Of course, I grant the right to both sides to contend for my soul. I need all the help I can get.
Posted on 05/19/2008 11:09:17 AM PDT by Between the Lines
Pope Benedict XVI said Saturday that the Roman Catholic Church has the indisputable right and duty to convert anyone to Christianity.
The Church’s central mission is evangelism, the pope firmly told a Vatican body responsible for encouraging Catholic missionary activity, according to Agence France-Presse.
Jesus Christ, as recorded in the Gospels, called on the conversion of “all nations,” Benedict said,” and this commission remains “an obligatory mandate for the entire Church and for every believer in Christ.”
"This apostolic commitment is both a duty and an inalienable right, the very expression of religious freedom with its moral, social and political dimensions," the pontiff said.
Benedict’s address comes two months after he baptized a prominent Muslim author into the Catholic Church during an Easter service that was broadcasted worldwide. The baptism of Egyptian-born, Italian writer Magni Allam infuriated some Muslims who saw the act as an assault on Islam.
But the Vatican had said no hostility was intended in baptizing Allam during a broadcasted Easter ceremony, according to The Associated Press.
While Benedict may assert the right of Christians to convert non-believers to the faith, he has also been ramping up efforts to reach out to moderate Muslims for interfaith dialogues.
The Vatican will host a meeting in Rome with leading Muslim religious leaders and scholars in November to encourage more dialogue between Catholics and Muslims.
Many believe the pope’s increased effort on holding interfaith conversations resulted from Muslim anger towards him after he quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor who linked Islam with violence in a 2006 speech at Germany’s Regensburg University.
That same year, Benedict traveled to Turkey, visiting Istanbul’s famous Blue Mosque, in an effort to show tolerance of other religions and to demonstrate a spirit of cooperation for peace in light of the rise in Muslim-Christian clashes worldwide.
But Benedict, like his predecessors, remains enthusiastic about promoting missionary zeal among Catholics.
The Vatican published in December a doctrinal note reaffirming the mission of all Catholics to pursue conversion of non-Catholics, including other Christian denominations.
Coming from a RC background, we don’t proselytize by standing on street corners and handing out Bible tracts. We don’t go knocking on doors or holding tent revivals. Most people who have converted (at least to Catholicism) have done so through a spouse or a friend, or through their own reading, and many by attending the liturgy. The approach is far less aggressive than in evangelical Christianity.
If you are so afraid of being deceived by the carnal interpretation of ROME, check out the Churches of Antioch Alexandria and all the East and you will find they believe in the same thing. Theirs is a far older tradition than Roman Catholicism (as is since the Middle Ages) and far far older than any Calvinistic, Baptist, Evangelical interpretation of the Eucharist.
If you are so afraid of being deceived by the carnal interpretation of ROME, check out the Churches of Antioch Alexandria and all the East and you will find they believe in the same thing. Theirs is a far older tradition than Roman Catholicism (as is since the Middle Ages) and far far older than any Calvinistic, Baptist, Evangelical interpretation of the Eucharist.
Of course, I grant the right to both sides to contend for my soul. I need all the help I can get.
Watch out once those Nuns get hold of you. LOL
You are in error. trōgō simply describes what happens in the process of eating, and only used of humans eating
I don't hold myself out as a Greek scholar, so you may very well have a stronger grasp of the language than I. However, this site gives a strong treatment of what I have learned about the use of "trogo" as opposed to "phago" - I don't believe I have the depth of knowledge required to continue this argument with you; however, I know of a couple Greek speaking FReepers who would be able to shed light on this matter from the Church's perspective, if you wish.
Regarding your other points:
The Jews were strictly enjoined NEVER to eat blood
Indeed the Jews were - I, however, am not a Jew, and am not held to their laws. Yes, the Apostles continued to keep the law until the Council of Jerusalem, but there we learn that Christians are not required to keep such laws. I could keep Kosher if I so desired, but that would be merely a lifestyle choice for me - it has no bearing on my relationship with God. Same with the Apostles. They kept Kosher because that was what they knew, but the New Covenant superceded the dietary requirements. If Christians were eating pig before Acts 10, they were not in violation of the law, as it had already become obsolete.
How much more he, or one of the apostles would have been aghast at the thought of actually ingesting the Lord's corporeal flesh and drinking His blood!
But that is exactly what occured in John 6. The disciples understood Him metaphorically at first - they were fine with that. It wasn't until their question of "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" that they began to understand Him. And His response? "Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh..." Many were aghast at such a proposition, and left - however, Peter the Rock stayed and accepted Him at His word.
