Eucherist Debate On The Bb

[Jericho923]

that is sweet Carson...just what brought me back to the Church!

[KennC]

[quote]St. Thomas Aquinas defines Love as the union between the Lover and the beloved...what better (actually what other way) could Jesus choose to be complete united to us, than by being ingested...sounds weird, but hey! they walked away because it was too weird...[/quote]
I was struggling with the Eucharist shortly after I became Catholic and after weeks of Prayer one early moring Mass the words Consume me as I Consume you kept rolling over and over in my head. Then I went for Comunion and it hit me as I reached out my hand, Lord as I consume all of you, consume all of me and thats when the Sacrifice of the Mass took on a personal meaning for me. I watched one day as the wine and bread was being brought up the centre isle and thought thats me, and I lay my life on the alter with Him, to Him.

[Livin_the_MASS]

I've been working with them for years. If you've done your study why ask, is what I am saying.

Why post something like that if you have questioned it before?

Are you seeking Truth. I don't think so, why?

On your post you said "the truth" are you saying what you posted is truth?

First off it's not, and if you think you know the truth and your convicted in the article that you posted, your here to argue. Not for help!

[quote]shakes head*

So I'm not allowed to disagree with your belief huh?

Seasoned phatmassers here have been able to rationally talk with me and others who disagree with the Eucharist for years without getting upset as you are getting.

What kind of backround do you have with non-Catholic Christians? [/quote]

Edited March 20, 2004 by Jason

[jmjtina]

charity above all things. If you don't have charity, then it's all for not.

[Jericho923]

OUr Lady of Peace pray for us

[Dave]

Jason, please stop! If you've been taught a certain thing for a long time, it really takes time to understand, appreciate, and accept something that is at odds with that. Such is the case with Brother Adam. Perfect understanding and acceptance of a doctrine don't come overnight. Please respect that.

Personally, I think an apology from you to Brother Adam would be in order too.

Edited March 20, 2004 by Dave

[littleflower+JMJ]

[quote name='Jason' date='Mar 20 2004, 03:57 PM'] I've been working with them for years. If you've done your study why ask, is what I am saying.

Why post something like that if you have questioned it before?

Are you seeking Truth. I don't think so, why?

On your post you said "the truth" are you saying what you posted is truth?

First off it's not, and if you think you know the truth and your convicted in the article that you posted, your here to argue. Not for help!

[/quote]
jason, please, please, please, bro. adam is truly being honest wtih himself and with us and as catholics we need to show charity and love to our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Bro. Adam has been studying extensivly the catholic faith and has come up wtih many subjects that he needs help with on understanding, etc. because its all new to him.

please be patient, for bro. adam is doing wonderful on his searching and findings and has really, as a result, taught us so much in return.

this thread is not an attack, its a plea and request for understanding, that we as catholics have an obligation to share in christian love and charity.

God bless,
flowery
+JMJ

[Carson Weber]

Jason, let's hold off on judgments as to the interior intentions of others, okay? These sort of hissy fits make me irate, and you don't want to see me irate. :irate:

Adam, I encourage you to read this article by Dave Armstrong:

[url="http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.1/god.htm"]http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.1/god.htm[/url]

He defends the Real Presence quite well. You'll see.

[Jericho923]

[quote]hey Bro, do not let our inability to communicate in the love which we are called to receive, embrace and imitate, affect your process of asking questions or inquiring about faith...you are a blessing to us, in many ways. So hold us to the highest standards even when it comes to defending our faith.
[/quote]

please!

[Livin_the_MASS]

I'm not trying to be uncharitable,

but isn't it funny he tells me he has done his studies on the subject.

That tells me he know what we believe! So if he knows what he believes and what we believe is that post not an attack.

I want to help on Phatmass, I thank God for the website, but in a case like that it's time to draw the sword.

If I'm wrong I'll say I'm sorry and leave. But I think, infact I know because I've been watching his posts to try to help him that he plays with words. This shouldn't be a place of arguing. But love, charity, and kindness.

I may be wrong but considering the circumstances ( how long hes been here ) he told he posted the truth (which its not) it was an attack.

I want to stand up for the truth. So if he done his studies my question is why the post?

God Bless Jason

[Jericho923]

i think we need the school of the Eucharist...and Receive Him!
must go to my date with Jesus, pray for me i for you!

