Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 4 of 7   [ 127 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Protestants: Why is the Eucharist not Christ?
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2016 12:11 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:36 am
Posts: 8872
Location: India
Religion: Catholic (Syro Malabar)
theJack wrote:
Jack3 wrote:
Is that faith salvific?

Do you mean salvation from eternal hell? Then yes. Do you mean salvific in the fuller sense I talked about in the paper I linked? No. This might help.

Quote:
How do you reconcile that with "If he believes, he believes.... Being moral or immoral has nothing to do with where we spend eternity." ?

Because "salvation" is a lot, lot bigger concept than just "keep me out of hell."

Quote:
Does the fact that he no longer believes Jesus to be the Lamb of God have any effect on eternal life, or its quality?

Yes. Leads to the loss/forfeiture of eternal rewards.

Can you give links (or text reply) to the difference between salvation, and just being in Heaven?
Quote:
Quote:
I think I should have phrased myself better. How does your view differ from mine?

I don't know, because I don't know how you nuance the differences in schism and heresy and what the exact consequences for either are. For me, schism is sad because it inhibits us from living the full Christian life that God intends, and while God's work is never frustrated, per se, it is also clear that we often don't live up to the fullest blessings we could. Schism directly contributes to that and thus has eternal consequences. I don't think, though, that schism is damnable.

What is your concept of "Church"? How do you understand schism without a true Church?

The more I talk to you, the more I realize that non Catholics too have certain reasons for believing, that they have thought about justifications of their positions. Thanks!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Protestants: Why is the Eucharist not Christ?
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2016 5:36 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5059
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Jack3 wrote:
Can you give links (or text reply) to the difference between salvation, and just being in Heaven?

"Salvation" is its related verbal forms are very broad terms, not narrow theological ones. If someone is drowning and says, "Jesus, save me!" they aren't asking Him to take them to heaven. In fact, just the opposite, right? ;)

So if we go to heaven, we have certainly been saved from Hell. And spending eternity with Christ is certainly the final and ultimate fulfillment of "salvation" in all of its senses. But the terms are far from identical. Every time Christ delivers me from a danger, He has saved me. Every time He delivers me from evil, He has saved me. Every time He heals me, He has saved me. Every time He teaches me and further reveals Himself to me so that I become more like Him, He saves me. So while it is true that through placing our faith in Christ we receive the promise and guarantee of eternal salvation--the promise of Christ Himself that we will conquer death by participating in His victory over that final enemy--it is only when we abide in that faith and when it operates in love that we are saved more and more and each and every day. My patients very often tell me, "It's okay, chaplain. God won't give me more than I can handle." And very often I offer them another version of the same cliche that I think is much more sound and more helpful: "No, God will never give you more than He can handle." I'm asking them with that to reach out to God for salvation, and that is always an act of faith.

Quote:
What is your concept of "Church"?

Well that's a very large question.

To give an entirely too small answer, the church is a group of people who have placed their faith in Christ and have covenanted to live out their faith in Him together, especially through mutual love and service. Put more succinctly, the church is those in Christ who, being one in Him are one together.

Quote:
How do you understand schism without a true Church?

Obviously if there is no church, there is no schism. A Christian book club (even if that book club is the Bible) is not a church. A Christian concert (even if that rock concert calls itself a "praise team" or a choir) is not a church. So if people separate book clubs or split up to have different types of concerts, that isn't schism.

Quote:
The more I talk to you, the more I realize that non Catholics too have certain reasons for believing, that they have thought about justifications of their positions. Thanks!

You're welcome. I hope it is as helpful to you in your journey of faith as it is me in mine to take seriously the walks and reasons of others. I certainly don't hold it against you or any one else here for believing that I am in profound and deep error. I don't even take offense at those who think that I am on the way to hell because of it. I figure that's them being honest about their own faith, and where I spend eternity is between me and God. No, I appreciate seeing the way you all look at Christ, as you have a two thousand year tradition any countless saints who have known Him very deeply, and it is an absurdity to think that my own walk wouldn't be enriched by taking seriously what you have learned individually and collectively of Him. Now, perhaps because that well is so deep, there are those who feel there is nothing at all to learn or glean from my own testimony, and that's okay. Perhaps there are those who do find something meaningful in my perspective. I'm here for me (no offense intended to you or others; but that's exactly why I find it so very easy to put certain posters on ignore), and if our conversations helps you take such matters even more seriously than you already do--and I know you do take them seriously--then I praise God that I got to play at least a tiny role in what He is showing you. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Protestants: Why is the Eucharist not Christ?
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2016 7:33 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:31 am
Posts: 831
Religion: Catholic
The selfist view has been exposed as discarding the reality made so clear by Christ in the Gospels, with St Peter and his successors on whom the Christ built His Church to teach His truths until the end of time, by rejecting that we have the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God only because Christ’s Church authorised them for us.

St Paul calls for the unity of belief in faith and morals which is lacking: 1 Cor 1:10: “I urge you brothers, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.”

