The Universal Church

[mcq72]

Is it the claim of Evangelicals that he became a spirit when he ascended?

Is that like Catholics saying second coming isn’t necesary because Christ is bodily with us now?

 

[SyCarl]

I know what Paul says in 1 Corinthians. But in John 6 Jesus puts no conditions on his statements, He says:

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 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. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
(Joh 6:51-54 ESV)

He does not say “whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life except those who do so unworthily.” Jesus does not lie. What He says here must be true no matter is said elsewhere. So if He says here if anyone eats and drinks has eternal life it must be true and, if He is speaking literally, and transubstantiation is true, it would follow that anyone who receives the Eucharist in a Catholic Church has eternal life.

Jesus cannot be speaking literally in John 6. In fact, Augustine gives this an example of when something shouldn’t be taken literally.

If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

(On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 16, Paragraph 24)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

With respect to church unity Jesus says that we are to be one just as He and the Father are one. The Trinity is three in one. Are you saying that the Trinity is not a perfect unity? If so I cannot see why the Church cannot be one Church in multiple groups,

It is similar to what Paul says when speaking of the body having many parts.
For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.
(Rom 12:4-5 ESV)

and

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.

If the Church is the body of Christ and can have many members or parts, I do not see why these members cannot be grouped together in a denomination and still be in one body. If one member of the body, such as the Catholic Church, says only it is the body, that does mean that the other members are not part of the body.

(1Co 12:12 ESV)

 

[mcq72]

You do realize the word “Eucharist” is Thanksgiving right?

Correct, and why I said was the theme of communion. Sacrifice of praise . Disagree with with consecratory words asking God to find “our” offering to be acceptable when we already know it is acceptable, or with the notion that we offer Calvary up to God, because we are thankful for His offering Calvary to us, for us.

The Passover lamb had to be consumed for the covenant. And who is the Passover lamb according to the NT

Well the Passover lamb had to be slain also to be eaten. That has ceased. We no longer eat the flesh of any lamb. Instead we eat the bread representative of a pure Lamb, and wine representative of His blood of new covenant and also of thanksgiving for such.

To me for transubstantiation to be like old passover remembrance tit for tat, you would have to make present the exact lambs slain on the original Passover night on every following passover observance.

I would like to challenge you since you keep saying you eat him spiritually to find the place in sacred scripture where is says to “Spiritually eat Him

You cant see it because you dont believe in applying symbolic, figurative eating thru ceremonial elements as found in old Passover and in other places in Bible. You selectively deny figurative speech when its usage can seem so plain to other believers.

We eat in an unbloody manner, as it is spiritual. It is a spiritual communion. His Spirit testifies to our spirit, that we are now His child, ransomed, purchased by His blood and sacrificial death at Calvary, in covenant fashion, until His visible, bodily second coming.

Does not CC say you eat Him as an invisible body. Do you need teeth and bellies to eat an invisible spiritual body? How is that different from a spiritual eating?

 

[mcq72]

So tell me, how does v15 negate vs10

Well it , vs 15, defines what sacrifice ( of praise) we give at this new altar of vs 10. It explains why we have presbyters/ bishops instead of heirus priests, why a presider can administer such sacrifice of praise, why Augustine says leave your teeth and bellies behind, and vs 15 says for sure bring your lips to speak praise and thanksgiving, as does Hosea and Psalms, and you don’t need such an old heirus sacrificial altar for an invisible body.

 

[mcq72]

We do NOT believe he rose from the dead as a spirit

That is right, we stand united against Gnosticism, as Ignatius did also in His time.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

and the eating is spiritual, unlike those in the wilderness.

So you don’t actually eat the host?

 

[mcq72]

So you don’t actually eat the host?

Well two answers: we “gnaw” and “chew” per John 6, and as my previous post said, we physically eat the elemental bread now as they ate the manna, yet we physically die like those in the wilderness, but we receive the spritual promise of eternal life thru eating spiritually thru faith in Christ, known as the Bread of life, the Lamb of God. ( not Lamb of man or what we offer to God,in hopeful acceptance, but what He offered, sacrificed, for us, fully assured of His pleasure evidenced in thanksgiving/ eucharisting).

 

[mcq72]

Transubstantiation: the conversion of the substance of the Eucharistic elements into the body and blood of Christ at consecration .

Oh, is that all Aquinas said, in Greek terms of accidents and substances?

 

[Wannano]

Fabulously stated, SyCarl!

And when one part of the body tells another part they are not needed it is evidence of the lack of love. And without love it is all just a bunch of noise.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Actually

Scripture clearly says, there is a consequence for one’s illicit receiving the Eucharist

1 Cor 11:27

Don’t forget 1 Cor. 11: 29 (Douay-Rheims)!:

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself

There’s eternal as well as temporal consequences of receiving Our Lord unworthily.

I don’t remember the exact quote, but Our Lord told one of the Saints/mystics that there is no punishment on earth that can satisfy for one unworthy Holy Communion!

If I find the source on that I’ll edit my post.

I’m not disagreeing with you - just got your six that’s all.

 

[steve-b]

I know what Paul says in 1 Corinthians. But in John 6 Jesus puts no conditions on his statements, He says:

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 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. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
(Joh 6:51-54 ESV)

You didn’t previously qualify that it is receiving in the Catholic Church

AND

If one receives the Eucharist in mortal sin (for example) THAT is illicit,

SyCarl:

Jesus cannot be speaking literally in John 6. In fact, Augustine gives this an example of when something shouldn’t be taken literally.

If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

(On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 16, Paragraph 24)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

Augustine would NOT disagree with Jesus saying

Jn 16:
12 “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you."

