A
AlmaRedemptorisMater
Guest
You’d better be sure that you’re right, because if you’re wrong you will have to answer for your blasphemy at the end.
Why wouldn't a Protestant want to receive the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist
- Status
W
Wannano
Guest
I would think it logical but at the same time I have had the pleasure of conversing with numerous priests and find I get quite different answers to the same questions from time to time.Wannano:
Georgetown Univ , A Jesuit University, did a survey, and found 79% of Catholics don’t attend Mass faithfully on Sunday. They might be (C& E) Christmas and/or Easter Catholics, or they stopped going to mass altogether but still call themselves Catholic.AtheistNoMore:
How have you determined that we don’t want to? My understanding is that we can’t partake in your Eucharist if we really don’t believe the wafer has become Jesus. Shouldn’t we rather be respected for admitting we don’t have that belief? I read that only a small percentage of Catholics really believe yet they partake…which they can do because they have been baptized Catholic. Are they better off than a Protestant who admits he has not come to that belief?
Meaning 21% of Catholics faithfully go to mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation.
SO
Depending on which group one asks faith questions to, one would expect to get different answers to those faith questions… agreed?
J
Johan
Guest
Can you please specify what kind of “blasphemy” you have found in what I just wrote?
S
steve-b
Guest
It’s interesting,
When Jesus said the following conditional statement
as in (do this or else)
Jn 6:53 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; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
That did not go over well for many of His disciples
60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” … 64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
Jesus knew/knows in advance who will and won’t believe
And note:Jesus didn’t go after them. He didn’t ask for a 2nd or 3rd chance to try and convince them. He let them go. But He did give them the needed information regardless of knowing in advance they would reject it… and in extension reject Him as well.
Last edited:
J
Johan
Guest
So maybe they were supposed to go away, just like Jesus spoke to the people in parables “ecause the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.” (Matt. 13:11). And parables also contain figurative language, by the way.
S
steve-b
Guest
steve-b:
So maybe they were supposed to go away, just like Jesus spoke to the people in parables “ecause the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.” (Matt. 13:11). And parables also contain figurative language, by the way.
I would just summarize it this way
God desires
all to be saved HERE. Anyone left out of that? Nope!HOWEVER
while He desires all to be saved, in reality, few are savedWHY?
Jesus explained why.People won’t follow directions
Last edited:
W
Wannano
Guest
So you actually have experienced a Catholic Eucharist? I have a friend whose son has become a Catholic who claims he goes to Mass with his son and even the Bishop served him the Eucharist even though he has the knowledge that he is non-Catholic. It is confusing.AlmaRedemptorisMater:
Just as I was weirded out, in a good way, when a priest handed out all the hosts first, then we all ate together, at once.
…he even let us take the cup.
A
ArchStanton
Guest
Johan,
Many of the disciples went away but only after Christ changed the Greek word ‘phago’ [eating] to ‘trogo’ [to chew on, gnaw on]…Do you consider Christ a bad teacher? He had several opportunities to explain the symbolic aspect of His teaching, but He didn’t [he doubled down a few times] and allowed those with no faith to leave.
Many of the disciples went away but only after Christ changed the Greek word ‘phago’ [eating] to ‘trogo’ [to chew on, gnaw on]…Do you consider Christ a bad teacher? He had several opportunities to explain the symbolic aspect of His teaching, but He didn’t [he doubled down a few times] and allowed those with no faith to leave.
W
Wannano
Guest
How is it then that He wants His body gnawed and at Mass you are not supposed to even chew it but let it melt slowly so you have Him as long as possible before swallowing?
S
steve-b
Guest
I think you meant to say that differently
J
Johan
Guest
Well, that argument depends on the assumption that Christ was teaching the disciples in Greek, rather than in Aramaic. Although not impossible, I find that implausible. However, it has been noted that the Evangelist John never used the present tense of ἐσθίω (“to eat”), so he consequently used τρώγω (“to chew”) in his quotation of Ps. 41:9 (“he who eats my bread”) where the Septuagint indeed renders the same wording with ἐσθίω. So the argument that John was using τρώγω to indicate a “physical”, non-metaphorical eating is quite tenuous.
Last edited:
A
ArchStanton
Guest
Do you mean reverse the order? I think it was from one of Staples articles years ago.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Point being, Jesus didn’t change the Greek.
A
ArchStanton
Guest
…When we consider the language used by St. John, a literal interpretation —however disturbing—becomes even more obvious. In John 6:50-53 we encounter various forms of the Greek verb phago , “ eating .” However, after the Jews begin to express incredulity at the idea of eating Christ’s flesh , the language begins to intensify . In verse 54 , John begins to use trogo instead of phago . Trogo is a decidedly more graphic term, meaning “to chew on” or to “gnaw on” —as when an animal is ripping apart its prey… [Tim Staples…The Eucharist in John 6]
W
Wannano
Guest
Like I said, I have not seen that action at any Mass I have observed.
Last edited:
J
Johan
Guest
As said, that does not explain why John is using trōgō in v. 13:18 (in his quotation of Ps. 41:9), where the Septuagint is using the ordinary esthiō. It seems to be the standard choice of John for the present tense of the verb, rather than an intended “deeper” meaning.
S
steve-b
Guest
That is not Jesus changing the Greek. That is the Greek describing what Jesus said. As an aside, there is no indication Jesus spoke Greek.
A
ArchStanton
Guest
Being overlooked is Christ’s responses over and over again. This is not like [I am the door, vine, etc]…reread all of Chapter 6 with an open heart/mind
A
ArchStanton
Guest
Indeed, I agree…my words sometimes get in the way 
J
Johan
Guest
What is the essential difference compared to all the other instances in the Gospel of John where Jesus is clearly speaking figuratively (calling His body “temple” in John 2, speaking of salvation in terms of birth in John 3, talking about living water in John 4, calling His work “food” in the same chapter, etc)?
- Status