Scripture and Eucharist

[Church_Militant]

I think we must understand that the risk to their salvation did not come from any misunderstanding, but their misunderstamding came from their risky view of salvation

.

There lies a world of difference between the two.

It was their broken standing with God that led to the misunderstanding, not their misunderstanding that changed their standing with God.

…Yeah, it’s called such a severe lack of faith that they could not even accept what Christ told them. It is the same problem that most all of the people who rejected Christ had.

IMO it’s the same problem that people who argue against the Eucharist have today. Among protestants it used to be said, “God said. I believe it. That settles it.” In the case of the Eucharist, they are now more like the disciples in John 6 who said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (verse 60)

 

[Atemi]

Yeah, it’s called such a severe lack of faith that they could not even accept what Christ told them. It is the same problem that most all of the people who rejected Christ had.

Totally agreed.

Their problem with those hearts began long before the events in John 6. The discourse only brought their lack of faith to light.

Christ need not chase after those who “misunderstand,” as they “misunderstand” because of their sin, nevermind that Christ never chased after the faithless anyway.

IMO it’s the same problem that people who argue against the Eucharist have today.

I know of no good Christian who argues “againt the Eucharist.” All my Christian associates love the Eucharist and share it often.

I do understand, though, that you are equating your particular view of the Eucharist as the Eucharist itself, which is terribly unfortunate, but totally avoidable.

Among protestants it used to be said, “God said. I believe it. That settles it.” In the case of the Eucharist, they are now more like the disciples in John 6 who said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (verse 60)

Yet they do not walk away from the Lord as you would like to imply with your false comparison.

If you looked at their faith with more open eyes, you would see your analogy does not fit, no matter how hard you would shove that round peg into the square hole.

Maybe…just maybe…you can find it in your heart to be a case of some doctrinal confusion at least, rather than the apostasy you compare it to.

Apostasy is what we see at the end of John 6…but that is not what we see in everyone who happens to disagree with you.

Of course, you can proceed with the false analogy if it sounds good to you, but again, that would be terribly unfortunate, but totally avoidable.

God bless.

…

 

[NonDenom]

Yeah, it’s called such a severe lack of faith that they could not even accept what Christ told them. It is the same problem that most all of the people who rejected Christ had.

IMO it’s the same problem that people who argue against the Eucharist have today. Among protestants it used to be said, “God said. I believe it. That settles it.” In the case of the Eucharist, they are now more like the disciples in John 6 who said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (verse 60)

Hi CM
Your wrong on two counts. The disciples left because the were thinking in literal, cannibalistic terms when Jesus was talking to them Spiritually. Secondly we believe it, because Jesus said it in verse 63
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

In Him and Him Only

 

[Odell]

Totally agreed.

Christ need not chase after those who “misunderstand,” as they “misunderstand” because of their sin, nevermind that Christ never chased after the faithless anyway.

Do you forget the parrable of the lost sheep?

 

[Atemi]

Do you forget the parable of the lost sheep?

Of course. And nowhere in that parable is the shepherd chasing after sheep that would have nothing to do with the shepherd.

 

[MartinV]

Look at it this way. If Jesus went to all the trouble to redeemed us, don’t you think he would do something very special for us. Our role is to be holy, either on earth or in heaven (if we end up in purgatory-which I hope to do). The Eucharist is him for us, a gift of santification to brings us closer to him. A key that unlocks his world of love, uncopromising love…

 

[nixhawk]

Hey guys,

I am not sure which forums to post this in – Sacred Scripture, Liturgy & Sacraments, or this one – so I apologize if this is the wrong forums.

I am a protestant, but for the last two years I have been interested in the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (still thinking about the differences between the two). I have mostly been convinced that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ, but I have a few questions about verses in Scripture that still bug me. I hope y’all can help:

1. Matthew 26:27-29 says, "Then he took a cup, an after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” If the wine became His blood, then why did he say “this fruit of the vine” when referencing it after he had blessed it and declared it His blood? If the Real Presence is correct, wouldn’t it not be “fruit of the vine” but instead His blood?

–BT

Look at the 6th chapter of the Gospel of John:

John 6:53-56 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; 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.

I won’t quote the whole 6th chapter of John here but; He was talking to the Jews at Capernaum and some were complaining that it was “a hard saying” and they just couldn’t accept or understand - but - He was persistent to the point of repeating again and again - and He finally said;
[John 6:64]: “But there are some of you that do not believe.”
And then, sure enough, some of His followers just couldn’t abide by this “hard saying” and left Him:
[John 6:66]: After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
And we see no indication that he tried to stop them or go after them, nor did He send any of the 12 apostles after them or otherwise make any effort to bring them back.

There are obviously a lot of Christians that do not believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, but, the evidence should be pretty clear [when these scriptures are read through the eyes of a true believer]. We should realize that it was meant to be taken literally and to be taken seriously. It is not just a memorial meal, it is not just a symbolic gesture, it’s more than that. Catholics [rightfully] believe that a miracle happens there on the Alter of Christ - they believe that a supernatural event takes place each time the Mass is celebrated – the bread is broken the sacraments are offered up and our Lord and Saviour makes himself present in the incidents of bread and wine at the alter of Christ in Catholic Churches all over, in every country of the world every day of every week of every year - praise be to God.

Also see:
I Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
===That pretty much settles it for me===

 

[John_Hiner]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Each part of the Scripture must be read as part of the whole, and the whole must make sense in itself and within the Faith. (See, Catechism of the Catholic Church, art. 114.)

*Heaven and earth will pass away, but My word will never pass away *(Mark 13:31; Luke 24:12); *the hills will melt before Him *(see, Judith 16:18; Judges 5:5; Micah 1:4). One must make a choice: which is the ground of reality, “sarx[1],” the material order, or Christ Jesus, the Word of God. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. (John 6:52; see, John 6:54.)

In the Old Covenant, symbolic suffering and symbolic union with God obtained temporary forgiveness. This could not save. In the New Covenant, true reconciliation with God is obtained by actual suffering (Christ’s and ours) and by actual union with God. (See, The Letter to the Hebrews.)

This union, however, must be in both spirit and flesh, because it is man that is being saved and he is both spirit and flesh. (See, Catechism of the Catholic Church, art. 365.)

So, the test of faith is put to me at each Mass; I look at that wafer of bread and ask, is it my eyes and fingers, tongue and nose, or is it the “prattle[2]” of Christ that I believe?

If I choose my body, I get nowhere; Sartre and the ‘moderns’ have shown me that belief in the material order is a house of cards that cannot withstand a knock on the table leg.

If I choose the “prattle,” then the appearances are enlivened and the world makes sense. Because the prattle is true, my spirit (breath, life) is tied to Christ’s body and when I die I will remain a spirit with a body – my spirit, His body – and it will not matter that my body dies. If I am not united to His actual body, then when my body dies, I will be dead (a spirit without a body) and Christ’s promise will have failed – ‘those who trust Me will never die (though they be dead).’ (See, John 11:25-26; John 8:52.)

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

1 “sarx” is the Greek word translated as “flesh” in John 6. One of the meanings of this word is “the physical or natural order of things.” See, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, “sarx”.

2 The Greek word translated in John 6:64(63) as “I have spoken,” is either ‘lelalayka,” or “lalaw,” these are forms of “laleaw" which means, “to talk, chat, prattle, babble.” It is connected to the chirping noise made by birds and locusts. The Savior’s words might be translated “the breath is the life-maker the material order gets one nowhere; what I have prattled to you is breath and is life.”