John Chapter 6

[Guest]

If I cannot convince you so far, then I will let others who are much older then I am, in fact most of them were bishops that lived adjacient to the apostolic era:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/realp.htm

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/trans.htm

http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

And finally:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_ ... harist.asp

I can do no more. I have given it my best shot, and now I quote authority much greater then me. If you do not grasp it or dissagree with it, that is your choice.

So I will leave it here and let you all threash it out the best way you can, including any other Catholics who may contribute. I will look in on it to see if any further comments are warranted but I will mostly lurk now.

William, I am disappointed that you are bowing out. While I have read the links you provided, they too fall short of providing a connection of the Lord's Supper and John 6.

There is one thing that I can agree with you and the links your provided. Jesus does continue to 'hammer' a point home though. Because time after time, those that were following Jesus (not the 12 disciples, as is clear from John 6:67-71 - that they were called by God - they were chosen by God to follow Him) and the Jews were not understanding Christ's teachings. So, if the passage were were discussing (John 6:48ff) is the last hammering, so to speak - it would reason that we would need to backtrack to the "first hammering". I would contend that the 'first hammering' is recorded in John 6:26-35.

Jesus tells them that they should not work for food that perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life - this food which the Son of Man will give to you. Jesus is asked: "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" (john 6:28.

So, Jesus tells them that they need to work for the food which endures, they then ask what they need to do so that they may 'work the works of God" - Jesus response is key:

John 6:29 "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent" (emphasis added)

Seeking for a sign to believe Him - they say "Our fathers are the manna in the wilderness, as it is written "He gave them bread out of heaven to eat".

In other words, they are saying: "Our fathers had a sign in the wilderness, they were given bread (manna). This manna came from heaven as a sign to believe. What sign are you going to give us Jesus so that we believe you?"

Jesus tells them that the manna that was provided them, did not come from Moses, but from our Father in Heaven. That God will give the "true bread out of heaven". Desiring this bread, they say "Lord, always give us this bread". Jesus response is simple: "I am that bread".

In other words, "Believe in me - I am that bread"

This is the CRUX of the message - bread is a metaphor just as "vine, door, rose of sharon, etc) are methaphors.

The simple message is that we need to "believe" in the true bread from heaven: Jesus Christ. This is the message that Jesus 'hammers'.

To be quite frank and honest - it doesn't get any simplier then this: Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ - one we do, we will no longer hunger or thirst. My prayer, is that this simplemessage is revealed to you and to all who God draws to himself.

 

[William Putnam]

Hi William (re Vic's post),

The metaphor the 'body' of Christ when applied to the church is just that. This is not so say that it has no deeper meaning nor spiritual significance. At the last supper, a disciple could have pointed to the 'body' of Jesus and said 'this is His body'. The first is a metaphor for the Church, the second is a literal pointing to the body of Christ in my example. More difficult is the identification of the 'bread and wine' as the body of Christ in lieu of His impending absence as flesh and blood amongst the then assembled disciples.

I guess I am going to have to comment here, hoping I could pull away from this thread, which I know I started, but which came out of private messages, which was originated from another thread. So it goes on and on and on...

Yes, when the Church is pointed to as the "Body of Christ," (as we Catholics also refer to the community of of the Faithful in the Church) we understand that perfectly. But when Christ elevates the bread and says, "This is my body/blood," He is certainly not refering to the Church but the verey bread /chalice in His hands He is speaking about! To say that a disciple could have pointed to Christ and said, "this is His body" is pure speculation, and cretainly not in scripture, is it? So why then speculate upon what a disciple would have said when scripture records no such thing?

The affirmation of the ceremony is in the interpretation of the necessity of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. ie the bread and the wine. The shift of the focus upon 'this' is my body in a post resurrection world is a 'weighting' (or emphasis) of scripture that needs to be accomplished in the Spirit in which it was intended. Now I am not able to say that this has been preserved equally amongst the churches. But as a general rule - doctrine established upon the incidence of one word leads to more difficulties than would an often recurring term.

