How to convince R. Catholics that the ('host' wafer) is not Christs flesh and bone? (2)

[Sphinx777]

.​

The Sacrament of Love​

​

.​

 

[KM Richards]

You may very well keep your opinion about organized church but to say this is from satan is way a bit over the top. The words of institution are all embeded in Matthew, Mark and Luke and there is evidence from the first Chrisitan communities about the "breaking of the bread" as per Christ's commnd. I see nothing satanic to this at all... BTW to tell other Christians that are 'satanic" is not allowed according to our rules. Please refrain from calling other members who identify as Chrisians that are of satan...

Guilty conscience??? I did not call anybody satanic...I called the man-made religious tradition of worshipping the bread and the fruit of the vine as though they are idols...satanic, because idol worship is not of God.

Sure the Bible teaches taking communion, but this is symbolic...not literal. The Bible does not teach that the bread and the wine are the LITERAL Body of Jesus and the LITERAL Blood of Jesus.

Some people are worshipping these items, which is false teaching and un-scriptural

 

[Philothei]

Guilty conscience??? I did not call anybody satanic...I called the man-made religious tradition of worshipping the bread and the fruit of the vine as though they are idols...satanic, because idol worship is not of God.

Sure the Bible teaches taking communion, but this is symbolic...not literal. The Bible does not teach that the bread and the wine are the LITERAL Body of Jesus and the LITERAL Blood of Jesus.

Some people are worshipping these items, which is false teaching and un-scriptural

So when Christ gave the bread and the wine to the Apostles was doing something "satanic"? Did he say we should do this symbolic? where did he say we should not do it literally? Who says we "worship" the eucarist? No Chrisitan "worship" the Eucarist we venerate it. We conusme it. In the early church that was not the purpose of the Eucarist ...It was to partake into Christ's body and blood per his commandment. How can it be unscriptural when it is in the scripture??? And why be "symbolic" ? Who is adding to what it says in the scripture now

 

[Christos Anesti]

Why waste ones time eating pretend body and blood of Christ? Might as well eat a pretend hamburger. I know if I'm hungry that isn't really something I would look forward too though. Thankfully Jesus offers us His real Body and Blood.

The Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ. The Eucharist is ALSO symbolic. The two are are not at variance. It's only when people say that it is ONLY symbolic that they reject the teaching of historic orthodox Christianity.

 

[Standing Up]

Why waste ones time eating pretend body and blood of Christ? Might as well eat a pretend hamburger. I know if I'm hungry that isn't really something I would look forward too though. Thankfully Jesus offers us His real Body and Blood.

The Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ. The Eucharist is ALSO symbolic. The two are are not at variance. It's only when people say that it is ONLY symbolic that they reject the teaching of historic orthodox Christianity.

You're aware of what they taught, right?

 

[Rick Otto]

they reject the teaching of historic orthodox Christianity

Regarding the eucharist,... that'd be me.
Historic orthodox Christianity has been plagued with just this sort of magical thinking, literalizing metaphors & conjuring miracles out of thin mysticism. It has served to take eyes off the spiritual significance and indulge a soul lust for supernatural meaning in our relatively insignificant individual existance. It gives us permission to submerge ourselves into something larger than what we think is our own lives.
And that is a sad alternative to life giving communion with our Savior, which is what Christian life is ALL about, not its rituals meant to teach & remind us of things of spiritual significance.

 

[Rick Otto]

qu

ote=Christos Anesti;Why waste ones time eating pretend body and blood of Christ? Might as well eat a pretend hamburger.

So we can be pretend satisfied.

I know if I'm hungry that isn't really something I would look forward too though.

If you were just pretend hungry tho, it'd be perfect.

Thankfully Jesus offers us His real Body and Blood.

The definition of reality is often up for grabs, isn't it?

The Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ. The Eucharist is ALSO symbolic. The two are are not at variance.

Not necessarily in the abstract, however in the context of scripture, moral guidelines, etc., literalizing the truth of it presents real problems.

 

[laconicstudent]

Why, thank you, St. Thomas Aquinas.

Whether the body of Christ be in this sacrament in very truth, or merely as
in a figure or sign?

Objection 1: It seems that the body of Christ is not in this sacrament
in very truth, but only as in a figure, or sign. For it is written (Jn.
6:54) that when our Lord had uttered these words: "Except you eat the
flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood," etc., "Many of His
disciples on hearing it said: 'this is a hard saying'": to whom He
rejoined: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth
nothing": as if He were to say, according to Augustine's exposition on
Ps. 4 [*On Ps. 98:9]: "Give a spiritual meaning to what I have said.
You are not to eat this body which you see, nor to drink the blood
which they who crucify Me are to spill. It is a mystery that I put
before you: in its spiritual sense it will quicken you; but the flesh
profiteth nothing."

