P
Pwrlftr
Guest
If you want to discuss John 16:13 you should probably begin by letting us know what it is you think the verse is saying? What is it’s context?
- Status
S
SyCarl
Guest
With respect to John 6 being taken literally I do have a question. Jesus says:Funny thing is, I too read John 6 “like a Catholic” before I was Catholic.
I had just done a Bible study on Genesis, and then in Church we started one on John. It really struck me as sad? Odd?that the same people who were insisiting that the earth was only 6,000 years old, were the same ones who were insisting we couldn’t take that passage literally in John 6.
Today, there are more and more “non-denominational Bible” Christians who while are not becoming Catholic, read those same verses and believe in the Real Presence of Christ because the bible says so.
Not Catholic, disagree with Catholics in many regards yet they too, are reading it “like a Catholic” in the respect that they too read it as the Real Presence of Christ.
But I guess these Bible Christians are just ignoring scripture and basing their beliefs on Catholic doctrine that they actually reject in many other facets.
Taking these literally would seem to say that if we partake of Jesus body then we will be saved. Jesus puts absolutely no conditions on these statements. He says if you eat you live. Would this mean that if I went to a Catholic Mass and received the Eucharist ilicitly and without believing that I would be automatically saved? According to the Catholic Church I would have eaten Jesus’ flesh and drunk His blood and that is all He says is required if He is speaking literally. Would you agree with this and if not how can Jesus’ words here be reconciled with saying no?
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
That’s not really an answer, what you are saying is that when a Priest says something, you can do some research and find out if what he is saying is true. The fact is, that you are not allowed to have any authority in your possession with which to verify what is taught.
Well I went to the Caterchism and found this about the question of Mary being conceived without sin:
722 The Holy Spirit prepared Mary by his grace. It was fitting that the mother of him in whom “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” should herself be “full of grace.” She was, by sheer grace, conceived without sin as the most humble of creatures, the most capable of welcoming the inexpressible gift of the Almighty. It was quite correct for the angel Gabriel to greet her as the “Daughter of Zion”: “Rejoice.” It is the thanksgiving of the whole People of God, and thus of the Church, which Mary in her canticle lifts up to the Father in the Holy Spirit while carrying within her the eternal Son.
This seems to be someone’s opinion and there is nothing here to “back up” the answer. Just because someone wrote this doesn’t make it official. What Scripture does it refer to and on what authority is it claimed?
It is merely speculation since the Scriptures tell us nothing about Mary until she is approaced by the angel. A very good example of what I have been saying all along. Someone writes it down and you believe it with no authority of confirmation.
po18guy
Well-known member
Amen!!!
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
No, of course not - that would in fact be a sacrilege and could condemn you to hell for mocking God by trivializing His son’s sacrifice to a matter of simple personal belief or disbelief.
The Eucharist is the epoch of goodness and salvific grace given to man to get back to God as a Child of God. There are prerequisites to being able to receive the Eucharist though.
Each time Jesus taught he did so from a context assumptive of the Mosaic Law and the summary commandments to “Love God and Neighbor”. Jesus never strung together all his teachings in one great composite preamble of boilerplate discourse prior to adding new teaching. No, Jesus constantly layed in new teaching on top of a framework of that original Mosaic moral code. He intended for His disciples to holistically teach the entire integrative message.
So its rarely a good idea to look at one single scripture verse alone in a vacuum by itself without considering the entire context or the tradition about the whole message.
Other scripture makes it clear that people become ill and die when receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Therefor the Eucharist is understood to be necessary to maintain our spiritual health but we must also cooperate with God’s grace by keeping ourselves free of grave sin as well as believe that it is Jesus body & blood. But the common sense preconditions are that one must also be baptised, living the faith and not be in a state of grave sin.
James
S
SyCarl
Guest
So what Jesus is saying in these passages that support transubstantion is to be taken literally but the rest of the verse is not to be?
M
mercygate
Guest
When Catholics read Scripture literally, we do not read it literalistically.
I’m kind of surprised that you would ask this question, Sy, because you’re a pretty sophisticated guy. The Eucharist is reserved for the faithful who are in a state of grace.
Would the unbelieving ignoramus be saved? Hm. I do not know. But if he “ate” without the Faith that confects the Sacrament through the hands of the Priest and the power of the Holy Spirit in the Church, I think we might have to find another word for “eat.”
Both the context of John 6, taken together with the Last Supper narratives and the wider context of the Great Commission, indicate a much wider meaning to “eat” than MERE gobbling. “Eating” is an act of FAITH, and FAITH is a sine qua non of salvation.
