Eucharist Not In The Bible

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1082827' date='Oct 3 2006, 11:36 AM']
I agree. So, unless there is more to say on the topic of the Eucharist, I'm closing this thread. I'll give you a little while to chew on it. (pun intended...)
[/quote]


Naw...this topic has been done a thousand times. When people don't care to listen, there's not much more we can do.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1082833' date='Oct 3 2006, 10:40 AM']


[b][G][/b]Naw...this topic has been done a thousand times. When people don't care to listen, there's not much more we can do.
[/quote]

You left out a letter.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1082839' date='Oct 3 2006, 11:51 AM']
You left out a letter.
[/quote]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082759' date='Oct 3 2006, 08:08 AM']
The lack of agreement of Protestants on mostly small points does not invalidate the Bible or our ability to discern what it says without someone else telling us.

Most of you seem to dodge the question of whether or not you could figure out how to go to heaven if you had only a Bible and no human contact. The truth is, the Gospel message, the road to salvation, is clearly laid out in the Bible and understandable without some outside teaching authority.
[/quote]

"Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, 'Do you understand what you are reading?' He replied, 'How can I, unless someone instructs me?' So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him." -Acts 8:30-31

The only way you know how to interpret anything from Scripture is that some of the interpretations from the Catholic Magisterium have rubbed off on society enough for the general public to have some basic idea of what Christianity is. Anything and everything else is either misguided speculation based off those true interpretations or else the incorrect doctrines thought of by Protestant reformers. What is clear, however, is that Scripture itself states that Scripture is not clear to just anyone who picks it up (even learned slaves from Ethiopia), but only to those who are educated in it, be it by the Magisterium directly or by the last vestiges of a once Christian culture.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='SolaScriptura' post='1082756' date='Oct 3 2006, 07:56 AM']
Yeah, that's it. Your church is misinterpreting that whole section of John 6. [/quote]prove it.

if all the points i made in that post are just completely erroneous, then it should be easy to give a point-by-point rebuttal to them all. have you ever seen a formal debate, or participated in one? when someone provides a series of proofs/points for their position, and you respond by saying, "sorry, you're wrong" and [b][i]that's it!![/i][/b]...........well, you would have been laughed out of the place. don't you have enough respect for your own position to show how it holds up to whatever point we could make against it? how many times are you going to parrot the whole "eternal life" argument? maybe you missed the numerous responses we've already made to you regarding that?:[list][quote name='Rick777' post='1081237' date='Oct 1 2006, 10:11 PM']Hmmm...I cannot use John 6? Is that somehow not part of the Holy Bible? Of course I believe everyone who recieves Holy Communion WORTHILY has eternal life.[/quote][quote name='fidei defensor' post='1081254' date='Oct 1 2006, 10:25 PM']Jesus also says that anyone who believes in him will have eternal life. Does that mean we can sin all we want and ignore Jesus so long as we "believe in" him?[/quote][quote name='fidei defensor' post='1081260' date='Oct 1 2006, 10:32 PM']Thus, you've answered your own question.

Receiving the Lord's Body and Blood is part of believing in Him. You only receive the grace if you are in the state to receive.[/quote][quote name='Norseman82' post='1081388' date='Oct 2 2006, 12:34 AM'][color="#33CC00"]In the nourishing sense, yes. Let me give you an analogy. Once you are born, you need to eat nourishment to sustain you; otherwise, you starve to death. So also, once you are born [i]again[/i], your soul needs nourishment.

Simple enough?[/color][/quote][quote name='dUSt' post='1081656' date='Oct 2 2006, 02:57 AM']Yes.

In order to recieve communion, you must be in a state of grace. Therefore, those that recieve commuinion have eternal life.

But, unlike what you believe, the Bible and the Church teach us that we can fall out of that state of grace by our own will and choose to reject that eternal life.

So. Next argument?[/quote][quote name='Raphael' post='1081770' date='Oct 2 2006, 09:37 AM']Is it as easy as saying a sinner's prayer?