SCHISM…..“Heresy, therefore, by its nature refers to the mind and is opposed to religious belief, whereas schism is fundamentally volitional and offends against the union of Christian charity. (Etym. Latin schisma; from Greek skhisma, a split, division, from skhizein, to tear, rend.)”
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
http://www.therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

That failure of the selfists to listen to Christ through His Church has produced many thousands of sects all differing in some way in their beliefs, and all lacking the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass instituted by Christ, and variously accepting evils such as abortion, contraception, euthanasia, IVF, cloning.

No one outside of Christ’s Church can say with the Apostles and their successors: “We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” (1Jn 4:6).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Protestants: Why is the Eucharist not Christ?
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2016 9:37 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:26 am
Posts: 1292
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: Man for Others
Jack,

I think your analysis of John 6 is seriously lacking. I don't doubt your knowledge on the subject of Biblical Greek, but your wisdom is not shining through.

What is the metaphor in John 6? How is the metaphor assisted by using trogo, which is a sparsely used word? How is the metaphor assisted by saying that the flesh of Jesus is meat indeed? Why are the actual metaphors Jesus uses full of metaphoric language comparing one thing as "like" another?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Protestants: Why is the Eucharist not Christ?
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2016 10:16 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5059
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
That's fine, Will. I'm pretty sure you're as close to obligated as you can get in taking John 6 the way you do, so I don't expect you to seriously consider any other view. Of course you're going to think anything I suggest is "seriously lacking." That doesn't bother me. And your substantive questions about the use of metaphors don't bother me. What does bother me is this silly notion that the word trogo has anything to do with the discussion. As I said above, just don't go there. Let me be very blunt: you don't know Greek. You don't even know linguistics, so you really have no business making an argument based on Greek generally and linguistics specifically. The metaphor stuff is, I suspect, well enough within your expertise that you can make your own educated assessment on the matter.

Anyway, as to the metaphor issue, there are multiple metaphors in John 6. The first and primary one is that Jesus is bread. Embedded in this metaphor is an analogy, which is Jesus as "bread from heaven" like manna was "bread from heaven." Now, the manna as bread from heaven isn't a metaphor. That was a historical account, but it points to what linguistics will call the "salient feature" of any given metaphor, which is to say, the specific aspect of the metaphor that is being conveyed by its usage. For example, when we say God is a rock, we aren't saying He is hard (even though rocks are) or that He is a composite entity (even though rocks are) or that He makes a useful tool (even though rocks do). We are saying that He is immovable and able to serve as a strong foundation, which rocks do. So that's the salient feature of that metaphor.

What's the salient feature of the bread metaphor? It is that bread is for eating, which sustains life. Jesus, as "bread," when "eaten" gives and sustains life (the salient feature). This is driven home, again, first by the analogy. The Israelites ate bread from heaven, and they still died. The manna didn't give them eternal life. Jesus does, so the analogy is contrastive.

But push it further. Why is Jesus talking about manna in the first place? Because He says the people were only following Him because they wanted literal bread. Remember that they had just been fed by the thousands. So Jesus, taking the thing they just experienced and their true motivation, decided to use that very thing to teach them an essential lesson; that is, to correct a misunderstanding they had. So he makes an argument. You are following Me for physical bread. That's a bad reason to follow Me, because 1) physical bread perishes, and 2) physical bread doesn't give eternal life. So He gives them a metaphor: instead of seeking physical bread, seek spiritual bread; bread from heaven. In case you are still thinking of physical bread from heaven, note that the Israelites ate physical bread from heaven, and they still died. So that goes back to the argument: don't follow Me for physical bread, whether I create it ex nihilo or whether it comes out of heaven. Instead, recognize that I am the bread from heaven (metaphor, again, with the salient feature being that which gives and sustains life). Now, how do you get the benefit of bread? You eat it. So you have to "eat" Me. If you eat physical bread, you'll be satisfied awhile, but you will still die. But if you "eat" Me, you will be satisfied forever and never die (side note: this is the same type of argument Jesus made with the woman at the well).

So how do we "eat" Jesus? He tells us plainly in this very passage: "Whoever believes in Me has everlasting life" (John 6:47). To "believe in" Jesus is to "eat" Him, to "drink" His blood. Eating and drinking are metaphors for belief. They complain because they don't believe in Jesus. As Paul would later say, "Their belly is their God." They are still looking to Jesus for physical food, so they start asking about how they could eat Him. Jesus knows they don't understand, and He knows they don't understand because they don't believe. So rather than clarify, He pushes them deeper into obscurity. That's right, you fools. You have to eat Me. You have to drink My blood. But you won't. You refuse to believe. So they leave, which is exactly what Jesus was doing the entire time.

All of this is confirmed when the disciples stick around. He asks them if they are leaving. And Peter responds by pointing out that he understands, at least partially, the metaphor. Jesus has "the words of life." Words are believed, not "eaten." So to "eat" Jesus is to believe His words. But so that Peter doesn't get puffed up and think he is special by sticking around, Jesus makes it clear that continuing to follow Him is no proof of anything. Following is not "eating." The proof: one of those who will continue following, who supposedly is believing (eating), is, in fact, a devil and does not believe. So don't think that following is enough. Jesus wants our faith.

