Who Wants To Make Me A Catholic First? Lol.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='ilovechrist' date='Apr 22 2004, 03:38 PM'] "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." ---John 6:63

i assume you speak of this passage? if so.. does that mean when he spoke earlier of eating his body and drinking his blood--"the flesh is of no avail"--does that mean that our receiving of the Eucharist would be a waste of time? i think that most non-Catholics view this as something that natural reason would tell them--not what God would tell them.
also, if his body is of no avail, THEN---his Incarnation, death and Resurrection would mean nothing, wouldn't it? [/quote]
We could go round and round ilovechrist. It seriously comes down to faith in the end.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

I see your point Adam, its an endless circle.

I would go with the fact that this was the teachings everyone held until the Reformation. Symbolism is a new theory and consubstantiation wasnt even around before then.

ugh, now i have a headache, I know what you mean I do. Debunk their debunk then they will have a debunk to that and you can show proof to debunk that one...AHHHH!!

to me, just me now, it comes down to what the Church has always taught and believed. Transubstantiation wasnt announced until later, guess they had a better understanding of it then. But they always knew it was Christ. They may not have known HOW it was Christ, they just knew and believed it was.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Apr 22 2004, 04:24 PM'] Eh. That's the problem. I can debate myself into a corner I can't get out of at this point.

Really.....its come down to faith. And I just don't know what to have faith in at this point. Protestant or Catholic teachings. [/quote]
If you feel that you can debate yourself into a corner, why now go back to the writings prior to 400 AD about the topic?

Think of Acts 20:30 - this tells us whatever group comes out of another cannot have everything right.

So, we must find the original, and the only way to find the original is to start with the teachings in the beginning. Knowing that there will be no changes, but the One True Faith will grow in Truth, just as Jesus promised in John.

Just a thought.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[theculturewarrior]

Not to hijack the thread, but I am not sufficiently familiar with the evangelical take on the Body and Blood to put it on a par with Catholic teaching. Please help me understand, Adam, as this will help me become a better evangelist and more understanding of other points of view. Please go "round and round" with me.

A baptist would say that, the flesh availeth nothing, but only the spirit gives life. Where do they get "spirit=symbol." This strikes me as odd. My response would be...is the Holy Spirit a symbol? Please help me understand.

Also, you say that the Baptist would say that the flesh availeth nothing, therefore the Flesh of the Son of God availeth nothing? That seems like a whopper! As a Catholic, I would say, 1. Only the one who eats the flesh of the Son of God has life, how can this be the flesh that availeth nothing? And 2. He said that before they left him. If he was speaking symbolically, why did they still leave?

I'm sure you have heard all this before, and I apologize if you find it tiresome. I really just want to understand.

Edited April 22, 2004 by theculturewarrior

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='CatholicAndFanatical' date='Apr 22 2004, 04:40 PM']

  to me, just me now, it comes down to what the Church has always taught and believed. Transubstantiation wasnt announced until later, guess they had a better understanding of it then. But they always knew it was Christ. They may not have known HOW it was Christ, they just knew and believed it was. [/quote]

Here is a bit written on the word transubstantiation and why we use it. The word is new because there is no equivalent word to use. Remembrance simply doesn't adequately cover the concept.



Christ died once for the forgiveness of sin. At Mass he is not re-sacrificed, it is the original sacrifice. Think of it as you being on calvery at the foot of the Cross.

In the Mass we say do this in remembrance of me. Remembrance is a poor translation for what happens.

The definition of Anamnesis which you read is closer to the original
meaning than what we have in English - but it still does not cover the full
definition of the Greek word 'anamnesis'.

Jesus said (as expressed in English), "Do this 'in anamnesis' of me.

"Make ye my anamnesis" is UNDOUBTEDLY a better technical expresson of
the Greek than "Do this in (remembrance, memory, commemoration, memorial, or
memory) of me. All the words in (parens) have been used in various English
translations of Jesus' words in our English language Mass.

Various translators used those words because they corporately know there
is no English word which fully truly carries the sense of
the Greek word "anamnesis".

"Make you my anamnesis" is technically more accurate - but it would be
incomprehensible to most people.

Again, there is no precise English equivalent of anamnesis. WHY IS THAT
TRUE?

It is true because "commemoration", "remembrance", "memorial",
"memory" and all similar English words have a connotation of something which
is mentally remembered, without the thing itself being present in any other
way.

On the other hand (unlike our closesest English equivalents), in the
Scriptures 'anamnesis' (and its verbal form) means "recalling" or
"remembering" or "representing" before God a past event in THAT IS ACTUALLY
OPERATIVE IN ITS AFFECTS HERE AND NOW.

