Interpretation of John 6:51-66...

Peregrinus

kelly1 wrote: »

How many traditions, for example, adore the Blessed Sacrament? Catholic, Orthodox and who else?

Some Lutherans practice eucharistic adoration, as do some Anglicans. But Orthodox Christians do not; they regard it as a liturgical abuse. (The Lord said "take and eat" . . .) Eastern Catholics don't practice eucharistic adoration either.

Which makes the point; if you're asking what people believe, you can't deduce a reliable answer simply from looking at their devotional practices.

kelly1

Still no satisfactory answers from non-catholics on why Jesus mentioned his flesh and blood...

Peregrinus

Are there any non-Catholic answers that would satisfy you?

Bob_Marley

kelly1 wrote: »

Still no satisfactory answers from non-catholics on why Jesus mentioned his flesh and blood...

I don't think there will be, if there was, they would be Catholics or close to it. Yes, it's the inevitable conclusion of ignoring the traditional interpretations of scripture Christians have held for millennia, and inventing your own . . sadly at great personal spiritual loss to themselves. All we can do is invite them to pray to Jesus and ask him about the Eucharist, as only by the Spirit shall they know these things.

However important some differences are between Christians, they have been done to death, especially on this forum. So as long as someone is not making false claims / straw men arguments about Catholicism, I see no issue on agreeing to disagree.

I would much prefer to see Christians concentrate on what we have in common and ecumenism rather than what divides us. Now more than ever - as Christianity faces a renewed onslaught in the west.

kelly1

Peregrinus wrote: »

Are there any non-Catholic answers that would satisfy you?

Probably not but some sort of answer would be good. My point/question is that "flesh and blood" can't be figurative speech so why did Jesus use those words?

Nick Park

kelly1 wrote: »

Probably not but some sort of answer would be good. My point/question is that "flesh and blood" can't be figurative speech so why did Jesus use those words?

There's little point in asking a question where you've already prejudged the answer.

Millions of us find the argument that 'flesh and blood' are figurative speech to be perfectly satisfactory. You don't find it satisfactory. Therefore we agree to disagree. I don't see the problem here?

kelly1

Nick Park wrote: »

There's little point in asking a question where you've already prejudged the answer.

Millions of us find the argument that 'flesh and blood' are figurative speech to be perfectly satisfactory. You don't find it satisfactory. Therefore we agree to disagree. I don't see the problem here?

Nobody has explained to me how "flesh and blood" can be used figuratively. Figures of what? Did I miss an explanation?

Nick Park

kelly1 wrote: »

Nobody has explained to me how "flesh and blood" can be used figuratively. Figures of what? Did I miss an explanation?

Figures of receiving life and spiritual nourishment from Christ.

You didn't miss it. You rejected it because it doesn't fit with your beliefs (as you are free to do so).

kelly1

Nick Park wrote: »

Figures of receiving life and spiritual nourishment from Christ.

That doesn't work. The figurative word Jesus used was 'bread'. Jesus then went on the explain that bread is figurative language for 'flesh'.

Jn 6:51 ...This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world

kelly1

Can anyone explain the early beliefs below about the Eucharist, if Jesus words were meant figuratively? These writings go back to 110 A.D., before Constantine supposedly corrupted the Church. Where did these beliefs come from??

https://www.fisheaters.com/fathersoneucharist.html

Nick Park

kelly1 wrote: »

Can anyone explain the early beliefs below about the Eucharist, if Jesus words were meant figuratively? These writings go back to 110 A.D., before Constantine supposedly corrupted the Church. Where did these beliefs come from??

https://www.fisheaters.com/fathersoneucharist.html

I think you misunderstand the position of others. Nobody has suggested that the church was perfect before Constantine. Constantine simply messed everything up more spectacularly by initiating an unholy alliance between Church and State - never a good idea!

I think you also misunderstand what others believe about the Lord's Supper. Most Christians agree that Jesus is with us in a spiritual sense when we share communion. We just don't agree with your statement about a physical presence in the elements (as indeed many Catholics don't agree with you). Most of the statements cited in your link are perfectly compatible with that view.

Btw, just to help us know whether this is all a waste of time. Can you conceive of any circumstances in which an argument might convince you to say, "Hey, you know what, I've never thought of that. The official Catholic dogma on this issue doesn't actually add up."?

Peregrinus

Nitpick: Kelly's view does not represent "official Catholic dogma", which is very much that Jesus is not physically present in the consecrated elements.

kelly1

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: Kelly's view does not represent "official Catholic dogma", which is very much that Jesus is not physically present in the consecrated elements.

I'm not sure how to interpret physical in terms of substance and accidents.

According to this article:

Therefore, at the consecration of the Eucharist, when the substance of bread changes into the substance of Christ’s body, and the substance of wine changes into the substance of Christ’s blood, the molecules do change. What changes? The substance of the molecules change, and the accidents of the molecules do not.

Transubstantiation

At the consecration of the Eucharist, two things happen simultaneously:
(1) a change of substance
(2) concomitancy

The substance of the bread changes into the substance of the body of Christ by transubstantiation, and the blood, soul, and Divinity of Christ become present by concomitancy. We could use the word concomitancy more narrowly, applying it only to the blood and the soul, in which case we would say that the Divine Nature becomes present by its hypostatic union with the human nature of Christ. But I prefer to use the term more broadly, as it is simple and clear.

