SPLIT: The Eucharist in Scripture and Catholic teaching.

[Cal_Fullerton]

Hiya, Cal!

Here’s the thing: you believe Peter was infallible, as well!

How 'bout that?

How do I know this?

Because you quoted him as infallible right here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9008448&postcount=404

Unless you think there are some errors in his encyclicals, 1 Peter and 2 Peter, then you do believe he was infallible, right?

Hiya!
No. I believe 1 & 2 Peter are inspired, but Peter certainly was capable of saying things that were not correct. Galatians indicates that he made mistakes.

 

[PRmerger]

Hiya!
No. I believe 1 & 2 Peter are inspired, but Peter certainly was capable of saying things that were not correct. Galatians indicates that he made mistakes.

Then I think what you are proclaiming is exactly the Catholic definition of infallibility!

That is, men are capable of writing things that are inspired–and without error–but in other areas of their lives they make mistakes.

And thus, men are infallible, given certain parameters.

Are you okay with that definition and then agreeable with the Catholic Church’s teaching on infallibility?

EDIT: Hiya! Welcome back!

 

[Linda_Marie]

Oh, really! We teach that baptism is an outer sign of an inward work. In other words, baptism is a public proclamation of what has already happened in the heart. Does that match what the Catholic Church teaches?

ARTICLE 1
THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."5
<…>
227 According to the Apostle Paul, the believer enters through Baptism into communion with Christ’s death, is buried with him, and rises with him:

• Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life*.29

The baptized have "put on Christ."30 Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies.31

1228 Hence Baptism is a bath of water in which the “imperishable seed” of the Word of God produces its life-giving effect.32 St. Augustine says of Baptism: "The word is brought to the material element, and it becomes a sacrament."33

Penance? That is repeating Hail Marys and the Lord’s Prayer over and over?

No, it is not repeating prayers over and over, and it is really a subject deserving of its own thread. It cannot be answered in a few short paragraphs.

V. THE MANY FORMS OF PENANCE IN CHRISTIAN LIFE

1434 The interior penance of the Christian can be expressed in many and various ways. Scripture and the Fathers insist above all on three forms, fasting, prayer, and almsgiving,31 which express conversion in relation to oneself, to God, and to others. Alongside the radical purification brought about by Baptism or martyrdom they cite as means of obtaining forgiveness of sins: effort at reconciliation with one’s neighbor, tears of repentance, concern for the salvation of one’s neighbor, the intercession of the saints, and the practice of charity "which covers a multitude of sins."32

1435 Conversion is accomplished in daily life by gestures of reconciliation, concern for the poor, the exercise and defense of justice and right,33 by the admission of faults to one’s brethren, fraternal correction, revision of life, examination of conscience, spiritual direction, acceptance of suffering, endurance of persecution for the sake of righteousness. **Taking up one’s cross each day and following Jesus is the surest way of penance.**34

1436 Eucharist and Penance. Daily conversion and penance find their source and nourishment in the Eucharist, for in it is made present the sacrifice of Christ which has reconciled us with God. Through the Eucharist those who live from the life of Christ are fed and strengthened. "It is a remedy to free us from our daily faults and to preserve us from mortal sins."35

1437 Reading Sacred Scripture, praying the Liturgy of the Hours and the Our Father - every sincere act of worship or devotion revives the spirit of conversion and repentance within us and contributes to the forgiveness of our sins.

1438 The seasons and days of penance in the course of the liturgical year (Lent, and each Friday in memory of the death of the Lord) are intense moments of the Church’s penitential practice.36 These times are particularly appropriate for spiritual exercises, penitential liturgies, pilgrimages as signs of penance, **voluntary self-denial such as fasting and almsgiving, and fraternal sharing (charitable and missionary works).
**
1439 The process of conversion and repentance was described by Jesus in the parable of the prodigal son, the center of which is the merciful father:37 the fascination of illusory freedom, the abandonment of the father’s house; the extreme misery in which the son finds himself after squandering his fortune; his deep humiliation at finding himself obliged to feed swine, and still worse, at wanting to feed on the husks the pigs ate; his reflection on all he has lost; his repentance and decision to declare himself guilty before his father; the journey back; the father’s generous welcome; the father’s joy - all these are characteristic of the process of conversion. The beautiful robe, the ring, and the festive banquet are symbols of that new life - pure worthy, and joyful - of anyone who returns to God and to the bosom of his family, which is the Church. Only the heart of Christ who knows the depths of his Father’s love could reveal to us the abyss of his mercy in so simple and beautiful a way.