Grammatically, that the bread was Jesus actual body is no more literal than the cup was actually the New testament in His blood (Lk, 22:20), rather it clearly represented it
I already touched on this - the cup was His blood. Jesus spoke literally here, there was no mincing of words. I don't deny that there is symbolic usage of language in the Bible, but you're reaching here - sometimes He means exactly what He says.
Nowhere it presented as the means or necessity to gain eternal life, as the RC interpretation makes it
I'm going to touch on points 3 and 5 together, since I think they go together. The Church does not teach that the Eucharist is the means or is necessary to gain eternal life - it is a means to impart Grace upon the faithful. Your used of John 6:47 is touched on above - the disciples heard Him metaphorically, and it wasn't until John 6:53 that they really understood the gravity of what he was saying.
4. If what Roman Catholicism asserts is what happened at the Lord's Supper, that by means of transubstantiation, the substance of bread and wine is actually exchanged, so that the bread and wine actually become the Lord's body and blood, though the sensory aspects of the earth;ly elements remain the same, then this would be a unique miracle. For in every miracle which the Lord and His followers did, there was no such exchange. The water actually became wine, and it who tasted like it, and sick were made well, and knew it. Even in the Lord's incarnation, it was Christ being made in the flesh, but not a transubstantiation, so that the Lord would be a type of phantom, or in any way no be literally flesh and blood, while yet being “God manifest in the flesh” (1Tim. 3:16).
If what you say is true, why did almost no one recognize Jesus as God? Because they did not know God? Then, did Jesus really hand over the keys to Peter? Physically? Or did He endow Peter with power? Or did He lie when He said He would give Peter the keys? And what of the Gift of the Holy Spirit? The Apostles were not physically changed when they received the gift, but they received it nonetheless. And why did the Apostles lay hands upon Paul, if not to pass on the gift of the Spirit? Lastly, I am curious if you've heard of the Miracle of Lanciano.
Now, I've neglected to include the testimony of the earliest Christians in this post recognizing the true Body and Blood in the Eucharist, only because I don't know if you would consider those sources as "valid". I do struggle on the Religion Fourm, because Protestants and Catholics appeal to two different sources of authority - either the Bible alone, or the Bible and the Tradition of the Church.
"Pagan" and "wrong" are not synonymous terms.
the Bible clearly states that Jesus' sacrifice was a punctiliar affair
In what sense? Hebrews says he has entered into the heavenly Holy of Holies, there to offer his own blood on our behalf, and that he will emerge from there at the end of time to claim us. That's a direct reference to the Yom Kippur liturgy, with Christ taking the place of the High Priest.
It also means that the sacrifice is eternal, because it is eternally present in heaven.
In fact, there are no "punctiliar affairs" in heaven, because God is outside of time. Time is a created thing. God created it. He rules it, not the other way around.
only needed to be "presented" once
The issue is making the sacrifice present to us, in our time. How was the sacrifice made present to me, 2000 years ago, when I didn't even exist yet?
The scripture elsewhere tells you why; it's because the life of the animal was considered to be in the blood.
Think about that in regard to Christ. Isn't that precisely what we need -- Christ's life within us?
the penalty being to be cut off from God's people
And the "penalty" for drinking Christ's blood is precisely "to be cut off from his people," that is, to be cut off from Adam's people, and joined to Christ's. Jesus had forgotten more about the Law than either you or I. He knew exactly what he was saying when he said, "Unless you drink my blood, you have no life within you." He said it for a reason, and there was a reason why he didn't tell those who left him at that point that he didn't really mean what he was saying. He did.
Thanks for the reply. I have not heard of many other churches that do this. Very encouraging!
If we are to take our communion seriously, we must be equally serious about those who break communion with their own church.
Because what Jesus was doing in this passage is pointing to Himself as the Word, and using allusions to the Old Testament to do so. Granted, I think we all can agree that Jesus is the Word - John's Christology, as it saturates his Gospel, makes that plain enough. One thing Jesus did before the verse in question was to point to Himself as the bread of life (vv. 32, 35, 48), as the true fulfillment of that typology taught by the giving of the manna to their fathers in the wilderness (vv. 49-51). Essentially, Jesus is saying, look, you want bread, well *I* am that bread - but I am bread that satisfies your SPIRITUAL need, rather than your physical hunger - He was directly referring back to the people's error in seeking Him because He fed the 5,000, and telling them not to seek Him to have physical needs met, but to have their spiritually lost condition changed (cf. v. 27). In other words, that is the "set up", the context for what we see later in the chapter, which is usually ignored by Catholic apologists.
