Science vs Transubstantiation

(Continued from previous message)

Unworthiness is certainly attributed to the partaking of the elements of communion depending upon what those elements are, be it physical of spiritual. If the bread and wine simply remain as bread and wine, no matter how they are dedicated they may be as "representatives" of Christ, the harm done in partaking of them would be noting unless those elements are really and truly Jesus Himself.

Which is the more intimate thing to do in getting close to Jesus?

1.) That we gain Him through a representative pair of elements that substitute of the actual Christ, or…

2.) To actually take His body and blood into our very being, even while it is only for a little while?

No other Sacrament of the Church has us coming to Christ in greater intimacy. When I come to him to confess my sins (be it to a priest in the confessional or directly to Him on my knees) I do so that I may gain that intimacy once again. When I am baptized, I do to become a child of God in his church, and to gain the salvation made possible by the blood of the cross. If I am anointed with oils in case of sickness, it is an appeal to remove all vestiges of sin, as well as to seek a physical healing. But of all the sacraments, none bring the intimacy of Christ as does the Eucharist. To take Him bodily, actually take Him in body and blood, as well as spiritually is so intimate that it is obvious one must be a pure as can be. And the fact that the species may simply be "representative," are merely "tokens" or "stand-ins" somehow has no more intimacy to Jesus, as if someone attempted to be a "stand-in" for a good friend who is unavailable. "Stand-in's" done get it for being intimate. And to be intimate with Jesus, one must be pure of heart as we receive him, and there is nothing like being "intimate" with Jesus with Him coming to me actually, in His actual (not natural) body and blood.

None of the other sacraments require the purity of heart that the Holy Eucharist requires, and that is what "worthiness" is all about. To actually consume the real body and blood of Christ is infinitely greater in fact, then to simply partake of Him "symbolically."

I previously said:

As a matter of fact, if I were to partake of the species of bread and wine that is substutionary of the body and blood of Christ in an "unworthy" matter, it is not to say that I do such a thing that I am not accountable for before God, just like if I were to destroy a photograph of you in anger, I do not actually harm you physically, except that if you see me do this, I still harm you in the heart. You would be sad to see me do such a thing, right, Yelsew? So, to do so to a symbolic representation is still a serious thing to do, isn't it?

But imagine if in fact that the species of the Eucharist is actually Christ in His body, blood, soul and divinity? Oh how much more serious is the offense if we partake of Him unworthily! Now, look at your last sentence above: Under the very same sinful conditions you speak of here, how terribly awful is it to receive Christ into our unclean bodies! It would be comparable of me harming you personally instead of defiling your photograph. That is a vast difference, don't you think?

Bread and wine do not "substitute" for Christ; the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine actually, completely but are His actual body and blood!

Keying off from your first sentence here, I just gave an analysis how God uses the physical to convey the spiritual. Water is the physical element that brings the spirit in Baptism; holy oils bring the spirit in the anointing of the sick, and thus it is natural to have the body and blood of Christ, given physically, bring Christ spiritually to us as well.

I have no problem with your sex offender scenario, noting that incarceration may indeed bring about a change in heart and repent before God for his sins. I certainly agree that the incarceration does nothing more then to restrain the individual from society. But the incarceration may be the very thing that brings the mind to contemplation as to why he is incarcerated, the first steps to repentance.

Even so, even if they repent, there is lingering distrust of this individual, even while the repentance is genuine. Incarceration is continued since punishment is still due for the acts committed. And I see too much evidence that the offender, repentant r not, will be a repeat offender. And that gets into another subject…the assurance of salvation.

Also, I fail to see the relevance of your story here. Maybe it is my thick skull or something…


Jesus says "I am the door," but never does He say, "The door is my body."

What? A front door or back door? (I'm being silly now…)

You thoroughly missed the point here! Is this not an obvious example of a metaphor - something that is not literal?

Jesus says "I am the vine" but never does He say, "The vine is my body ."

What does the "vine" metaphor say to you, Yelsew? Perhaps that as a vine is the source of all the fruit that may be produced on it branches (grapes), Christ is the source of all graces that brings salvation to all of mankind who come to Him and believe in Him.

