SPLIT: The Eucharist in Scripture and Catholic teaching.

[PRmerger]

IIf someone has studied Scripture as the Bereans did with their Scripture, and in prayer they have discerned in faith that eating His flesh was not literal, that’s their belief and faith. It’s not according to me in either case. I’m neither the teaching authority of the Catholic Church nor am I the Holy Spirit guiding them in their belief.

But let’s say, Matt, that someone studies the Scriptures (not as the Bereans did, because they only studied the OT) and reads the NT in prayer and discerns in faith that John 6 means that they must sacrifice the flesh of newborn babies to the god Moloch.

It’s really their belief and faith.

What say you to this?

 

[CMatt25]

The people of the world think we’re nuts because they cannot—unless they repent—experience what we are. They cannot see (spiritually speaking) what we see. I think that’s at least part of why they walked away.

I don’t think we can solve this issue by speculating about why they walked away. In the final analysis, we can’t read their minds so we will never know for sure unless the Bible specifically tells us why they walked away.

Goodnight. I’m rambling.
Love to all.

Good point. I suppose what we might know is after they walked Scripture tells us Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were and He said no one can come to Him unless it be given by His Father. Good night and God’s love and blessings and peace be with you always as well.

 

[adrift]

I haven’t even said anything about me. I was just trying to explain to PR why something might make sense to another believer because she said it didn’t make sense if it was metaphorical, for the disciples who left to have said it was a hard saying. So I was just trying to explain one belief or interpretation in a manner that a Protestant once in the non Catholic forum explained it to me. I know there are different interpretations on the spirit and flesh aspects of Christ’s discourse than the one I presented.

As far as my statement, you said “Jesus according to you (meaning me) allowed them to walk away with a misunderstanding”. According to my explanation as to what some might believe. But I did not pronounce it. If someone has studied Scripture as the Bereans did with their Scripture, and in prayer they have discerned in faith that eating His flesh was not literal, that’s their belief and faith. It’s not according to me in either case. I’m neither the teaching authority of the Catholic Church nor am I the Holy Spirit guiding them in their belief.

O.k. but you have started me to ponder more. I guess it would not be profitable then to address what you said since it isn’t your belief right?

 

[CMatt25]

You weren’t around 2000 years ago to see Jesus rise from the dead, right? Yet I presume that as a Christian you believe this and proclaim it? You have as much info on that as you have about the Real Presence…

In your favorite words, PR, you are right. And I have no need to even put QMs around it. (Inside joke between friends, PR and I)

You prove the point. We believe not by sight but by faith.

 

[labarrios]

Do you think Jesus was advocating cannibalism? I don’t think so. So even you believe Jesus was speaking somewhat symbolically. It’s just a question of degree.

No I do not believe he was advocating cannibalism. Yes, I believe he was speaking symbolically and also literally. The reasons why have been covered throughout this thread by various different people. Sometimes things, such as the topic of this thread, in life are hard to understand. So people walk away. I know I am guilty of that. However the mere fact I didn’t understand did not make it untrue. I believe in the “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist because God has called me to.

Thanks for replying to me Cal. You are A-OK in by book.

Dios te Bendiga
labarrios

 

[PRmerger]

You prove the point. We believe not by sight but by faith.

So then what in your faith tells you to be uncertain that “The purely symbolic view doesn’t appear until the rise of the Baptist Church in the early 1600s”?

 

[PRmerger]

So even you believe Jesus was speaking somewhat symbolically. It’s just a question of degree.

We believe he was speaking sacramentally–which means literal, spiritual, symbolical, metaphysical presence.

Jesus is really, truly, literally, physically, substantially present in the Eucharist.

And he is also spiritually present in the Eucharist.
And symbolically.

As with most Catholic answers it’s not either/or but both/and.

He doesn’t have to be there either symbolically or literally, eh?

 

[CMatt25]

But let’s say, Matt, that someone studies the Scriptures (not as the Bereans did, because they only studied the OT) and reads the NT in prayer and discerns in faith that John 6 means that they must sacrifice the flesh of newborn babies to the god Moloch.

It’s really their belief and faith.

What say you to this?

Right again PR. That’s what I said. As the Bereans studied their Scripture. I say your example is like comparing apples to oranges. If Cal for instance believes differently about RP than you do, neither of you are sacrificing babies because of it.

 

[CMatt25]

O.k. but you have started me to ponder more. I guess it would not be profitable then to address what you said since it isn’t your belief right?