Objection 2: Further, our Lord said (Mat. 28:20): "Behold I am with you
all days even to the consummation of the world." Now in explaining
this, Augustine makes this observation (Tract. xxx in Joan.): "The Lord
is on high until the world be ended; nevertheless the truth of the Lord
is here with us; for the body, in which He rose again, must be in one
place; but His truth is spread abroad everywhere." Therefore, the body
of Christ is not in this sacrament in very truth, but only as in a
sign.

Objection 3: Further, no body can be in several places at the one time.
For this does not even belong to an angel; since for the same reason it
could be everywhere. But Christ's is a true body, and it is in heaven.
Consequently, it seems that it is not in very truth in the sacrament of
the altar, but only as in a sign.

Objection 4: Further, the Church's sacraments are ordained for the
profit of the faithful. But according to Gregory in a certain Homily
(xxviii in Evang.), the ruler is rebuked "for demanding Christ's bodily
presence." Moreover the apostles were prevented from receiving the Holy
Ghost because they were attached to His bodily presence, as Augustine
says on Jn. 16:7: "Except I go, the Paraclete will not come to you"
(Tract. xciv in Joan.). Therefore Christ is not in the sacrament of the
altar according to His bodily presence.

On the contrary, Hilary says (De Trin. viii): "There is no room for
doubt regarding the truth of Christ's body and blood; for now by our
Lord's own declaring and by our faith His flesh is truly food, and His
blood is truly drink." And Ambrose says (De Sacram. vi): "As the Lord
Jesus Christ is God's true Son so is it Christ's true flesh which we
take, and His true blood which we drink."

I answer that, The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this
sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith
alone, which rests upon Divine authority. Hence, on Lk. 22:19: "This is
My body which shall be delivered up for you," Cyril says: "Doubt not
whether this be true; but take rather the Saviour's words with faith;
for since He is the Truth, He lieth not."

Now this is suitable, first for the perfection of the New Law. For, the
sacrifices of the Old Law contained only in figure that true sacrifice
of Christ's Passion, according to Heb. 10:1: "For the law having a
shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things."
And therefore it was necessary that the sacrifice of the New Law
instituted by Christ should have something more, namely, that it should
contain Christ Himself crucified, not merely in signification or
figure, but also in very truth. And therefore this sacrament which
contains Christ Himself, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), is
perfective of all the other sacraments, in which Christ's virtue is
participated.

Secondly, this belongs to Christ's love, out of which for our salvation
He assumed a true body of our nature. And because it is the special
feature of friendship to live together with friends, as the Philosopher
says (Ethic. ix), He promises us His bodily presence as a reward,
saying (Mat. 24:28): "Where the body is, there shall the eagles be
gathered together." Yet meanwhile in our pilgrimage He does not deprive
us of His bodily presence; but unites us with Himself in this sacrament
through the truth of His body and blood. Hence (Jn. 6:57) he says: "He
that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and I in
him." Hence this sacrament is the sign of supreme charity, and the
uplifter of our hope, from such familiar union of Christ with us.

Thirdly, it belongs to the perfection of faith, which concerns His
humanity just as it does His Godhead, according to Jn. 14:1: "You
believe in God, believe also in Me." And since faith is of things
unseen, as Christ shows us His Godhead invisibly, so also in this
sacrament He shows us His flesh in an invisible manner.

Some men accordingly, not paying heed to these things, have contended
that Christ's body and blood are not in this sacrament except as in a
sign, a thing to be rejected as heretical, since it is contrary to
Christ's words. Hence Berengarius, who had been the first deviser of
this heresy, was afterwards forced to withdraw his error, and to
acknowledge the truth of the faith.

Reply to Objection 1: From this authority the aforesaid heretics have
taken occasion to err from evilly understanding Augustine's words. For
when Augustine says: "You are not to eat this body which you see," he
means not to exclude the truth of Christ's body, but that it was not to
be eaten in this species in which it was seen by them. And by the
words: "It is a mystery that I put before you; in its spiritual sense
it will quicken you," he intends not that the body of Christ is in this
sacrament merely according to mystical signification, but
"spiritually," that is, invisibly, and by the power of the spirit.
Hence (Tract. xxvii), expounding Jn. 6:64: "the flesh profiteth
nothing," he says: "Yea, but as they understood it, for they understood
that the flesh was to be eaten as it is divided piecemeal in a dead
body, or as sold in the shambles, not as it is quickened by the spirit
. . . Let the spirit draw nigh to the flesh . . . then the flesh
profiteth very much: for if the flesh profiteth nothing, the Word had
not been made flesh, that It might dwell among us."

