R
Radical
Guest
I might be a bit odd, but I wasn’t referring to myself.Are you referring to yourself as the “odd guy” from which one can learn truth?
Why I left Mormonism and didn't become a Protestant --the Eucharist
- Status
My friend Gabriel,
I have a question about this. Are you saying here the Holy Orthodoxy has changed its understanding of metabole, something held for centuries long before the Reformation, to a “Protestant” understand since Zwingli came on the scene?
Exactly. So do Lutherans, by the way.
In this part, there is only one phrase I challenged: “a word defined by Transubstantiation today”. It seems to me that the Orthodox mystery is a far more historic view than either Transubstantiaiotn or, admittedly, Sacramental Union.
EDIT: Just an afterthought; is it your belief that Augistine used the word “accidents” with an Aristotelian / metphysics idea in mind?
And peace also with you,
Jon
J
joe370
Guest
Radical, you said:
Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body, because all of us eat from the same loaf.
What do you believe Jesus meant when He said: “My flesh is real food; My blood is true drink…”
Help me out here: if Jesus was not speaking literally in John 6 (“My flesh is real food; My blood is true drink,” etc.) - He would have been a poor teacher. After all, everyone listening to Him speak those words understood that He meant them literally. They responded,* “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”* In the cases of Jesus saying He is a “door” or a “vine,” we find no one asking, “How can this man be a door made out of wood?” or, “How can this man claim to be a plant?” It was clear from the context and the Lord’s choice of words in those passages that He was speaking metaphorically. But in John 6 He was speaking literally. In John 6:41, the Jews “murmured” about Christ’s teaching precisely because it was so literal. Jesus certainly knew they were having difficulty imagining that He was speaking literally, but rather than explain His meaning as simply a metaphor, He emphasized His teaching, saying, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever, and the bread that I will give is My flesh for the life of the world.” (John 6:51) - Why would Jesus reinforce the literal sense in the minds of His listeners if He meant His words figuratively?
By the way, if they were to interpret his words metaphorically it would have been just as bad, as I am sure you know. To eat someone’s flesh meant to hate, revile and kill, to Jesus’ Jewish audience.
There is one loaf, and we who are many, become one body because all of us eat from the one loaf. If the loaf is a symbol then the loaf cannot make Jesus’ body the church, one. Eating the loaf is the key to this oneness. We become the body of Christ, the Church, by eating the one loaf. We, who are many and isolated, become one, spiritually, because we all partake of the body of Christ. If the bread does not become the body of Christ, then we, who are many, are not one, upon consuming mere bread, if in fact it is, as you say, a symbol and not His Body… not real food.
Because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body, because all of us eat from the same loaf.
What do you believe Jesus meant when He said: “My flesh is real food; My blood is true drink…”
Help me out here: if Jesus was not speaking literally in John 6 (“My flesh is real food; My blood is true drink,” etc.) - He would have been a poor teacher. After all, everyone listening to Him speak those words understood that He meant them literally. They responded,* “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”* In the cases of Jesus saying He is a “door” or a “vine,” we find no one asking, “How can this man be a door made out of wood?” or, “How can this man claim to be a plant?” It was clear from the context and the Lord’s choice of words in those passages that He was speaking metaphorically. But in John 6 He was speaking literally. In John 6:41, the Jews “murmured” about Christ’s teaching precisely because it was so literal. Jesus certainly knew they were having difficulty imagining that He was speaking literally, but rather than explain His meaning as simply a metaphor, He emphasized His teaching, saying, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever, and the bread that I will give is My flesh for the life of the world.” (John 6:51) - Why would Jesus reinforce the literal sense in the minds of His listeners if He meant His words figuratively?
By the way, if they were to interpret his words metaphorically it would have been just as bad, as I am sure you know. To eat someone’s flesh meant to hate, revile and kill, to Jesus’ Jewish audience.
R
Radical
Guest
This may be your assumption (that God is incapable of bringing Christians into the church [aka the body of Christ] without utilizing a real bodily presence), but it is not Augustine’s. In sermon 272 Augustine asks, “But what role does the bread play?” Here is his answer:
We have no theory of our own to propose here; listen, instead, to what Paul says about this sacrament: “The bread is one, and we, though many, are one body.” [1 Cor. 10.17] Understand and rejoice: unity, truth, faithfulness, love. “One bread,” he says. What is this one bread? Is it not the “one body,” formed from many? Remember: bread doesn’t come from a single grain, but from many. When you received exorcism, you were “ground.” When you were baptized, you were “leavened.” When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, you were “baked.” Be what you see; receive what you are. This is what Paul is saying about the bread.
