 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 810 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 3rd, 2006 05:59 am |
|
i know that the catholic church calls prtestants separated brethren and has hope that they are somehow mysteriously joined to us as a church. i like this. but i question if it makes sense to believe all the catholic doctrine the bible and this.
in John 6 Jesus seems to say that we MUST eat His flesh and drink His blod if we are to have life in us. He seems to say that the eucharist is a necessity for someone to be in a saving relationship with Him. So if Catholics are the only ones who have access to this spiritual relaity, how does it then follow that anybody who is not a catholic could ever truly be saved if Jesus Himself seems to mandate this literal eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood as a condition for someone to be saved?
i suppose i could only reason that, He has mercy and knows the limitations of those people and that they do not know the full truth or else they would become Catholic, and i suppose that if a child dies before making his first communion we would asmue that his child could still go to heaven, but i guess i have trouble reconciling this with the literal severity of Jesus' words.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2117 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 3rd, 2006 08:51 am |
|
You have worked out a partial answer. Recall that the Catholic Church accepts the Baptism of Desire as functionally equal to the actual sacrament. The Baptism of Desire is not the “normal way,” and isn’t directly available through the Catholic Church, yet God mysteriously works in it, and non-Catholics “can be saved” (CCC 1260) in this manner through their implicit faith.
Likewise, I think we may postulate an implicit reception of the Eucharist. The Church explicitly accepts the value of “spiritual communion,” where the sacrament is not actually received but merely desired by a member of the faithful. It is a small step from this to a “Communion by Desire” on the part of a non-Catholic who “would have desired” it if he had known its necessity.
Regarding the “literal severity of Jesus’ words”: Let us recall that our Lord speaks mostly in Aramaic and Hebrew, since the culture he was born into spoke in this manner. The idioms and vocabulary of an ancient Semitic language are quite different from modern English. For instance, they have no comparative adjectives and must rely on circumlocations and exaggerations to express them.
Also, Jesus in his public speech usually followed the rabbinic tradition of the time. For instance, he speaks in a deliberately exaggerated fashion, not to be taken literally, when he says, “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell” (Matthew 5:29–30). What he means, of course, is that you should act as if the offending member has been severed, turning away from the temptation.
In John 6, notice the context. He is speaking to Jews who have become his followers. But he knows that many of them are not sincere, so he proposes a test of their faith. His portrayal of the necessity of the Eucharist is literally true in a spiritual manner, but the people, thinking in terms of cannibalism, reject it. This is why Jesus later says (v. 63), “The flesh is of no avail; the words I speak to you are spirit and life.” If we, too, grossly misinterpret, we will do the same: we will infer certain things that do not pertain. This is the great fallacy of fundamentalism.
David
|
|
|
Saint Wanna Be
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 26th, 2006 |
| Location: | Oxford, Mississippi USA |
| Posts: | 17 |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 4th, 2006 08:53 am |
|
Let me add one thing to David's very cogent response. Along with Brian, I have oftened wondered about this. I have numerous protestant brothers and sisters who I care for deeply. I walked among them for 40 years. As Catholics who love the Church and our blessed Mother, and who abide in Jesus through the blessed Sacraments, we should never cease to pray for our protestant friends. Pray the rosary for them. Even though they are brothers and sisters,they are not in communion with the Church Jesus started in 33A.D. We should desire they come Home to the fullness of truth. They would be so grateful to us if we never gave up on them. I always ask God to plant the seed of wonder in their minds and to give them grace to simply take one step toward the Faith. Once the first step is taken, it is only a matter of time. My first step was to read the early history of the church. As Cardinal Henry Newman said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”I would not be Home were it not for someone praying for me. Someone I have never met. I thank Jesus for that person and I hope to find out one day who they are.
Peace,
Keith
____________________
St.W.B.
In the Eucharist We find Emmanuel
|
|
|
BodRod
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Apple Valley, California USA |
| Posts: | 815 |
| First Name: | Cliff | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Raised an SDA, then Generic Christian, finally at home with ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 4th, 2006 09:43 am |
|
Hi Keith,
<"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”>
I have heard this quote two different ways. Can you tell me where you got it so I can figure out what the cardinal actually said and under what circumstances?
Thanks. 