Reply to Objection 2: That saying of Augustine and all others like it
are to be understood of Christ's body as it is beheld in its proper
species; according as our Lord Himself says (Mat. 26:11): "But Me you
have not always." Nevertheless He is invisibly under the species of
this sacrament, wherever this sacrament is performed.

Reply to Objection 3: Christ's body is not in this sacrament in the
same way as a body is in a place, which by its dimensions is
commensurate with the place; but in a special manner which is proper to
this sacrament. Hence we say that Christ's body is upon many altars,
not as in different places, but "sacramentally": and thereby we do not
understand that Christ is there only as in a sign, although a sacrament
is a kind of sign; but that Christ's body is here after a fashion
proper to this sacrament, as stated above.

Reply to Objection 4: This argument holds good of Christ's bodily
presence, as He is present after the manner of a body, that is, as it
is in its visible appearance, but not as it is spiritually, that is,
invisibly, after the manner and by the virtue of the spirit. Hence
Augustine (Tract. xxvii in Joan.) says: "If thou hast understood"
Christ's words spiritually concerning His flesh, "they are spirit and
life to thee; if thou hast understood them carnally, they are also
spirit and life, but not to thee."

 

[Rick Otto]

er the body of Christ be in this sacrament in very truth, or merely as
in a figure or sign?

It is laughable to discount the truth in a figure or sign as not the "very truth". The rhetoric is notable but the premise is sophmoric. That guy was a hoot.

 

[laconicstudent]

It is laughable to discount the truth in a figure or sign as not the "very truth". The rhetoric is notable but the premise is sophmoric. That guy was a hoot.

Lol, your problem stems from the fact that language has evolved since the 13th century. Where once we would say, "in rei veritate", we would say "literally". If you read how Aquinas uses the phrase, it is quite obvious. In short, your dispute with Aquinas is merely terminological.

 

[Rick Otto]

(chuckling,...)My "problem" is that your use of Aquinas to dispute truth & reality is dysfunctional even on his own 'lofty' (for the time) terms.

 

[laconicstudent]

(chuckling,...)My "problem" is that your use of Aquinas to dispute truth & reality is dysfunctional even on his own 'lofty' (for the time) terms.

Ok? Have fun with that, I suppose.

 

[Thekla]

Regarding the eucharist,... that'd be me.
Historic orthodox Christianity has been plagued with just this sort of magical thinking, literalizing metaphors & conjuring miracles out of thin mysticism. It has served to take eyes off the spiritual significance and indulge a soul lust for supernatural meaning in our relatively insignificant individual existance. It gives us permission to submerge ourselves into something larger than what we think is our own lives.
And that is a sad alternative to life giving communion with our Savior, which is what Christian life is ALL about, not its rituals meant to teach & remind us of things of spiritual significance.

God is larger than our lives.

To claim that "Historic orthodox Christianity" is engaged in a "soul lust for supernatural meaning", to use referrant terminology like "magical thinking", "conjuring", "thin mysticism" ... this is quite an accusation of near blasphemy lobbed at billions of Christians over thousands of years.

Do you mean to say that none of these seek "communion with" Jesus Christ ?

 

[Thekla]

While were at it, I've asked before (on the "metaphor" question ) - eating flesh is a Biblical metaphor for attacking or oppressing someone, or as result to have victory over...

Why does Christ say we need to attack Him to have eternal life ?

 

[laconicstudent]

God is larger than our lives.

To claim that "Historic orthodox Christianity" is engaged in a "soul lust for supernatural meaning", to use referrant terminology like "magical thinking", "conjuring", "thin mysticism" ... this is quite an accusation of near blasphemy lobbed at billions of Christians over thousands of years.

Not to mention a certain poor regard for "Historic orthodox Christianity", as if 2,000 years of Christians were unable to overcome their deep-seated psychological need for something transcendent, and it is only us 21st century Western Christians who are cool, detached, objective and godly enough to see the Truth and not be affected by our own cultural lenses.


I just found this:

"Do not slight the discourse of the sages, but busy yourself with their maxims; because from them you will learn discipline and how to serve princes." --Sirach 8:8


Hooray for postmodernism. Lets reject the historical interpretation, because obviously Aquinas and his contemporaries such as Abelard and Lombard were incapable of formulating sacramental theology without it being distorted by their existential angst. We, of course, all know our theology won't be similarly distorted, because....... Oh.

 

[Dionysiou]

God is not interested in ceremonies and rituals, he only wants your love and intimate friendship. This is the problem with some orthodox and catholics, its all so religious and set in old ways as if there are special methods to please God and if you try something different you are shunned because its different! maaaaaan just look at the mystics,masters,saints and sages. Those that were considered holy and close to God, spent all their time trying to figure out exactly where God wanted them next and through seeking guidance from the Holy Spirit, fasting, praying and living as the best christian they could possibly be, overcame. Where to draw the line though, many stories have been made up and/or embellished upon. It all comes down to your walk and how sensitive you are to the Holy Spirit. i honestly have no idea if that is of any relevance but sometimes people need reminding.

who loves you baby

 

[Rick Otto]

God is larger than our lives.