Note how it is all about the symbolism of how bread is made and how Christians are “ground”, “leavened” and “baked”. Contrast that with what you or your Church would say in answer to “What role does the bread play?” Augustine makes no claim of a real bodily presence being involved. No claim about the substance of bread being changed to the substance of Christ’s flesh. For Augustine the bread represents the church…the one body formed from many.
Jesus used a food metaphor b/c the crowds were following him in hope of getting fed. The crowd wanted a sign to justify belief in Jesus. They recalled an earlier miraculous sign, namely manna. Manna was real food - literally. The eating of manna, however, did not result in the consumer having eternal life. Jesus contrasted that reality with this:
**I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty…… This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever. **
The crowd wanted real food that would satisfy the needs of their bodies’ metabolisms. Jesus tells them that they should be seeking after more/he is offering more. In his metaphor the eating of real food gets eternal life for the eater and the eater will never be hungry again. That is the power of real food as defined by Jesus. Eat your Eucharist and you will still be hungry. In Jesus’s metaphor the drinking of real drink results in the drinker never being thirsty again….and, at verse 35 it is belief that is said to eternally satisfy the thirst and coming to Christ that is said to eternally satisfy hunger. Therefore it becomes:
a) Believing (v 35 ) in what was achieved by the pouring out of Christ’s blood gains eternal life (v 40) for the believer and the believer need not desire (thirst) (v 35) for anything more;
b) coming to Christ (v.35) for what can be gained by the giving of his body (v.51) on our behalf (at the cross) gains eternal life (v.40) for that person and that person need not desire (hunger) (v. 35) for anything more.
c) Real food and real drink (as used by Christ) is what satisfies the thirst and hunger in (a) and (b) above such that one will never thirst nor hunger again and real food (as “real” is used by Christ) is not literal food such as manna which only satisfies the flesh for a short time
He didn’t explain that he would provide a means of eating that involved transubstantiation (so as to avoid cannibalism)…does that make him a poor teacher in your eyes?
In the John 6 passage we don’t find them asking, “How can he be bread made out of grain?” either. In the “door” or “vine” passages, if Jesus had expanded those metaphors to the same degree (as he did in John 6) and said something like, “You must be grafted onto me and grow out of my limbs…” the audience may very well have asked, “How can this man cause us to be grafted onto him?”
Really? Christ said he was “real” or “true” bread…was he literally bread that day? Christ said that those who come to him would never hunger or thirst again….after you have participated in your Eucharist, do you ever get hungry again?..do you ever get thirsty again? Christ said that one must chew his flesh…do your teeth ever rip into and chew apart his flesh?
I have answered this previously on this thread….how about you answering what I have asked before. A literal chewing of Christ’s flesh would amount to cannibalism. There is no other literal eating that the Jews could have comprehended that day. Your Eucharist is not cannibalistic, so why would Jesus reinforce the literal and cannibalistic sense in the minds of His listeners if He was referring to a manner of eating that involved transubstantiation?
R
Radical
Guest
continuing…
that is one metaphorical usage of “eating” that Jesus’s Jewish audience might have been familiar with….however, that is not the metaphorical meaning that Jesus attached to his words…
T
Timothy17
Guest
I strongly recommend you read the City of God before making assumptions about the Saint’s beliefs in regard to the Sacrament. He specifically calls the Sacrament of the Altar a sacrifice, something Luther quite ignored : the “sacrifice of the Christians,” the Saint says. Bread cannot be sacrificed, only a a living body can be sacrificed. In all Jewish ritual sacrifices, there involved life and death, body and blood. If it is a “sacrifice of the Christians,” as the Saint and Doctor says, it must logically be made by the Christians. Not by one Christian, not by “the Followers of the Way,” as they were originally known, but by “the Christians,” which name developed some time after our Lord’s Passion. St Augustine did not say, “The Sacrifice of Christ,” or “Christ’s Sacrifice,” which everyone was well aware of, Christian or even non-Christian, but he said, “the sacrifice of the Christians,” as in being peculiar to our religion.
From your quote, the Saint is - as is typical of him - deepening our understanding of the Faith. He does a wonderful job connecting us to that very body in the bread, which body he elsewhere states unequivocally is sacrificed on the altar, as in the City of God ; furthermore, the Saint makes repeated mention of the Christian Altars, which altars would be pointless if there was no sacrifice being made upon them - an altar exists for sacrifices to be made, so we know the Saint had to be refering to the Sacrifice of the Altar, otherwise his listeners would have thought him quite mad if, as you suspect, Christians had no sacrifice and no altars, except according, quite suddenly, to this most Catholic of Bishops of Hippo.