____________________
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
|
|
|
Luke12:48
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Southeast, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 120 |
| First Name: | Kate | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle catholic, left for many years, returned June 2006 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 4th, 2006 12:42 pm |
|
David,
Your comments on the language of the times touches on something I have been struggling with--which passages to take literally. If the people of the time were used to exaggerations, then why in John 6 do they take it as cannibalism and not some type of exaggeration? Is not transubstantiation based on this verse?
Kate
|
|
|
Saint Wanna Be
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 26th, 2006 |
| Location: | Oxford, Mississippi USA |
| Posts: | 17 |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 4th, 2006 04:19 pm |
|
http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=6&art_id=6435
Here is where I got the quote.
Peace,
Keith
____________________
St.W.B.
In the Eucharist We find Emmanuel
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 810 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 4th, 2006 06:55 pm |
|
| thanks for the reply. i liked it. the only confusing thing is that this is a passage catholics tend to stress taking literally (though perhaps not to the point of cannibalism) and fundamentalists do not. so i guess it is a little confusing that you are telling me to take Jesus 100% literal that he is referring to a literal partaking in His body and blood (though in a mysterious way) yet not to take him 100% serious when He says that unless you do you have no life in you. but i can see how it is possible. that the point He was making is that it was crucial to believe this and practice it if one wishes to have the life God intended for him. And that it is so true that you have to understand and face it. also, the fact that for the first 1500 years or so this passage existed there would not have been as much to worry about as far as people disagreeing about the meaning of the eucharist.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 4th, 2006 08:10 pm |
|
brian wrote: thanks for the reply. i liked it. the only confusing thing is that this is a passage catholics tend to stress taking literally (though perhaps not to the point of cannibalism) and fundamentalists do not. so i guess it is a little confusing that you are telling me to take Jesus 100% literal that he is referring to a literal partaking in His body and blood (though in a mysterious way) yet not to take him 100% serious when He says that unless you do you have no life in you. but i can see how it is possible. that the point He was making is that it was crucial to believe this and practice it if one wishes to have the life God intended for him. And that it is so true that you have to understand and face it. also, the fact that for the first 1500 years or so this passage existed there would not have been as much to worry about as far as people disagreeing about the meaning of the eucharist.
There was no disagreement for the first 1500 years. But we also have to remember that Jesus used words that left no doubt as to his meaning.
I am not a linguist and I don't understand the original languages, but in my studies I learned that the words Jesus used instructed us to gnaw on the meat of his flesh. The words left no doubt, and that's why so many left. He was indeed using words that indicated they were to become cannibals and eat his actual flesh. It wasn't until the Last Supper that the meaning became clear to the apostles, who then carried the message to the rest of the community.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2117 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 4th, 2006 10:44 pm |
|
Luke12:48 wrote:If the people of the time were used to exaggerations, then why in John 6 do they take it as cannibalism and not some type of exaggeration?
Actually, Kate, there is a literal sense to every biblical passage, and it is to this sense that the Catholic Church always adheres, even when it makes use of the various spiritual senses, because the spiritual senses are based on the literal sense. The question is: do we understand the literal sense? can we “make sense” of it?
The literal sense is not necessarily what the layman might consider it to be. The Church’s exegetical definition of “literal sense” is “the meaning that the author intended” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I.1.10). Thus “literal” is not the same as “scientific,” “grammatical” or “common sense.” And this is what the crowd was about in John 6: these people were taking Jesus’ spiritual words in a grossly material way and refusing to believe they could have any other meaning. So from the outset they were defeating his words because they could not believe them in the way they were intended.
First, we need to notice that the people that made up the crowd were Galileans, not Judeans. They were, for the most part, “rubes.” Jerusalem was several days’ journey away. The rabbis who used sophisticated oratorical techniques in their discourses resided in Jerusalem, not Galilee.
Furthermore, we see from the narrative that the crowd followed Jesus “because they saw the signs which he did” (v. 2), not because they were believing Jews. Jesus went ahead and multiplied the loaves and the fish because they were far from any town and he knew the people were hungry; he recognized them and served them as human beings. But the people misinterpreted even this. They had plenty to eat so long as he was around, so they wanted to “take him by force to make him king” (v. 15). Jesus prudently “withdrew… to the mountain by himself” (ibid.). The disciples, meanwhile, went by boat to Capernaum (v. 16), with Jesus miraculously catching up with them during the night by walking on the water (v. 19).