Well, this seems to have been well established in the only Church around for the first 1,000 years, and even with the Orthodox schism, they also continued the belief in the Eucharist as Catholics do. It was only seriously challanged in the 16th centeury with the so called "Protestant Reformation."

I refer you to the links I provided in my last post...

The concept of a supernatural body - the Church is the body of Christ can be said of the church when they are assembled for reasons other than communion.

The Church, as a body, is certainly supernatural, and we Catholics believe this is so. But we do not confuse that with the nature of the Eucharist, which is Christ's body in a most particular way. albeit under the appearance of bread and wine.

I'll rest now, commenting if necessary tomorrow...

Goed bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



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

 

[stranger]

William wrote:

Yes, when the Church is pointed to as the "Body of Christ," (as we Catholics also refer to the community of of the Faithful in the Church) we understand that perfectly. But when Christ elevates the bread and says, "This is my body/blood," He is certainly not refering to the Church but the verey bread /chalice in His hands He is speaking about! To say that a disciple could have pointed to Christ and said, "this is His body" is pure speculation, and cretainly not in scripture, is it? So why then speculate upon what a disciple would have said when scripture records no such thing?

Hi,

I know the words 'this is my body' was not a reference to the church in the context of the last supper. What I was indicating by my examples, which you referred to as speculation, is that the body of Christ is taken in many ways.

That aside, when our Lord spoke the words 'this is My body' I am inclined to believe He was referring to His body; taking the bread and pointing to Himself saying 'this is my body'. When He said 'broken for you' He may have then pointed the bread towards the disciples and broken it.

Call this scenario speculation - but you need to appreciate:

that the written word does NOT always facilitate what gestures are made when words are spoken.

I thank you for your tread.

 

[William Putnam]

Hi,

I know the words 'this is my body' was not a reference to the church in the context of the last supper. What I was indicating by my examples, which you referred to as speculation, is that the body of Christ is taken in many ways.

Ok, and we know of two ways then:

1. The "body of Christ" that is the Faithful who are in the Church and are of the Church.

2. The body of Christ that is the Holy Eucharist.

That aside, when our Lord spoke the words 'this is My body' I am inclined to believe He was referring to His body; taking the bread and pointing to Himself saying 'this is my body'. When He said 'broken for you' He may have then pointed the bread towards the disciples and broken it.

Interesting...

Let's see what we read in Luke...

"While they were eating, Jesus took the bread, said the blessing, broke it and giving it to his disciples said, 'Take and eate; this is my body.'" (Luke 26:26)

What is the subject of the sentence? The bread He took and broke.

And when He said, "Take and eat," He is obviously speaking of the bread He has blessed. And then immediately afterwards declares that "This is my body" is obviously refering the to bread He bless, broke and told all to "take and eat,"

What is He pointing to>? The blessed bread in His hands, pure and simple.

Call this scenario speculation - but you need to appreciate:

that the written word does NOT always facilitate what gestures are made when words are spoken.

I thank you for your tread.

That is true, but if Jesus was pointing to His own body, it is obvious to me that the sentence would have been writrten to indicate so, the scholars long since see this as what Christ is talking about the bread in his hands and not pointing to His body.

Your point makes me think of another reason Christ established His Church in Matthew 16:18-19 with the awesome authority in the "keys of the kingdom" (given exclusively to Peter) and the power to "bind and loose" that to properly interpret scripture, the Church must be the authority to do so.

Remember, speaking of the New Testament (The Old Testament a given) Holy Mother Church came to be before the New Testament scriptures were written.

But that tends to take us down a rabbit trail and off the topic...

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 -

 

[William Putnam]

William, I am disappointed that you are bowing out. While I have read the links you provided, they too fall short of providing a connection of the Lord's Supper and John 6.

aLoneVoice, I guess this thread is my "tar baby" as in Uncle Remus.

