"Idolatry" of the Eucharist revisited

I don't know why it is especially interesting, it is nothing new. That is what the Scripture says, does it not?

"The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63, NKJV

"The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." John 6:63, RSV

"The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." John 6:63, NASB

"The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life." John 6:63, NAB

So, though you want to turn the tables on me, how do you understand this in relation to the passage as a whole. I did not ask for my opinion, I asked how you (hopefully it would be the common Catholic understanding of the passage) understand this statement by Christ.

God Bless,
Neal

 

"The words that I speak to you..."

What words? All that Jesus said preceeding this statement. That He is the bread of life. That if you do not eat of the bread of life then you do not have life in you.

Spirit and flesh... refers to the difference between the natural and supernatural body of Jesus.

"Flesh" the natural preresurrected not yet transfigured human body of Jesus.

"Spirit" the supernatural resurrected and transfigured body of Jesus.

Jesus tells us that He is the bread that came down from Heaven and compares Himself to the manna.

Two things here.

The manna was actually eaten. (Just as the Passover Lamb was atually eaten.)

Jesus is telling them who He is: the Son of God. They did not accept it.

That is why He said, "What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where He ws before?"

Meaning when they see Him ascend then they will believe.

 

Thanks, Ron, but you really did not explain what He means when He is saying that His words are spirit and life.

God Bless,
Neal

 

So Jesus accidentally misspoke, or something like that, correct?

God Bless,
Neal

 

So Jesus accidentally misspoke, or something like that, correct?

God Bless,
Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Oh they are. You see what you don't understand is that the Eucharist and the Word go hand in hand. At Mass we have the liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. An affirmation of the Eucharist is not a denial of the Word of God being important. In fact quite the opposite. What you fail to acknowledge is the part of his words that were spirit and life in John 6. "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood shall have life within him.". Those are the words that are spirit and life. They do not diminish the rest of scriptures. They enhance them. No mistake in Jesus words at all. The words are spirit and life for those who live them. His words once again are "unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life within you.". That is partaking in the Eucharist. Those who do not live in the flesh and turn away. The flesh is of no avail. Tell me, were his words spirit and life for those who turned and walked away? If they were not then I think you should do some hard analysis of what was it that caused them to walk away. Did they walk away from a Bible? Common Neal, that's a hanging curve.


Blessings

[ September 16, 2003, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

"the words Christ spoke = spirit and life

So what does that mean. The words are spirit and they are life."

Neal,

I am really not catching your drift. Are you saying that the words are words that don't have to affect us. That what is spirit and life is just words and not the meaning of those words. Once again I think you are being dichotomous if you will permit me to use the word. The words are spirit and life and the life that is in those words is the meaning. If just the words were spirit and life then those who turned and went to their former way of life would also have been saved for they would have heard those words.

 

Neal,

You said "Is" means "Equal," but you contradict yourself because you do not believe that "Is" means "Equals" when Jesus says "My flesh is true food," and that we are to "eat his flesh." You take "is" to mean "represents" there.

 

I would think that Catholics and Protestants alike sense and feel something special when we read the very words that our Lord spoke, or when we read what God caused the apostles to write down in their epistles. The words of Christ ' . . . are spirit and they are life.' [John 6:63] Our real life is not in the 'flesh' meaning in our humanity, but when Christ's words are read or preached they have a quickening effect on our inner being. His truth has an exhilarating effect on our lives.

The woman with the issue of blood merely touched the hem of His garment and she was changed. When we eat of Him and drink of His blood He changes our lives. John 1:12 reminds us that 'As many as receive Him to those He gives the power to become the sons of God.'

While the Holy Communion is a beautiful part of our worship and in the case of Catholics the mass; John 6:53 does not mean that if a sinner or Christian does not get to the Eucharist that they will be lost. Here is what Jesus said,

'And Jesus said to them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink of His blood, you have no life in you. Whosoever eateth My flesh, and drinks My blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.'

His flesh, His human life is an eternal example to all Christians. His blood is that which cleanses us from all of our sins. Without His atonement we are all lost and without everlasting life within our bodies and souls.

Verse 57 & 58 tells us that if we really partake of Him spiritually speaking, we will live by His example and will finally obtain eternal life with Him.

Receiving the holy sacrament could become a ritual; receiving Christ in our hearts and lives means new life in and from Him. When we invite Him into our lives He comes as a permanent Resident. [John 14:16 & I John 3:9] By receiving the sacrament of Communion we do not multiply His Presence in our hearts; He was already there and there forever. [John 3:16]

 

The quote of FE above makes it "obvious" that IT IS arguing that the NON-RC view MUST conclude for "idolatry" and that ONLY the RC assumptions make this an act of true worship.

The POINT MADE was NOT that FE was taking a non-CATHOLIC view of the mass RATHER it was that FE was stating that once you find you are NOT Catholic and you do NOT accept the Catholic view - THEN the result is truly idolatry since Catholics ARE in fact worshipping the bread thinking it is really Christ.