The next day, the people found out where Jesus and his disciples had gone and hired boats to follow them (v. 24). Upon their arrival in Capernaum, they started interrogating Jesus, to which he replied, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves” (v. 26). Jesus insists (v. 29) that they must believe in him, since God has sent him. But the crowd is not interested in faith; they want a show of power and more food (vv. 30–31).
Jesus does not allow them to detour him away from his spiritual message, but speaks of Moses and the manna, and how he will give them “the true bread from heaven” (vv. 32–33). But again they misinterpret (v. 34), still thinking he is talking about ordinary food. So Jesus has to tell them (v. 35) that he himself is that bread. And so it goes. This is fundamentalism at work.
Basically, then, we have kind of a “war of words” in this chapter, where Jesus tries to tell the crowd a spiritual truth while they persist in their gross misinterpretation. If we, two millennia later and with the strength of Christian tradition behind us, see Jesus speaking of the Eucharist, this is indeed the literal truth of which Jesus speaks, but it is not what the “blind” today believe, any more than it was back then.
If the believing Jews in the crowd (v. 41) understood Jesus to be speaking nonsense, basically it was the “common sense” thing to think, given the common grammatical meaning of the words. Jesus tries to make himself understood (vv. 43–51) but to no avail. The Jews are convinced that he is speaking of cannibalism (v. 52) and will no longer give him the time of day.
Jesus then seems to say, “OK, have it your way. Yes, it is literally true — in a spiritual way — that ‘my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him’” (vv. 55–56). When they again object, he continues, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe” (vv. 61–64). This returns to Jesus’ original theme: faith, not fireworks, and “bread from heaven,” not ordinary food. But many, having no real faith, leave him at this point. If Judas could betray him (vv. 70–71), so could the crowd at Capernaum.
So you see that by taking every verse of the chapter literally, we are able to come up with a satisfactory meaning for every aspect of the story. Every detail is important and has its place in the overall meaning. Thus we can see why the Holy Spirit, through John, wrote it in this manner: as a witness to the spiritual message that was ignored by the crowd. This is the traditional Catholic manner of interpreting scripture: understand and apply the literal meaning, and everything else will become clear. We do not oppose “literal” to “symbolic” or “figurative” but to “delusive.”
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 810 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 5th, 2006 01:31 am |
|
interesting. another question i have is that a lot of catholic apologetic materials argue that john 6 is speaking of Jesus' real presence in the eucharist (which he is) but they back up this idea that He is speaking literally by the evidence that the crowd leaves Him and He does not attempt to correct them if they misunderstand, becasue they do understand but can not accept this. Now you are saying that they did not understand? Did Jesus try to help them understand? Now it seems as if they left because they misunderstood or were not looking for the right things and the right reasons. But i just wonder if this apologetic argument is weaker now since the crowd actually left without knowing what He really meant exactly instead of becasue they understood and could not accept it.
Or is it all true. Jesus did not correct them to say He was speaking only symbolically becasue He did mean it in a "literal" sense, therfore they were understood and there was no need to corret that aspect, but they misunderstood exactly what this eating of flesh would mean and they could not see it the way He meant it?
This is confusing.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2117 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 5th, 2006 02:46 pm |
|
Your second conjecture is what I had in mind, Brian. The crowd understood Jesus well enough, but because they were not spiritual persons, they refused to believe that he was speaking of spiritual realities. Hence the repeated incredulity: “How can this man give us his body and blood to eat?” They were, as we would say today, spiritually blind. You will notice that spiritual blindness is mentioned several times in the New Testament (I’ve given a list of references for this in another thread so won’t do so here), and in each case Jesus is unable to cure it, because it has to do with the human heart, not a physical ailment. So they part enemies.
Meanwhile, in my view, the gospel as it stands is literally true from beginning to end. Every detail has its meaning and reason for being there. Our task, then, is not to divide the text into parts that are “true” and parts that are “not true.” The Catholic Church accepts the literal meaning of the whole text, according to the definition I gave earlier, as true. The only real question, then, is: “What did the author intend by what he said?”
