Eucharistic Adoration

[Good Friday]

This signifies my beloved Son...?
This represents my beloved Son...?
This stands for my beloved Son...?

As Will pointed out, consistently applying Lumberjack's definition of "touto esti" makes for a very different Christianity. If "touto esti" only means "this signifies, represents, stands for," then Jesus Christ is not the Son of God -- He only signifies, represents, or stands for the Son of God.

So I'd think it would be best for all Christians concerned to admit that, in this case as in all other cases, "touto esti" literally means "THIS IS." If not, we're all in big trouble.

[Justified Saint]

[quote]in the passage in John 6, the one that the Roman Catholic Church uses to substantiate and TRANSubstantiate the host, in verse 35 Jesus says, "He who cometh to Me shall never hunger". Now, is Jesus eternal relief from physical hunger pains???

He is, of course, speaking of the spiritual hunger in man for righteousness and salvation. And He promises to those who will "come to Him" that He will satisfy their hunger for these things forever therefore, to come to Him is to "eat"! (See also Matt. 5:6, 11:28, John 4:31-34.)

Also in verse 35, Jesus tells us, "He that believeth on Me shall never thirst." Does this mean that we will never physically thirst again? Therefore, to believe on Him is to "drink"! (See also John 4:13-14) [/quote]

Of course, Jesus uses a lot of symbols in the first half of John 6. The Jews understand the symbols perfectly too when Jesus says that whoever comes to him they shall not hunger or thirst. They don't respond by saying "how can this man cure our hunger and our thirst". Or "how can this man say he is a loaf of bread coming out of the sky." Rather they say "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, 'I have come down from heaven?'" Is this confusion on the part of the Jews for taking Jesus too literally and not understanding his symbols? Of course not, it is [u][b]unbelief[/b][/u] for Jesus is trying to tell them that he is the Son of God sent from heaven. They understand the figurative language just fine and they realize what Jesus really means.

There then becomes a dramatic shift in word choice and language and the Jews pick up on it. There objections are more unbelief because Jesus is now telling them something new. We now see the words "flesh" and "eat" appear for the first time in the passage. They now say "how can this man give us his flesh to eat?". Do the Jews suddenly not understand the symbols of Jesus anymore? No, because Jesus isn't talking figuratively anymore. The whole dialogue isn't one of misunderstanding symbolism, rather it is quite clearly one of [b][u]unbelief[/u][/b].


[quote]don't just respond to one part of the post... respond to the whole thing[/quote]

You may be the last one on this board who deserves that courtesy.

[Hananiah]

Hmmm... I wonder if that Schleiffer guy or whatever his name is could dig up a pagan precedent for moistened cube worship. I doubt it. Most likely it is purely a coincidence that the Roman rite uses a host that looks like a sun.

[God Conquers]

Lumberjack... if context is all that matters, who are you to judge context?

I dare you to answer me this question.

Is your judgement of the context of Christ's words, 2000 years after His resurection, as speaker of a different language, MORE RIGHT than Ignatius of Antioch's judgement of of the context of Christ's words 70 years after His resurection, who was a speaker of the same language.?

I will be shocked if you will answer this, but sincerely hope that you do.

[Jake Huether]

LJ,

30,000 denominations + all the Rites of the Catholic Church + all the non-Catholic / non-Protestant Christian Churches READ THE SAME BIBLE YOU ARE.


So, if it is so plain and clear. Tell me please why they all have different ideas about what is being said?

They all claim what you claim, "Its as clear as day, yada yada yada..." They believe they are led by the Spirit.


Why, tell us all why you are right and all the others wrong?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Justified Saint' date='Apr 20 2004, 04:24 PM']
Of course, Jesus uses a lot of symbols in the first half of John 6. [/quote]
You have brought up an important point with this phrase...

John did not writing in paragraphs with verse numbers. Somebody arbitrarily divided into the present day text. So to say "in this section of John 6" ( and I'm not picking on you because we all do this) violates the text in a way.
Try reading it as it was written, and it makes more sense to see how the Church has always read it.

And please remember the Church celebrated the Real Presence of Jesus weekly, long before the Gospel of John was written. It is a confirmation of Church teaching, NOT a proof text.

[Justified Saint]

I suggest that you read the full length of my post. There is no doubting that Jesus is using a lot of symbolic language but there is a clear transition. The text is aloud to change, it doesn't have to speak figuratively and stay figuratively for the whole chapter or book. I just said first section to reference, the fact still remains that there is a transition and the reason for the transition is evidenced in the context.

Lumberjack is right, Jesus isn't talking about physical relief from hunger and thrist in verse 35.

[God Conquers]

I ask you the same question posted above then. Please answer it, it is not unfair.

Is your judgement of the context of Christ's words, 2000 years after His resurection, as speaker of a different language, MORE RIGHT than Ignatius of Antioch's judgement of of the context of Christ's words 70 years after His resurection, who was a speaker of the same language.?

[Justified Saint]

I am confused...are you suggesting that Jesus is referring to actual physical relief from hunger and physical relief from thrist in verse 35?

[God Conquers]

As shown earlier, sometimes the Eucharist does relieve physical hunger and relief, and so yes, He could have spoken of it in that way.

As for the general question of interpretation, and who has the authority to interpret the scripture most correctly, given equal guidance by the Holy Spirit, my question still stands.

[Justified Saint]

The Catholic Church does not pass judgement on every verse in scripture, there are in fact less that an dozen where it has infallibly declared the exact interpretation. My understanding of the text is completely in line with a consistent understanding of the Eucharist and John 6 - so please stop trying to pit me against my own church.

[God Conquers]

I'm not pitting you against your church. I'm pitting your church against the early church fathers and St. Ignatius.

[the lumberjack]

its you against Tradition, JS....

who's gonna win?

your personal, yet seemingly biblical belief?

or the writings from 2000 years ago?

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

[quote]Actually, the Eucharist CAN be physically satisfying, there are saints who have lived for years just on daily consumption of the eucharist[/quote]

I am like 90% sure that there is a Convent, where all the sister's live only off of The Body and Blood of Christ.

Pax et Agape per Maria, Andy

[Justified Saint]

GC, actually the Church realizes the dual nature of the symoblic/literal language in John 6. To suggest a complete literal translation all throughout the passage of John 6 is to go against logic and the Church.