But again, you completely missed the point; it is another example of an obvious metaphor; no one would silly enough to actually take the sentence literally - that Jesus is an actual vine.

Jesus DID say, (holding the bread in his hands) THIS (the object in His hands) IS (a command that determines a condition of what He is holding) MY BODY!

No, it is a declaration of what the object in His hand to BE! Christ does not say, "this represents my body" but rather "this IS my body!" It is that simple, Yelsew!

To say "this spherical shaped object in my hand is the earth," you are making an obvious statement that others can see you cannot possibly make! The sentence implies that you have the power to make that sphere EARTH! The proper sentence, being a science teacher teaching earth science, would be, "This sphere I hold in my hand represents the earth."

You cannot say, not being God, what Christ can say, being GOD!

What the "THIS" he is holding is changed to by the "IS" that is confirmed by the "MY BODY," what it becomes!

There is only one "is" in the sentence, and in his case, it only refers to the "MY BODY" in that sentence.

AND…………………………..

Jesus never said, as He is holding the bread at the Last Supper, "I am the bread."

And likewise….

Jesus never said, (as he is holding the chalice) "I am the wine."

And now back to our regularly scheduled broadcast…

Well, others have told me that as well, and I interpret to mean, you cannot adequately refute what I have said.

In any case, "genealogy" is sure important, in a sea of confusing and babbling Christian communities, to inspect their "charters, pedigrees and certainly genealogy" to find the True Church of Jesus Christ.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima christi -


Soul of Christ, sanctify me.

Body of Christ, save me.

Blood of Christ, inebriate me.

Water from the side of Christ, wash me.

Passion of Christ, strengthen me.

O good Jesus, hear me;

Within Thy wounds hide me and permit

me not to be separated from Thee.

From the Wicked Foe defend me.

And bid me to come to Thee,

That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,

For ever and ever. Amen.

 

BobRyan,

I appreciate your comeback, and perhaps I did not realize you were going to follow up with further replies.

It is your choice but if you wish, continue replying to my long, long post and I will see if I will reply or not. After all, unreplied to messages are read by others and thus influence others as well.

I will study your present reply and decide to reply to it or not. And if you do reply, please try to contract all the quotes where it is possible to figure out what you mean without all the excessive quoting.

It is my habit to quote a lot, simply to keep down misunderstandings of what I have said. and perhaps that is a fault of mine.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.

He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

- The Apostles Creed -

 

Bill's June 18 7:56 PM post - replied to here.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What would exegesis tell us about the definition for terms in John 6.
What did the primary audience know about "bread" and "flesh" and "manna"?

In the book of John the reader STARTs with the definition for FLESH - that is WORD. John 1:14.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exegesis demands that we look at context and clearly the "reader" would have been introduced to Christ "As the WORD" from the very start of the book AND the reader would see the connection that the author is making between Word and Flesh.

This is symbolized in the literal incarnation itself. The "Word Became Flesh".


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And from as far back as Deut 8:3 the primary audience of John's day knew -- the lesson that BREAD from heaven - was a symbol for WORD - specifically MANNA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess you actually had to read Deut 8:3 to get the point.

Hint: Deut 8:3 "Man does NOT live by Bread alone but by every WORD that comes from the mouth of God".

The "lesson of bread from heaven".


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN John 6 ITSELF -- Christ makes the SAME point appealing to the lesson of MANNA in John 6:32.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not "Real biting of the Messiah" as some suppose - but really living on "every WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God".

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Matt 16:6-12 Christ rebukes the Discisples for taking the term BREAD TOO LITERALLY - it means "TEACHING" - He said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually the text says the too-literal view they first took was "It is because we TOOK NO BREAD"
vs7.

And Christ's rebuke to them is "How is it you did NOT understand that I was not speaking to you about Literal BREAD?" vs 11

The "symbol" of BREAD for teaching Matt 16:11.

The Symbol of "Flesh" for "WORD" John 1:1

"Man DOES NOT live by BREAD alone but by every WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God" Deut 8:3

Obviously you still you have not read Deut 8:3 where God Himself makes the point that THIS was the lessof of the manna.

quote: Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN John 6:59-69 BOTH CHrist and Peter draw the SAME conclusion
"The FLESH PROFITS NOTHING -- it is the WORD that has spirit and life".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You must first "ignore the use of the term FLESH in the entire discussion" to leap off the end as you do in the summary statement of Christ and completely inject another meaning for the term OTHER than Christ has been using.