Anyway, that's just how the figure of speech works. Jesus takes something from around Him--the desire for physical food--and uses it to teach a lesson. He compares Himself to food, and if you are paying attention, you'll see that the salient feature of food is that it is necessary for life. And how do you get the life out of food? You eat it. So the entire picture is a metaphor to say that believing in Jesus is necessary for life. Which, again, is exactly what Jesus says in John 6:47--"Whoever believes in Me has everlasting life."

By the way, the literary structure of the passage bears all of this out, too. John 6:35-51 is a chiasm. Let me demonstrate:

    A. Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

      B. But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.

        C. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

          D. Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, "I am the bread that came down out of heaven."

            X. They were saying, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, 'I have come down out of heaven'?"

          D'. Jesus answered and said to them, "Do not grumble among yourselves.

        C'. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught of God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.

      B'. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

    A'. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.

So you can see that the center of the chiasm is the people's unbelief. Jesus has said truly He comes from heaven. The people don't believe Him, citing His supposed origins in justification. This main rejection of the very identity of Jesus is framed by comments about their grumbling (which, again, highlights disbelief). But why do they not believe? Because the Father has not given them to Jesus. They are not His. If they were, they would come (believe--see the metaphor there, too?). That idea of "coming" is the next step down in the chiasm. Next, we have a statement about their belief specifically (which includes John 6:47, an interesting parallel to to verse 36, which expressly identifies their unbelief). And all of this is framed by the first section of the chiasm, the idea of Jesus as the bread of life.

The point is the entire section is centered upon the Jews not believing in Jesus. You're exegetical mistake is taking a metaphor at the periphery of the narrative and making it the center when it is not. You only see it as central because of your preexisting theology. That is to say, you do NOT get your theology from this text, but rather, you see your theology in this text because you are predisposed to do so because of what you already believe. It's just standard eisogesis.

Again, I don't expect you to be persuaded by the argument. But you asked how I "responded" to John 6, and that's how. I would tell you the point of the story is to believe in Jesus and to not be like those unbelieving Jews who rejected Him (didn't believe in Him) because they were more interested in getting physical bread out of Him.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Protestants: Why is the Eucharist not Christ?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 12:11 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:36 am
Posts: 8872
Location: India
Religion: Catholic (Syro Malabar)
theJack wrote:
Jack3 wrote:
Can you give links (or text reply) to the difference between salvation, and just being in Heaven?

"Salvation" is its related verbal forms are very broad terms, not narrow theological ones. If someone is drowning and says, "Jesus, save me!" they aren't asking Him to take them to heaven. In fact, just the opposite, right? ;)

So if we go to heaven, we have certainly been saved from Hell. And spending eternity with Christ is certainly the final and ultimate fulfillment of "salvation" in all of its senses. But the terms are far from identical. Every time Christ delivers me from a danger, He has saved me. Every time He delivers me from evil, He has saved me. Every time He heals me, He has saved me. Every time He teaches me and further reveals Himself to me so that I become more like Him, He saves me. So while it is true that through placing our faith in Christ we receive the promise and guarantee of eternal salvation--the promise of Christ Himself that we will conquer death by participating in His victory over that final enemy--it is only when we abide in that faith and when it operates in love that we are saved more and more and each and every day. My patients very often tell me, "It's okay, chaplain. God won't give me more than I can handle." And very often I offer them another version of the same cliche that I think is much more sound and more helpful: "No, God will never give you more than He can handle." I'm asking them with that to reach out to God for salvation, and that is always an act of faith.

Quote:
What is your concept of "Church"?

Well that's a very large question.

To give an entirely too small answer, the church is a group of people who have placed their faith in Christ and have covenanted to live out their faith in Him together, especially through mutual love and service. Put more succinctly, the church is those in Christ who, being one in Him are one together.

Quote:
How do you understand schism without a true Church?

Obviously if there is no church, there is no schism. A Christian book club (even if that book club is the Bible) is not a church. A Christian concert (even if that rock concert calls itself a "praise team" or a choir) is not a church. So if people separate book clubs or split up to have different types of concerts, that isn't schism.

Quote:
The more I talk to you, the more I realize that non Catholics too have certain reasons for believing, that they have thought about justifications of their positions. Thanks!

You're welcome. I hope it is as helpful to you in your journey of faith as it is me in mine to take seriously the walks and reasons of others. I certainly don't hold it against you or any one else here for believing that I am in profound and deep error. I don't even take offense at those who think that I am on the way to hell because of it. I figure that's them being honest about their own faith, and where I spend eternity is between me and God. No, I appreciate seeing the way you all look at Christ, as you have a two thousand year tradition any countless saints who have known Him very deeply, and it is an absurdity to think that my own walk wouldn't be enriched by taking seriously what you have learned individually and collectively of Him. Now, perhaps because that well is so deep, there are those who feel there is nothing at all to learn or glean from my own testimony, and that's okay. Perhaps there are those who do find something meaningful in my perspective. I'm here for me (no offense intended to you or others; but that's exactly why I find it so very easy to put certain posters on ignore), and if our conversations helps you take such matters even more seriously than you already do--and I know you do take them seriously--then I praise God that I got to play at least a tiny role in what He is showing you. :)

Thank you


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Protestants: Why is the Eucharist not Christ?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 2:10 am 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:31 am
Posts: 831
Religion: Catholic
http://www.therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
CHURCH. The faithful of the whole world. This broad definition can be understood in various senses all derived from the Scriptures, notably as the community of believers, the kingdom of God, and the Mystical Body of Christ.