Pax,
Tim
R
Radical
Guest
thanks…did you read the bits from City of God that I posted back at #39?
these are quite the assertions…can you explain how your assertions hold up in light of the Old Testament grain offerings?..or OT drink offerings? They were sacrifices, so where was the living body and the blood?
…or we could move on to the NT. In Hebrews 13:15 it reads: “By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name”
Where is the blood in that sacrifice?
Here is part of City of God Book X Chapter 6. Please focus on the bolded parts and tell me how Augustine’s usage of “sacrifice” requires the Eucharist to possess a real bodily presence.
- Thus a true sacrifice is every work which is done that we may be united to God in holy fellowship, and which has a reference to that supreme good and end in which alone we can be truly blessed.…. Thus man himself, consecrated in the name of God, and vowed to God, is a sacrifice in so far as he dies to the world that he may live to God. … Exhorting to this sacrifice, the apostle says, “I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.” If, then, the body, which, being inferior, the soul uses as a servant or instrument, is a sacrifice when it is used rightly, and with reference to God, how much more does the soul itself become a sacrifice when it offers itself to God, in order that, being inflamed by the fire of His love, it may receive of His beauty and become pleasing to Him, losing the shape of earthly desire, and being remoulded in the image of permanent loveliness? ….** Since, therefore, true sacrifices are works of mercy to ourselves or others, done with a reference to God,** and since works of mercy have no other object than the relief of distress or the conferring of happiness, and since there is no happiness apart from that good of which it is said, “It is good for me to be very near to God,” it follows that the whole redeemed city, that is to say,** the congregation or community of the saints, is offered to God as our sacrifice through the great High Priest,** who offered Himself to God in His passion for us, that we might be members of this glorious head, according to the form of a servant. …. For, as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another, having gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us.” This is the sacrifice of Christians: we, being many, are one body in Christ. And this also is the sacrifice which the Church continually celebrates in the sacrament of the altar, known to the faithful, in which she teaches that **she herself is offered *in the offering she makes to God.
T
Timothy17
Guest
I appreciate your learning in this regard - and will happily continue this discussion, however, sadly, I must head out.
Before I go, I was considering making mention of the offerings, and the daily sacrifices of all Christians, such as you referenced. Please trust I was mindful of those things, and will reply later in more detail.
I ask you, though, to consider the Last Supper especially, and note Christ’s words of offering His Body, and His Blood, followed by the command to “Do this in remembrance of me.” If we cannot offer His Body, and His Blood, how can we say we are abiding in His command ? Notice also Golgotha, “the place of the skull,” which tradition identifies as being none other than Adam’s own skull. This, I believe, is the basis for Catholic Altars having a relic of a Saint underneath, so each Altar is another Golgotha, so to speak. Of course, the Church must offer herself up in the Sacrifice of the Mass, for She offers up the Lord’s Body, which is the Church - the two are inseperable. To say that the Church offers herself up is to say She offers the Lord’s Body. As this is done on an altar, even in St. Augustine’s day, it must therefore also be a sacrifice. The Church cannot divorce herself from the Lord - the two are One. I think, therefore, the Saint is stressing an important point to Christians here, that we must understand ourselves as carrying the Cross, and heading to the Cross, and being united to the Cross, as is our Lord. Everything points to the Cross, and to the Lord, so we must absorb the teaching and see ourselves as ever approaching Calvary, ever participating in Calvary, and ever habituating ourselves to becoming an acceptable, and living sacrifice, as the Apostle admonishes.
Be back in a few hours,
Tim
Before I go, I was considering making mention of the offerings, and the daily sacrifices of all Christians, such as you referenced. Please trust I was mindful of those things, and will reply later in more detail.
I ask you, though, to consider the Last Supper especially, and note Christ’s words of offering His Body, and His Blood, followed by the command to “Do this in remembrance of me.” If we cannot offer His Body, and His Blood, how can we say we are abiding in His command ? Notice also Golgotha, “the place of the skull,” which tradition identifies as being none other than Adam’s own skull. This, I believe, is the basis for Catholic Altars having a relic of a Saint underneath, so each Altar is another Golgotha, so to speak. Of course, the Church must offer herself up in the Sacrifice of the Mass, for She offers up the Lord’s Body, which is the Church - the two are inseperable. To say that the Church offers herself up is to say She offers the Lord’s Body. As this is done on an altar, even in St. Augustine’s day, it must therefore also be a sacrifice. The Church cannot divorce herself from the Lord - the two are One. I think, therefore, the Saint is stressing an important point to Christians here, that we must understand ourselves as carrying the Cross, and heading to the Cross, and being united to the Cross, as is our Lord. Everything points to the Cross, and to the Lord, so we must absorb the teaching and see ourselves as ever approaching Calvary, ever participating in Calvary, and ever habituating ourselves to becoming an acceptable, and living sacrifice, as the Apostle admonishes.
