|
Post by Pietro on Sept 2, 2004 10:41:37 GMT -5
Well, just to argue: Jesus himself said man "lives" on the Word of God -- the Scriptures.
TB You added "the scriptures". We all know that Christ himself is the Word of God and it is He, not bread, that we live on in the sacrament.
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Sept 2, 2004 12:56:45 GMT -5
This is totally not Catholic teaching on the subject but Let's consider it anyway. That is the power of the mind. We are all familiar with the placebo affect, right? Where it is the power of one's belief regardlress of the objective reality of the object that induces change. In other words, if a person believes strongly enpough that a pill, for example, will clear up an infection, even thugh that pill has no antibiotic properties and is totally useless, the infection will clear up, not because of the pill but because of the person's belief in the pill. I say this is not the Catholic position because there it isnot the individual's belief that makes it the Real Presence but the power of the Holy Spirit. Still, even if you don't believe any such transubstantiation (or whatever) takes place you might have to concede that if a one truly believes that it is the body of Christ being consumed and not "a symbol", then for that person it is as good as the real thing. Imagine the power of that. The problem with this example is that no matter how much the person believes the pill is a real pill and not a placebo... it's STILL a placebo. There is nothing that changes. The pill isn't changed into medicine because the person believes it to be medicine. So the example you gave, IMO, is more in line with believing it to be symbolic, not literal.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Sept 2, 2004 13:26:43 GMT -5
The problem with this example is that no matter how much the person believes the pill is a real pill and not a placebo... it's STILL a placebo. There is nothing that changes. The pill isn't changed into medicine because the person believes it to be medicine. So the example you gave, IMO, is more in line with believing it to be symbolic, not literal. Very true, that is why I said it was totally not Catholic teaching. But still, how powerful for those who truly believe. I personally think we get way too caught up in the rationality, theology, philosphy, etc. The questions to are: Does it transform the person, bring the person closer to Christ? Does it increase the fire of love inside so that it shines through in all relationships? Even a symbol can do that if the person believes strongly enough. I ask you this, "If you could and did believe that it was the essence of Christ you were taking into yourself, His sacred body and blood in sacramental form, what impact would it have on you?
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Sept 4, 2004 6:01:16 GMT -5
You added "the scriptures". We all know that Christ himself is the Word of God and it is He, not bread, that we live on in the sacrament. Ah, but it's the teachings of Christ and our acceptance of what He has done for us on the cross that give us spiritual life, not the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Christian.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Sept 4, 2004 9:29:57 GMT -5
Ah, but it's the teachings of Christ and our acceptance of what He has done for us on the cross that give us spiritual life, not the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Christian. You are not alone in your resistance to this teaching. the Jews and many of his disciples could not accept it either: Gospel of John Chapter 6
Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
Many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"
Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
|
|
|
Post by keikikoka on Sept 4, 2004 12:44:09 GMT -5
John chapter 6 isn't about the Eucharist
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Sept 5, 2004 7:57:32 GMT -5
John chapter 6 isn't about the Eucharist Am I to understand you see no connection to the Lord's Supper?
|
|
|
Post by keikikoka on Sept 5, 2004 13:23:10 GMT -5
The Lords supper hadn't happened yet at John 6.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Sept 5, 2004 15:07:15 GMT -5
The Lords supper hadn't happened yet at John 6. What does it matter? Isn't it interesting that John's is the only Gospel that doesn't mention the command to "take and eat", instead there is the washing of feet. All these Gospel accounts are later reflections on the life of Jesus written in the context of the existing practices of the young church. John recounts a memory of Jesus laying the groundwork for His gift. Many could not accept it. Many still don't. Recall also that it was in the breaking of bread that the disciples recognized him on the road to Emmaus. What does that mean to you?
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Sept 5, 2004 15:29:14 GMT -5
In John 6, Jesus made these statements …
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. John 6:40 NASB
He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. John 6:52 NASB
The two statements are one and the same. Eating his flesh and drinking his blood are metaphors for beholding the Son and believing in Him.
Jesus also said …
He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. John 6:56 NASB
Compare this to …
Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him." John 14:23 NASB
Here we see that eating his flesh and drinking His blood are metaphors for keeping His word.
On the contrary, the Catholic Church teaches that the Sacrement of the Eucharist renews and adds to the grace received at baptism, cleanses one from past venial sins and preserves one from future sins, makes one less worldly and more Christ-like and loving, makes one less likely to commit a "mortal sin," and makes one care more about the poor. CoCC, 2.2.1.3.6 (1391-1397)
These teachings are not found in the scriptures, but are found in the writings of Ambrose of Milan (340-397), Fulgentius of Ruspe (468-533), Augustine of Hippo (354-430), and John Chrysostom of Antioch (347-407).
In John 6, Jesus is not talking about the Catholic Eucharist.
TB
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Sept 6, 2004 6:52:08 GMT -5
You are not alone in your resistance to this teaching. the Jews and many of his disciples could not accept it either. Your God-given senses should be sufficient to tell you that the bread and the wine of the Holy Communion/Eucharist do not turn into the flesh and blood of Christ. What we non-Catholic Christians are saying to you has got nothing to do with resisting what Christ said, but rather resisting the erroneous RCC interpretation of it. Christian.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Sept 6, 2004 8:37:06 GMT -5
These teachings are not found in the scriptures, but are found in the writings of Ambrose of Milan (340-397), Fulgentius of Ruspe (468-533), Augustine of Hippo (354-430), and John Chrysostom of Antioch (347-407).
In John 6, Jesus is not talking about the Catholic Eucharist.
TB Ok, you disagree with Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom and virtualy every other orthodox Christian since the early church and prefer to stick with your own interpretation. It sounds a little arrogant to me but that is your decision which I respect. I have tried to provide a little insight into how I view the sacrament and failed. That is not surprising since it is a teaching that defies the senses and any emperical proof. Let me restate that it a sacrament that I truly love and in which I encounter the risen Christ. It transcends material experience. But let me ask, Are you the body of Christ?
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Sept 6, 2004 9:16:50 GMT -5
Ok, you disagree with Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom and virtualy every other orthodox Christian since the early church and prefer to stick with your own interpretation. It sounds a little arrogant to me but that is your decision which I respect. I have tried to provide a little insight into how I view the sacrament and failed. That is not surprising since it is a teaching that defies the senses and any emperical proof. Let me restate that it a sacrament that I truly love and in which I encounter the risen Christ. It transcends material experience. But let me ask, Are you the body of Christ? I myself alone am not "the body of Christ." But Paul wrote ...... so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.Romans 12:5 NASBAll Christians together make up "the body of Christ."
TB
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Sept 6, 2004 9:28:39 GMT -5
I myself alone am not "the body of Christ." But Paul wrote ...... so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.Romans 12:5 NASBAll Christians together make up "the body of Christ."
TB So your flesh and blood is the flesh and blood of Christ?
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Sept 6, 2004 9:42:32 GMT -5
So your flesh and blood is the flesh and blood of Christ? The Christian church is the body of Christ, and all Christians are part of that body.
|
|