E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Never could figure out what “ear-chompers” meant!
- Status
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
The irony of the cannibalism charge against the Real Presence is that it was actually believed in the 1st century-2nd century that Christians were cannibals.
The belief of the actual body and blood of Christ present in the Eucharist was so strong that the Roman empire thought us to be cannibals.
Sources:
academia.edu/787977/Eating_People_Accusations_of_Cannibalism_Against_Christians_in_the_Second_Century
fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/christian-cannibals.asp
bible-researcher.com/persecution.html
The belief of the actual body and blood of Christ present in the Eucharist was so strong that the Roman empire thought us to be cannibals.
Sources:
academia.edu/787977/Eating_People_Accusations_of_Cannibalism_Against_Christians_in_the_Second_Century
fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/christian-cannibals.asp
bible-researcher.com/persecution.html
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
A pejorative term for taking an actual bite of another person.Never could figure out what “ear-chompers” meant!
(Mike Tyson biting a chunk of Evander Holyfield’s ear comes to mind)
M
manualman
Guest
There is quite a major difference between Jesus intentionally confounding those who already were suspicious of him or were trying to manipulate him to their own purposes and Jesus allowing sincere disciples to walk away disgusted based on a misunderstanding of his meaning.
As for Augustine, cuf.org/FileDownloads/augustine.pdf
You need to recognize that the early Christians faced revulsion and criticism from the Romans and other pagans for their alleged “cannibalism” when they gathered. Modern protestants often misunderstand some EF quotes that are actually intended to correct the notion that Christians engage in cannibalism at the Eucharistic offering. Transubstantiation does not imply that the molecules of bread and wine are altered into the molecules that make up human flesh and blood. Rather it asserts that what is changed is even more profound than that. This sounds weird to our modern materialist ears that are trained not to really acknowledge anything that can’t be weighed, measured, photographed, etc. But substance is more real than sensory (name removed by moderator)uts. After consecration, the substance is no longer bread or wine but Christ. The molecular makeup observed by science generally (with exceptions) don’t change. In this way, the Eucharist is both symbol AND substance at the same time, which is why it’s not hard to find EF quotes that speak of the symbol. You just won’t find any that refer to it ONLY as a symbol.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
The entire episode is intended to demonstrate that those who walked away were not sincere disciples. They were looking to have their bellies filled. So, yes, Jesus was intentionally confounding them. They were flesh, His words were spirit. Flesh cannot comprehend spirit.
I am not arguing against the real presence. I believe it firmly. That doesn’t mean John 6 is about that.
M
manualman
Guest
The FIRST part of John 6 does talk about a crowd (though hardly a casual one since they had to commandeer boats and go chasing after him). But the passage doesn’t refer to the CROWD being disgusted and leaving. Look:
John 6:66
As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
See who it is? These are not random crowd members looking for a free lunch. These are DISCIPLES who got disgusted and left. You’re partially right in that they left because they were disciples motivated by what they could GET from the Messiah and left when he asked them to trust him with something that sounded nasty. But he wasn’t deceiving them, he was foretelling what the Eucharist really would be. They wanted no part of it.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
And they would have had zero idea that He was foretelling the Eucharist. They left because they didn’t understand what Jesus was saying because they did not believe. The disciples who remained did believe, as Peter indicates. They understood him to be speaking literalistically. Their unbelief blinded them to the words Jesus was speaking. Jesus does not correct their misunderstanding because Jesus knows that they do not believe (hence His statements that only those who are given faith as a gift believe; no man can come to me unless the Father draw him, etc.). Jesus intensifies the metaphor in order to further bring condemnation on their unbelief.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I’m trying to agree with you but the 17 mentions of bread and Jesus reference to His flesh in John 6 keeps poking my eyes :hammering:
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
He who comes to me will never hunger; He that believes in me will never thirst. To eat His flesh is to come to Him; to drink His blood is to believe in Him.
Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe on Him. For to believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food. - St. Augustine.
M
manualman
Guest
Augustine, of course, was a catholic bishop. 
Long considered one of the truly greats. It truly amuses when folks try to use him to dispute transubstantiation. As noted earlier, Catholicism recognizes that sacraments are BOTH symbolic AND substantive. Citing his statements that support the symbolic element do nothing to dispute his belief in the substantive.
Long considered one of the truly greats. It truly amuses when folks try to use him to dispute transubstantiation. As noted earlier, Catholicism recognizes that sacraments are BOTH symbolic AND substantive. Citing his statements that support the symbolic element do nothing to dispute his belief in the substantive.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
We are discussing the interpretation of John 6, not transubstantiation or the real presence. Of course Augustine believed in the real presence, because it’s true. That has naught to do with John 6Augustine, of course, was a catholic bishop.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I like Augie, but it’s still poking my eyes
N
Nicea325
Guest
Not exactly! Did Jesus touch and bless a door or vine and tell his disciples to eat it and drink it? Nope! They knew exactly he meant it to be symbolic,but not the case with the Eucharist. Furthermore,does not Jesus explain a teaching when people do not comprehend? Did he do the same in John 6 when some refused to follow Him after he told them to eat and drink His flesh and blood?