David
|
|
|
Luke12:48
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | Southeast, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 120 |
| First Name: | Kate | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | cradle catholic, left for many years, returned June 2006 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 7th, 2006 10:40 pm |
|
Thank you David for a clear (as always) and amazingly detailed reply. It is amazing how clear this is in hindsight! This is the same story I have heard before and yet in a new light. This is like the story of Adam and Eve as explained in Lord, Have Mercy by Scott Hahn. Sometimes I think that catholic school was a negative in that we heard the same stories over and over but usually out of context. We certainly never learned any history or information about the language or the people but then of course, there wasn't much bible study either. I took a course in college on archaeology and the bible that was offered by a visiting professor and then was disappointed when there was nothing even close to that available the next semester. It was fascinating but I felt like I was left hanging...for about 20 years!
|
|
|
BettyBoopToo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Camas/Washougal, Washington USA |
| Posts: | 538 |
| First Name: | Betty | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Fist Baptist/Calvary Babtist/Secular Confusion/ Roman Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 10th, 2006 11:28 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: [size=Your second conjecture is what I had in mind, Brian. The crowd understood Jesus well enough, but because they were not spiritual persons, they refused to believe that he was speaking of spiritual realities. Hence the repeated incredulity: “How can this man give us his body and blood to eat?” They were, as we would say today, spiritually blind. You will notice that spiritual blindness is mentioned several times in the New Testament (I’ve given a list of references for this in another thread so won’t do so here), and in each case Jesus is unable to cure it, because it has to do with the human heart, not a physical ailment. So they part enemies. David, I'm sorry to interupt! "Spiritual Blindness" This is exactly what I have been praying about the last few days and trying to figure something else out. I know you did not want to repeat the list, I did a search to find it and was just directed back to this thread. Can you please let me know where I can find it? Thank You! Betty
Meanwhile, in my view, the gospel as it stands is literally true from beginning to end. Every detail has its meaning and reason for being there. Our task, then, is not to divide the text into parts that are “true” and parts that are “not true.” The Catholic Church accepts the literal meaning of the whole text, according to the definition I gave earlier, as true. The only real question, then, is: “What did the author intend by what he said?”
David]
____________________
Patience
"Whenever anything disagreeable or displeasing happens to you, remember Christ crucified and be silent."
St. John of the Cross
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2117 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 11th, 2006 12:42 am |
|
Betty, the references I mentioned above are to be found toward the end of my lengthy post in this thread. I repeat them here for your convenience:
Matthew 15:13–14
Matthew 23:16–22
John 9:40–41
The reason you did not find this post is probably because I did not use the phrase “spiritual blindness,” but only the word “blindness.”
David
|
|
|
DrDave
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Mildura, Australia |
| Posts: | 228 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle - Lapsed - Renewed Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 19th, 2006 10:35 pm |
|
I think it is also important to keep in mind that while the english translation seem to refer to the Eucharist as an absolute requirement for salvation, it is not the only requirement mentioned thus. "He who believes shall be saved" is one requirement often taken in isolation. The necessity of baptism is also stipulated by Jesus.
The Catholic view is to take all of these into consideration. All of scripture must be married to itself, including the passage that says god desires all men to be saved.
|
|
|
nonsumdignus
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 7th, 2006 |
| Location: | Phoenix, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 33 |
| First Name: | Jay | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, "ex-static" to be Catholic! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 8th, 2006 10:44 am |
|
David, you wrote:
His portrayal of the necessity of the Eucharist is literally true in a spiritual manner, but the people, thinking in terms of cannibalism, reject it. This is why Jesus later says (v. 63), “The flesh is of no avail; the words I speak to you are spirit and life.”
Father Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham in Beginning Apologetics say that "Jesus' Eucharistic discourse ends with verse 58 (see verse 59). The dialogue of verses 60 - 70 occurs later and deals with faith, not the Eucharist." (p. 13, emphases in the original text).
Verse 63 is used by Protestants against the Catholic teaching, precisely because they say it is spiritual, not literal.
What's the difference between your use of the word "spiritual" and the way (some) Protestants understand Holy Communion, Presbyterians, for example? The Church understands Christ's words literally, but sacramentally. Thus the Church uses a term from philosophy: transubstantiation. The substance changes, but the accidents remain the same. Looks and tastes like bread and wine but it IS the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of Jesus Christ our Savior. Never have I heard a "spiritual" explanation given for John 6 by a Catholic. Could you explain, please? Thank you.