This is the actual sense of our English "commemoration" or "remembrance"
or "memorial" or "memory" which is used here when Our Lord says "Make you my
anamnesis".

It is not just a recalling of some past event.

While it IS also a "making present" of something which took place in the
past:

It is ALSO a reference to something which actually took place in the
past - but - whose affects are operatively also actually present in the here
and now. That is why it is referred to in several OT prophecies as a
"perpetual sacrifice" which will take place as a result of the arrival of
the Messiah.

But there is no way to clearly express in English the sense of the Greek
original.

Edited April 22, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[God Conquers]

There is no deeper experience of God's Love and Power than the Eucharist. It comes down to this... can we go the distance with God?

We can read, we can pray, we can sing, but that is nothing compared to experiencing Him in the flesh.

Without that, we have no life within us.

[phatcatholic]

bro adam,

i'm sure you have already read what i am about to share, but i think it bears repeating, especially if it has been forgotten. first, the consistent teaching of the church:

[color=blue][b]Ignatius of Antioch[/b]
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [[b]A.D. 110[/b]]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [[b]A.D. 110[/b]]).

[b]Justin Martyr[/b]
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [[b]A.D. 151[/b]]).

[b]Irenaeus[/b]
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [[b]A.D. 189[/b]]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).

[b]Clement of Alexandria[/b]
"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [[b]A.D. 191[/b]]).

[b]Tertullian[/b]
"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [[b]A.D. 210[/b]]).[/color]

.... you get the idea. also, of all the scriptural support for the real presence, i think the most compelling proof is from the Old Testament, in which it is commanded that the spotless lamb w/ unbroken bones (a prefigurement of Jesus) must not only be sacrificed, but [i][b]eaten[/b][/i]:

[color=red][b]Gen. 22:9-13[/b] - God saved Abraham's first-born son on Mount Moriah with a substitute sacrifice which had to be consumed. This foreshadowed the real sacrifice of Israel's true first-born son (Jesus) who must be consumed.

[b]Exodus 12:5[/b] - the paschal lamb that was sacrificed and eaten had to be without blemish. Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38 - Jesus is the true paschal Lamb without blemish.

[b]Exodus 12:7,22-23[/b] - the blood of the lamb had to be sprinkled on the two door posts. This paschal sacrifice foreshadows the true Lamb of sacrifice and the two posts of His cross on which His blood was sprinkled.

[b]Exodus 12:8,11[/b] - the paschal lamb had to be eaten by the faithful in order for God to "pass over" the house and spare their first-born sons. Jesus, the true paschal Lamb, must also be eaten by the faithful in order for God to forgive their sins.

[b]Exodus 12:43-45; Ezek. 44:9[/b] - no one outside the "family of God" shall eat the lamb. Non-Catholics should not partake of the Eucharist until they are in full communion with the Church.

[b]Exodus 12:49[/b] - no uncircumcised person shall eat of the lamb. Baptism is the new circumcision for Catholics, and thus one must be baptized in order to partake of the Lamb.

[b]Exodus 12:47; Num. 9:12[/b] - the paschal lamb's bones could not be broken. John 19:33 - none of Jesus' bones were broken.

[b]Exodus 16:4-36; Neh 9:15[/b] - God gave His people bread from heaven to sustain them on their journey to the promised land. This foreshadows the true bread from heaven which God gives to us at Mass to sustain us on our journey to heaven.

[b]Exodus 24:9-11[/b] - the Mosaic covenant was consummated with a meal in the presence of God. The New and eternal Covenant is consummated with the Eucharistic meal - the body and blood of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine.

[b]Exodus 29:33[/b] - they shall eat those things with which atonement was made. Jesus is the true Lamb of atonement and must now be eaten.

[b]Lev. 7:15[/b] - the Aaronic sacrifices absolutely had to be eaten in order to restore communion with God. These sacrifices all foreshadow the one eternal sacrifice which must also be eaten to restore communion with God. This is the Eucharist (from the Greek word "eukaristia" which means "thanksgiving").

[b]Lev. 17:11,14[/b] - in the Old Testament, we see that the life of the flesh is the blood which could never be drunk. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ's blood is the source of new life, and now must be drunk.

[b]Gen. 9:4-5; Deut.12:16,23-24[/b] - in these verses we see other prohibitions on drinking blood, yet Jesus commands us to drink His blood because it is the true source of life.