N
Nicea325
Guest
Tomi:
None taken. Let me ask you something in regards to the Passover Seder meal. Did the Jews eat and consume an actual tangible-physical lamb or consume mere cookie cut-outs representing (symbolizing) a slaughtered lamb? Yes, the lamb was a foreshadowing of the Messiah,but was the OT Passover lamb literal?
T
Tomyris
Guest
The lamb was a real lamb, a SYMBOL of Christ, a TYPE of Christ. If anything it points to a symbolic or typological Eucharist.
The lamb was not the Messiah, the lamb did not turn into the Messiah, there was no metamorphosis of the lamb into the Lamb, correct? It stayed a lamb, correct?
Have you read Melito of Sardis’ “On Pascha”? He discusses the typology of the Passover in the second half of the second century. But I don’t think he discusses a Purely Symbolic Eucharist versus Real Presence, which controversy was later.
S
SyCarl
Guest
Did He explain to the Samaritan woman at the well? Did He explain to Nicodemus? Did He explain when He said He would destroy the temple and raise it in 3 days?
Was He being literal when He indicated whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood would live forever? If I go to a Catholic Church and receive the Eucharist illicitly will I live forever? Would a pagan who did the same live forever? Is Jesus is physically present we would be eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Why should we not take this part literally if we are to take the rest what He says in the same place literally?
At the Last Supper He gave the both the bread and the cup saying one is His body and the other His blood. If we are to take His words literally why has the Catholic Church said communion under one element is valid when He gave both and differentiated between them? Protestants are accused of picking and choosing what to interpret literally. Are not you doing the same here?
Peter showed he knew what Jesus meant when he said H had the words of life?
T
Tomyris
Guest
Really? Hmmmm. I read over the relevant passages in the WCF after I read your post.
Sorry. We actually have a wide range of positions among us.
How about a deal? I don’t tell you what Lutherans believe, and you don’t tell me what the Reformed believe? There is a LOT of misinformation about the Reformed on CAF. A lot. I learn my Lutheranism from Lutherans and my Catholicism from Catholics, not the other way around.
T
Tomyris
Guest
In my mind there are two questions.
- Is there a distinct difference between a Purely Symbolic Eucharist and the Real Presence?
- Can that difference be found in the Church Fathers?
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
I learn it from the confession of faith itself.Really? Hmmmm. I read over the relevant passages in the WCF after I read your post.
Sorry. We actually have a wide range of positions among us.
How about a deal? I don’t tell you what Lutherans believe, and you don’t tell me what the Reformed believe? There is a LOT of misinformation about the Reformed on CAF. A lot. I learn my Lutheranism from Lutherans and my Catholicism from Catholics, not the other way around.
“The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.”
“Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.”
As is plain, a local, substantial presence is explicitly denied. And also the Belgic Confession of Faith,
“In the meantime we err not, when we say, that what is eaten and drunk by us is the proper and natural body, and the proper blood of Christ. But the manner of our partaking of the same, is not by the mouth, but by the spirit through faith. Thus then, though Christ always sits at the right hand of his Father in the heavens, yet doth he not therefore cease to make us partakers of himself by faith.”
Now, of course, you’re free to disagree with the Reformed confessions on this point. That would be to your credit. But it’s not Reformed.
N
Nicea325
Guest
SyCarl:
Jesus is my Lord and Savior
And he or she was saved automatically and never losing their salvation? Sorry,but the early church was NOT Protestant.
And did he tell the woman at the well about His Passion? Did he tell Nicodemus about Judas betraying Him? You miss the point! Your comparison of the vine and door are weak arguments against the Eucharist. Do you really believe when He said He is the door, people took it literally? Seriously?
And was His death on the cross literal or merely symbolic? Tell me how consuming symbolism gives eternal life? My friend, he said: EAT MY FLESH. Did not say: Eat this representation of my body or eat this symbol of my body. There are dozens of words Jesus could have used in Aramaic to mean represents or symbolizes. Guess what? He does not! It is amazing how hard Protestants try to debunk the literal Eucharist when ALL historical writings in the early church debunk a novelty called a symbolic Eucharist. Denial can be difficult to overcome.
Why don’t you ask St. Paul? Tell me what he says in 1 Cor 11? Such strong words for something so symbolic-eh?
Apparently you have never read early church history and how conservative it was with those in process of becoming fully initiated Christians. Do you think they just walked into a local church and professed:
Jesus is my Lord and Savior
And he or she was saved automatically and never losing their salvation? Sorry,but the early church was NOT Protestant.
No offense,but not uncommon for Protestants to box Jesus into limited human conditions when the Eucharist is involved. But I am sure you have no qualms with God Incarnating or creating everything out of nothing-do you? Never have met one Protestant who does,but the Eucharist? It is always a faith twister.
What are you talking about?
And that is the result of breaking away from the Catholic/Orthodox and other ancient liturgical churches, you have lost a lot. Both species are consecrated on the altar. The priest does not exclude one and consecrate the other. Why would you believe His blood and body are two opposing entities or at odds with each other? Is God not one? Both body and blood are BOTH consecrated.
No! You simply do not understand Catholic theology and the ancient church. Again,the early church was NOT Protestant.
Okay…and?
- Status