Justification is a pardon (forgiveness) for sin from God which people have when they become followers of Jesus. Jesus’ sacrifice of himself made justification possible. God has to pardon us (wash us in His Son’s blood) before we can come into his presence.

This is because all humankind are sinners and unfit to come into God’s presence. Darkness can’t live in the presence of light. (When I say “God’s presence,” I mean His nature, His Spirit, His love, etc.)

Does that match what you believe?

God bless.

[ARTICLE 2
GRACE AND JUSTIFICATION

I. JUSTIFICATION ](Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 2)

1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus’ proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."38 Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.39

1990 Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God’s merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals.

1991 Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or “justice”) here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.

1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:40

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.41

1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:

When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight.42

1994 Justification is the most excellent work of God’s love made manifest in Christ Jesus and granted by the Holy Spirit. It is the opinion of St. Augustine that “the justification of the wicked is a greater work than the creation of heaven and earth,” because "heaven and earth will pass away but the salvation and justification of the elect . . . will not pass away."43 He holds also that the justification of sinners surpasses the creation of the angels in justice, in that it bears witness to a greater mercy.

1995 The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the "inner man,"44 justification entails the sanctification of his whole being:

Just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification. . . . But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.45

 

[adrift]

Hiya!
No. I believe 1 & 2 Peter are inspired, but Peter certainly was capable of saying things that were not correct. Galatians indicates that he made mistakes.

Please elaborate on this statement. Exactly what mistakes.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

I have a question regarding a new topic: Are a majority of Catholics politically conservative?

 

[jmcrae]

I have a question regarding a new topic: Are a majority of Catholics politically conservative?

The vast majority of Catholics cast their vote by secret ballot.

 

[jmcrae]

I have a question regarding a new topic: Are a majority of Catholics politically conservative?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=688789

Back to your regularly scheduled thread …

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Matthew 16:18
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Before this, Peter’s name was Simon. Jesus gave him a new name, Rock, and stated the He would build His church on him. How many times has God given people a new name? Abram became Abraham; Sarai became Sarah. Each time He has, the person was very significant in God’s plans for mankind.

It is important to note that Jesus did this immediately after His discourse on the Bread of Life. Many left Him after He told them they had to eat His Body and drink His Blood if they wanted eternal life. He reiterated his statement several times during His discourse, using more and more graphic language to emphasize that He was speaking literally, the last being not just ‘eat’ but ‘gnaw/chew’.

Peter, when asked if he too would leave over this said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

The list of successors is not in the bible. This is history and is available from other sources. It does not have to be in the bible. This is a fallacy based on misunderstanding about the purpose of the bible. Firstly, there was no bible until 325AD and the Council of Nicea. There was an assortment of writings, some of which were heretical, being read among various churches. These writings were used in the liturgy, the worship services. The canonisation of the bible came about because heretical writings were being read at Mass. The purpose of canonisation was not to provide a manual with everything written out, but to approve what could be read at Mass. The ‘manual’ is the Catechism.

The Bishop of Rome Is Peter’s Successor

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

The List of Popes

Papal infallibility does not cover everything a pope says or does. It applies only when he is speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. Popes are not impeccable, free from being able to sin.

Hi Linda Marie,

Thanks for your info.

I’m glad to know that infallibility does not cover everything a pope says or does, and that it applies only when he is speaking on matters of faith and morals. That’s what I would have guessed.
Still, I have a complaint about it. The Mormon Church believes something almost identical to that regarding their prophets. I believe that is why they are deceived about many things. I believe God holds us responsible for testing everything. First Thessalonians 5:20-21 NAB says, “Do not despise prophecies. Test everything; retain what is good.”
Most Christians don’t consecrate and devote themselves to living close to God, so they don’t hear the voice of God very well. (By the “voice of God” I mean primarily the impressions, urges, & sense of knowing that the Holy Spirit gives us.) They rely heavily on leaders or those more mature in the faith than themselves for guidance. This definitely has value but can be dangerous if taken too far. Look what happened to the followers of Jim Jones!