[b]2 Kings 4:43[/b] - this passage foreshadows the multiplication of the loaves and the true bread from heaven which is Jesus Christ.

[b]2 Chron. 30:15-17; 35:1,6,11,13; Ezek. 6:20-21[/b]- the lamb was killed, roasted and eaten to atone for sin and restore communion with God. This foreshadows the true Lamb of God who was sacrificed for our sin and who must now be consumed for our salvation.

[b]Psalm 78:24-25; 105:40[/b] - the raining of manna and the bread from angels foreshadows the true bread from heaven, Jesus Christ.

[b]Isaiah 53:7[/b] - this verse foreshadows the true Lamb of God who was slain for our sins and who must be consumed.

[b]Wis. 16:20[/b] - this foreshadows the true bread from heaven which will be suited to every taste. All will be welcome to partake of this heavenly bread, which is Jesus Christ.

[b]Sir. 24:21[/b] - God says those who eat Him will hunger for more, and those who drink Him will thirst for more.

[b]Ezek. 2:8-10; 3:1-3[/b] - God orders Ezekiel to open his mouth and eat the scroll which is the Word of God. This foreshadows the true Word of God, Jesus Christ, who must be consumed.

[b]Zech. 12:10[/b] - this foreshadows the true first-born Son who was pierced for the sins of the inhabitants of the new Jerusalem.

[b]Zech. 13:1[/b] - on the day of piercing, a fountain (of blood and water) will cleanse the sins of those in the new House of David.[/color]

i hope this helps........pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited April 23, 2004 by phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

bro adam,

also, i just found this explanation of the John 6 discourse which provides insights that have never really dawned on me before. i'm not sure if i've ever read anything like this before either. so, i HAD to share it (plleeeeaaaasse read it):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the miracles of the loaves and fishes and the walking upon the waters, on the previous day, Christ not only prepared His hearers for the sublime discourse containing the promise of the Eucharist, but also proved to them that He possessed, as Almighty God-man, a power superior to and independent of the laws of nature, and could, therefore, provide such a supernatural food, none other, in fact, than His own Flesh and Blood.

This discourse was delivered at Capharnaum (John 6:26-72), and is divided into two distinct parts, about the relation of which Catholic exegetes vary in opinion. Nothing hinders our interpreting the first part [John 6:26-48 (51)] metaphorically and understanding by "bread of heaven" Christ Himself as the object of faith, to be received in a figurative sense as a spiritual food by the mouth of faith. Such a figurative explanation of the second part of the discourse (John, vi, 52-72), however, is not only unusual but absolutely impossible, as even Protestant exegetes (Delitzsch, Kostlin, Keil, Kahnis, and others) readily concede.

First of all the whole structure of the discourse of promise demands a literal interpretation of the words: "eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood". For Christ mentions a threefold food in His address, the manna[/B] of the past (John 6:31, 32, 49, 59), the heavenly bread of the present (John 6:32 sq.), and the Bread of Life of the future (John 6:27, 52). Corresponding to the three kinds of food and the three periods, there are as many dispensers — Moses dispensing the manna, the Father nourishing man's faith in the Son of God made flesh, finally Christ giving His own-Flesh and Blood. Although the manna, a type of the Eucharist, was indeed eaten with the mouth, it could not, being a transitory food, ward off death. The second food, that offered by the Heavenly Father, is the bread of heaven, which He dispenses [i]hic et nunc[/i] to the Jews for their spiritual nourishment, inasmuch as by reason of the Incarnation He holds up His Son to them as the object of their faith. [b]If, however, the third kind of food, which Christ Himself promises to give only at a future time, is a new refection, differing from the last-named food of faith, it can be none other than His true Flesh and Blood, to be really eaten and drunk in Holy Communion[/b]. This is why Christ was so ready to use the realistic expression "to chew" (John 6:54, 56, 58: [i]trogein[/i]) when speaking of this, His Bread of Life, in addition to the phrase, "to eat" (John 6:51, 53: [i]phagein[/i]). Cardinal Bellarmine (De Euchar., I, 3), moreover, calls attention to the fact, and rightly so, that [b]if in Christ's mind the manna was a figure of the Eucharist, the latter must have been something more than merely blessed bread, as otherwise the prototype would not substantially excel the type.[/b] The same holds true of the other figures of the Eucharist, as the bread and wine offered by Melchisedech, the loaves of proposition (panes propositionis), the paschal lamb.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i thought that explanation of the "three types" was very interesting. i hope it helps.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