Jesus' allusion to Himself as the bread of life fits right in with His role as the Word, and fits nicely with Matthew 4:4,
"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
Same concept as we see in John 6 - He cites Deut. 8:3 in refuting satan's temptation, a passage in Moses which also refers to the manna in the wilderness. So, Jesus, as the Word, is the true bread of life which sustains a person's life and soul. Now, did He mean it literally? Was He saying to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood? Of course not. He was instead alluding to Jeremiah 15:16,
"Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts."
"Eating" God's Words means to internalise them mentally and spiritually to such a degree that they become a deep, inner part of you. That's what Jesus was telling His disciples they needed to do with Him - move away from a surface acceptance of Him as great teacher who provides a lot of free food, and instead learn and understand that He, as the Messiah, as the Word of God, must be "internalised" to such a degree that serving and living for Him becomes the very reason they live. Incidentally, the Hebrew word translated as "eat" in that verse is 'akal, which is ALSO a word used to describe the devouring of food as an animal would. Hence, when Jesus uses the same type of word in Greek, He is, again, referring back to this concept of devouring/eating God's Word by giving full heed to it.
Near the start of His discourse, He more or less laid it out plainly that His words were not meant to be taken woodenly literally, but that they had a spiritual import instead, when He said,
"I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (v. 35)
Notice the Hebrew parallelism. Though the Gospel is written in Greek, Jesus and His audience were Jews - they thought like Jews, acted like Jews, and spoke like Jews. Jesus uses a classic example of the "poetic parallel" so common in Jewish poetry and wisdom literature (the latter of which John 6 can arguably be said to be a representative). He parallels "coming to Him to never hunger" with "believing on Him to never thirst". Coming to Him and believing on Him are paralleled - believing on Him is the whole point. Clearly, He has NO intention in this passage of telling His audience that they actually, truly, literally were to eat Him.
Just to confuse or scare away His disciples?
Actually, yes. It's common enough in the Gospels for Jesus to use hyperbolic language so as to force His listeners to make a decision about Him or something He has said. Usually, He does so as part of the "true disciples have their eyes and ears open to the true meaning, while false disciples will get offended by not understanding the true meaning, and leave" motif. This is what we see happening here - the people who didn't "get it", who still had their minds on filling their bellies, the people who were still thinking carnally, were the ones who took His words in a woodenly literal fashion, thought He was saying to actually eat Him, and left.
This references John 3:6 - "What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit." Peter and the rest remained because they were not afraid of His WORDS - the words were eat my body. It was a command. Yes, they were not afraid of such a command because they recognized the Christ, the "Lamb of God" (John 1:29), and they knew that they must eat the Lamb, as their forefathers did at Passover.
Peter and the rest knew that His Words were of a spiritual, rather than literal, intention. Jesus clearly is speaking figuratively in this passage, just as He was speaking figuratively each and every other time where He made a declarative "I am the ______" statement. Surely you don't believe that Jesus was really and truly a flat, wooden board with an iron bar across Him, just because He said "I am the door", do you? You don't think He was a green, leafy plant because He said "I am the true vine", do you?
Your argument from John 3:6 doesn't really seem to apply in any sense. If anything, those born of the flesh but not yet born of the Spirit (i.e. those who were unregenerate) would be the ones who would understand His words in a fleshly, literal way on this point, which actually goes against your argument.
You're mistaken here. This is part of the Passover celebration - the Jewish ritual required 4 cups of wine. Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, ceased the ritual sacrifice with the third cup. Ask a Jew you know what it would mean if they stopped their Passover celebration with only 3 cups - it borders near sacrilege. Jesus' ceasing demonstrates the sacrificial nature of his death - the Passover sacrifice he celebrated was not complete until the Lamb was slain. "It is finished" marks the completion of the Passover celebration.
This argument has no merit. The four cups ceremony which you describe was actually institued very late - it's doubtful that it was widely practiced at the time of Jesus, and even if it were, the Jewish sources themselves are very clear that it was a "rabbinic tradition" (a term which itself suggests a post-70 AD origin), not sanctioned by the Scriptures themselves. Given Jesus' disdain for Pharisaical (the folks who more or less "became" the later rabbinate after the destruction of the Temple and the Diaspora) innovations to Scripture, it's not likely that He even engaged in this ritual at all - since the OT never mentions it. The New Testament certainly doesn't say that He did - it says nothing about how many cups of wine He drank/offered period, other than the one He used when instituting the Lord's Supper.