No, it's not that easy. St. Paul says that if we eat and drink unworthily (which he defines as not discerning the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist--meaning those who deny or disregard the Real Presence), we will drink judgment on ourselves. The Eucharist is the font of eternal life, it is necessary for salvation inasmuch as it can be received (those who cannot receive it do not need it, such as infants; their Baptism will suffice). In as much as it is received worthily, it brings grace to the soul. In so much as it is received unworthily, it condemns. Now, salvation does not hinge on reception of the Body and Blood of Christ alone, since a man can simply sin mortally and then not receive, but he too has failed to discern the Body, which, had he recognized it and truly desired it and its salvific effect, he would have received. So it essentially comes down to whether or not you will reject Jesus Christ, since He is made present to us in the Eucharist.

Jesus Christ didn't say "remember me." He said, "do this (turn bread and wine into my true Body and Blood) in rememberence (literally, a "making present" or "re-presenting") of me."[/quote][quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1082413' date='Oct 2 2006, 10:23 PM']Actually, it is an answer to your off topic question, that was intented to bring you back on topic. You are kinda of lost on a desret island, which is your church you have set up, and all have all you is the bible. But you do not correctly understand it, because you are willfully blind, only seeing what you wish to see. So in your case no someone lost on a desert island can not read it correctly, without The Bride of Christ as there guide, Holy Mother Church.

You are forgetting one important thing with John 6, it was the intention of the writer guided by God to teach the Eucharist is "indeed" real. Someone who takes communion [u]will have[/u] eternal life, if they also...

Accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Acts 16:31

Endure to the end. Matthew 10:22, Matthew 24:13, Mark 13:13.

Accept the Cross (suffering). Matthew 10:38, Matthew 16:24-25, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27.

Be baptized with water. Mark 16:16, John 3:3-5 Titus 3:5, I Peter 3:20-21.

Be a member in God's true church. Acts 2:47.

Confess their sins. James 5:16, I John 1:9

Keep the Commandments of God. Matthew 5:19-20, Matthew 7:21

Heed the words of St. Peter, the first Pope. Acts 11:13-14, Acts 15:7.

And eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ. John 6:51-58, I Corinthians 10:16, I Corinthians 11:23-29[/quote][quote name='goldenchild17' post='1082452' date='Oct 2 2006, 11:08 PM']I've been watching this whole thing, many interesting points so far. One thing I noticed though is this, and it seems to be the thing that you always come back to. Yes, I think you are correct (I may be wrong, but that's what I think that we need to take this passage literally as well, if we are to use the whole passage as literal. However, I don't see any problem for a Catholic to take this statement literally. I think that you use this statement with a different understanding of salvation(ie. eternal life) than a Catholic understanding of eternal life. A Catholic understanding of eternal life would say that at this time we do indeed have eternal life, just as the passage states.

Why is this? Because in order to recieve this eternal life one must recieve Communion worthily. To do this one must believe that he is recieving Christ fully, Body Blood Soul & Divinity. One must also be in the state of grace, meaning no serious sin is on his soul at the time of reception. If a person fulfills this then when he recieves he indeed does have eternal life, and if he dies in this state there is no doubt that he would go to heaven. However it doesn't stop there. Catholics understand that there are things that can take away this eternal life. So while we do indeed recieve eternal life, we can choose to give this gift back due to any significant evil that we partake in.[/quote]
[/list]i'll give my own explanation as well. first, the verses in question (there are in fact many, not just the one you have been quoting):[list][b]Jn 6:53-58[/b]
[b]53 [/b] 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 you;
[b]54 [/b] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[b]55 [/b] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[b]56 [/b] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
[b]57 [/b] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
[b]58 [/b] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."
[/list]notice that we have here the same message of eternal life worded in 5 different ways. so, if one of the 5 is difficult to understand, we can go to the context that the rewordings provide (use of context is a basic hermeneutical principle) to see what it means.

now, i see at least 3 ways to understand the eternal life that is provided by eating the flesh and blood of Christ.