Jay
P.S. That's Book 3 of Beginning Apologetics, p. 13
NOTE: Edited to add last line instead of repeating the entire message
Last edited on Fri Dec 8th, 2006 04:28 pm by
____________________
"All the waters of the Elbe would not yield me tears sufficient to weep for the miseries caused by the Reformation." Philip Melanchthon, Luther's cohort, Epistles, Book IV, Ep. 100
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2117 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 8th, 2006 08:47 pm |
|
nonsumdignus wrote:The Church understands Christ's words literally, but sacramentally.
This is exactly what I was saying. My assertion was that Jesus’ words are literally true, but hold a spiritual meaning.
We’re dealing with fundamentalism here, Jay. For Catholics, there is a difference between “spiritual meaning” and “figurative language,” a difference between “literally true in a spiritual or sacramental manner” and “this can’t be true, so he must have meant something else.” The people you refer to do not accept the words literally; that is, they mean that what Jesus said is not really true. This is why Jesus tells the crowd that “there are some among you who do not believe” (John 6:65).
I think the difficulty you are experiencing with my approach is that, since the advent of Protestantism, whose adherents have twisted the meaning of “spiritual sense” to include a denial of the literal meaning, Catholics have tended to insist that there is no “spiritual meaning” to John 6. Yet the spiritual senses recognized by the Church are based on the literal sense (cf. CCC 116). In other words, I do not have to deny the literal sense to discern the spiritual sense, nor do I have to deny the spiritual sense in order to affirm the literal sense.
This is a case where Catholic apologists have ignored their own Church’s doctrine in order to make a point. In doing so, they side with the Protestant position of either/or, whereas the Catholic position is decidedly both/and. If non-believers have rejected the literal meaning, this does not mean believers have to reject the spiritual meaning to prove them wrong. We affirm both.
David
|
|
|
nonsumdignus
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 7th, 2006 |
| Location: | Phoenix, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 33 |
| First Name: | Jay | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, "ex-static" to be Catholic! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 9th, 2006 12:40 pm |
|
The people you refer to do not accept the words literally; that is, they mean that what Jesus said is not really true. As I understand it, there are three basic beliefs about the Eucharist (or Lord's Supper): Literal, Spiritual, Symbolic.
Here's the view of (at least some) Presbyterians:
http://www.pcusa.org/today/archive/believe/wpb9505.htm
"This, then, is the Presbyterian understanding of Communion: Is Jesus physically present in the elements of the Eucharist--have the molecules of bread been changed into molecules of the body of Jesus? No.
"Is Jesus spiritually present in the elements of the Eucharist, authentically present in the non-atom-based substance with which he is con-substantial with God--that is, is he genuinely there to be received by us, and not just in our memories? Yes."
Thank you, David, for distinguishing between this "spiritual" meaning and the Catholic teaching.
Do you agree with Fr. Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham in Beginning Apologetics, Book 3, that John 6:60-70 is not part of Jesus' discourse on the Eucharist? Thank you.
God bless and Mary keep, Jay
____________________
"All the waters of the Elbe would not yield me tears sufficient to weep for the miseries caused by the Reformation." Philip Melanchthon, Luther's cohort, Epistles, Book IV, Ep. 100
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2117 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 9th, 2006 11:31 pm |
|
Very interesting, Jay. From the Presbyterian website you link:
A respectable argument can be made in support of each of these views [“Roman” (i.e.., Catholic) and Anabaptist], but Presbyterians think both are incomplete. Each does contain a genuine insight — and misses the insight that the other view holds. In rejecting the opposing position, each makes an overstatement that leads it astray.…
The Roman notion seems rather bizarre. The elements look, taste and smell like bread and wine. But, we are told, it is now the actual physical flesh and blood of Jesus. Are we supposed to believe that? Isn't that weird? Isn't it even cannibalism?
The author, steeped in modern molecular science, misunderstands Aristotle’s analysis of existent things into substance (“what it is”) and accidents (“how it appears”). He therefore misinterprets the Catholic notion of transubstantiation, and with it, our understanding of the Eucharistic species.
What strikes me about his approach is how closely it parallels the attitude of the crowd in John 6, for the author’s objection is exactly that of the crowd: “Are we supposed to believe that? Isn’t that weird? Isn’t it even cannibalism?” Indeed, “how can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (v. 52).