That is the poster child for "eisegesis".


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter says "YOU HAVE the Words of Life".

The entire point of the dialogue was LIFE vs DEATH.

Christ points out "He WHO EATS my FLESH HAS eternal life" - present.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And so... staying with the point, Christ is showing that the REAL key to obtaining LIFE is NOT "biting the messiah" as the faithLESS disciples supposed in their too-literal-view -
but in fact "the WORDS of Christ were Spirit AND LIFE" the very LIFE that He had been speaking about in His illustration.

Too late to re-write your own summary into the lesson - Christ Himself Gives it - and Peter agrees.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33 ""For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.''
34 Then they said to Him, ""Lord, always give us this bread.''
35 Jesus said to them, "" I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

At this point Christ does not say "HE WHO BITES ME will not hunger, nor He who DRINKS Me will never thirst" - but "HE WHO COMES TO ME".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope. He made it quite clear leading into vs 53 "that Coming to Christ" and "Belief" and "ALL being Taught by God" was ALREADY the key to obtaining life. Literally, explicitly no shocking symbols.


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And He says the "problem is not that you fail to BITE - but that you fail to BELIEVE My WORD"

36 ""But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.
...
40 ""For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.''

AGAIN the focus is on BELIEVING Christ's Words - not "biting Christ".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the direct language before and after 53-58 he shows what eating/biting "THE FLESH" is --- "worthless". And He shows them that He wants to take them AWAY from the earthly ideas of literally biting food to one of BELIEVING and COMING to Christ and accepting His WORD and to be "ALL taught of GOD" for "My Word is Spirit and IS Life".

Wrong again. The very point I am making is two part.

#1. A literal view DOES NOT WORK even in 53-58 because NO disciples BIT Christ. Not even the faithFULL ones (and as we saw from Matt 16 when they FAILED to get the meaning Christ was quick to rebuke them).

#2. The entire POINT was "HOW to obtain eternal life" and Christ summarized the point STARTING with the lesson in 53-58 by saying "The literal FLESH is WORTHLESS". It is BECAUSE we have the use of Flesh in 53-58 that we ZERO IN on exactly that SAME meaning in 63. Exegesis Requires IT!

Far from avoiding it - I am relying on those texts to make my point.

#1. No mention is made by Christ of any sacrament in this discussion.

#2. Christ does NOT say "someday at a future sacrament this WILL become true".

#3. The majority of took him "literally" (all agree) and all agree these represented the "faithLESS" in the group).

#4. IF the majority had belived Christ was REALLY food JUST as He said and that the only way to have eternal life was to be biting Him - the Gospel would have ended then and there. All agree.

My argument is that if you had looked into the chapter in more detail it would have quickly become apparent that the list of points above to which "all agree" negate the RC teaching here.

In Christ,

Bob

 

continued

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41 Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, ""I am the bread that came down out of heaven.''
42 They were saying, "" Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, " I have come down out of heaven'?''
43 Jesus answered and said to them, ""Do not grumble among yourselves.

The FaithLESS disciples grumble that they do not believe Christ CAME DOWN out of Heaven already - as the BREAD of Heaven.

How does He now say, " I have come down out of heaven'?''

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And of course those "claims Were"....(details now)

How does He now say, " I have come down out of heaven'?''


They started out on the path of error in vs 26 and continue on.

Now did He mean that carbon-based bread fell out of heaven as did the manna - or Is HE the BREAD of heaven in the Deut 8:3 way as God proposes"?


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
44 ""No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
45 ""It is written in the prophets, " AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.
46 "" Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.
47 ""Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Again Christ points to BELIEF and "being TAUGHT of GOD" as the SOURCE of "eternal life". He does not focus on "those who BITE ME" as though that is the SOURCE of life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

His "Come to Me" and "Believe in Me" instruction has been LITERAL - but bread HAS been used "symbolically" as you note.

However each time they "Grumple" the example - the symbols - the illustration becomes more "shocking".

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48 "" I am the bread of life.
49 "" Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50 ""This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
51 "" I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.''