As for the quality of my apologetic attempts in defending the Catholic teachings on John 6 and the Holy Eucharist, I will let others judge my work. Saying that, your resonse is typical of what I always receive, poor as I am in my work.

Be mindful that I could also say that your retorts are equally dissapointing to me, not once really doing a good line by line, paragraph by paragraph refutation of what I said concerning my paper on John 6.

I believe that there is little more I could tell you...

...and I also do not expect you to believe me or come over to my system of belief here. But I think you know just a tiny bit more about the Catholic position on the subject.

Please give me at least that little bit of credit for that...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

[Guest]

aLoneVoice, I guess this thread is my "tar baby" as in Uncle Remus.

As for the quality of my apologetic attempts in defending the Catholic teachings on John 6 and the Holy Eucharist, I will let others judge my work. Saying that, your resonse is typical of what I always receive, poor as I am in my work.

Be mindful that I could also say that your retorts are equally dissapointing to me, not once really doing a good line by line, paragraph by paragraph refutation of what I said concerning my paper on John 6.

Forgive me if I thought we were discussing John 6 - and not a line by line critique of your paper. What I have done was provide an exegisis of John 6.

I do not come to John 6 looking for a link to the Last Supper. There is nothing to suggest in John 6 that Jesus is speaking about the Lord's Supper - therefore, to make a claim that John 6 is teaching on the Lord's Supper, I believe that there needs to be a strong connection. I am sorry, William - but I do not see that connection made by your posts or the text itself.

As I have repeatedly said - in other areas where there was foreshadowing, the text itself creates a link: "the disciples remembered Jesus's words, they remembered the Scriptures; etc" There is a link. John 6 does not offer that link, nor does the discourse in the Upper Room (in any of the Gospels) when Christ institutes the Lord's Supper.

I realize that this sounds harsh, however - you see a connection between the two, because you need there to be a connection.

The reason I have not dealt directly with you paper, is because my aim was not to critique your paper, but rather to teach on John 6. I do not agree with your intrepetation of John 6 and have provided you another exegesis on John 6.

...and I also do not expect you to believe me or come over to my system of belief here. But I think you know just a tiny bit more about the Catholic position on the subject.

Please give me at least that little bit of credit for that...

Please understand that my aim was not to attack your position. And yes, I believe that you have provided more insight into the teachings of the Roman Catholic church and their position on the transubstantion. It has actually raised some more questions about the position itself - however, I do not believe those questions need to be asked because they are more about the mechanics of how that position is administered. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that the position is biblically sound. Of which I am sure you are not suprised to read.

In Rememberance of Him and Because of Him, Shalom

scott

 

[William Putnam]

William Putnam wrote:aLoneVoice, I guess this thread is my "tar baby" as in Uncle Remus.

As for the quality of my apologetic attempts in defending the Catholic teachings on John 6 and the Holy Eucharist, I will let others judge my work. Saying that, your resonse is typical of what I always receive, poor as I am in my work.

[quote:80078]Be mindful that I could also say that your retorts are equally dissapointing to me, not once really doing a good line by line, paragraph by paragraph refutation of what I said concerning my paper on John 6.

Forgive me if I thought we were discussing John 6 - and not a line by line critique of your paper. What I have done was provide an exegisis of John 6.[/quote:80078]

I guess I am too persnickity as to how a discussion is to go, but there is some expectation for you to discuss my paper line by line, paragraph by paragraph. But this is nothing new, as I seldom get others to do it this waqy either.

I do not come to John 6 looking for a link to the Last Supper. There is nothing to suggest in John 6 that Jesus is speaking about the Lord's Supper - therefore, to make a claim that John 6 is teaching on the Lord's Supper, I believe that there needs to be a strong connection. I am sorry, William - but I do not see that connection made by your posts or the text itself.

Ah, it is not difficult to note that John 6 does not discuss the Lord's Supper discourse, since that event came later.