Adrift, actually I’ve always been able to understand how different POVs of faith are arrived at. God just made me like that I guess. Doesn’t mean everyone is necessarily right on everything. We’re talking about matters of faith afterall. But if you want to address it further for me, go ahead. I’m about to go to bed shortly but I’ll read it later if you do. I figure we’re all on a lifetime walk of faith. I’m always open to ponder while on the journey.

 

[CMatt25]

So then what in your faith tells you to be uncertain that “The purely symbolic view doesn’t appear until the rise of the Baptist Church in the early 1600s”?

Only in that I don’t equate faith with 100% absolute certainty. Otherwise I imagine we wouldn’t call it faith and belief, PR.

 

[CMatt25]

So then what in your faith tells you to be uncertain that “The purely symbolic view doesn’t appear until the rise of the Baptist Church in the early 1600s”?

Only in that I don’t equate faith with 100% absolute certainty. Otherwise I imagine we wouldn’t call it faith and belief, PR. What any of us might believe is the absolute truth begins with believing it is so by faith of some sort. Be it faith in God. In Christ’s resurrection. In early writings and history as interpreted by the Catholic Church and so forth. If everything was so absolutely certain PR, everyone would be the same.

 

[adrift]

I don’t think we can solve this issue by speculating about why they walked away. In the final analysis, we can’t read their minds so we will never know for sure unless the Bible specifically tells us why they walked away.

Goodnight. I’m rambling.
Love to all.

66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.

So scripture is saying there was a reason because of this.

what is the this?

That takes us to

60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, `This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?’

So it was because of a teaching that they left that they could not accept. That same teaching is rejected today. No surprise there.
What did they say was to difficult to accept?

48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.’
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' 53 So Jesus said to them, Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;
55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.
56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me.

labarrios has made an important point twice. The word used for to eat was a Greek word that was not used for human eating but that of an animal. Why would John use this word? This may be part of John’s emphasis on the reality of the flesh and blood of Jesus.

To borrow from PRmerger

What’s a “hard saying” about a Jesus being present metaphorically or spiritually? The disciples were Jews who understood the concept of the numinous. So Jesus saying his presence in the spirit gives life would have been perfectly easy to embrace.

There is nothing here if understood metaphorically that would be difficult to accept.
They didn’t understand.

The Roman’s also accused the Christians of being cannibals.

Catholic Cannibals?The charge of cannibalism does not hold water for at least three reasons. First, Catholics do not receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form. Catholics receive him in the form of bread and wine. The cannibal kills his victim; Jesus does not die when he is consumed in Communion. Indeed, he is not changed in the slightest; the communicant is the only person who is changed. The cannibal eats part of his victim, whereas in Communion the entire Christ is consumed—body, blood, soul, and divinity. The cannibal sheds the blood of his victim; in Communion our Lord gives himself to us in a non-bloody way.

Second, if it were truly immoral in any sense for Christ to give us his flesh and blood to eat, it would be contrary to his holiness to command anyone to eat his body and blood—even symbolically. Symbolically performing an immoral act would be of its nature immoral.

Moreover, the expressions to eat flesh and to drink blood already carried symbolic meaning both in the Hebrew Old Testament and in the Greek New Testament, which was heavily influenced by Hebrew. In Psalm 27:1-2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Revelation 17:6-16, we find these words (eating flesh and drinking blood) understood as symbolic for persecuting or assaulting someone. Jesus’ Jewish audience would never have thought he was saying, “Unless you persecute and assault me, you shall not have life in you.” Jesus never encouraged sin. This may well be another reason why the Jews took Christ at his word.

 

[adrift]

Adrift, actually I’ve always been able to understand how different POVs of faith are arrived at. God just made me like that I guess. Doesn’t mean everyone is necessarily right on everything. We’re talking about matters of faith afterall. But if you want to address it further for me, go ahead. I’m about to go to bed shortly but I’ll read it later if you do. I figure we’re all on a lifetime walk of faith. I’m always open to ponder while on the journey.

I understand. I can see others point of view without holding that same view. Addressing it further seems pointless to me. I didn’t realize that you weren’t presenting your own views. I would be interested in your views.
To give you an idea where my thoughts were going.
Catholics see that Jesus said unless you eat etc. as referring to the Eucharist. Others counter with but Jesus talks of Spirit and Life. I see each ignoring the others point. From a Catholic point I believe it is ignored because of a sort of “so what” attitude. That it doesn’t nullify the point that Jesus was speaking literally.