The substance of the wine changes into the substance of the blood of Christ by transubstantiation, and the body, soul, and Divinity of Christ become present by concomitancy.

It is a dogma of the Catholic Faith, and a required belief under pain of heresy, that the substance of the bread changes only into the body of Christ, not into His soul, not into His Divinity, not even into the substance of blood. It is likewise a dogma that the substance of the wine changes only into the blood of Christ, not into His soul, not into His Divinity, not even into the substance of body.

Is it meaningful to talk about physicality in this context? I don't know.

Peregrinus

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm not sure how to interpret physical in terms of substance and accidents . . . Is it meaningful to talk about physicality in this context? I don't know.

Well, put it this way. The church in its dogmatic teachings scrupulously doesn't talk about physicality in this context, so that may suggest an answer to your question.

Any commentaries or explanations I have seen by prominent theologians either also avoid talk of physics or physicality, or flatly assert that the consecrated elements do not physically become the Body and Blood. Ratzinger, for example, denies that the consecrated elements are physically the Body and Blood. If you can find a theologian of similar stature who says that the change is physical, I will be interested to read him. And, if you can't find that, again, that may point to an answer to your question.

kelly1

Nick Park wrote: »

I think you misunderstand the position of others. Nobody has suggested that the church was perfect before Constantine. Constantine simply messed everything up more spectacularly by initiating an unholy alliance between Church and State - never a good idea!

Can you elaborate on the nature of this alliance? Do you have historical sources for your information?

Nick Park wrote: »

I think you also misunderstand what others believe about the Lord's Supper. Most Christians agree that Jesus is with us in a spiritual sense when we share communion. We just don't agree with your statement about a physical presence in the elements (as indeed many Catholics don't agree with you). Most of the statements cited in your link are perfectly compatible with that view.

Most of the statements?? Did you even read the link? How you just dismiss this material? Some quotes:

Ignatius:
"I desire the Bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ"
"...they [gnostics] do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ"

Justin:
"the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

Origen:
"...there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God"

Athanasius:
"then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ"

Cyril:
"For just as the bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ"

Nick Park wrote: »

Btw, just to help us know whether this is all a waste of time. Can you conceive of any circumstances in which an argument might convince you to say, "Hey, you know what, I've never thought of that. The official Catholic dogma on this issue doesn't actually add up."?

I think that's highly unlikely. Is this not a debate? Has it not occurred to you that your position might not add up?

kelly1

Peregrinus, maybe physical is the wrong word, but as I posted before, the Catechism says this:

"Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner"

i.e. the Eucharist is far more than a symbol, natural food, or means of commemorating the Last Supper.

Nick Park

kelly1 wrote: »

I think that's highly unlikely. Is this not a debate? Has it not occurred to you that your position might not add up?

No, I'm not having a debate. You asked questions and I've answered some of them. Your unwillingness to consider that you (or your denomination) might be wrong suggests that I'm wasting my time that could be spent more profitably elsewhere.

Just a suggestion, but perhaps the Protestant/Catholic megathread would be more suited to what is, in effect, a dogmatic defence rather than a discussion?

Has it occurred to me that my position might not add up? Absolutely. I am always open to correction and am prepared to revise my opinions in the light of available evidence.

Also, I don't think my denomination is right about everything, and don't have a desire to endorse their line no matter what. That is because I see my denomination, like your denomination, to be led by fallible men who, while often well meaning, were still prone to mistakes.

Bob_Marley

Nick Park wrote: »

I think you misunderstand the position of others. Nobody has suggested that the church was perfect before Constantine. Constantine simply messed everything up more spectacularly by initiating an unholy alliance between Church and State - never a good idea!

If we're nitpicking, and in case anyone gets confused, Constantine didn't. With the Edict of Milan of 313 AD he declared that the empire would no longer sanction persecution of Christians. His full conversion to Christianity was on his deathbed in 337. It was Theodosius 1, in 380 who declared Christianity to be the religion of the Roman Emperor, and he was the last emperor to rule over both the eastern and the western halves of the Roman Empire.

Peregrinus

kelly1 wrote: »

Peregrinus, maybe physical is the wrong word, but as I posted before, the Catechism says this:

"Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner"

i.e. the Eucharist is far more than a symbol, natural food, or means of commemorating the Last Supper.

Yes, of course. But as we have already seen, most of the major traditions affirm the real presence, and deny that the eucharist is simply symbolic. And most of them affirm that the reality is a spiritual reality, and some of them - e.g. the Lutherans - also use the language of "substance" to explain this reality, while others - e.g. the Orthodox - either reject that language or simply don't regard it as helpful.

The truth is that there's a spectrum of opinion across Christianity as to how the Eucharist is understood, and much of the difference relates not to the reality of the real presence embodied in Eucharist, which is widely (though not universally) accepted across that spectrum, but to views about the the appropriate language with which to talk about that reality. Your desire to polarise this into a simple Catholic -v- non-Catholic binary risks leading you into misunderstanding not only the range of non-Catholic positions on this, but also the Catholic position.