In Lumen Gentium #8 (the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) of Vatican II, the reality is taught:
Extract:
“This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, 12* which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,74 and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,75 which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth".76 This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,13* although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.”
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0037/_P8.HTM

Then how individuals become “faithful” is clearly enunciated in #12:
‘The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,111 cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural discernment in matters of faith when "from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful" 8* they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God.112 Through it, the people of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith given once and for all to the saints,113 penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life.’

Thus as the eminent Fr John A Hardon, S.J., points out:
“Consequently, whether they realise it or not, all who agree on the revealed truth under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium, belong to the truthful. Their agreement on the truth and allegiance to the Magisterium gives them universality, i.e., spiritual unity. The truth interiorly possessed gives them consensus, and not the other way around, as though their consensus on some doctrine made it true!”
[The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 226-7].

Thus Christ’s Church is clear on the faithful and on their agreement on, and fidelity to, truth. Similarly the fantasies concocted are worthless.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Protestants: Why is the Eucharist not Christ?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 3:18 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:31 am
Posts: 831
Religion: Catholic
Correction to the above:
Thus as the eminent Fr John A Hardon, S.J., points out:
“Consequently, whether they realise it or not, all who agree on the revealed truth under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium, belong to the faithful. Their agreement on the truth and allegiance to the Magisterium gives them universality, i.e., spiritual unity. The truth interiorly possessed gives them consensus, and not the other way around, as though their consensus on some doctrine made it true!”
[The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 226-7].


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Protestants: Why is the Eucharist not Christ?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 3:21 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 7:46 pm
Posts: 462
Location: Midwest
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: Knights of Columbus
theJack wrote:
Smiddy wrote:
What I don't get is why, if one has faith, believes in God to start with, and ever asks for anything in prayer with the faith to believe a request can be granted, that they falter in believing in the Eucharist?

How is it such a hurdle? I wasn't taught it as a Protestant, but had zero difficulty affirming it at my conversion. If it's been taught and believed/accepted for around 20 centuries, and supported by Scripture as shown in the last post, I just never could disagree with it. To the contrary, I readily embraced it and can't imagine it ever being otherwise.

There's no hurdle. There's just no reason to believe it. Why should I? You don't go around believing things willy nilly, or, at least, we shouldn't.


No I don't believe things Willy nilly at all. The CC is simply the most authoritave source of teaching, has taught this since the beginning, and I believe those teachings as a result. :D

What I can't determine is y one chooses to not accept these teachings, but accepts those propagated by any church without the same level of authority, and there doesn't exist another church who has such.

And, to not believe is, as I see it, to disagree with a teaching, thereby denying it.

The Ethiopian eunuch was mentioned here somewhere in a post and that's how I feel sorta. I seek to be taught as did he, and I believe wholly what I have learned as a result.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Protestants: Why is the Eucharist not Christ?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 4:01 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 10454
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Orthodox (In Communion With Rome)
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
theJack wrote:
Because I don't see any reason to believe it. I think "This is My body" is obviously metaphor, and there's nothing in the text or anywhere else to suggest otherwise. I also reject a sacramental theology more generally. "Whoever believes in Me has everlasting life" can't be comported with sacramentalism is far as I can tell, and so seeing no warrant to accept it [transubstantiation], seeing warrant to accept the more obvious reading, and seeing warrant for positively rejecting it, it's just as obvious to me as the nose on my face that transubstantiation or anything like it just isn't true. *shrug*


I would say that the reason that you do not see any reason for this belief is that you have a warped view of what salvation is. To understand salvation properly, you must back to the very beginning of the salvation story, which starts in Eden. When there, it is necessary to understand what it was that God intended, what was lost, and how that which was lost be gained back again.

Small words often convey tremendous meaning in Scripture. So do small verses, such as Luke 3: 38, where we are told that Adam was the "son of God." Three small words, but packed with meaning for us as human beings, for they point to a glorious future. In order to "unpack" all this, we need to use the analogies which God has built into human life and understanding.

In the Psalms, our Father is described as the King of the universe. By extension, and from what we know of human kingship, that would make Adam a prince. And as is the wont of princes, they mature into kings of their own right in due time and with maturity. It was our Father's desire to share kingly authority with Adam, as well as His very nature. How do I know this? Because these are the gifts which salvation has brought to us through Christ.

Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Would God give to us that which was not in the very first intended for Adam? Theologians far, far wiser than I have said this.

However, the union with God and the ability to partake of that divine nature, transforming us into little gods who are able to share in God's love as partakers of that nature (which makes us able to have that union - without it we would burn up in the fires of God's passionate love) was broken in Eden and mankind separated from God.