But when you read thet famous discourse at the Lord's supper, seen in at least three of the four gospelss, one is immediately propelled to the past, in Scripture, where Jesus discusses the "eating of His body and drinking His blood" to the bread/chalice held high and declaring, "This is my body/blood..." for which that apostles are to eat and drink, something Jesus said they must do in John 6 tehat they would "have life in you."

And it amazed me that this tight ande obvious connection between to two plaqces in scdripture is overlooked! Something we see brought together further with Pauls stqatements in 1 Corinthians.

As I have repeatedly said - in other areas where there was foreshadowing, the text itself creates a link: "the disciples remembered Jesus's words, they remembered the Scriptures; etc" There is a link. John 6 does not offer that link, nor does the discourse in the Upper Room (in any of the Gospels) when Christ institutes the Lord's Supper.

Amazing...

I realize that this sounds harsh, however - you see a connection between the two, because you need there to be a connection.

ALoneVoice, I did not "need" that connection as a Protestant prior to 1953; it was obvious in the reading...

The reason I have not dealt directly with you paper, is because my aim was not to critique your paper, but rather to teach on John 6. I do not agree with your intrepetation of John 6 and have provided you another exegesis on John 6.

OK, fine, and I reaqlly appreciate your "interpreteation" of John 6, some of it being just fine, others I disagdree with, as you know by now.

[quote:80078]...and I also do not expect you to believe me or come over to my system of belief here. But I think you know just a tiny bit more about the Catholic position on the subject.

Please give me at least that little bit of credit for that...

Please understand that my aim was not to attack your position. And yes, I believe that you have provided more insight into the teachings of the Roman Catholic church and their position on the transubstantion. It has actually raised some more questions about the position itself - however, I do not believe those questions need to be asked because they are more about the mechanics of how that position is administered. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that the position is biblically sound. Of which I am sure you are not suprised to read. [/quote:80078]

Thank you, and I do not think you "attacked" my position at all! Believe me, our exchanges have been most gracious which I appreciate greatly.
If only I could point you to where I have discussed this in CARM, with quite a different "attitude" in what I had presente4d, similar to what I have done here.

In Rememberance of Him and Because of Him, Shalom

And likewise, aLoneVoice! :lilangel:

I considerlyou a Christian breother in Christ, hoping that you would consider me likewise. 8-)

Goed bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?"
They replied, "You are the eschatological ground of our being,
the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood."
And Jesus replied, "What?"

 

[Guest]

Given time, perhaps I will print out your paper - and give a line by line critique.

If you do not mind me asking, what exactly caused the conversion to Catholicism? The Roman Catholic church is not the only church to teach transubstantation - or atleast some form of it. At one time, while still in the Epsicopal church there was the formation of the LARC "treaty" or compact, or something to that effect - whereby the Lutherans, Anglicans, and Roman Catholics sought to come together due to the similiarity of the teachings.

 

[William Putnam]

Given time, perhaps I will print out your paper - and give a line by line critique.

If you do not mind me asking, what exactly caused the conversion to Catholicism?

Well, here is "My Story" from my own web site:

http://bellsouthpwp2.net/p/u/putnam_w/My%20Story.htm

But be mindful that the "eurika moment" I had was precisely this subject - the Catholic doctrine on the Holy Eucharist!

The Roman Catholic church is not the only church to teach transubstantation - or atleast some form of it. At one time, while still in the Epsicopal church there was the formation of the LARC "treaty" or compact, or something to that effect - whereby the Lutherans, Anglicans, and Roman Catholics sought to come together due to the similiarity of the teachings.

The Orthodox Church teaches it, but they do not like the Catholic word, "transubstantiation." They feel that we should leave it as a profound mystery and not attempt to "pigeon hole" the doctrines of the Church all the time. The problem is, the Western Rite of the Church, which incidentally enjoys having the Holy See (The "headquaarters" if you will) in Rome, had to fight the various heresies that came along, thus the definition. Likewise for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and a few others.

TYhe Lutheran Church teadhes "Consubstantiation," which teaches that Christ is present within the bread and wine, neither of which actually changes during the consecration.