Now Christ is getting to the subject saying that HE IS ALREADY the bread that ALREADY came down out of heaven and it is ALREADY true that if "anyone EATS of this BREAD He will LIVE FOREVER". The EATING is for the goal of "Living Forever".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time for all faithFul Catholics to "bite Christ" if they were using todays Catholic doctrinal position.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the FaithFULL of John 6 should have started literally "EATING without Biting" right then and there? A kind of "gumming" end to the Gospel in John 6?

Exactly how WOULD your ideal ending have put it since Christ said nothing about this being true only in the Future?

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, ""How can this man give us His flesh to eat?''

The FaithLESS listners take Christ LITERALLY - obviously thinking that EATING LITERAL FLESH is how Christ wants them to obtain "eternal life". The faithLESS disciples take it LITERALLY.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I sort of thought you might agree here.

Yep. But the FaithFUL don't respond in the form "well we trust you so we are willing to consider biting you - just not today".

AND forbidden in Acts 15 by the NT church magesterium appealing to Levitical law as you note.

This concludes part 1 of your last reply set. More on parts 2 and 3 of your last set later.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Jesus declares himself to be the bread of Life (35) and that He came from heaven (38)! if Jesus is the bread of Life as He declares of himself, it is not unrealistic for Him to choose bread to substitute as a memorial for his own flesh!

The evidence says that Jesus died on the cross and that his blood was spilled onto the ground, and that his flesh was taken from the cross to a borrowed tomb where is was wrapped in "graveclothes" with burial spices, and that the tomb was closed with a heavy stone at the entrance and subsequently a Roman seal was placed on the tomb as a symbol of authority against graverobbers, and guards under the penalty of their own death were placed at the grave to keep away all who might have an interest in the contents of the grave. Then on the third day after burial, the tomb was opened by supernatural power and the body of Jesus arose, alive, from the grave and appeared to many over the next 40 days before He ascended to the right hand of the father. Thus, the REAL body of Jesus was not available to the disciples before His death, and it is not available to any of us after his resurrection. However, we do have bread and wine, the substances that Jesus declared to be His body and blood, that we are to consume as a perpetual memorial of who and what Jesus is and what He did for us. Such a remembrance is a spiritual experience, there is no higher experience for mankind!

Yes, it is the Spirit of Christ that gives life. the flesh of Christ has nothing to offer, so why make a big deal over it? Why not accept in your spirit the Spirit of Christ while eating the wafer of bread and drinking the sip of wine? After all, you are just as blessed, Just is indwelt, Just as eternally alive, because it is the Spirit that gives life!

There is nothing in this passage that even eludes to transubstantiation of the elements into the flesh or blood of Jesus. In fact, Jesus clearly states that the wine is also an illusion to a future wine that all will share in the Kingdom of the Father. Jesus, by declaration, makes the bread and wine an illusion of his body and blood, so that by eating the bread and drinking the wine, the disciples, symbolically, are taking within themselves the body and blood of the Christ thereby sharing in ALL that Jesus is. These symbols teach that, by eating and drinking them, we are taking into ourselves the essence of Jesus, pledging our allegience, and thus ourselves, to him in whom we believe.

The eating of the elements is an outward symbolic act of what we do in our spirit; the same as we do with water baptism, which is the dying to self, being buried, then rising up in resurrection, a new creature in Christ. It is symbolic in that we do not die in the flesh, our flesh is not buried in the earth; and no, we do not resurrect into a new flesh and blood body. When we willfully submit ourselves to baptism, our "self" has previously "died" in submission to the Holy Spirit's call to renewal in the spirit, and by symbolically being laid in the watery grave, we lay our old nature to rest figuratively "under the ground", and we show when rising from the water that we figuratively resurrect with a new spirit fully in the image of God who is spirit. Such full emmersion water baptism is symbolic in the same manner that the elements of the Eucharist are symbols, and the eating and drinking of the symbols is a symbolic act that represents the spiritual reality that we are taking into our spirit the Spirit of the Christ.