---

According to a Protestant biblical commentary, “most modern scholars hold that Peter himself is the rock, in the sense that he is the first to identify fully and completely Jesus as Messiah.” Peter certainly was one of the foundation stones for the church. Revelation 21:14 NAB says “The wall of the city [New Jerusalem] had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were written the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

We—I’m assuming you’re with me on this—also know that belief and confession that Jesus is the Son of the living God is also a rock on which Jesus builds his church. First John 4:15 NAB says, “When anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwells in him and he in God.”

So I guess my opinion at this point is that the rock is BOTH Peter AND his confession of faith. Can you go along with that?

---

You said that the manual is the Catechism rather than the Bible.
Please expand on that. Are you saying that the Catechism is the final authority to which you turn for answers to spiritual questions? Are you saying the Catechism is more authoritative than the Bible in the Catholic Church?

Thanks for starting this discussion, by the way. I hope it’s okay that we stray from the topic in the title.

Respectfully,

Cal

 

[jmcrae]

---

You said that the manual is the Catechism rather than the Bible.
Please expand on that. Are you saying that the Catechism is the final authority to which you turn for answers to spiritual questions? Are you saying the Catechism is more authoritative than the Bible in the Catholic Church?

No. She is saying that the manual - the “how to” book - is the Catechism. (Which isn’t strictly accurate, but it’s near enough that I won’t quibble at this point.)

Imagine a factory that is thousands of years old. It has a lot of great stories and history. This is analogous to the Bible and small-t tradition.

You also have a manual that you study to know how to do your job. You don’t learn your job from the stories of old; you learn it from the manual. It tells you how to clean, repair, and operate your machinery. This is analogous to the Catechism, broadly speaking.

The manual isn’t your authority, though - your supervisor is your authority. He’s the one who tells you when it’s time to operate the machine, when it’s time to clean it, and when it’s time to do repairs. The manual contains the instructions for doing these things, but your supervisor lets you know when to do them.

In the Catholic Church, the supervisor is your local pastor. Above him is your local Bishop, and above/beside him is the Pope. It is the living authority to which we look, rather than to dead letters.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Cal, this is an absolutely true statement.

Do you really think that having someone “in your heart” is better, or even the same, as having someone physically, wholly and entirely present to you?

My dad passed away in 1991. He is in my heart forever. I hold him dear at all times of my life.

But saying that he is in my heart is absolutely INFERIOR to having him physically present to me.

If I had the choice between having someone in my heart or having him present physically in the same room, of course I would choose the latter.

And so would you.

The Jewish teachers who gave Jesus a hard time saw Jesus in person but it didn’t do most of them any good. They never let him into their hearts. Therefore, they unfortunately will go to eternal destruction where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (pain).

If you had to choose between the two, which would you choose? To meet Jesus in person, or to meet him in your heart?

 

[PRmerger]

Hi Linda Marie,

Thanks for your info.

I’m glad to know that infallibility does not cover everything a pope says or does, and that it applies only when he is speaking on matters of faith and morals. That’s what I would have guessed.
Still, I have a complaint about it. The Mormon Church believes something almost identical to that regarding their prophets. I believe that is why they are deceived about many things. I believe God holds us responsible for testing everything. First Thessalonians 5:20-21 NAB says, “Do not despise prophecies. Test everything; retain what is good.”
Most Christians don’t consecrate and devote themselves to living close to God, so they don’t hear the voice of God very well. (By the “voice of God” I mean primarily the impressions, urges, & sense of knowing that the Holy Spirit gives us.) They rely heavily on leaders or those more mature in the faith than themselves for guidance. This definitely has value but can be dangerous if taken too far. Look what happened to the followers of Jim Jones!

A fair point, Cal.

However, where do you draw the line on whom to believe as being infallible in the area of faith and morals?

You seem to have accepted the infallibility of the Church in one aspect of this: the Church declared for you that the book of Hebrews is inspired and that the Didache is not.

How do you know that they got it right? How is it that you don’t not assign the book of Hebrews the label of apocrypha, as you do the Book of Mormon?

 

[PRmerger]

The Jewish teachers who gave Jesus a hard time saw Jesus in person but it didn’t do most of them any good. They never let him into their hearts. Therefore, they unfortunately will go to eternal destruction where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (pain).