There are one ot two schmatic Western Rites, such as the "Old Catholics" which teach transubstantiation, but they are schmatic, and are not "in union with the Holy See in Rome.

The "High Church" Anglican Church also supposedly teach transubstantiation, but lately, I have been having my doubts...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

[stranger]

William wrote:

Interesting...

Let's see what we read in Luke...

"While they were eating, Jesus took the bread, said the blessing, broke it and giving it to his disciples said, 'Take and eate; this is my body.'" (Luke 26:26)

What is the subject of the sentence? The bread He took and broke.

And when He said, "Take and eat," He is obviously speaking of the bread He has blessed. And then immediately afterwards declares that "This is my body" is obviously refering the to bread He bless, broke and told all to "take and eat,"

What is He pointing to>? The blessed bread in His hands, pure and simple.

Well He may not be pointing at all - I don't know that is why I used the words 'inclined and may'. But let us suppose He is pointing. . .

that the written word does NOT always facilitate what gestures are made when words are spoken.


That is true, but if Jesus was pointing to His own body, it is obvious to me that the sentence would have been written to indicate so, the scholars long since see this as what Christ is talking about the bread in his hands and not pointing to His body.

'Take and eat; this is my body.'" (Luke 26:26)
the ';' normally indicates a relationship between the parts of the sentence that it separates. How transparent this is in the original greek I don't know - in all probability(?) they would not have used a ';'.

Your point makes me think of another reason Christ established His Church in Matthew 16:18-19 with the awesome authority in the "keys of the kingdom" (given exclusively to Peter) and the power to "bind and loose" that to properly interpret scripture, the Church must be the authority to do so.

The lone ranger interpreter rides into the sunset never to be seen or heard of again.

Remember, speaking of the New Testament (The Old Testament a given) Holy Mother Church came to be before the New Testament scriptures were written.

Your being very Catholic here - it wasn't called that by the Apostles including Peter. It is a historical imperative, if you have evidence of first usage of the term 'Holy Mother Church', that you don't use the term prior to the date of first usage or you will confuse me.

 

[William Putnam]

[quote:ee4bc]William wrote:

Interesting...

Let's see what we read in Luke...

"While they were eating, Jesus took the bread, said the blessing, broke it and giving it to his disciples said, 'Take and eat; this is my body.'" (Luke 26:26)

What is the subject of the sentence? The bread He took and broke.

And when He said, "Take and eat," He is obviously speaking of the bread He has blessed. And then immediately afterwards declares that "This is my body" is obviously referring to the bread He blessed, broke and told all to "take and eat,"

What is He pointing to? The blessed bread in His hands, pure and simple.

Well He may not be pointing at all - I don't know that is why I used the words 'inclined and may'. But let us suppose He is pointing. . . [/quote:ee4bc]

But then your speculation would deepen, trying to construct what he would say. I would presume he would say, (perhaps under his breath) “My Lord and My God.â€Â

[quote:ee4bc]that the written word does NOT always facilitate what gestures are made when words are spoken.

That is true, but if Jesus was pointing to His own body, it is obvious to me that the sentence would have been written to indicate so, the scholars long since see this as what Christ is talking about the bread in his hands and not pointing to His body.

'Take and eat; this is my body.'" (Luke 26:26)
the ';' normally indicates a relationship between the parts of the sentence that it separates. How transparent this is in the original greek I don't know - in all probability(?) they would not have used a ';'.[/quote:ee4bc]

I would include a “.†In that assessment too, the “;†normally signals a new sentence in itself, which would be a fragmented sentence is strict grammatical construct, as I recall, if a “.†Is used. In either case, it is obvious that when He says, “This is my body,†he is referring to what He is saying to “take and eat.â€Â

Quote]Your point makes me think of another reason Christ established His Church in Matthew 16:18-19 with the awesome authority in the "keys of the kingdom" (given exclusively to Peter) and the power to "bind and loose" that to properly interpret scripture, the Church must be the authority to do so.