That said, I am not implying “receptionism” in any way: i.e., that in order for Christ to be truly present in the Sacrament, I must personally believe Him to be present.
If I “eat” in good faith, intending to “eat” as the Church understands the Sacrament (even if my personal faith is imperfect or doctrinally off-center), then that is faith enough. On the other hand, if I just walk up and go through the motions – as a non-Catholic – I am not “participating in the sacrament” but rather denigrating it. A person who “eats” unworthily brings condemnation upon himself, as Paul tells us. So Our Lord must have meant more than “gobble this”.
I realize I have not expressed this well. Maybe in another 20 posts, I’ll figure out what I mean to say.
Can somebody smart help me here?
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
**I’m sure your Priest won’t like it but I will be glad to give you a history lesson of the church. I am not presumptuous enough however to say when Christ “left” the Catholic Church because I don’t believe He ever left the Catholic
Church. He may have left the Roman Catholic Church when they took over the Catholic Church but who knows the ways of God. For sure, it is not the same Church now.
Christ established His Church and gave explicit instructions in Scripture and through his apostles on how it was to be set up and operated. He gave power to the apostles to do many things as long as they lived but did not allow them to “hand down” these powers, but left them with ordination procedures and policies. The age of the prophets and inspiration died with the last apostle. From that point on, no one had the power to raise from the dead, etc.
Originally the Catholic Church was given all truth. It was as early as the first century, after Christ had gone, that the Gnostics and heretics began to preach their different doctrines, dogmas and practices. Several of the early church fathers combated them fiercely and always with Scripture as there was nothing else to prove them wrong. You won’t find one time that a heretic was confronted with tradition that did not come from Scripture.
These heretics continued and grew in number despite efforts of those like Irenæus and a few others. By the time of the 4th century, so many heretics were teaching false doctrines, etc. that it seemed necessary for as many of the churches as could, get together and establish certain rules of faith, etc. There was no central church at that time. Some claimed authority for the Church at Rome, some claimed authority for the Church at Jerusalem, the Church at Antioch, The Church at Philadelphia and Alexandria. The churches had not agree on one leader, no matter what you have been taught. A simply study of Church History will show this but most Roman Catholics don’t want to do this. They had rather believe what they’ve been told.
Well shortly after the beginning of the 4th century, the Roman Emperor, Constantine, decided to call a council and the Council of Nicæa was ordered. This was done by the Roman Emperor who was not even a Christian and later was baptized into the Arian Church. The biggest problem the Church faced was Arianism, Gnostics and Heretics. Constantine invited 1800 Bishops from all over the Roman Empire but only about 320 showed up. The Bishop of Rome was not one of them.
Constantine wanted control over the Church because his paganistic society was giving him a hard time about these “Christians” who they did not like. Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire and that is when the Roman Catholic Church was begun. He introduced several pagan rituals and rites into the Christian Church in order to keep the pagans happy. The Pagans already had marvelous temples and expensive buildings, etc. and it only seemed natural to convert those to Christian buildings.
In addition to taking over the Christian Church, Constantine also built a beautiful new city and it became Constantinople, the new seat of the Roman Empire.
There were many Churches that did not agree with what Constantine had done and did not accept it. That is when the RCC locked up the Bibles so that the common man could not own or read one and it stayed that way for hundreds of years. It took Wycliffe, Tyndale and Luther to finally get the Bible into the hands of the common people again. That’s what brought on the Reformation because now the common person could read the Bible and see all that had been changed throughout the years.
The Bible is the infallible Word of God and nothing any man can say is infallible. The Bible hasn’t changed, it still means what it says and though many have tried to change it, God has promised to keep it accurate for Christians.**
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
Po Guy, why don’t you take one of those questions and answer it then???
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
This question extends from a fundamentalist predisposition in your thinking and leads you to an erroneous line of reasoning.
Jesus can be taken quite literally when he mentions that we must eat his body in order to have eternal life. But if one projects oneself into the context of that time its fairly easy to see that Jesus is speaking with convictive euphoria here. Jesus is saying “this is “GOOD NEWS!!”. He is excited to tell his followers that he is to deliver them the means by which they can enter into heaven. So from that joyous context of “good news” Jesus is trying to focus everyone on that one good easy to swallow (pun intended) central message - " EAT MY BODY”.
It is often impossible to know from scripture what some of the temporal ordering was between Jesus’ teachings given in various different bible accounts relating to this subject. But it certainly is common sense that if one believes in scripture that one can not discount the other things taught about partaking of the Eucharist only if one is worthy. But the order in which we receive this Eucharist message is not important - what is important is the holistic message.