Is the symbolism real? ABSOLUTELY! Because it depicts the reality! Are the symbols the real thing? Absolutely NOT! That is why we call them symbols, that which provides the illusion of the real thing, or causes one to be reminded of the real thing. For example, a company logo such as the letters "IBM" is a symbol that causes us to think certain things, or in a certain manner about a product or service. Our initial emotional response may be either positive or negative, but the logo does illicit a response when encountered. The elements of the Eucharist do the same thing to us. We cannot NOT respond. And our response is in direct proportion to our faith in the reality the elements represent. My own response is Joy that overflows from my tear ducts!

In response to me stating that Jesus' words about the bread are his declaration that the object in his hand, the bread, is His body. You said,

What do you do with John 6:35 where Jesus declares that HE IS the bread of Life, and verse 48 where Jesus repeats with "I AM the bread of Life" A clear declaration by Jesus himself that He IS bread! Then goes on to declare that He IS the Living Bread that came down from Heaven "like" the Manna that came from heaven upon the Children of Israel in the wilderness. He says that the bread that he gives to the world IS His flesh. Surely Jesus gave his own life, His flesh, to ATONE for the sins of the World. He gave us His flesh, the bread of life that came from heaven above, so that we might have life in him. It is believing in Him that IS the "eating of His flesh", we eat more and more of it as we read and accept and act on his "Word"s . BUT, is it the incarnated flesh of Jesus? NO! not by any stretch of belief! Jesus is the "meat" of the Gospel, without Him, there is no Gospel. Sort of a hamburger without a meat patty.

Like I said, it IS "a convention of speech" that virtually every teacher uses in conveying a thought. If you want to ignore that simply because it does not fit your deeply ingrained beliefs, that IS up to you, but please do not criticize me for using the same conventions of speech that our Lord and Savior uses to convey His message to those who believe in Him.

 

Yelsew,

Thank you for your reply, but as I am going to be a bit busy with BobRyan, it may take a while!

(I already have a reply finished for him, but I will wait until I get the whole series from him before I reply with them.)

I already have some good replies in my head as I read that, but it will have to wait.

Perhaps some of the other Catholics can continue with Yelsew here?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

What “details” must be faithfully ignored in John 6 to hold to the RC doctrine on eating the Flesh of Christ?


#1. Ignore the context starting with vs 25-40 Where Christ is explicitly redirecting His followers AWAY from Earthly concern about food.

#2. Ignore the "Lesson of manna" that Christ references in 31-51 which is spelled out for us by God in Deut 8:3 – avoid God’s own summary of that lesson.

#3. Ignore Christ’s own summary of the discussion in John 6:63 saying that the term “FLESH” as he has used it in his discussion so far (exegesis - Context) “is worthless" for something to literally “bite” and then get eternal life.

#4. Ignore the detail in vs 43-58 that Christ is not stating “that the truth is a FUTURE truth” but rather is already true. He is Already the bread that already came down and they must already eat His flesh. He does not say “someday in the future you must eat My flesh”.

#5. Ignore the John 6:68 detail of Peter's summary conclusion of the "lesson learned" and the fact that it does not take the too-literal view of the faithLESS disciples in 6:52,60, but rather matches perfectly with Christ’s own clear statement as to how we literally obtain life in 6:63.

#6. Ignore the Matt 16 event where Christ scolds the disciples for taking the symbol of both bread and leaven too literally. MAtt 16:6-12. And do not connect that with the fact that He says nothing against the faithFULL disciple’s understanding/view in John 6.

#7. Ignore the detail of John 6 whereby the taking of Christ literally by the faithFULL disciples and then immediately obeying – (as the RC claims they should) – the gospel would end in John 6 with their biting His literal flesh for He said “My Flesh IS real food”.

#8. Ignore the detail of John 6 making no mention at all of a future Lord’s supper or Communion service needed for Christ’s words to “Then” become true at that future time.


What “details” in the book of John itself must be ignored to hold to the RC teaching on eating the Flesh of Christ?


#1 Ignore the detail of the book of John itself where the connection between Flesh and The Word is set explicitly as the starting context of the entire book.

#2.Ignore the detail of the book of John itself where the disciples have access to the “literally broken body of Christ” after the cross and in preparing it for burial – take no bites out of it.

#3. Ignore the same model of symbolism followed by literal as we see in John 11. “Lazarus SLEEPS, I go that I may wake him” and then plainly “Lazarus is Dead” as they took Him “too literally”.