In Christ, man's nature is assumed and healed. Mankind as a corporate entity is restored to God, but it is up to each individual in that corporate entity to lay hold of the medicinal quality of the salvation and make it his own, healing his ontological sickness and giving him the power to change (theosis or divinization).

This is where Evangelicalism utterly breaks down, seeing salvation as nothing more than a declaration in heaven of legal forgiveness. This is semi-Gnosticism at best, a denial that our physical bodies and the world of matter around us has anything to do with our state before God. If a legal declaration of forgiveness has been made, Evangelicalism sees no need for anything further. But we are physical creatures in whom our souls reside in union with our bodies, therefore, it is necessary that more than just a legal declaration be made. Something of the physical realm must interact with our bodies to affect our souls.

That something is the Eucharist. In it we have the energies of Christ's godhood. Those energies are curative and restorative, just as medicine restores the sick body to health. Indeed, the Early Fathers referred to the Eucharist as "the medicine of immortality," for they understood this distinction.

Now play it forward.....our bodies are so important to our being that they will be resurrected, changed, glorified, and enter into that eternal union with God. They are the channel through which we experience communion with God, not something to be discarded as useless, a la some Klingon sense of immaterialism in the next world. The Eucharist is that which enters into us as a living force - the energies of the living God - and changes us by uniting to us.

The bottom line is that you are missing something by denying that which brings the uncreated energies of God into our created souls to heal them. Why does this make a difference, especially if you see yourself as a "good person" in your life and your exercise of the Christian faith?

I can only speak from experience on this - my personal experience. It was only after entering the Church and beginning to receive the Eucharist that I experienced a radical change in both victory over a very nagging sin that I hated, as well as a change in my entire outlook on life. To someone who has not experienced what I have experienced, it is hard to relate, almost like trying to describe "purple" to a person born blind. And my experience is not isolated. Many of the great saints and holy people in the faith have entered into deeply personal experiences with Christ through the Eucharist.

I almost hate to use this analogy, but here goes: it's like the difference between putting a very nasty, low-grade octane in your car, contaminated by water, as opposed to using a very high quality fuel. Both will run the vehicle, but the performance will be very different. You are simply missing something wonderful and important when you deny yourself the opportunity to encounter the Living God, who has chosen this means to present Himself to us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Protestants: Why is the Eucharist not Christ?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 5:16 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5059
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Smiddy wrote:
theJack wrote:
Smiddy wrote:
What I don't get is why, if one has faith, believes in God to start with, and ever asks for anything in prayer with the faith to believe a request can be granted, that they falter in believing in the Eucharist?

How is it such a hurdle? I wasn't taught it as a Protestant, but had zero difficulty affirming it at my conversion. If it's been taught and believed/accepted for around 20 centuries, and supported by Scripture as shown in the last post, I just never could disagree with it. To the contrary, I readily embraced it and can't imagine it ever being otherwise.

There's no hurdle. There's just no reason to believe it. Why should I? You don't go around believing things willy nilly, or, at least, we shouldn't.


No I don't believe things Willy nilly at all. The CC is simply the most authoritave source of teaching, has taught this since the beginning, and I believe those teachings as a result. :D

What I can't determine is y one chooses to not accept these teachings, but accepts those propagated by any church without the same level of authority, and there doesn't exist another church who has such.

And, to not believe is, as I see it, to disagree with a teaching, thereby denying it.

The Ethiopian eunuch was mentioned here somewhere in a post and that's how I feel sorta. I seek to be taught as did he, and I believe wholly what I have learned as a result.

So we're on the same page. You accept it because the church teaches it. That's your warrant, and given that you accept that warrant, you are not only justified but are in fact obligated to accept it. So you're just being logically consistent. And I say bravo. Good for you!

I don't accept the authority of the CC, so the claim "the church teaches it" is no more interesting to me than "because the Koran says so." Muslims have their reasons for thinking the Koran is authoritative. I think they are wrong, and so I reject that authority. Catholics have their reasons for thinking the CC is authoritative. I think they are wrong, so I reject that authority.

To be clear, that does not mean I reject the notion of transubstantiation because I reject the authority of the church. There are plenty of things the church teaches that I agree with. I just don't agree with them because the church teaches it. Likewise, there are plenty of things the church teaches that I disagree with. I just don't disagree with them because the church teaches it. The authority of the church simply doesn't enter into the equation for me.

And that goes back to my initial response. I don't believe in the doctrine because I have no reason to believe it. The only reason offered to believe it is the authority of the church. Since I don't think that's a valid reason, I have no reason to believe it. If that were all there was to it, I would be completely neutral on the subject, neither believing nor disbelieving. But since I have multiple reasons to think it is wrong, I reject it. Were I to believe the authority of the church, I would be forced with reconciling the reasons I thought it was wrong with the church's claim that it was right. And the only way to reconcile that would be to give up the reasons I thought it was wrong (e.g., I reject a sacramental theology). But, again, not believing the church is right, I am only left with what I do believe, and that belief necessitates a rejection of the Eucharist as you practice it. So just like you're simply being logically consistent, so am I. We're doing the same thing, just starting from different places. You have the authority you've accepted and are following that to its conclusion, and I have the authority I've accepted and am following it to its conclusion. It's not any more complicated than that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Protestants: Why is the Eucharist not Christ?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 6:57 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:31 am
Posts: 831
Religion: Catholic
Quote:
TheJack Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:16 am:
The authority of the church simply doesn't enter into the equation for me…..It's not any more complicated than that.

