden. God wants all of you to sense him in your heart, mind, touch, hearing, taste and smell. God wants to be present to all our senses. That is why he humbles himself to come to us in the species of bread and wine that is consecrated into the body blood of our Lord Jesus. Yes God is everywhere, but he makes himself present to his children on earth, so that he is always with us.

   6. As for the Bible being the inerrant Word of God - lots of good stuff in the Bible but some outrageous stuff, too.

Our ways are not God’s ways, our thoughts are not God’s thoughts. God is truth, His Word reveals the truth to humanity, God does not lie. We may not understand for the moment what he does or did, but all will get revealed in the judgment. And If we pray God’s will be done, his will is just, and loving and peaceful and merciful, in our lives, we have the promise of everlasting life, just like Jesus. So now you know the rest of the story, what happens at the end, if we live according to God’s will. We win.

**In following Jesus you are worshiping him.

Peace and the Love of Jesus Christ be with you always.**

 

[onenow1]

Hi, All
One brief comment; God did not kill Himself, the folks that did had a choice to believe that he was God,[or not,] lack of our belief killed Him ! When he told Pilate you would have no power at all if it were not given from above; Let us not forget he did in fact say he would take His life back in three days, showing the world this is in fact what would indeed happen to all of us in due time,[Death ] the fate of original sin, whether we think its fair or not God’s judgement is true. The torture he went through,because he loved us so much. The only escape route to eternal life. I sometimes look at Jesus like this.

Purpose: 1. Revealing to all there is a loving God.
1b.Revealing a triangle of love, Father, Son And Holy Spirit. In the physical world the triangle is the strongest geometic figure. Symbolic structure of family oneness.

Pilates decision made the whole world culpable of His death, under the rule of the known world, Rome.{Authority]
Is it a coincidence the Vatican happens to be in Rome even now ?

The bread of liffe died for us a symbol that certainly had substance, not unlike the Incarnation.

Peace,OneNow1

 

[Roy5]

RELIGIOUS HUMILITY AND RECONCILIATION

I must stop this as it can become addictive. And I have plenty else that needs doing!

1. Discussion and debate among people of different faiths is fine - and can be instructive. It’s a problem when one side claims to have all the truth. That spiritual arrogance induces prejudice, one reason so many people are unfriendly to Catholicism.
2. Did Luther love the Rosary? Possible. My problem with it is two-fold. (a) The prayers are overwhelmingly directed at Mary - the Hail Mary. (b) Jesus warns against repetition in prayer. Saying the Rosary involves considerable repetition. When I come across it on EWTN I quickly change the channel. Actually, it grates on me.
3. Re the extermination of other tribes as ‘ordered’ by Jehovah in the Old Testament. How can that be reconciled with the God of love? I could never worship a god who orders the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians, including even ‘sucklings’. How can people who oppose abortion excuse such a crime against the innocent? And don’t give me this nonsense about “His ways are not our ways.” That’s true. Our ways have included wars and wholesale slaughter for centuries, but I don’t believe those are God’s way.
4. I’m more interested in following Jesus than worrying about the fine points of theology. Those of us who have mixed families and friends (religiously speaking) simply can’t believe that our fine non-Catholic family members and friends are any further from God than Catholics are. Many of them seem to me more admirable than many Catholics I know, and I tire of hearing their churches dismissed or assailed.
5. **As for the thread - the Eucharist **- (sorry if I wandered in order to answers challengers on this thread): receiving communion can play a very positive role in our lives. But too often it becomes a substitute for doing good. We somehow think we are spiritually okay because we attend Mass faithfully and receive the sacraments, but like the Pharisees of old our lives are cluttered with self-righteousness, judgement, and prejudice.
6. Christians ought to recognize one another as fellow believers, even if we differ on various theological points. We are not saved by theology but by God’s grace. I’m sure God doesn’t give a hoot about whether we believe in transubstantiation or we don’t. Intelligent and worthy people have different opinions. I am for a ‘big tent’ Christianity instead of a stale, stationary and stagnant Catholicism that proclaims itself wiser and better than every other religion. That spiritual arrogance is sinful - in my view. Besides, change in some arenas can be a healthy thing. Certainly the freedom to think independently is to be tolerated - even respected. The Catholic practice of silencing theologians who diverge from the ‘party line’ is unfortunate - a totalitarian mindset rather like the communists and fascists. Sorry - but true!