All of these steps to ignore what is in the chapter must be combined to cut-and-paste from the chapter in snippets and still get what the RCC “needs” to find..

But - it must be noted that many will not take those steps to ignore all those details. What then? What if someone is paying attention to the details above?

How will the case be made for the Eucharist from John 6 in that situation?

In Christ,

Bob

[ June 19, 2003, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
53 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 yourselves.
54 ""He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
55 ""For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.

Christ does not say "SOME DAY" you must eat My Flesh - but "HE WHO EATS My Flesh..HAS eternal life" - time to start biting - in fact it appears it is PAST time for already there is the distinction between those who HAVE eternal life and those who have it not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exegesis demands that we actually look at What Christ actually said in vs 31-58 and as it turns out He did not say "some day in the future My flesh WILL be FOOD" - He said "it IS FOOD" and already "he who EATS has eternal life".

And of course the FaithLESS disciples took him literally - that they must already bite His flesh - and they left.

Again - that is not exegeting the text.

The text SHOWS them to perfectly echo Christ's own summary in 63 AND shows NO reprimand by Christ that "they were not getting it" or that they were "being slow to bite Him".

The "evidence you need in the text" for that assertion just is not there.

In fact it does not show the faithFULL disciples jumping to the same rash assumptions as the faithLESS ones about literally biting Christ.

I think we have already established that the RCC position is Fully reflected in the statements of the faithLESS disciples in John 6.

If we note the PRESENT and past tense "details" of the text and agree not to ignore them for the sake of the RCC.

There is no "we wait for the other shoe to drop" Idea in the text AND there is no "we hope someday your word will be true, maybe at a passover service or something".


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
56 ""He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

In John 15 Christ explains this as "MY WORD abiding IN YOU".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the infallible words of Christ and learn from HIM.

John 6:33Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Here Christ is telling us that the ACT that results in eternal life is LITERALLY believing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christ was correct - Belief - true faith and "coming to Christ" resulted in eternal life - ALL that flows AFTER that is merely "the fruit" of it.

However, Christ is obviously not getting into a long discussion on sanctification throughout a life time. He is talking about the single act that results in eternal life. The entire focus is what is that thing which we must do to get eternal life.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48"I am the bread of life.

This is not a - "I WILL BE THE BREAD OF LIFE in a few days at the communion table".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes - we all agree that the RCC view "needs" that future focus - but instead - Christ states what is "already true" in regard to His flesh being food. A detail that as you state above is not in harmony with the FUTURE-only requirement of the RC view.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
49"Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50"This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."

Christ says he WILL give his flesh - but he already IS THE LIVING BREAD and He ALREADY CAME down from heaven as MANNA. Cleraly they were not seeing literal manna fall and speak to them in John 6.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually He emphasizes "Being Taught of God" explicitly. He draws the past lesson of the manna "living by Every Word that comes from the Mouth of God" and He even states that the bread HAS ALREADY come down out of heaven in His own incarnation.

Where as we learned in John 1:1 "The Word became Flesh".

The faithLESS come to Christ that morning wanting more things to eat - even manna from heaven - Christ directs them AWAY from things to EAT - and toward "Coming to Christ", "Believing", "Being Taught By God", "The Lesson Manna", "The Flesh is Worthless".


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"

This listeners at least understood the tense - that Christ was CURRENTLY that bread of life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It IS in fact the "Literal" view that the FaithLESS disciples took however and they rejected it.

Literally eating Christ's Flesh for Christ was insisting THEN and THERE that "My Flesh IS FOOD".

No escaping it.

It must simply be ignored if one is to hold to the RC view.

An excellent example of wording we do Not find in John 6. It must be eisegeted in - read into the text.


quote:bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
53So 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 yourselves.
54"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
55"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

All this is present or past tense indicating that the ACTION is true now and that some ALREADY HAVE eternal life BECAUSE they ARE eating and drinking. This is without reference to FUTURE communion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

55"For My flesh IS true food, and My blood IS true drink.

Certainly I would agree that this statement does not say "is only for TODAY true food" so that it does not "CEASE" being true tomorrow as you seem to point out.