So

Paul clarifies Jesus teaching because there are ALREADY those abusing the sacrament with their corrupt thinking and actions

SyCarl:

The Trinity is three in one. Are you saying that the Trinity is not a perfect unity? If so I cannot see why the Church cannot be one Church in multiple groups,

You’ve been here since 07.

You haven’t seen in 13 yrs on CAF the answer to that?

SyCarl:

If the Church is the body of Christ and can have many members or parts, I do not see why these members cannot be grouped together in a denomination and still be in one body.

(1Co 12:12 ESV)

Dissension / division / schism / heresy From the Catholic Church = disaster for those, once they know their error(s) AND won’t change

I gave a link giving links to answer that
HERE

 

[steve-b]

Nicene:

Nicene:

Wannano,

Did Jesus resurrect back to heaven, in spirit only? NO

No, I agree…they watched Him ascend in bodily form and were told he would return the same way.

I am surprised to learn though that the CC does not believe Jesus is a spirit. I did not know that.

Jesus is like US, spirit and body, except He’s without sin. Heb 4:15 RSVCE - For we have not a high priest who is - Bible Gateway

 

[mcq72]

You didn’t previously qualify that it is receiving in the Catholic Church

AND

If one receives the Eucharist in mortal sin (for example) THAT is illicit,

Well when I began chewing and gnawing at Christ, as per John 6, it was worse than being in mortal sin but as in dead in trespasses and sin, worse than having sin but more like being a sinner. " For while we were yet sinners Christ died for us"…we were healed and drawn whilst a sinner but changed as we gnawed on Christ lifted up on Calvary, but agree that by the time we are a new creation and do eating remembrance as per later gospel timeline/ chapter, we are examine ourselves and repent of any wrongdoing as so graced.

Dissension / division / schism / heresy From the Catholic Church = disaster for those, once they know their error(s

Yes, but CC says all baptized are part of His body.

Of course the church also says in sectarian fashion that all those in body owe it to Catholicism as originator of any truth that others espouse, that salvation then is of CC.

Further sectarian qualification is given by CC that all are part of the body though some imperfectly. To be fair other churches have same sentiment to some degree or other. Yet the CC is more explicit in warning others that they are in danger if knowingly they reject the CC. Other churches only warn about knowingly rejecting Christ, and maybe a particular fundamental salvational doctrine, but not about joining their church.

 

[Wannano]

I agree in that He took on humanity but I also believe He is God, one with the Father who is a spirit. I do not understand how Mary can be the Mother of God if Jesus is not a spirit.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You didn’t previously qualify that it is receiving in the Catholic Church

AND

If one receives the Eucharist in mortal sin (for example) THAT is illicit,

Well when I began chewing and gnawing at Christ, as per John 6, it was worse than being in mortal sin but as in dead in trespasses and sin, worse than having sin but more like being a sinner. "

[snip for space]

I think there is misunderstanding.

All mortals commit sin. That is NOT what is meant by "Mortal Sin".

John makes a distinction between sin that is mortal and sin that is not mortal.

Depending on one’s translation

many translations say

(lead to death & not lead to death ) 1 jn 5:16-17 NIV - If you see any brother or sister commit - Bible Gateway

Others say

(mortal sin and not mortal sin) 1 jn 5:16-17 RSVCE - If any one sees his brother committing - Bible Gateway

IOW

a distinction without a difference

AND

Mortal, is speaking of DEGREE of seriousness of the sin.

IOW

A sin that lands one in hell if they die in it, is mortal. A sin that is NOT mortal (Catholics call venial sin) won’t sent one to hell.

Since Jesus said few are saved that means everyone else screwed up badly

Example:
All sin has consequences. Not all send one to hell.

This describes one who dies in venial sin. They are saved but only through purification (fire) at the end. Catholics call that Purgatory

OTOH

Mortal sin if one dies in that sin, won’t be saved. They won’t go to purgatory for purification. They go to Hell.

one example of mortal sins based on the consequence
Gal 5: ( a few Greek explanations)
19 Now the works of the flesh are plain: immorality πορνεία , impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension διχοστασίαι ], party spirit, 21 envy,[a] drunkenness, carousing κῶμος , and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. IOW Hell.

Dissension / division / schism / heresy From the Catholic Church = disaster for those, once they know their error(s) and won’t change

mcq72:

Yes, but CC says all baptized are part of His body.

That doesn’t equalize all the divisions that occurred over time as being valid and or equal to, the Catholic Church which it doesn’t… otherwise there would be no need for warning or consequence for all the teaching against Dissension / division / schism / heresy From the Catholic Church

 

[mcq72]

That doesn’t equalize all the divisions

Correct. Not all churches are equal, but all churches are still " churches", His churches, part of the Body…just like no two individuals are equally alike.

being valid

Valid? All churches in body are valid. You are His or you are not

otherwise there would be no need for warning or consequence

All His churches are under same warnings and consequences.

 

[steve-b]

I agree in that He took on humanity but I also believe He is God, one with the Father who is a spirit.

definition In short

Trinity = 253

Wannano:

I do not understand how Mary can be the Mother of God if Jesus is not a spirit.

Taking this in steps

Mary is pregnant with Jesus, and visits her cousin Elizabeth who is pregnant with John, who would also be later called the baptizer

Q:​

How would you interpret Marys cousin Elizabeth’s greeting of Mary? Here 2677

From Lk 1:43

 

[Wannano]

Jesus is also my Lord.

 

[steve-b]

Jesus is also my Lord.

Lord = κύριος , and we know who is inside Mary Strong’s at the bottom of the page = God, Lord, master, Sir.

Lord in the CCC

 

[Wannano]

My problem is with @Nicene who claims Jesus is not a spirit. Or are you building a case that agrees with him?