True, Cal. True. It’s a non-sequitur and doesn’t address my point, but true enough.

If you had to choose between the two, which would you choose? To meet Jesus in person, or to meet him in your heart?

That seems to be a no-brainer. I want to meet Jesus “in person”.

Just like if I had the choice between having my dad “in person” or “in my heart”, I’d choose the former.

You have a different answer perhaps?

 

[jmcrae]

The Jewish teachers who gave Jesus a hard time saw Jesus in person but it didn’t do most of them any good. They never let him into their hearts. Therefore, they unfortunately will go to eternal destruction where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (pain).

If you had to choose between the two, which would you choose? To meet Jesus in person, or to meet him in your heart?

How will you have him in your heart, if you never meet him in person?

Remember, it was two Pharisees - Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea - who buried Jesus at the end - not the poverty stricken, and surely not those who had never met him in person.

There is no more loving act than to bear someone to his final resting place when he has died, unless it is to give birth to him.

 

[adrift]

Thanks for starting this discussion, by the way. I hope it’s okay that we stray from the topic in the title.

Respectfully,

Cal

This is against forum rules. If you want to discuss other topics, start another thread. We will gladly discuss those topics with you. Notice the title. The moderators split it from another thread because it was off topic. If we get to off topic,they will close the thread.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

A thought occurred to me that I want to record here before I forget it.
Some folks have made the point that Jesus used the word “gnaw/chew,” and that it indicates that he was speaking literally.

The point doesn’t carry any weight with me because, for example, if I said “it’s raining cats and dogs out,” (it is raining here now ) you could look up the words “cat” and “dog” in the dictionary and find that they always mean a literal animal.

I have a classic book by E. W. Bullinger, D.D., called Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. It was originally published in 1898. One minister commented that Bullinger “was perhaps the greatest Bible scholar of all time.” The book is over 1000 pages long—this was before the age of word processors! Anyway, my point is that there are lots of figures of speech in the Bible!

Incidentally, why don’t I check to see what he has to say about John 6? . . . . . . . . . . . . oh, here it is. On page 826 he says that John 6:51 means “just as the body lives temporally by eating bread, so the new life is nourished by feeding upon Christ in our hearts by faith.”
He says John 6:53 (two verses down) means that “except you feed on Christ in your hearts and partake of His life (for the blood is the life), ye have no life in you.” E. W. Bullinger goes on to say,

That this cannot refer to the Lord’s supper is clear from the fact that it was not then instituted, and further, that it would shut out all who, from age and infirmity or other cause, had not partaken of that supper.
It cannot refer to the Mass, as there is no drinking at all in the Mass.
By comparing verses 47 and 40 with verses 53 and 54, it will be seen that believing on Christ is exactly the same thing as eating and drinking of His flesh and blood.

I hesitate to get into this too much because one man who was involved in our discussion some time back backed out, saying he thought I was doing a terrible thing, that I was trying destroy his faith. I hope you all recognize that I am not trying to destroy your precious faith in Christ, only refine it for the sake of unity between us and for the sake of your own spiritual growth. (I also expect to grow in the Lord as I am challenged.)

As long as we don’t let bitterness creep into our spirits toward each other, we can all benefit, I believe. God will be the judge of that in the end.

Love to all.

 

[Miriam1947]

A thought occurred to me that I want to record here before I forget it.
Some folks have made the point that Jesus used the word “gnaw/chew,” and that it indicates that he was speaking literally.

The point doesn’t carry any weight with me because, for example, if I said “it’s raining cats and dogs out,” (it is raining here now ) you could look up the words “cat” and “dog” in the dictionary and find that they always mean a literal animal.

I have a classic book by E. W. Bullinger, D.D., called Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. It was originally published in 1898. One minister commented that Bullinger “was perhaps the greatest Bible scholar of all time.” The book is over 1000 pages long—this was before the age of word processors! Anyway, my point is that there are lots of figures of speech in the Bible!