You see, then, how clear it is that, in these minds, “what Jesus said is not really true.” Meanwhile, what I said earlier about the Catholic “both/and” should put to rest the idea that the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist “misses the insight” of the spiritual meaning of the passage.
Do you agree… that John 6:60–70 is not part of Jesus’ discourse on the Eucharist?
Verse 59 obviously closes out the narrative of the discourse itself. The following verses seem to take place immediately afterwards as people gather in groups outside the synagogue to discuss what was said. So I do not think the venue has changed, and the people are probably the same ones who were in the synagogue or those who had stood outside. (Recall that five thousand were fed just a day or two earlier, and most of these had then taken boats across the Sea of Gallilee following Jesus. Capernaum was and is a small town, and the ancient synagogue that exists there today — as shown a few years ago on EWTN — would hold fewer than 100 people.) My judgment that this episode took place immediately after the discourse is based on the words, “when they heard it.” This could refer to the discourse itself or to reports of the discourse once it was over. Since the crowd was obviously large enough to overflow the synagogue many times over, only a few notables would have been able to hear the discourse first hand.
Verse 66, however, indicates an interval of time. It could be a matter of hours or a few days. Since the disciples were making up their minds and probably leaving in small groups, I would favor the decision making and departures taking place over a period of several days. (I say “small groups” because “many of his disciples” does not mean everyone, so it is unlikely that everyone left en masse. However, individuals would hardly travel alone for fear of bandits and other hazards, and families would want to stay together, so it is reasonable that they would depart in groups of 10 to 50 persons.) John 7:1 repeats the phrase, “after this,” and appears to close out Jesus’ sojourn in Capernaum.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 9th, 2006 11:45 pm |
|
nonsumdignus wrote: "This, then, is the Presbyterian understanding of Communion: Is Jesus physically present in the elements of the Eucharist--have the molecules of bread been changed into molecules of the body of Jesus? No.
"Is Jesus spiritually present in the elements of the Eucharist, authentically present in the non-atom-based substance with which he is con-substantial with God--that is, is he genuinely there to be received by us, and not just in our memories? Yes."
What is it that makes me, me? Is it the molecules, elements, physical existence? Is it the physical reality that is basically the same for every human on earth? Is it the protein, muscle, fat, etc., that makes up the physical body of Rick that will survive after my death and be placed in a coffin and eventually rot?
No, I am much more than that. I am spirit and personality and sense of humor. I am something apart from my physical existence. I am soul.
What is it that makes the bread and wine Eucharist? Is it physical reality? Is it wheat and water, grape juice fermented into alcohol? No, it is beyond that. The same wheat and water can be damp flour or baked bread or paste. The same grape juice can ferment into alcohol or vinegar. Eucharist is beyond that. It is the essence, the reality of what lies beyond the physical that makes it the Precious Body and Precious Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
When Jesus stood transfigured on the mountain, the apostles who were present got a glimpse of him glorified. Did they see his divine reality? Of course not. Their senses could not comprehend it. In the same way, our senses cannot comprehend the reality of the Eucharist. We cannot see beyond the physical, the "accidents." Our senses still see the unconsecrated physical existence of bread and wine.
Does that mean it is not converted? "Transubstantiated"? Transformed into the Precious Body and Precious Blood of our Lord and Savior? Of course not.
"Blessed is he who has not seen and still believes." Through faith in the literal words of Jesus, we believe even though we have not seen, and we eat his flesh and drink his blood.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2117 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 10th, 2006 12:25 am |
|
Well, Rick, I can see at least one person has seen the same thing I saw in this Presbyterian take on Catholic doctrine.
By the way, in the light of the question of personality that you bring up, I’ve been reading yet another book by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, called Our Saviour and His Love for Us: Catholic Doctrine on the Interior Life of Christ as it Relates to Our Own Interior Life. The author gets really specific about just what the Catholic Church teaches about personality in general and the person of Christ in particular as versus some of the crazy ideas floating around the past millennium or so. I haven’t yet reached the chapter on the Eucharistic presence, but expect it to clear away a lot of common misconceptions such as those presented by the people we are discussing here.
David
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 18th, 2006 03:24 pm |
|
Hello Everyone,
Thanks so much for all the informative discussion. I must say that I have not had a problem with the Catholic interpretation of John 6 and the Catholic doctrine of substantiation. It is this truth that first drew me to the Catholic faith an | | |