Yes, He is giving the Apostles His Body and Blood before He died - this supports my position, since His Sacrifice exists outside time. It is the interplay between Kairos and Chronos.
That's exactly the point, however. Suggesting that Jesus' sacrifice "exists outside of time" is pagan, as pagan as going in to a Phoenician temple prostitute to re-enact fertility rites to Ba'al to ensure the rains come in.
God exists outside of time, as does His sacrifice.
That is a non-sequitur. Yes, God exists outside of time, by virtue of His being the Creator and being GREATER than time. However, the Scripture clearly says that Jesus' sacrifice came at one, specific point in time, and that it's economy was centred about that one specific moment. The Scripture positively denies your "sacrifice exists outside of time" argument.
"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;" (Hebrews 10:12)
He offered one sacrifice, a singular sacrifice which has efficacy "for ever". Further, the sacrifice is treated punctiliarly - it had a point in time, which was sequentially antecedent to His sitting down at the right hand of God. Further, the verb "to offer sacrifice" (prosphero) is in the aorist tense, indicating one-time action.
"For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Hebrews 9:26)
Again, this verse indicates that the sacrifice offered by Christ had not occurred until that one, single incident at "the end of the world" (lit. aeon, age, the transition between the OT and the NT). He did it once, and it's importance was met at one, singular instance in time. It's efficacy, true, is from the beginning of the world, but not its ACTIVITY, which is where you are in error. Hebrews 7:27 makes the same point as well.
The "do this in remembrance of me" is a rough translation - a more proper one is probably "offer this as my memorial offering."
Completely untrue. Actually, "this do in remembrance of me" is a very clear translation of the phrase touto poieite eis ten emen anamnesin. Touto = this, poiteite = do (present active imperative), eis = of, ten emen = me (accusative), and anamnesin = remembrance. Perhaps a more modern sounding translation would be "Do this in my remembrance", but there is nothing in the actual Greek text to suggest "offer this as a memorial offering" as any sort of a valid translation.
The sacrifice of the Lamb is one in perpetuity which we are called to take part of - that is the entire reason for the Mass.
And that is a lot (though not all) of the reason why the mass represents (no pun intended) a pagan syncretisation into Christianity.
The words of the Mass are "when we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus Christ," so I'm not sure where these Catholics you speak of struggle with the translation. But you need also look at 1 Cor. 11:28-29
A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself
The Greek word for "examine" translates better as "test and find true" - part of that examination requires discerning the body of Christ in the Eucharist.
Which has nothing to do with whether or not the elements of the Supper actually turn into the body and blood of Christ, or are just symbols. What Paul is referring to when He tells them to examine themselves, and that eating unworthily means they are not discerning the Lord's body looks back to the earlier parts of the chapter, when Paul had to take the Corinthians to task for their abuse of the Lord's Supper - getting drunken, eating everything up before the poor and others had a chance to get any, etc. (which, interestingly, seems to suggest that the Lord's Supper was much more than just the "eat a wafer and drink a little wine/grape juice as we sit in the pews" that is common to Catholics, Protestants, and Baptists alike). The discerning going on here is that which understands the importance of the ordinance. Treating it lightly is to basically treat the sacrifice which Christ made for us lightly. There's nothing in vv. 28-29 which specifically or even alludingly refers to the actual nature of the elements.
Whatever it is, it is not anything like the concept that appeared in Greek philosophy and in Philo. In those sources, the logos was a transcendental, impersonal "force", a sort of "first principle". Meanwhile, in John's Christology (which has some forceful antecedents in the OT Hebrew wisdom literature), the logos is an active, personal, well, Person who interacted in both a revelatory and interpersonal way with His own creations. Same term, but again, the underlying connotations of the term are very different.
And what does St. Paul mean when he says that the Gentiles had the law written on their hearts in Romans 2?
Well, what does the context indicate it means? When Paul said that the law was written on the hearts of the Gentiles, he is drawing a distinction between the Jews (who had the revealed, written Law) and the Gentiles (who did not) - BUT, he at the same is clear to say that ALL are guilty before the law and that both are basically held to the same standard. The reason? Even the Gentiles have the law written on their hearts. In other words, even without access to the written law, the Gentiles still know what is right and wrong in accord with that law. Gentiles still knew that murder, rape, stealing, etc. etc. were wrong. Not perfectly, as they would had they had the written law, but enough so that they are also guilty before God, so that Paul could later quote the OT that "ALL have sinned...." - "sin" only being operative when one knows that some things are right and some things are wrong.
Who was Melchizedek making an offering to then?