Be back in a few hours,
Tim
U
utah_rose
Guest
Welcome home! You are very brave for leaving Mormonism. I live in Salt Lake City and know that people who leave are shunned by not only their families and friends, but sometimes business associates and even lose jobs because of this.
I am a revert and also came back because of the Eucharist. God bless you!
F
flyonthewall
Guest
The Bible is full of symbolism and metaphors. Jesus taught in parables, which were metaphorical.
From this passage it is very clear that the last supper is symbolic
It cannot be any plainer or simpler.
Now I know you will say that I am misinterpreting these passages, but my understanding of them are just as valid as anyone else’s.
You have your sources of interpretation, and I have mine.
This is the sacramental prayer for the bread the LDS use:
From this passage it is very clear that the last supper is symbolic
Just like when the Israelites were told to eat unleavened bread and to use bitter herbs, these were symbols used in rememberance of things, Jesus was introducing the emblems to be used in rememberance of Him.
It was bread that He gave to the Apostles, not His actual body. He was assigning the symbolism when He gave them bread and said: “this is my body”.
It cannot be any plainer or simpler.
Now I know you will say that I am misinterpreting these passages, but my understanding of them are just as valid as anyone else’s.
You have your sources of interpretation, and I have mine.
This is the sacramental prayer for the bread the LDS use:
We do not believe in the actual presence of the body of Christ, but we do beleive that the Spirit is present.
K
kweschnz
Guest
Watch out, Fly, because that’ll open up another can of worms with the RC view, because the Greek word “anamnesis”? They will tell you that it means more than just a memorial, it’s an actual “bringing up into the present” of something that happened in history (and they say that’s consistent with the Hebrew practice at the Passover).
J
joe370
Guest
Radical, I guess it really comes down to your interpretation vs my interpretation, if the bible is in fact, the Christians final authority, as opposed to any one church leadership. I have tried to see things from your perspective, but your arguments are lacking in my opinion, but I don’t claim to have the final authority to resolve the matter, so it doesn’t really matter what I think. If you believe that the holy spirit has guided you to believe in a metaphorical interpretation of John 6, who the heck am I to say otherwise.
Godspeed Radical…
Godspeed Radical…
R
Reuben_J
Guest
How is eating and the effect of eating the body of God be comparable to eating human’s flesh?
R
Radical
Guest
Take care Joe…and may God bless you.Radical, I guess it really comes down to your interpretation vs my interpretation, if the bible is in fact, the Christians final authority, as opposed to any one church leadership. I have tried to see things from your perspective, but your arguments are lacking in my opinion, but I don’t claim to have the final authority to resolve the matter, so it doesn’t really matter what I think. If you believe that the holy spirit has guided you to believe in a metaphorical interpretation of John 6, who the heck am I to say otherwise.
Godspeed Radical…
R
Radical
Guest
I am not sure what you mean here…if you are asking how the Catholic Eucharist is comparable to chewing Christ’s flesh (as per John 6), then my answer is that the two aren’t comparable at all.
C
croix_de_fer
Guest
Before Christ, the Jews already used symbolic bread and wine at Passover. So why wouldn’t they be able to accept what Christ had said to them in John 6? They found it hard to endure, but they would not if it had been just a symbol. Why did Christ let some of the disciples leave if it were only a symbol? Why did He invite the apostles to do the same? Why would He risk losing them if He did not mean literally His body and blood? There was no symbolism, rather Christ meant it literally. The Catholic Church and Orthodox Church adhere to Scripture and God’s Word more than anyone. Their Mass is a prayer based on Scripture and it’s a reading of Scriptures; and most of their prayers essentially recitations of Scripture and/or based off of Scripture.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I agree with you. Just to check with you on this point.
Then yes, our teeth rip into and chew the flesh of the Lord when we receive the host in our mouth for it is his true body and blood. But since it is not acomparable with human flesh, but God’s, then trying to compare it with chewing human flesh does not arise. And nor does it is cannibalism since we are not eating human flesh. One thing for sure, Jesus asked to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood. The disciples thought he meant cannibalism; they couldn’t understand and left.
BTW, I don’t chew but just letting the host melt in my tongue before swallowing it. I suppose it’s an old school of receiving the Eucharist; now communicants generally chew.
F
flyonthewall
Guest
The Lord had not instituted the last supper when he stated that they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood, therefore the symbolism was not assigned yet.
They did have dietary laws that forbid them from drinking blood, and eating the flesh of a human?..forget about it.
I think He let some leave for the same reason he taught in parables.
I understand you believe that, but I think it perfectly clear that it was not literal, but symbolic.
C
croix_de_fer
Guest
- Status