Circular reasoning starging with "SINCE my view is correct THEN eating his flesh has not happened even IF He states it as a PRESENT fact".

But If we objectively exegete we observe that HE states it is ALREADY true AND HE states that it is HIS WORD that literally brings life just as HE states that it is Coming to Him and believing that literally brings life.

And so you admit - He states present reality not "wait until someday in the future when My Flesh will become food".

In Christ,

Bob

(Final response to the third part of your last set - coming up)

 

While you're at it Bob, I'd appreciate a response to my post here: http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001685;p=7

 

ead the infallible words of Christ and learn from HIM.

John 6:33Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Here Christ is telling us that the ACT that results in eternal life is LITERALLY believing.

Good work, Bob.

That's the Only requirement. But many would ask...."Believe WHAT ?"

RCC says something on the order of "Believe that Jesus formed the Catholic
Church and appointed a succession of Popes who are to be known as
"Holy Father" and have the discernment of the bible (but not rely on the bible)...
etc. blah blah..........

Those who see the light and have ears to hear realize that what we are to
believe is that Jesus lived, died, rose from the dead and is our propitiation for
sin "to those who will believe" Jesus said many times "whosoever believes that
I am the Son of God" and "believe that I rose from the dead" etc. (Paraphrased).

That's the Good News ...the Key to salvation.

NOT.............Believe in the Holy Catholic Church.
There wasn't such a thing when those words were coined.

 

W Putnam,

You said, 'If you are going to sluff-off the writings of the good early church fathers who
were indeed, writing the first century history of the church, a church just outside
of the apostolic era, with that little attention as if they were nothing at all . . . '

As you probably know the Apostle Paul warned that even when he was alive and surely right after his death there would be men who would fill his place. [Colossians 2:4 & Jude 4]

While we should give due attention to the early fathers, there were some like Origen who brought into the church the absolute worst of all error that of allegorizing God's sacred Word. His theological school in Alexandria, Egypt spawned this most sad view of interpreting Scripture. Brother Origen as you might say, got his ideas from the Jewish Platonist, Philo. And guess who fell in love with this philosophy/theology of man. Your esteemed quasi-theologian brother, Augustine who was bishop in Africa joined in on the perversion of Scripture, ignoring the more literal method of interpretation of Scripture. 'Origen, the allegorist, taught that eventually all, even demons, would be saved, however, after undergoing educative punishment.' Dr. Latourette, "History of Christianity, p. 151.

'The medieval period existed from A.D. 590-1517 when the Reformation began. The period from 500-1500 is frequently called the Dark Ages because of the ecclesiastical corruption. It was, in fact this corruption that sparked the Protestant Reformation under Martin Luther.

Roman Catholic doctrine developed considerably during the medieval period: Purgatory in 593; prayer to Mary, saints and angels in 600; kissing the pope's foot in 709; canonization of dead saints in 995; celibacy of the priesthood in 1079; the rosary in 1090; transubstantiation and confessing sins to a priest in 1215; and the seven sacraments in 1439.' {end quote by Dr. Paul Enns, Th.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary} "The Moody Handbook of Theology" Moody Press, Chicago}

Nearly all if not all of the above do not have Scriptural support but are the 'add ons' of an evolutionary system of theological thinking, usually originating with the bishops or the Papal chair.

My question is if these truths were part of what God wanted us to believe, why did the Lord give them to your church at different times in human history? We believe correctly that His only truth can be found between Genesis and Revelation, otherwise, the oncoming Popes can officiate with the idea that the 'sky is the limit' as to what we can teach our innocent flock.

 

W. Putnam,

I think you wrote this.

' . . . the significance is so great, we Catholics, if we can, partake of His body and blood daily, being fully retired, my wife and I are privileged to do.'

You should not think of the Eucharist as a Centrum Silver that you take daily. Jesus did not speak of daily Communion, though like a vitamin, the offered remembrance will not hurt your spiritual lives. The Apostle Paul under Divine Providence only said, 'For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup . . . ', which brings us to the question as to why the priests, most of the times does not follow the Scriptural guide coming from Jesus, as to also drinking from the sacred chalice.

Grace comes from the Giver of all grace, Jesus Christ and not via flour and water.

 

Well founded and well stated argument Bro. Ray.