[Archangel]

[b]Jesus Promises His Real Presence in the Eucharist[/b]

John 6:4, 11-14 - on the eve of the Passover, Jesus performs the miracle of multiplying the loaves. This foreshadows the infinite heavenly bread which is Him.

Matt. 14:19, 15:36; Mark 6:41, 8:6; Luke 9:16 - these passages are additional accounts of the multiplication miracles. This points to the Eucharist.

Matt. 16:12 - in this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term "bread." In John 6, He eliminates any metaphorical possibilities.

John 6:24 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this "new" bread which must be consumed.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?

John 6:54-58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat.

Matt. 24:38; John 13:18 - for example, the word "phago" is used here too, and it means to literally gnaw or chew meat. "Phago" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "phago" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words.

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body).

John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; Luke 3:6; 24:39 - these are other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:60 - as are many anti-Cathlolics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of "spirit versus flesh" to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding.

Mark 14:38 - here Jesus also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural.

1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; Gal. 5:17 - here again we see the "spirit/flesh" comparision being used to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still "in the flesh."

John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." As we have seen, the use of "spirit" relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.

John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn't Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn't Jesus say, "Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!"? Because they understood correctly.

Mark 4:34 - Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation.

John 6:37 - Jesus says He would not drive those away from Him. They understood Him correctly but would not believe.

John 3:5,11; Matt. 16:11-12 - here are some examples of Jesus correcting wrong impressions of His teaching. In the Eucharistic discourse, Jesus does not correct the scandalized disciples.

John 6:64,70 - Jesus ties the disbelief in the Real Presence of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist to Judas' betrayal. Those who don't believe in this miracle betray Him.

Isa. 9:20; 49:26; Mic. 3:3; 2 Sam. 23:17; Rev. 16:6; 17:6, 16 - to further dispense with the Protestant claim that Jesus was only speaking symbolically, these verses demonstrate that symbolically eating body and blood is always used in a negative context of a physical assault.

John 6:54 - thus, if Jesus were speaking symbolically, He would be saying to us, "He who reviles or assaults me has eternal life." This, of course, is absurd.

John 10:7 - Protestants point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, "I am the door." But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically.

John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, "I am the vine." Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6, Jesus' disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says we must become like children, or we will not enter the kingdom of God. We must believe Jesus' words with child-like faith. Because Jesus says this bread is His flesh, we believe by faith, even though it surpasses our understanding.

Luke 1:37 - with God, nothing is impossible. If we can believe in the Incarnation, we can certainly believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. God coming to us in elements He created is an extension of the awesome mystery of the Incarnation.

(from Scripture Catholic)

[p0lar_bear]

Bro. Adam,


Aside from the information Carson provided (props on that by the way), I want to address the more specific question of John 6:63 "the flesh is of no avail."


As I'm sure you know the word "flesh" is often used in the Scriptures as the opposite of "spirit." In this use, the word refers to the material or physical rather than literal flesh itself. Given the beginning of the verse "it is the spirit that gives life," I think that the word is used here in that sense.

When "flesh" is used elsewhere in the chapter, the meaning is clearly the literal flesh.

If He is using the word in only one sense (literal flesh), His statements become incoherent. You must eat the flesh to have life, but it is worthless....


This is totally my own thought, so I could be way off, but....

(note: my use of "literal" here is not contrasted to symbolic. It's more like saying "the world" and meaning "the actual planet Earth" rather than "the secular world")

[jmjtina]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 20 2004, 03:31 PM'] I'm not attacking you, I'm telling you the truth. Rarely do I read anything when someone only copies and pastes something. I did not say there was anything wrong with it. [/quote]
[quote]I may be wrong but considering the circumstances ( how long hes been here ) he told he posted the truth (which its not) it was an attack.[/quote]

I think when he means "truth" he means, truthfully, he's telling you, he is not here to attack.

because obviously, he searching for the truth and with your help and discussion, we can all come to a better understanding of the Eucharist and ourselves.

i like the way you think polarbear!


peace and God Bless!

[mulls]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 20 2004, 03:27 PM']
To me, the logic Bob is using makes sense. How could he be wrong? [/quote]
"Well," for one thing, "Bob Ryan" seems to "use quotes" just a bit "excessively."