[b]Interpretation #1:[/b] It is true to say that "He who eats His flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life" because the only ones who approach the altar to receive the Eucharist are those who "have eternal life", or who are currently in right relationship with the Lord (since death in such a relationship would mean eternal life). So, if we read the passage this way, then the statement on having eternal life would be an observation of what is typical of those who receive the Eucharist: they come in a state of grace.

[b]Interpretation #2:[/b] It is also true to say that "He who eats His flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life" because Jesus IS eternal life, and so when we receive him through the Eucharist we are literally receiving eternal life. this is born out by the context. Verse 56 says, "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." thus, we see from this at least one way, if not THE way, to understand how one receives eternal life when he partakes in the Eucharist. he receives "eternal" life in the sense that "Jesus abides in him." So, if we read the passage this way, the statement on eternal life would be an observation of the state of the individual once he receives the Eucharist: he has eternal life in him.

[b]Interpretation #3:[/b] Finally, it is true to say that "He who eats His flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life" because regular reception of the Eucharist is an amazing aid in staying on the right course and living a life that will be rewarded with heaven when we die. So, he who eats and drinks will receive eternal life b/c he who does such things lives a life devoted to Christ and to intimate communion with him. don't forget that he who sins does not receive, b/c then he would be receiving unworthily. so, that means that he who DOES eat and drink is living a good life.....and its living a good life that gets one to heaven. So, if we read the passage this way, the statement on eternal life would be a deduction about the future of the person based on his present actions.

You seem to think that vs. 54 means that once you receive the Eucharist, you have instant salvation that you can't lose. but, that is an assumption on your part that is not born out by the text. Just b/c i say that i have eternal life, that doesn't mean that I can't lose it somewhere down the road. The whole of Scripture shows that you can, and so your assumption is unfounded.

at any rate, i have given you 3 possible ways to interpret the passage, all of which are completely in-line with what the Church teaches.

now, how about that point-by-point rebuttal i've been waiting for......

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[cosiegirl]

Phat: I gave you my answer. It all boils down to bad interpretation on all the passages. Sorry you don't like that answer but that is my answer.

Everyone else:

Thanks for the discussion, it was somewhat enlightening. But there are too many of you and you all are a bit too combative for me.

I've tried not to say insulting things about your beliefs even though I strongly disagree with them but haven't felt like I have gotten the same respect. Being compared to Satan is where I finally draw the line.

I don't care to continue with this discussion.

To God be all Glory.

[Aloysius]

who compared you to satan?

if too many responses is too overwhelming, start or join a one-on-one debate. petrus_scholasticus offered you one... you could start one requesting that only one person debate you (the mods have been known to enforce such requests from thread-starters)

if you're going to come here and tell us the Eucharist is not in the Bible, at least have the decency to remain and back up your assertion and your interpretation of the bible verses. there are many ways and reasons we have illustrated as to why your interpretation is wrong; you cannot merely then say "it all comes down to interpretation", for that is what was being argued from the start! rather, defend your interpretation.

[thessalonian]

[quote]Phat: I gave you my answer. It all boils down to bad interpretation on all the passages. Sorry you don't like that answer but that is my answer.[/quote]

Translation. "I'm a better interpreter than you because I believe in Sola Scriptura so my interpretations are right. The individual man with his Bible is far superior to a 2000 year old Church and the Bible". Not very convincing.

Prov 3:5 Trust not in your own understanding.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1083190' date='Oct 3 2006, 05:20 PM']
who compared you to satan?
[/quote]
I implicitly compared the unwillingness to follow a Magisterium to Satan's pride. The fact is that if one is rejecting the Magisterium by stating that they don't need an authority, then it seems to me to be a sort of unjust rebellion and thus Satanic.

Sola Scriptura, I truly didn't mean any offense...it just came out very badly. Please forgive me.

Edited October 3, 2006 by Raphael

[DAF]

Sola, it's probably already been raised, but on what authority do you peddal this nonsense?

[N/A Gone]

I promise I didnt call anyone* a virus...um, i mean satan...

























*it was the fundi movement not her anyway...geesh