 

NO! Keep any responses IN TOPIC.

 

"which brings us to the question as to why the priests, most of the times does not follow the Scriptural guide coming from Jesus, as to also drinking from the sacred chalice."

Ray, perhaps you could explain what you mean by this. The priest always drinks from the chalice. That is explicitly stated in canon law that he must as I remember.

 

Ray Berrigan wrote:

Yes, I indeed, wrote that...

Why, sir? As a Catholic, I believe that the Eucharist I take daily is the actual body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ! And I want to partake of Him as often as I can!

Christ did not speak of many things, sir (that we know of and not recorded in scripture) such as the word "Trinity," "Rapture," and the other novel doctrines we see floating around today.

Christ established a church to look after things after He was to ascend to the Father in heaven, with great authority, signalled by the "keys of the kingdom" given to the "first pope," PETER, and defined by the power to "bind and loose."

and no "Johnny-come-lately" Christian community (bless their heart anyway!) can make that statement!

So there!

"For as often as I eat," I do so daily!

One of these days, we just find the time to discuss where you think priests do not "follow the scriptural guide doming from Jesus." And as Jesus drank from the cup when He instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, so also the priest drink from it as well!

Sir, what did you expect the priest to do with the sacred species that was once wine, but is now the blood of Christ if He does not drink from it?

I agree! Ordinary flour and water does nothing, nothing at all! But as instituted by Christ, what was made from the flour and water, becomes the actual (not natural) body and blood of Jesus Christ, a Sacrament He, Himself, instituted for all of us!

This is the only message I will be replying to of yours, Ray, since I am quite busy with BobRyan's replies.

FOR BOB RYAN: I am finished with replying to your "first installment."

I notice your "second installment" which I will save to file now, and answer as well. When you are finished with the third and last installment, and I complete the reply to i, you are going to get the largest dump of replies on your punkin head that may have the BaptistBoard administrators complain!

Now, back to replying to your latest posts...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.

He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

 

W Putnam,

I did not mean to hurt your feelings, but only to point out that apparently the Corinthian church of Paul's time did not partake of the holy Sacrament daily. I know some Lutherans receive on the first Sunday of the month.

I think thessalonian said that Canon Law requires the priest to drink the wine. In the apostle's church, the congregation received both the host and the wine, as duly noted where he says, 'as often as ye drink it, remember Me.' [I Cor. 11:25e,f] And a second time Paul says, 'For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death until He comes.' [vs. 26] The congregation received both elements, the body and the blood. When we see that only the priest usually drinks the wine, a red flag goes up in our minds and hearts. Do you see our dilemma? It appears to us that the Canon Law of the church is a higher authority than even what Jesus had intended for His church as written down by the great Apostle Paul.

I know that I need as much grace as our Lord can give to me too.

 

Hurt my feelings?

Nah, I am too thick-skinned for that!

Actually, you may be very correct here, as the Eastern Church, even to this day (somebody correct me if I speak in error) does not have a "divine Ligurgy" (which is quivalant to our Mass) daily!

As I recall, Pope Pius X was the one who recommended daily communnion fpr the Western Church.

Oh, I see what you are getting at!

Thess baby is right on that account, but during the Tridentine Mass that came out of the Council of Trent, only the host was given to the faithful coming to communnion - the wine was consumed only by the priest.

It was a practical move, since giving the host only, especially to a huge croud in big churches, it was better to do that. You see, in the host is also the blood, and in the blood is also the host (body). In other words, the blood in also in the host, as well as the host is also in the blood. But to preserve the ruberics of the ceremony, the priest had to consume both species.

Be advised that this has all changed in Vatican II, BOTH the body (host) and the blood (the chalice) is now offered to the entire community at Mass!

Oh dear me, don't we all?

The older I get, the more I find myself deficient before the Lord!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima Christi -

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

[ June 21, 2003, 06:24 AM: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

 

The older I get, the more I find myself deficient before the Lord!

That's odd....coming from a perfect system that was appointed by Jesus
himself and with a history of 2000 years; ruled by umpteen popes. Can't
they seem to get it right for their followers...? Maybe baptismal regeneration
doesn't work afterall.

If all else fails, accept the Lord and HIS righteousness !!