Nothing could be more blatant or obvious. How could even a "basic" objective reader miss it??

The point REMAINS.

But now we have added - MikeS' attempts to obfuscate, misdirect and "revise" the history of the statement.

In Christ,

Bob

 

In John 6 - only the "faithLESS" disciples conclude that Christ intended that they take "a bite out of Christ".

In John 6 - Christ does not say "someday soon at the Lords table I WILL be the bread of heaven and my Flesh WILL become food" rather He says it is ALREADY true.

Not ONE of the FaithFULL disciples bite Christ.

Not ONE word of rebuke or dissapproval from Christ about the FaithFULL disciple's actions.

RATHER He contrasts the departure of the faithLESS that took him "literally" with the loyal actions of the FaithFULL that were staying and not biting him.

HAD they started a feeding frenzy that day "As our RC bretheren insist was the LITERALLY correct thing to do" - there would have been no Lord's Table, No Cross, no substitutionary death of Christ.

Christ's OWN summary in John 6 states that biting "the literal flesh is worthLESS" - 6:63

Catholics should avoid John 6 when making arguments for biting Christ's flesh.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Indeed your partial quote of my post - gave you "liberty" to re-invent the issue in your own image.

However - the "objective reader" will note that MY POST - used the FE statement to SHOW (as the FEW quote STILL does EVEN in your own quote of it here) that IF you do NOT take the RC view of the bread, IF you take the non-RC view that the bread is NOT really - literally the flesh of Christ - THEN the RC practice is pure idolatry - and that point REMAINS even in your quote of the FE.

When the non-RC views that statement and clearly sees the "details" of the obvious fact that the non-RC view does NOT consider the bread to be the literal flesh of God - THEN the point is "obvious". The "details" make this "impossible to miss" even for a casual reader.

What is "NOT" clear is HOW my point above - was in ANY way denied in anything you posted.

Why are details, facts and history so difficult for our RC bretheren?

This "Should not be the case". You can be a Christian of another denomination (like the RCC for example) but that "should not" make you blind to "details" so consistently. What is causing this with our RC brethern?

You "should" be able to formulate an argument that "holds water" at least in the "details".

In Christ,

Bob

 

The point I was making is that the FE AGREES COMPLETELY with the fact that when you do NOT take the RCC's view - (if you are NOT already RC) and you take the non-RC view instead - THEN the conclusion CAN ONLY BE that the RCC is practicing idolatry. I "showed" the quote from the FE exposing the fact that WITHOUT the RC view - it IS idolatry EVEN by RC standards.

That point remains.

Instead of being "able" to support your view - you simply ADD other points made by the FE quote that are in line with RC doctrine. But my argument was never that the FE is a non-Catholic document or that it argues for non-catholic doctrine.

You make charges but are then unnable to support them with even a single detail.

You should be able to do better.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Not likely.

As an SDA, hatred of the Church is at least half of the doctrine.

He is immersed in the doctrine and culture of it.

 

The "fascinating" part is that MikeS offerred accusation but no "detail" no actual "point" supported. (And yet accusation with no actual supporting point was "more than enough point" to get RC agreement with Mike S. Fascinating and instructive as to how those Dark Ages actually "worked").

In my point I stated that when we as non-Catholics consider the RC view of the Eucharist to be "wrong" and "in error" we are not going as far as the FE - as far as the RCC itself would go in stating the "implications" of what it would mean to be "wrong" about their doctrine on the Eucharist.

The FE makes it clear - that if they are "wrong" about their speculation on the Eucharist - then they ARE in fact practicing real idolatry.

That is not simply a non-Catholic saying it - it is the RCC stating the full "implications" of what would be the case if they are wrong on this point.

Now "of course" I appreciate all the efforts of our RC bretheren to misdirect, obfuscate and sidetrack the subject. And I appreciate "their need" to do it repeatedly.

But the point remains. And the beauty of it is - it was made by the Catholic teaching document "The Faith Explained" itself.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

May our Eucharistic Lord bless you,

Grant

 

Grant,

God's blessings to you as well.

The point I have made is clear and obvious and the RC efforts not withstanding - it is impossible for the objective reader to miss.

While WE ALL agree that the Faith Explained is not arguing AGAINST the Catholic view of the bread as being God. What the FE IS saying is that in worshipping it AS God - the implication is that IF that is not really the case - then this is a pure form of idolatry.

In fact they are correct on that point. It is a MORE pure form than is practiced by Pagans for they claim that the statues only REPRESENT the being they are praying to - they do not argue that the statue IS the god they pray to.

And that statement by the FE showing the consequence of being wrong in regard to the real state of the bread - reveals clarity of thought on the part of the Catholic leadership that is striking even to non-Catholics as we consider what really IS the implication of the Catholic error regarding the communion.

In Christ,

Bob