The lone ranger interpreter rides into the sunset never to be seen or heard of again. [/quote]

Am I the “Lone Ranger†when I see this backing me up?...

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/catholic.htm

Note that most of these guys were bishops of important Sees, and lived on the very edge of the apostolic era.

[quote:ee4bc]Remember, speaking of the New Testament (The Old Testament a given) Holy Mother Church came to be before the New Testament scriptures were written.

Your being very Catholic here - it wasn't called that by the Apostles including Peter. It is a historical imperative, if you have evidence of first usage of the term 'Holy Mother Church', that you don't use the term prior to the date of first usage or you will confuse me.[/quote:ee4bc]

So what? What we do see is the name “Church†given in the scriptures. And then St. Ignatius of Antioch in A.D. 110 appended the title of “Catholic†on that name, and today, trever to the whole Church is to call it…

THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH

Founder: Jesus Christ, A.D. 33

Present human caretaker here on earth: Benedict XVI

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



Give me that REAL old time religion!
The CATHOLIC CHURCH, 2,000 years of history!

 

[stranger]

Stranger wrote:

The lone ranger interpreter rides into the sunset never to be seen or heard of again.

William replied:

Am I the “Lone Ranger†when I see this backing me up?...

No, your not the lone ranger interpreter I was referring to. I was projecting your probable projection of me. The church is entrusted with the scriptures. . . you may find me using the term 'Is it consistent with what the church has always believed'. Keep well.

 

[William Putnam]

William replied:

Am I the “Lone Ranger†when I see this backing me up?...

No, your not the lone ranger interpreter I was referring to. I was projecting your probable projection of me. The church is entrusted with the scriptures. . . you may find me using the term 'Is it consistent with what the church has always believed'. Keep well.

You also keep well...

 

[Guest]

William - if you are still willing to discuss this issue a littler further - I would like to understand your position just a little better if I may.

Let's assume for the sake of arguement or discussion that your understanding of John 6 is the correct intrepetation (please do not take this as an indictation that I agree with your position).

Since you take John 6 to be literal, then in verse 53-54 it says:

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. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up o the last day.

Therefore, I do not understand the position of the Roman Catholic denomination for allowing only certain people to partake of the Lord's Supper (Eucharist). Clearly, if to be taken literal, then all should be welcome because it would only be through partaking that one 'has eternal life'.

To be taken literal, it would appear that Christ is saying that it is through the 'eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood' that one receives 'eternal life' and not through the Cross. To be taken literal, anyone that "eats of His flesh and drinks of His blood' has 'eternal life' - is that to mean that you will not die William? Is that not the intrepetation one must take if you are to take this passage literal?

 

[St. Ambrose]

"Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord."
1 Corinthians 11:27-29

 

[William Putnam]

ALoneVoice commented:

William - if you are still willing to discuss this issue a littler further - I would like to understand your position just a little better if I may.

Let's assume for the sake of arguement or discussion that your understanding of John 6 is the correct intrepetation (please do not take this as an indictation that I agree with your position).

Since you take John 6 to be literal, then in verse 53-54 it says:

[quote:8d85b]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. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up o the last day.

Therefore, I do not understand the position of the Roman Catholic denomination for allowing only certain people to partake of the Lord's Supper (Eucharist). Clearly, if to be taken literal, then all should be welcome because it would only be through partaking that one 'has eternal life'.[/quote:8d85b]

First, let me acknowledge what St. Ambrose posted from 1 Corinthians that is certainly applicable. But I don’t want you to be offended by the word “unworthily†here. Please take this term in a more benign meaning, such as “unqualified†or perhaps better, “unenlightened.†Such a condition is not your fault, since you have not taken that last step of profound belief in the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist. I cannot snap my fingers and cause that to happen, even with the best persuasion I or others can make about John, Chapter 6.