Incidentally, why don’t I check to see what he has to say about John 6? . . . . . . . . . . . . oh, here it is. On page 826 he says that John 6:51 means “just as the body lives temporally by eating bread, so the new life is nourished by feeding upon Christ in our hearts by faith.”
He says John 6:53 (two verses down) means that “except you feed on Christ in your hearts and partake of His life (for the blood is the life), ye have no life in you.” E. W. Bullinger goes on to say,

That this cannot refer to the Lord’s supper is clear from the fact that it was not then instituted, and further, that it would shut out all who, from age and infirmity or other cause, had not partaken of that supper.
It cannot refer to the Mass, as there is no drinking at all in the Mass.
By comparing verses 47 and 40 with verses 53 and 54, it will be seen that believing on Christ is exactly the same thing as eating and drinking of His flesh and blood.

I hesitate to get into this too much because one man who was involved in our discussion some time back backed out, saying he thought I was doing a terrible thing, that I was trying destroy his faith. I hope you all recognize that I am not trying to destroy your precious faith in Christ, only refine it for the sake of unity between us and for the sake of your own spiritual growth. (I also expect to grow in the Lord as I am challenged.)

As long as we don’t let bitterness creep into our spirits toward each other, we can all benefit, I believe. God will be the judge of that in the end.

Love to all.

There is eating and drinking in the Mass. It is the Eucharist and no offense but this whole quote is a real stretch.

[BIBLEDRB]John 6:47-54[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[PRmerger]

It cannot refer to the Mass, as there is no drinking at all in the Mass.

Oh, sheesh. I hate it when alleged Christian scholars make such uninformed comments about Catholicism.

Please see what these folks are doing at a Catholic Mass:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Yes. They are, indeed, drinking.

 

[PRmerger]

Incidentally, why don’t I check to see what he has to say about John 6? . . . . . . . . . . . . oh, here it is. On page 826 he says that John 6:51 means “just as the body lives temporally by eating bread, so the new life is nourished by feeding upon Christ in our hearts by faith.”
He says John 6:53 (two verses down) means that “except you feed on Christ in your hearts and partake of His life (for the blood is the life), ye have no life in you.”

So why would some of his disciples leave Jesus because of this statement? That seems like a relatively benign teaching Jesus was saying: “Accept me into your hearts!” for some folks to get really upset about it and declare that to be a “hard saying”.

And why would Judas leave him at that point as well, if Jesus was really saying something pretty tame?

Also, did you want to follow up on your question to me about whether I’d rather have Jesus in my heart or in person? It seemed as if you were going to make a point, or add something. Otherwise, I am confused by the question, for the answer seemed obvious to me. It’s as if I asked you, “Cal, would you rather be with your wife in person, or have her in your heart?”

 

[adrift]

A thought occurred to me that I want to record here before I forget it.
Some folks have made the point that Jesus used the word “gnaw/chew,” and that it indicates that he was speaking literally.

The point doesn’t carry any weight with me because, for example, if I said “it’s raining cats and dogs out,” (it is raining here now ) you could look up the words “cat” and “dog” in the dictionary and find that they always mean a literal animal.

I have a classic book by E. W. Bullinger, D.D., called Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. It was originally published in 1898. One minister commented that Bullinger “was perhaps the greatest Bible scholar of all time.” The book is over 1000 pages long—this was before the age of word processors! Anyway, my point is that there are lots of figures of speech in the Bible!

Yes Jesus did use figures of speech. As PRmerger has asked "why did His disciples leave Jesus? Why didn’t Jesus correct their misunderstanding? Why did Jesus not stop them from leaving? Why did they say This is a hard saying; who can hear it? What was so hard about it, if only a figure of speech? Why? Because it wasn’t a figure of speech they understood Jesus correctly. Jesus couldn’t tell them He didn’t mean what He said because He did.

Incidentally, why don’t I check to see what he has to say about John 6? . . . . . . . . . . . . oh, here it is. On page 826 he says that John 6:51 means “just as the body lives temporally by eating bread, so the new life is nourished by feeding upon Christ in our hearts by faith.”
He says John 6:53 (two verses down) means that “except you feed on Christ in your hearts and partake of His life (for the blood is the life), ye have no life in you.” E. W. Bullinger goes on to say,

That this cannot refer to the Lord’s supper is clear from the fact that it was not then instituted, and further, that it would shut out all who, from age and infirmity or other cause, had not partaken of that supper.

I guess he missed

I will give

. Jesus states that this will be a future event. The event Jesus is referring to was the Last Supper.