So the commandment to eat my body and be raised up is true simultaneous with the scripture that requires one be worthy. Also, do not forget that the men who wrote the gospels were common men just like you and I. They were already believers. They did not have to rehash the obvious criteria that only followers of Christ could eat of the Eucharist and believe it to truly be His body. **Since clearly only a true Christian alive in Christ could ever eat the Eucharist and fully believe it to be Jesus’ body. ** The Eucharist was not ever to be a magic pill to make one immortal - no! This is the same error and heresy that Simon the magician tried when attempted to get the disciples to make him a leader by buying his salvation without believing. Entrance into heaven can not be bought or earned it is only by God’s grace that anyone can enter - the same grace that God gives us in the Eucharist.
Either you believe all of scripture or you don’t.
James
S
SyCarl
Guest
I am quite serious with the question and it is one of the primary reasons I do not believe John 6 cannot be taken literally. You are in effect saying that part of Jesus statement must be taken literally but not all of it. That to me is an extreme case of cherry picking that Protestants are so often accused of.When Catholics read Scripture literally, we do not read it literalistically.
I’m kind of surprised that you would ask this question, Sy, because you’re a pretty sophisticated guy. The Eucharist is reserved for the faithful who are in a state of grace.
Would the unbelieving ignoramus be saved? Hm. I do not know. But if he “ate” without the Faith that confects the Sacrament through the hands of the Priest and the power of the Holy Spirit in the Church, I think we might have to find another word for “eat.”
Both the context of John 6, taken together with the Last Supper narratives and the wider context of the Great Commission, indicate a much wider meaning to “eat” than MERE gobbling. “Eating” is an act of FAITH, and FAITH is a sine qua non of salvation.
That said, I am not implying “receptionism” in any way: i.e., that in order for Christ to be truly present in the Sacrament, I must personally believe Him to be present.
If I “eat” in good faith, intending to “eat” as the Church understands the Sacrament (even if my personal faith is imperfect or doctrinally off-center), then that is faith enough. On the other hand, if I just walk up and go through the motions – as a non-Catholic – I am not “participating in the sacrament” but rather denigrating it. A person who “eats” unworthily brings condemnation upon himself, as Paul tells us. So Our Lord must have meant more than “gobble this”.
I realize I have not expressed this well. Maybe in another 20 posts, I’ll figure out what I mean to say.
I take what Jesus takes seriously. He says if we eat and drink we will be saved. He puts no qualifications on that. He doesn’t say “If you believe and eat you will be saved.” Since taking what He says here literally does not make sense, as He says so many other places that we must believe in Him, I can only take it that He is not speaking literally.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
We Catholics takes Jesus seriously. He made it pretty clear in the Gospel of John. He commanded us at the Last Supper, “Do this in remembrance of me.” We do this weekly on the first day of the week. We break bread on the first day of the week.
I shall quote you from John 6:35-59.
((Continue))
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
SysCarl - are you admitting then that you are Catholic or are you admitting that you remain outside The Church as a protestant but sneak in to a Catholic mass as often as you can to partake of The Eucharist unworthily since your take is you must take Jesus literally?
It seems to me if it was the latter case you should swallow the whole truth and just convert to Catholicism to cover your bases. Or are you still doing the “pick and choose” Protestant “buffet thing” at the Protestant picnic and never getting past the apple pie and plain vanilla ice cream to find the main course?
James
po18guy
Well-known member
Break some of those anti-Catholic chunks off your heart first! This entire thread, which YOU started, has been a complete waste, except to those reading with open minds and hearts. For that reason alone I respond. Someone has taught you a 100% warped history of the church. Far better than I have replied to you, and in good faith. You find no answer because there is only your answer to your questions. You make absolutely false accusations and will then accept only responses which choke down your calumny. This makes you appear to be an intractable anti-Catholic. You demand that we believe as you do. We sin if we do that.
I will lift you up to the Holy Spirit.
Christ’s peace.
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
But why bother with the Bible if you don’t believe it?
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
John 6:35-59
And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not. All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out. Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day. And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day.
The Jews *therefore murmured *at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven? Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day. It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.
Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die
For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.
Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.
And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.
((Continue))
And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not. All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out. Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day. And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day.
The Jews *therefore murmured *at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven? Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day. It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.
Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die
For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.
Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.
And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.
((Continue))
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
In other word, you can’t answer them either???
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
As I quotes John 6:35-69, many of the Protestants who do not believe in the Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in Holy Communion lack the understanding of the Paschal Mystery.
Since Jesus took our nature, John, the Baptist, his cousin called, Jesus, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.