I wish I could invite you to my church and partake of the Eucharist with me! But I can’t as you are not “prepared†to do so. In the very early Church, the catechumens (those studying to enter the faith) could not even remain in the church building when the sacrificial part of the Mass began, but had to leave, let alone take the Communion host of the Eucharist! It was not until they were professed and baptized could they then partake of the Eucharist! They were properly prepared! Even our children cannot take communion until they have been instructed in the faith and become of age to understand what the Eucharist is. This happens at about age 7, when in great ceremony and celebration, young people take their first Holy Communion! The girls in their white gowns and flowing white vales or mantias, the boys in their first suits!

It is a joyous occasion!

To be taken literal, it would appear that Christ is saying that it is through the 'eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood' that one receives 'eternal life' and not through the Cross. To be taken literal, anyone that "eats of His flesh and drinks of His blood' has 'eternal life' - is that to mean that you will not die William? Is that not the intrepetation one must take if you are to take this passage literal?

It is because of the cross that the Eucharist is possible, as it is His being the “Lamb of God†that is the perfect sacrifice, so then to partake of that sacrifice is to eat His body and blood, as we once feasted on the sacrificed animals of an imperfect and finite sacrifice of the old covenant. In other words, our partaking of the Eucharist is a fulfillment of the cross on our part! (Jesus did His part.)

Without the cross, there is no Holy Eucharist.

And without the cross, there is no salvation…

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 -

 

[Guest]

"Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord."
1 Corinthians 11:27-29

I would agree that we need eat of the Lord's Supper in a worthy manner.

However, you have not shown that the Roman Catholic understanding of transubstantion is eating in a 'worhty manner'.

 

[Guest]

First, let me acknowledge what St. Ambrose posted from 1 Corinthians that is certainly applicable. But I don’t want you to be offended by the word “unworthily†here. Please take this term in a more benign meaning, such as “unqualified†or perhaps better, “unenlightened.†Such a condition is not your fault, since you have not taken that last step of profound belief in the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist. I cannot snap my fingers and cause that to happen, even with the best persuasion I or others can make about John, Chapter 6.

Thank you for the clarification, because I would not want to think words like "unqualified" or "unenlightened" were meant to offend. :-?

Once the Holy Spirit has opened ones eyes to the teaching of the Scripture, to comprehend belief in the Lord Jesus Christ - one does not need to take a 'last step of profound belief in Catholic doctrine'. Rather, one merely needs to rest in the teachings of the Scripture.

It would seem that most Protestants are partaking of the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner everytime we partake of the Lord's Supper - is this your belief William?

It is because of the cross that the Eucharist is possible, as it is His being the “Lamb of God†that is the perfect sacrifice, so then to partake of that sacrifice is to eat His body and blood, as we once feasted on the sacrificed animals of an imperfect and finite sacrifice of the old covenant. In other words, our partaking of the Eucharist is a fulfillment of the cross on our part! (Jesus did His part.)

I am not sure I remember reading about people feasting on the sacrifices in the old testament. The only ones that I remember able to partake of the sacrifices were the priests at the temple. This was their 'payment' - there way to be feed.

Your analogy to the OT sacricifical system is incorrect. Not to mention that you did not answer my questions in how it relates to the passage from John 6. It seems that you want to take some parts literal, those that you need to fit into your pre-conceived belief - but others you do not take literal. Which is it?

without the cross, there is no salvation…

I agree - Salvation was secured at the Cross - nothing else can secure it: no tithes, no baptism, no indulgences paid, no eating of bread.

 

[William Putnam]

[quote:d37af]William Putnam wrote:
First, let me acknowledge what St. Ambrose posted from 1 Corinthians that is certainly applicable. But I don’t want you to be offended by the word “unworthily†here. Please take this term in a more benign meaning, such as “unqualified†or perhaps better, “unenlightened.†Such a condition is not your fault, since you have not taken that last step of profound belief in the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist. I cannot snap my fingers and cause that to happen, even with the best persuasion I or others can make about John, Chapter 6.

Thank you for the clarification, because I would not want to think words like "unqualified" or "unenlightened" were meant to offend.