It cannot refer to the Mass, as there is no drinking at all in the Mass.
By comparing verses 47 and 40 with verses 53 and 54, it will be seen that believing on Christ is exactly the same thing as eating and drinking of His flesh and blood.

As it has been pointed out, this is a false statement. I assume that he never attended a mass. I guess he didn’t want to take it in context. It isn’t by accident that this discourse follows the multiplication of fishes and bread.

I hesitate to get into this too much because one man who was involved in our discussion some time back backed out, saying he thought I was doing a terrible thing, that I was trying destroy his faith. I hope you all recognize that I am not trying to destroy your precious faith in Christ, only refine it for the sake of unity between us and for the sake of your own spiritual growth. (I also expect to grow in the Lord as I am challenged.)

People should not be here if their faith would be shaken. Faith that cannot withstand a challenge is no faith at all imho.

As long as we don’t let bitterness creep into our spirits toward each other, we can all benefit, I believe. God will be the judge of that in the end.

Love to all.

Yes

 

[jmcrae]

A thought occurred to me that I want to record here before I forget it.
Some folks have made the point that Jesus used the word “gnaw/chew,” and that it indicates that he was speaking literally.

From what I have been given to understand, there was also a common saying that included that phrase, which meant something like, to insult, or to degrade. Was Jesus actually asking His followers to insult and degrade Him? I hardly think so. Therefore, as Sherlock Holmes pointed out, once the impossible has been eliminated, we are left with the improbable - that Jesus actually wanted us to consume His flesh and blood in a mystical way, by means of the Eucharist.

This is why a few days after saying these things, He gathered the disciples together, showed them the bread and said, “This is my Body” and giving them the chalice, said, “This is my blood.”

The point doesn’t carry any weight with me because, for example, if I said “it’s raining cats and dogs out,” (it is raining here now ) you could look up the words “cat” and “dog” in the dictionary and find that they always mean a literal animal.

It would depend on the dictionary - a really good dictionary would also mention the various ways in which these words are used in sayings and metaphors - “she is catty” - “I am dog-tired” - etc.

I have a classic book by E. W. Bullinger, D.D., called Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. It was originally published in 1898. One minister commented that Bullinger “was perhaps the greatest Bible scholar of all time.” The book is over 1000 pages long—this was before the age of word processors! Anyway, my point is that there are lots of figures of speech in the Bible!

And even more when you are disputing an eternal truth of the Faith.

Anybody can claim to be a great Scripture scholar, but from where does this fellow get his authority? Can he trace it in an unbroken line back to Jesus Christ, or does he have a lot of heretics and schismatics in his spiritual lineage?

Incidentally, why don’t I check to see what he has to say about John 6? . . . . . . . . . . . . oh, here it is. On page 826 he says that John 6:51 means “just as the body lives temporally by eating bread, so the new life is nourished by feeding upon Christ in our hearts by faith.”
He says John 6:53 (two verses down) means that “except you feed on Christ in your hearts and partake of His life (for the blood is the life), ye have no life in you.” E. W. Bullinger goes on to say,

Just as any Jew who does not partake of the Passover cannot consider himself to have been made free from Egypt.

That this cannot refer to the Lord’s supper is clear from the fact that it was not then instituted, and further, that it would shut out all who, from age and infirmity or other cause, had not partaken of that supper.

Those under the Old Covenant were not bound by the laws of the New Covenant. Those bound under the laws of the New Covenant, if they are fully united with Christ in His Church, receive Viaticum from a priest in their dying moments. (Mark 6:13; James 5:14-15)

It cannot refer to the Mass, as there is no drinking at all in the Mass.

Seriously? The guy needed to do some research, or at least go outside sometimes. The major objection to Catholics by Protestants in the same era (ie: people that this guy must have known personally) was that Catholics had alcohol in their Communion wine, whereas Protestants were using non-alcoholic wine, or grape juice.

It is mentally unstable to, on the one hand, object because our Communion wine contains alcohol, and then at the exact same moment, on the other hand, object that we don’t drink anything at Mass.

By comparing verses 47 and 40 with verses 53 and 54, it will be seen that believing on Christ is exactly the same thing as eating and drinking of His flesh and blood.

To me, what this signifies is that those who don’t partake of the Eucharist cannot “believe” in any real sense - they have opinions and thoughts, but not beliefs in the sense that Christ intends us to have.

God bless you!