More rejection of Christ.

Matthew:
“[17]And if he will not hear them: tell the Church. And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. [18] Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.”

First Epistle Of Saint Paul To Timothy:
Chapter 3 [15] “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
Note:
[15] The pillar and ground of the truth: Therefore the Church of the living God can never uphold error, nor bring in corruptions, superstition, or idolatry.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Protestants: Why is the Eucharist not Christ?
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 12:56 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:26 am
Posts: 1292
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: Man for Others
Quote:
47 Amen, amen, I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 *Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and they died.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any one eat of it, he may not die.
51 I am the living bread, which came down from heaven.
52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world.
53 The Jews, therefore, disputed among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
56 *For my flesh, is meat indeed: and my blood, is drink indeed:
57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.
58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.

So we have the metaphor: Jesus is bread that gives eternal life. The way to eat this bread is to simply believe that Jesus is God.

Quote:
So how do we "eat" Jesus? He tells us plainly in this very passage: "Whoever believes in Me has everlasting life" (John 6:47). To "believe in" Jesus is to "eat" Him, to "drink" His blood. Eating and drinking are metaphors for belief.

Why is eating a metaphor for believing? Couldn't it be that one of the requirements of believing is to eat His flesh?

Quote:
They complain because they don't believe in Jesus. As Paul would later say, "Their belly is their God." They are still looking to Jesus for physical food, so they start asking about how they could eat Him. Jesus knows they don't understand, and He knows they don't understand because they don't believe. So rather than clarify, He pushes them deeper into obscurity. That's right, you fools. You have to eat Me. You have to drink My blood. But you won't. You refuse to believe. So they leave, which is exactly what Jesus was doing the entire time.

That is consistent with the Catholic teaching on the matter. They are looking for physical food or even some kind of delectable food.

But, what do you mean when you say he pushes them further into obscurity? What is your evidence for that? Isn’t it just the same degree of obscurity as before? It's not like he's changing the meaning of his words.

And what do you make of verse 56? Why is He saying "indeed"?

Quote:
The point is the entire section is centered upon the Jews not believing in Jesus. You're exegetical mistake is taking a metaphor at the periphery of the narrative and making it the center when it is not. You only see it as central because of your preexisting theology. That is to say, you do NOT get your theology from this text, but rather, you see your theology in this text because you are predisposed to do so because of what you already believe. It's just standard eisogesis.

You expose only yourself when you crawl out far beyond the limb you were already on to suppose the timeline of my “preexisting theology”.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Protestants: Why is the Eucharist not Christ?
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:54 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5059
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Will Storm wrote:
Why is eating a metaphor for believing?

Why are "drinking," "following," "coming" and other such words metaphors for believing? That's the way Jesus felt it appropriate to illustrate the way one attains salvation. The metaphor is always died to the figure in the context, and the figure in this context is manna. What did you do with manna? You ate it. So eating becomes a picture of believing.

Quote:
Couldn't it be that one of the requirements of believing is to eat His flesh?

No.

Quote:
But, what do you mean when you say he pushes them further into obscurity? What is your evidence for that? Isn’t it just the same degree of obscurity as before? It's not like he's changing the meaning of his words.

Of course He isn't changing the meaning of His words. On "doubling down" on the metaphor, He reinforces the disbelief of those who already disbelieve. It's the same reason He used parables. I'm sure I don't have to quote that verse for you.

Quote:
And what do you make of verse 56? Why is He saying "indeed"?

Because, per the metaphor, His body really is food and His blood really is drink. Food and drink give life. He really gives life. So you really have to eat it and drink it, understanding "eat" and "drink" point to belief. Don't confuse "indeed" with "literally" or "not metaphorically." Under that confusion, you could never say, "God is truly my rock."

Quote:
You expose only yourself when you crawl out far beyond the limb you were already on to suppose the timeline of my “preexisting theology”.

There's no timeline here, and if you want to deny your preexisting theology, then you're the one exposing yourself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Protestants: Why is the Eucharist not Christ?
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 3:57 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:26 am
Posts: 1292
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: Man for Others
theJack wrote:
Quote:
Couldn't it be that one of the requirements of believing is to eat His flesh?

No.


Why not?

theJack wrote:
He reinforces the disbelief of those who already disbelieve. It's the same reason He used parables.


To reinforce disbelief? How do you figure?

theJack wrote:
Because, per the metaphor, His body really is food and His blood really is drink. Food and drink give life. He really gives life. So you really have to eat it and drink it, understanding "eat" and "drink" point to belief. Don't confuse "indeed" with "literally" or "not metaphorically." Under that confusion, you could never say, "God is truly my rock."