Once the Holy Spirit has opened ones eyes to the teaching of the Scripture, to comprehend belief in the Lord Jesus Christ - one does not need to take a 'last step of profound belief in Catholic doctrine'. Rather, one merely needs to rest in the teachings of the Scripture.[/quote:d37af]

An interesting statement, because that is what I did, and look where I ended-up?

For to “rest in the teachings of the Scripture,†one must understand the proper interpretation and understanding of Scripture!

How do I do that? Well, to rely upon an ancient Church, which preserved the Scriptures for you and I, who knows the Scriptures better then any Non-Catholic Church I know of, in my humble opinion.

It would seem that most Protestants are partaking of the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner everytime we partake of the Lord's Supper - is this your belief William?

No, simply because your “Eucharist†is ordinary bread and wine (or grape juice, depending upon your denomination.) Now, this often offends others when I say this, and I don’t mean to offend, but Protestant denominations do not have a valid priesthood ( which we call Holy Orders) who can confect the species of bread and wine that becomes the body and blood of Jesus Christ. And that brings up the reason we Catholics cannot take communion in a Protestant church. To do so is to contradict what we believe what the Eucharist is, again, not to offend.

[quote:d37af]It is because of the cross that the Eucharist is possible, as it is His being the “Lamb of God†that is the perfect sacrifice, so then to partake of that sacrifice is to eat His body and blood, as we once feasted on the sacrificed animals of an imperfect and finite sacrifice of the old covenant. In other words, our partaking of the Eucharist is a fulfillment of the cross on our part! (Jesus did His part.)

I am not sure I remember reading about people feasting on the sacrifices in the old testament. The only ones that I remember able to partake of the sacrifices were the priests at the temple. This was their 'payment' - there way to be feed.[/quote:d37af]

Yes, but the meat was also made available to others to eat, I understand, presumably after the priests have had their fill, I suppose.

You can imagine how much available meat was available after a days worth of sacrifices in the Temple in Jerusalem.

Your analogy to the OT sacricifical system is incorrect. Not to mention that you did not answer my questions in how it relates to the passage from John 6. It seems that you want to take some parts literal, those that you need to fit into your pre-conceived belief - but others you do not take literal. Which is it?

I’m sorry, but I do not understand where you think I am inconsistent.

[quote:d37af]without the cross, there is no salvation…

I agree - Salvation was secured at the Cross - nothing else can secure it: no tithes, no baptism, no indulgences paid, no eating of bread.[/quote:d37af]

But again, there would be no Eucharist if there were no sacrifice on the cross! Even baptism would not be effective, since without the cross, none of the sacraments would be valid. The cross was the culmination of what the gospel message was all about, including the institution of all of the Sacraments, for without the cross, Jesus would have been a fraud, and none of His teachings would be valid - they would be ineffective and frauds in themselves.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

[stranger]

Hi William,

John 6 does make sense in relation to the last supper's bread and wine. Some of your other comments, in the light of scripture seem un-conciliatory, about the non-catholic priest (pastors) and partaking of communion. Not even Peter (nor any other apostle) were Catholic in the sense you convey as a modern Catholic. But I understand something of your resolve and devotion to the Catholic Church.

I would urge you in turn to consider the 'priority' of the Jew and the gentile wrt the olive tree of Romans chapter 11 - again! Unless you happen to be Jewish you are a gentile like me. The best we can do is to be grafted into the cultivated olive tree (Romans 11). Thus we are a wild branch or of the wild branch genre. The 'priority' (as I like to call it) belongs to the natural branch broken off for the sake of the gentiles. In short, I (still) believe that the Catholic Church is of the wild olive branch genre, as are the protestant churches.

When the natural branch is grafted back (into the cultivated olive tree) the church will display 'end time glory.' Will grafting the natural branch back into the cultivated olive tree bring a level of fulfilment to the Lord's supper previously unknowable?

Romans 11 NASB

13 But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
14 if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them.
15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
16 If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.
17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,
18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. . . .

24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?