To claim that "Historic orthodox Christianity" is engaged in a "soul lust for supernatural meaning", to use referrant terminology like "magical thinking", "conjuring", "thin mysticism" ... this is quite an accusation of near blasphemy lobbed at billions of Christians over thousands of years.

Do you mean to say that none of these seek "communion with" Jesus Christ ?

Yeah, exactly, only all think they are seeking communion with Jesus Christ.

After most the world needing to get over & past the earth not being flat and it not being the center of the universe, much less the solar system, I wonder myself at the shock of thinking that our august pontificates would be any better with pradigms in their esteemed field.

 

[Thekla]

Yeah, exactly, only all think they are seeking communion with Jesus Christ.

After most the world needing to get over & past the earth not being flat and it not being the center of the universe, much less the solar system, I wonder myself at the shock of thinking that our august pontificates would be any better with pradigms in their esteemed field.

For purposes of astronomical mapping, the earth is still the "center of the universe" and the "solar system". As for the "flat earth", how could Eratosthenes and (per the linked article) possibly also others before him have calculated the circumference of the earth if they thought it was "flat" ? (see: Ancient Measurements of the Circumference of the Earth)

As for the charge that it was the "august pontificates" who determined this, where is the evidence that this is so ? They may have provided the recorded statements now still extant that describe this, but there is not the evidence that you propose - that they "invented" it. It is at least plausible to consider how ridiculous they would have appeared to their educated contemporaries for holding to such a notion. To hold such a belief at personal cost suggests there may have been something more than a desire for domination or fame - as such a pay-off as power was not immediately at hand.

This also skips the question of why, as I have asked before, Christ would employ a "metaphor" that meant "attack/oppress/benefit from destroying" then insist that we do this (attack/destroy Him) in order to have life ?

Finally, to pronounce judgment on billions from a position of personal theory and preference, without a deeper knowledge of the persons and their disposition, and ignoring the demonstration of what "communion" actually means in action, life, and belief over the centuries under consideration, sounds a bit too "pontifical" for me. At the least, it seems just a bit condescending.

 

[Rick Otto]

While were at it, I've asked before (on the "metaphor" question ) - eating flesh is a Biblical metaphor for attacking or oppressing someone, or as result to have victory over...

Why does Christ say we need to attack Him to have eternal life ?

Why does it being a "Biblical metaphor imply that a metaphor used in one way in one verse has to be used the same way, to mean the same thing, in every other verse? I realize there is some continuity of symbolism, but we are talking about metaphor which is far more poetic than symbolism.

It makes no more sense to think He is asking us to attack Him than thinking He wants us to literaly eat His flesh & literaly drink His blood,

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Thekla;For purposes of astronomical mapping, the earth is still the "center of the universe" and the "solar system"

We're not mapping, still, our perspective being from here doesn't make "here" the center of the universe.

. As for the "flat earth", how could Eratosthenes and (per the linked article) possibly also others before him have calculated the circumference of the earth if they thought it was "flat" ?

A few of us are ahead of our time, nevertheless for the great majority what I said holds true.

As for the charge that it was the "august pontificates" who determined this, where is the evidence that this is so ?

In both the RCC & the EO, "august pontificates" are keepers of tradition who hold authority over interpretation. Who is it might you be suggesting first interpreted t he eucharist metaphor literaly and where is your evidence it is so?

They may have provided the recorded statements now still extant that describe this, but there is not the evidence that you propose - that they "invented" it. It is at least plausible to consider how ridiculous they would have appeared to their educated contemporaries for holding to such a notion. To hold such a belief at personal cost suggests there may have been something more than a desire for domination or fame - as such a pay-off as power was not immediately at hand.

I couldn't disagree more.
That literalization of this metaphor is an invention is the obvious part. Who started it is arguable if you insist on naming names for some reason.

The eucharist is the central sacrament & the priestly power of consecration of the host is the core power that is franchised by the "Apostolic Succesion" card.

Finally, to pronounce judgment on billions from a position of personal theory and preference, without a deeper knowledge of the persons and their disposition, and ignoring the demonstration of what "communion" actually means in action, life, and belief over the centuries under consideration, sounds a bit too "pontifical" for me. At the least, it seems just a bit condescending.

I never expect it to make me popular.
Imagine how condescended to I've felt all my life having this belief practicaly shoved down my throat with people looking at me like I'm sick or insane for believing what I do.
I've been so abused by the accumulation of errors of all those people I couldn't give a flip what they think of me. I have immediate family, myself & God way out ahead of them for people to be concerned about anyway.