It seems significant to me that all Christians both East and West understood this to mean the sacrament of confession, until the Reformation.
Well, I couldn’t really say what difference it makes to Wannano, but IMO if he is interested in both books then so much the better.
If you look at the origin of the Eucharist (Passover) it will help put a context around “rememberance”. It is an anamnesis, just as Passover was. Passover was an enacted ritual during which a real sacrifice was consumed by the faithful. It’s purpose, more than bringing the Exodus to the people, was to bring the people to the Exodus. In the same way, Eucharist now brings us to the foot ofHis cross.
This is a good point. Catholics understand Scripture through the Teachings of the Aposltes.
Well, we know He was not speaking of His own flesh, was He? Otherwise, His body on the cross would be meaningless.
It is neccessary for moderns to deny the historical understanding of the passage passed to us from those who walked upon the earth with Him. It is the only way to maintain a rejection of what they believed and taught.
Hi g,
Just before Jesus said this He had told them that "His flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.
Historical hermeneutics is problematic and useful only to a degree,and must be governed by something ‘better’. Just take a look at the OT. I would say the OT was perfect in delivering it’s promises despite some historical/tradition hermeneutic errors.It is neccessary for moderns to deny the historical understanding of the passage passed to us from those who walked upon the earth with Him. It is the only way to maintain a rejection of what they believed and taught.
I took a better look at and it is like the youth one that was produced. It is a summary that uses the CCC but is not the CCC. Other material is used to explore and emphasis what the CCC has. I found the link difficult because the text was so small that it was not easily read.Well, I couldn’t really say what difference it makes to Wannano, but IMO if he is interested in both books then so much the better.
St. Augustine explains Jesus left the matter alone as soon Peter professed faith in Christ and His words, that was his understanding and way of ‘eating’. When someone shouts BINGO ! you stop calling out numbers(explaining).
Still no correction as Jesus did other places.
Jesus also told Peter, “If I do not wash your feet, you have no part in me.”
I went looking for St. Augustine explanation. I was blown away by his homilies. I found what I believe are two different ones neither one has what you describe. John 6 is very profound. I believe that a book could be written of all that is there. It is not just one but many themes but is obvious from reading St Augustine that it is the Sacrament of the Eucharist. I think he believes it is a given after all at the time he was dealing with heresies which were more pressing. I do believe that everyone at the time believed as we do today. If you have a direct quote that supports what you are claiming I would love to see it but in two different readings I could not find it perhaps it is in a reading I did not find.
Ecclesiastes:9 vs 5&6 The dead know nothing,have no reward,no memory,no emotion, and no portion in any thing done “under the sun”.
Then how did Jesus converse with Moses?
The USCCB’s Catechism for Catholic Adults is OH! So much easier to read. It’s actually written for the laity; as apposed to the Clergy.
Sincere thanks!
You have me confused a bit. What do you mean by “considered”?
?