Why would John call, Jesus the lamb of God? During the Passover, the Jews consecrate a male lamb without blemish. This lamb was to be eaten. If the family is small, the Jews have to visit one of his neighbors. Every Passover meal, the lamb is eaten.
In John 6:35-69. Jesus said that his flesh is meat indeed and his blood is drink indeed. He is the Paschal sacrifice. It is his Body and Blood that we are redeemed. He is the pure sacrifice.
If he wasn’s speaking symbolically, Carl, the disciples would not have left him but they did.
I also read in the Book of Revelation, Blessed are they who are invited to the wedding feast of the lamb. Time and time again, Jesus is the lamb. He is meant to be consumed by his followers.
In my visits in protestants services. I see the lack of a pure sacrifice yet. Protestants talk about an universal priesthood. Yet, I find what is lacking is the lack of sacrifice your services provide. While in the Catholic Church and Orthodox our sacrifice is offered. We offer the Body and Blood of the Lord to the Father.
What kind of a priest who does not offer sacrifice? Protestant services are sure empty in their worship. They lack Jesus Christ’s real presence.
Universal Priesthood in Protestantism is but an empty shell. Devout of God. It’s all preaching and no sacrifice. None. Where is the Jewish heritage in your services? There is no reverence for the Gospel unlike in the Catholic Church, where we have a procession of the Gospel before the Liturgy begins.
Since Jesus took our nature, John, the Baptist, his cousin called, Jesus, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.
Why would John call, Jesus the lamb of God? During the Passover, the Jews consecrate a male lamb without blemish. This lamb was to be eaten. If the family is small, the Jews have to visit one of his neighbors. Every Passover meal, the lamb is eaten.
In John 6:35-69. Jesus said that his flesh is meat indeed and his blood is drink indeed. He is the Paschal sacrifice. It is his Body and Blood that we are redeemed. He is the pure sacrifice.
If he wasn’s speaking symbolically, Carl, the disciples would not have left him but they did.
I also read in the Book of Revelation, Blessed are they who are invited to the wedding feast of the lamb. Time and time again, Jesus is the lamb. He is meant to be consumed by his followers.
In my visits in protestants services. I see the lack of a pure sacrifice yet. Protestants talk about an universal priesthood. Yet, I find what is lacking is the lack of sacrifice your services provide. While in the Catholic Church and Orthodox our sacrifice is offered. We offer the Body and Blood of the Lord to the Father.
What kind of a priest who does not offer sacrifice? Protestant services are sure empty in their worship. They lack Jesus Christ’s real presence.
Universal Priesthood in Protestantism is but an empty shell. Devout of God. It’s all preaching and no sacrifice. None. Where is the Jewish heritage in your services? There is no reverence for the Gospel unlike in the Catholic Church, where we have a procession of the Gospel before the Liturgy begins.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
God Raises His Covenant Children
Jesus introduced the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist. It did not exist during the days of the Old Testament. However, our Father in heaven gradually prepared us to receive it. These Old Testament accounts describe pre-figurations of the Holy Eucharist.
Abel
The earliest shadow of the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood was Abel, the younger son of Adam and Eve. Cain murdered the good shepherd Abel. The Lord told Cain, Gn 4:10 “The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to Me from the ground.” The Book of Hebrews reminds us of, Heb 12:24 “… [Christ’s] sprinkled Blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel.”
Melchizedek
Melchizedek pre-figured Christ. When Abram returned from his victory over Chedorlaomer, Gn 14:18 “Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High …” to bless Abram, pre-figuring the bread and wine consecrated by a priest at Mass. The Book of Hebrews tells us, Heb 7:2 “[Melchizedek] is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem [shalom], that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever.”
Jesus introduced the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist. It did not exist during the days of the Old Testament. However, our Father in heaven gradually prepared us to receive it. These Old Testament accounts describe pre-figurations of the Holy Eucharist.
Abel
The earliest shadow of the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood was Abel, the younger son of Adam and Eve. Cain murdered the good shepherd Abel. The Lord told Cain, Gn 4:10 “The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to Me from the ground.” The Book of Hebrews reminds us of, Heb 12:24 “… [Christ’s] sprinkled Blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel.”
Melchizedek
Melchizedek pre-figured Christ. When Abram returned from his victory over Chedorlaomer, Gn 14:18 “Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High …” to bless Abram, pre-figuring the bread and wine consecrated by a priest at Mass. The Book of Hebrews tells us, Heb 7:2 “[Melchizedek] is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem [shalom], that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever.”
- Status