I believe that what you are doing is being a “devil’s advocate”? You asked how many times did Jesus have to tell them? My position is that an explanation before the question is not an explanation. He didn’t correct their misunderstanding as He did Nichodemus. Peter didn’t understand either from the way I read the scripture but he had trust in Jesus. Peter also knew that there was nowhere else to go.
It is getting late and I hope that what I am trying to convey is understandable.

 

[CMatt25]

labarrios has made an important point twice. The word used for to eat was a Greek word that was not used for human eating but that of an animal. Why would John use this word? This may be part of John’s emphasis on the reality of the flesh and blood of Jesus.

Indeed it may. Or it could also have been Christ’s way of telling his disciples to especially gnaw at (Consume or “eat” fervently) the belief that He is the Son of God Who came down from heaven. Who would give up His flesh and blood on the cross, resurrecting on the 3rd day and eventually ascending into heaven where He is seateth at the right hand of God, so they, we, could obtain eternal life.

 

[CMatt25]

I believe that what you are doing is being a “devil’s advocate”? You asked how many times did Jesus have to tell them? My position is that an explanation before the question is not an explanation. He didn’t correct their misunderstanding as He did Nichodemus. Peter didn’t understand either from the way I read the scripture but he had trust in Jesus. Peter also knew that there was nowhere else to go.
It is getting late and I hope that what I am trying to convey is understandable.

I’m going to believe you did not literally mean I was an advocate for the devil but was using a figure of speech. But yes what you convey is understandable. The Christian Church Disciples of Christ has as one of its mottos, "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” And though not a member of that denomination, in my ecumenical ways I try to subscribe to such a motto. Believing we are united in Christ, in He, our Lord and Savior, who breaks down walls. I know some describe that as lukewarm. But I believe one is not necessarily lukewarm for Christ if they have His death and resurrection and Lordship strongly in their hearts even if they have a different belief in RP as someone like Cal Fullerton may, than Catholics do. But in faith He shall come again, we will find out soon enough I suppose. God’s blessings to you and to everyone during this season and beyond. His peace be with you and all always.

 

[adrift]

I’m going to believe you did not literally mean I was an advocate for the devil but was using a figure of speech. But yes what you convey is understandable. The Christian Church Disciples of Christ has as one of its mottos, "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” And though not a member of that denomination, in my ecumenical ways I try to subscribe to such a motto. Believing we are united in Christ, in He, our Lord and Savior, who breaks down walls. I know some describe that as lukewarm. But I believe one is not necessarily lukewarm for Christ if they have His death and resurrection and Lordship strongly in their hearts even if they have a different belief in RP as someone like Cal Fullerton may, than Catholics do. But in faith He shall come again, we will find out soon enough I suppose. God’s blessings to you and to everyone during this season and beyond. His peace be with you and all always.

Yes it is not quite a figure of speech but an office in the Catholic Church from an on line dictionary.

•One who argues against a cause or position, not as a committed opponent but simply for the sake of argument or to determine the validity of the cause or position.
•Roman Catholic Church. An official appointed to present arguments against a proposed canonization or beatification

Using this method is a good one to as it says determine the validity of the cause. I guess that is why the Church uses it:shrug:

I love that quote from St. Augustine. I am glad you reminded me of it. It is something that we should all try to live up to. I don’t know how that is lukewarm I believe like you that we are united together through Baptism. I believe in the Communion of Saints which are made up of all who are baptised.

I hope you have a Merry Christmas and a Blessed New Year.

 

[CMatt25]

Yes it is not quite a figure of speech but an office in the Catholic Church from an on line dictionary.
Using this method is a good one to as it says determine the validity of the cause. I guess that is why the Church uses it:shrug:

I love that quote from St. Augustine. I am glad you reminded me of it. It is something that we should all try to live up to. I don’t know how that is lukewarm I believe like you that we are united together through Baptism. I believe in the Communion of Saints which are made up of all who are baptised.

I hope you have a Merry Christmas and a Blessed New Year.

Thank you Adrift and to you and to everyone here as well. Peace.

 

[jmcrae]

The same folks that decided which books would be in the Bible also decided that we should interpret John 6:53 the way you interpret it?

Yep - that was the Council of Hippo, led by Bishop (Saint) Ambrose.

 

[hunter123]

I find it ironic that many catholics accuse evangelicals of being literalists when they themselves believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation.

 

[adrift]

I find it ironic that many catholics accuse evangelicals of being literalists when they themselves believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation.

What is ironic is that many evangelicals are literalists until they come to the Euchrist then they are not.