If you said "God is my rock" and someone asked in confusion "How could God be a composite material?" would you not respond by explaining what you meant?

theJack wrote:
There's no timeline here, and if you want to deny your preexisting theology, then you're the one exposing yourself.


"Preexisting" supposes a timeline.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Protestants: Why is the Eucharist not Christ?
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:17 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5059
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Will Storm wrote:
Why not?

Because that isn't what the word means. Perhaps you have to believe in order to (properly) consume the body of Christ in the Eucharist, but consuming the body is not part of the verb "to believe." To believe is to give assent to an idea. Again, you may make faith a theological prerequisite for eating. You cannot make eating a prerequisite of any kind for faith. When Jesus says, "Everyone who believes has everlasting life," that's what He means. He does not say, "Everyone who believes and partakes of My body." That there are some who believe and who do not eat is evident. Therefore, you must say that there are some who believe who do not have everlasting life, contrary to Jesus. And, again, you cannot say that all who believe also eat, for the only way to say that is to say, 1) all true believers eat (which is contrary to the text), or 2) in order to believe you must eat. But the second fails because it can only be justified by saying either that 1) eating is part of the definition of belief (i.e., you cannot have a lap unless you sit), which it simply is not; or else 2) faith is not possible until you have eaten, but that is obviously mistaken because you cannot even properly receive the Eucharist until you believe!

So on absolutely any reasonable analysis, receiving the Eucharist follows faith. It does not precede it, nor is it identical with it.

Quote:
To reinforce disbelief? How do you figure?

cf Matt 13:10-17

Quote:
If you said "God is my rock" and someone asked in confusion "How could God be a composite material?" would you not respond by explaining what you meant?

Depends on if I was trying to do the same thing Jesus was doing. If I suspected that they didn't believe anyway and were just looking to argue, I would say, "Look, God truly is my rock, and unless He is yours, your will die in your sins." That's completely true, and they're failure to understand and believe is due to the hardness of their own heart, which would be fitting given the metaphor.

Quote:
"Preexisting" supposes a timeline.

On this, you are simply incorrect. Ask PED or FH if you prefer a Catholic to tell you the same thing. They might defend your interpretation and say that it does not come from your preexisting theology after all, that your reading comes from an exegesis of the text itself. But they will certainly tell you that "preexisting" does not (or at a minimum does not have to) refer to timeline. And if you're so disinterested in understanding the point I'm making, whether you agree or not, that you are going to insist on imposing meanings I don't intend and have directly and explicitly denied, then you're very much like the people Jesus was talking to in this passage. And I say back to you, your reading of this passage comes truly from your preexisting theology.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Protestants: Why is the Eucharist not Christ?
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:41 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:52 pm
Posts: 6191
Religion: Christian
For me it is not that complicated.

We are God's thoughts.

Jesus was relationship (Interactive thought) based. Never structure based.

Jesus, in the following context, explained how he makes things work. He said: "If you look upon a woman with lust... you have already committed adultery." ... Even if there is never an opportunity to act on the thought.

Belief (fully committed ascent to a thought) is reality (and affects relationship). In God's mind ... It IS... the thing.

Jesus illustrates that expressing and receiving thoughts is the key to it all.

In another place Jesus said: "I have food that you know nothing about. Jesus' food was in consuming (and being consumed by) his Father's thoughts. He said as much again when he stated: "You will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you."

"Man lives.. on every word that comes from the mouth of God."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Protestants: Why is the Eucharist not Christ?
PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:19 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:25 pm
Posts: 10454
Location: As I understand it.....in God's will. This is the best place to be.
Religion: Orthodox (In Communion With Rome)
Church Affiliations: Past Grand Knight KoC 15107
theJack wrote:


Because that isn't what the word means. Perhaps you have to believe in order to (properly) consume the body of Christ in the Eucharist, but consuming the body is not part of the verb "to believe." To believe is to give assent to an idea. Again, you may make faith a theological prerequisite for eating. You cannot make eating a prerequisite of any kind for faith. When Jesus says, "Everyone who believes has everlasting life," that's what He means. He does not say, "Everyone who believes and partakes of My body." That there are some who believe and who do not eat is evident. Therefore, you must say that there are some who believe who do not have everlasting life, contrary to Jesus. And, again, you cannot say that all who believe also eat, for the only way to say that is to say, 1) all true believers eat (which is contrary to the text), or 2) in order to believe you must eat. But the second fails because it can only be justified by saying either that 1) eating is part of the definition of belief (i.e., you cannot have a lap unless you sit), which it simply is not; or else 2) faith is not possible until you have eaten, but that is obviously mistaken because you cannot even properly receive the Eucharist until you believe!


Everyone who believes what? Believes some minimalist idea about Jesus that He died for our sins and that's all that you need to believe? Or does it go much further than that, so that if you want to truly believe, you must believe ALL that Jesus taught and not just those things that make sense to your rational mind.