Protestants often (ironically) interpret [b]John 6:63 [/b]literally, when in fact it was intended metaphorically:

It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. {RSV}

Protestants claim that this establishes the symbolic and metaphorical nature of the whole discourse. What they fail to realize is that when the words "flesh" and "spirit" are opposed to each other in the New Testament, it is always a figurative use, in the sense of sinful human nature ("flesh") contrasted with humanity enriched by God's grace ("spirit"). This can be clearly seen in passages such as [b]Matthew 26:41, Romans 7:5-6,25, 8:1-14, 1 Corinthians 5:5, 2 Corinthians 7:1, Galatians 3:3, 4:29, 5:13-26[/b], and [b]1 Peter 3:18, 4:6[/b]. In other words, Jesus is saying that His words can only be received by men endowed with supernatural grace. Those who interpret them in a wooden, carnal way (equating His teaching here with a sort of gross cannibalism) are way off the mark.

[Dave]

One thing that hasn't been discussed in this thread (or if it was I missed it) is the Eucharist's connection to the Passover meal. It's the perfected Passover meal, just like the Last Supper was a Passover meal.

Let's consider Mark 14:12, "On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb" as well as Matthew 26:17-19, Luke 22:7-8,11,13-14, and Mark 14:14 and 16. Additionally, there is no doubt that Jesus is the lamb of God which is seen in John 1:29, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world." In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 5:7) it states, "For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed."

The Passover was the most important and sacred event in the Old Testament. It was the day in which the Lord delivered his people from the bondage of Pharaoh. The Lord told the people to take a lamb without blemish (Exodus 12:5), slaughter it (Exodus 12:6), and apply the lamb’s blood to the doorposts and lintel of the house (Exodus 12:7). That night the Lord sent "he destroyer" through Egypt killing every firstborn son. The houses with the lamb’s blood were passed-over and their first born sons were saved. The Passover lamb foreshadows Jesus. In Exodus 12:46, the lamb was not to have any of its bones broken. This is related to Jesus because during his crucifixion, his bones were not broken (John 19:33). John 19:36 says, "For this happened so that the scripture passage might be fulfilled: 'Not a bone of it will be broken.'" John’s gospel also states that it was "about the sixth hour" when Jesus was ordered to be crucified. This corresponds to the "sixth hour" that the Old Testament priests were to begin slaughtering the lambs for the Passover meal. Furthermore, John 19:23-24 describes Jesus being stripped of a seamless linen tunic which is the same garment used by the High Priest in the Old Testament while sacrificing the Passover lamb. Now at this point all that has been established is that Jesus is the new unblemished lamb and through his blood (similar to the lamb’s blood during the Passover) people are saved. In the Old Covenant it was the blood of an animal. In the New Covenant it is the blood of God in human form. Most Protestants agree with the relation between the Passover lamb and Jesus Christ. They believe that Christians are saved through the blood of Jesus, like the people in Exodus were saved through the blood of the lamb. However, there is one important parallel missed by Protestants. That is that you had to eat the lamb! In Exodus, all who participated in the Passover were required to eat the flesh of the lamb. This is clear in Exodus 12:8, "That same night they shall eat its roasted flesh with unleavened bread and bitter herbs." This was a specific command of God. If you simply applied the blood to the doorposts and went to sleep without eating the lamb, you would have disobeyed God’s command. When you woke up the next morning, your firstborn son would be dead. You had to eat the lamb! Remember, the Passover was not just the slaughtering of a lamb, but it was also a meal. This meal continued throughout history until it was fulfilled with the real, unblemished lamb, Jesus Christ. In the New Covenant Jesus fulfills this command during the Last Supper by distributing his body and blood under the forms of bread an wine. It is no coincidence that the Last Supper occurred on the night before the Passover. Jesus designed it that way. He is the Passover lamb! During the Last Supper, the apostles celebrated the Passover meal by sharing the sacrificial victim (Jesus). Notice how this is in perfect harmony with John 6 when Jesus says that you must eat his flesh and drink his blood. It should also be noted that the events in John chapter 6 took place near the Jewish Passover feast (see John 6:4). Coincidence? Therefore, when Catholics take Communion they are eating the body of Christ (the new covenant lamb) in the bread.

[Brother Adam]

Yes, thank you for sharing all of that again. You're right there isn't much I haven't heard already. But it is good to hear it again. Gives some rhyme to the reasons I'm attending mass.

This is such a cool apologetics board.

Like my signature?

[God Conquers]

I love it. Plus the fact that it would take you about 300 years to rack up the number of posts you have.... Divine Help!