Well, both Genesis 14:18 and Hebrews 7:1 say that he was a priest of the most High God, so I'm guessing he was offering to the God of Abraham - which would be why HE was the recipient of Abraham's tithes.
Stuff and nonsense, this idea the pagans got nothing right.
Well, we're all entitled to our opinions. I would say they didn't - religiously speaking. In the profane realms, they got much right.
Hi thefrankbaum.
Your site for tro¯go¯ does not establish that this cannot mean spiritual eating, and it is the both the immediate and larger context of John 6 that determines that.
>he Jews were strictly enjoined NEVER to eat blood<
“Indeed the Jews were - I, however, am not a Jew, and am not held to their laws.”
The point is not what you can do, but what the disciples could and would do. A study of the gospels shows the disciples, Peter in particular, were not men who would just submit to eating human flesh and drinking blood without some questioning and explanation, as is seen in Acts 10. Peter did not even want Jesus to wash his feet (Jn. 13), but know he just drinks His blood?
“But that is exactly what occurred in John 6.”
No it is not, rather that is a conclusion forced by a radical premise. The context of John 6 is that of men seeking physical food. Jesus had just fed them and they thought they had a good thing going, and wanted a (modern) Jesus who place a priority in physical satisfaction. Jesus instead tells them “Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.” (John 6:27). Because they are “carnally minded,” who “mind the things of the flesh” (Rm. 8:5), and looking for the physical, contrary to the women at the well in Jn. 4, when Jesus leads them to the higher spiritual using physical metaphorical language (living water: 4:10, 14 = living bread” 6:51), their focus on a literal physical meaning restrains them perceiving it’s spiritual counterpart, and thus rather than telling others about the Messiah (4:28, 29), they will walk away with darkened minds (v. 66).
But as He did in Jn. 4, Jesus - whose “bread” is do the will of His Father (4:24) - reveals the spiritual meaning of His metaphor, that as “I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me” (v. 6:57), which is by every word of God (Mt. 4:4), “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63)
Peter rightly discern this, as he states, “thou hast the words of eternal life” which is entirely consistent with the testimony of Scripture elsewhere.
Jesus use of metaphors is consistent with the gospel of John in general in which there is constant contrast between that which is below vs. that which is above, between the temporal and the eternal, between the physical and the spiritual. In Jn. 6 Jesus points them to “food” that will give them eternal life, which is every place in John and elsewhere is by believing, not believing in a doctrine of transubstantiation, but in Christ, the Son of the living God, for which John gives many physical types.
In John 1:29, He is “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”
In John 3, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15).
In John 4, Jesus is the living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14).
In John 5, Jesus is the Divine Son of God “making himself equal with God”, and the prophesied Messiah (vs. 18, 39).
In John 6, Jesus is the bread of God “which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” “..that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day” (vs. 35,40). This bread is called His flesh, “which I will give for the life of the world” (v. 51). And as He is the “living bread,” and “the life of the flesh is in the blood,” so the soon to be crucified Christ is metaphorical bread and blood.
In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11).
In John 12, He is the LORD who Isaiah saw high and lifted up in glory, when Isaiah uttered the prophecy which as given in it’s fulfilled sense in Jn. 6 (Is. 6:1-10; Jn. 12:34b-50). To God be the glory.
In John 15, Jesus is the true vine. Thus the use of metaphors in Jn. 6 to denote believing and living by the Word of God, and most essentially Christ, is consistent theologically, culturally and and grammatically, whereas eating something to gain eternal life is distinctively pagan. The Jewish passover did not impart life, and Jesus analogy in Jn. 6 was not to the passover, but the miraculous bread from Heaven, which gave physical life, which corresponds to spiritual life under the New.
“The Church does not teach that the Eucharist is the means or is necessary to gain eternal life - it is a means to impart Grace upon the faithful.”
The point is, if you take Jn. 6:53 to be literal, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you”, which you do, then you must make taking part in the RC Eucharist essential for being born again and obtaining eternal life. The Bible makes it clear before the new birth that man is “dead in trespasses and sins” and is made alive by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which happens only when a honest and contrite soul effectually repents and believes on the Lord Jesus and His sinless shed blood for salvation (Jn. 7:37; Act 2:38; 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9; 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 1:13).
Like the blood gives life to flesh, so the Spirit makes one alive in Christ, and it is of His Spirit that one must “drink.” “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit” (1 Cor 12:13).
And nowhere is participation is the Lord’s supper what the apostles preached in order to be converted and to obtain eternal life (Acts 2, 10, 13, 17, etc.).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.