 

[mikeledes]

John 6:51-58 is to be interpreted literally and is one of the strongest passages that testify to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In the Gospel of John, there is a certain pattern that helps to shed light on John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement, it is usually followed by a misunderstanding/question, and this, in turn, is followed by a clarification either by Jesus or the Evangelist. So, this is the basic outline of this pattern:

1. **Ambiguous Statement by Jesus **
2. Misunderstanding/ Question
3. Clarification

Now here are some examples from the Gospel of John:

John 2:19-21

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days? But He was speaking of the temple of His body."

John 3:3-5

Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?Jesus answered, "Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

John 4:32-34

"But He said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” So the disciples were saying to one another, 'no one brought Him anything to eat, did he? Jesus said to them, " My Food is to do the will of Him who sent me and to accomplish His work."

John 8:31-34

So Jesus was saying to those Jews who believed in Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, "We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, “You will become free.” Jesus answered them, "Truly, Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

Now let’s look at John 6:51-53 and see if it fits the Ambiguous Statement/Question/Clarification pattern:

"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat? So Jesus said to them, 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 yourselves.

So, following the established pattern, verse 53 is a clarification of verses 51-52. If he were merely speaking figuratively, then we would have expected the literal meaning of the “figurative” langauge he used, as it happens in the verses I gave above and in many other places in the Bible. Instead, what we see in verse 53 is a reaffirmation of what the Jews understood Jesus to mean. So the clarification is that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. If he were speaking figuratively, He would have indicated that in verse 53.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

The point of the above post is that when Jesus is speaking figuratively, either Jesus Himself or the Gospel writer explains what He means. He often uses progressive revelation as a teaching method, going from ambiguity to greater clarity. There are numerous examples of this in the 4 Gospels. Here are some more:

John 4:10-14

**10Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”
11She said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water?
12"You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?”
13Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again;
14but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” **

John 8:56-58

**56"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
57So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” **

John 10:1-10

**1"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber.
2"But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep.
3"To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
4"When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.
5"A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers."
6This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them.
7So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
8"All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.
9"I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.
10"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. **

John 7:38-39

38"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’"
39But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive

John 12:32-33

**32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” 33 This He said, signifying by what death He would die. **

John 21:18-19

**18 Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. **

Matthew 16:6-12

6 Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have taken no bread.”
8 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread?[a] 9 Do you not yet understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up? 11 How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

This does not happen in John 6.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Here are a couple of more examples:

John 8:21-24

**21Then He said again to them, “I go away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.”
22So the Jews were saying, “Surely He will not kill Himself, will He, since He says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?”
23And He was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.
24"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” **

John 8:26-29

**26"I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to the world."
27They did not realize that He had been speaking to them about the Father.
28 So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.
29"And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him.” **

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

John 6:63

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life

This verse does not mean that Jesus was speaking figuratively. The word “Spirit” is used to refer to those things that pertain to God and the word “flesh” refers to those things that pertain to sin. We constantly see the Spirit vs. flesh construct thorughout the Bible:

Galatians 5:16

16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

Romans 8:5-6

5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace

So what Jesus meant in John 6:63 was not that he was speaking figuratively. Rather, that His words originate from God (i.e. Spirit) and they are life giving (i.e. life). He said this in response to the rejection of His teaching. Those who were “carnally minded” rejected His teaching, while those who were “spiritually minded” accepted it. If one is in the flesh, one cannot accept His words because the flesh wars against the Spirit, effectively cutting off the person from the source of life. Consequently, the flesh profits nothing because its end is death. Those who are in the Spirit receive life (Romans 8:6). To be “carnally minded” does not mean to be literally minded. It means to have a mind that is in rebellion against God. Those who were in such a state did not accept Jesus’s words.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

When Jesus said that He would give His flesh for the life of the world, the Jews reponded (John 6:52):

**52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” **

This is similar to an earlier response to Jesus’s claim that He is the Bread that came down from heaven (John 6:41-42):

**41 The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” 42 And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” **

In the case of the latter, did the Jews understand Jesus correctly, namely, that He literally came down from heaven? They did! Jesus literally - not figuratively - came down from heaven. This is one instance where Jesus was speaking literally and the Jews understood Him to be speaking literally. The other example comes a couple of verses later in John 6. Jesus makes a statement that the Jews take literally and He reaffirms that their basic understanding of what He said is correct (John 6:51-58). Eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood is as literal as His coming down from Heaven. His return to Heaven (ascension) will reaffirm the truths of His origin and of what He said of His flesh and blood. That’s why He responds (John 6:61-62):

61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?

His ascension will vindicate His words and thus prove that the words He spoke are spirit and life, that is, that they are of God and are life-giving.

God bless,
Michael