In fact, Jesus also put in many other conditions for receiving eternal life, more than just your barebones idea of "accepting Jesus" and you are set. Matthew 25: 31-43, Romans 2: 5-10, John 5: 28-29, and Rev. 21:12 all show the Last Judgment and in those verses, we are told that only those who do good works will be given eternal life. Jesus said believe and you will have eternal life. He said eat my flesh and you will have eternal life.

Your problem is that you want to take the least demanding of these biblical statements and ignore the rest to create your own easy believism and quick ticket to heaven. You ignore, for your own reasons, all the other verses which make demand upon us and focus on that which you desire to prove as dogma.

And I notice you are very quiet about what I posted earlier regarding the change of our natures. You will not experience union with God unless you experience an ontological change, and that is only done from within. A paper decree of "Not Guilty" may forgive you your sins (maybe) but it does not change you as a person. Salvation is not about just being forgiven - it is about being changed into the original pattern God had for all mankind - theosis, or being gods.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Protestants: Why is the Eucharist not Christ?
PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 11:37 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 5059
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Light of the East wrote:
Everyone who believes what? Believes some minimalist idea about Jesus that He died for our sins and that's all that you need to believe? Or does it go much further than that, so that if you want to truly believe, you must believe ALL that Jesus taught and not just those things that make sense to your rational mind.

The "what" to believe is "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" (John 20:31). There's nothing minimalist about that. And no, you don't have to believe "ALL that Jesus taught." If that were the case, no one would ever be saved, as it makes progressive understanding of revelation impossible. You're running the risk of making salvation only attainable to the theologian.

Quote:
In fact, Jesus also put in many other conditions for receiving eternal life, more than just your barebones idea of "accepting Jesus" and you are set. Matthew 25: 31-43, Romans 2: 5-10, John 5: 28-29, and Rev. 21:12 all show the Last Judgment and in those verses, we are told that only those who do good works will be given eternal life. Jesus said believe and you will have eternal life. He said eat my flesh and you will have eternal life.

Jesus puts no conditions on receiving eternal life beyond faith. If you want to discuss one of those passages, we certainly can. I'm not terribly interested, though, in tossing out loads of proof texts, as if the best way to understand biblical truth is to start stacking up as many verses for or against an idea as you can and see which one has the most in its favor. That's just the wrong way to go about it.

[edit: By the way, I don't use the language "accepting Jesus." I don't think I ever have on this board, because I think it points to a fundamentally flawed idea. I don't know why you use it, then, when discussing my position, much less why you put it in quotation marks as if that's a phrase I've used. Do you think it's possible that you've misunderstood my position and so are mischaracterizing it?]

Quote:
Your problem is that you want to take the least demanding of these biblical statements and ignore the rest to create your own easy believism and quick ticket to heaven. You ignore, for your own reasons, all the other verses which make demand upon us and focus on that which you desire to prove as dogma.

Might I suggest you would do better not to try to invent motives on behalf of those with whom you disagree?

Quote:
And I notice you are very quiet about what I posted earlier regarding the change of our natures. You will not experience union with God unless you experience an ontological change, and that is only done from within. A paper decree of "Not Guilty" may forgive you your sins (maybe) but it does not change you as a person. Salvation is not about just being forgiven - it is about being changed into the original pattern God had for all mankind - theosis, or being gods.

I was "very quiet" about it earlier because it doesn't merit much comment, and that for two reasons. First, substantively, if our natures change, then we aren't human anymore. You seem to be be quite literally suggesting that no human being is saved, that God takes humans and turns them into something else in saving them. And second, just with regard to the course of the discussion, when you start your post by saying "I would say that the reason that you do not see any reason for this belief is that you have a warped view of what salvation is. To understand salvation properly, you must back to the very beginning of the salvation story, which starts in Eden," I'm not terribly inclined to read or take seriously the rest of it. Your presumption of my ignorance on such matters doesn't give me much of a motivation to work through the condescending lecture, now does it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Protestants: Why is the Eucharist not Christ?
PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 1:03 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:52 pm
Posts: 6191
Religion: Christian
Light of the East wrote:
Everyone who believes what?


Faith in Christ is not a one time occurrence. Faith is a continual action.
It is a state of being. It can only exist in relationship, just as love can only exist in relationship.

Jesus said, "Come to (abide in) me and I will give you rest".
and ...
"I will keep in perfect peace, him whose mind is stayed on me."

Continually being filled with the faith of the Holy Spirit (the Paraclete) was central to all that followed.

Jesus also said:
Wait in Jerusalem until I send the Holy Spirit and power. That moment is when all Heaven broke loose.


When they were choosing people to oversee the food distribution program they looked for men "full of faith".

Every move required faith. It is like breathing.
When Peter and John healed the cripple, faith was present.
When they were threatened for healing the cripple in Jesus' name
they immediately went back and prayed as a community for more power ...and the Holy Spirit gave them a fresh infilling of faith so powerful that it shook the place ... as powerful as Pentecost.

Being filled (and living in faith) is not a one and done sort of thing.

Living the Christian life as described in Luke 10 requires a continual flow of faith through intimate relationship with the Holy Spirit on a moment by moment basis.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 4 of 7   [ 127 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Jump to: