Posted on 02/13/2021 8:18:22 AM PST by HypatiaTaught
Good morning my conservative FRiends.
I am reaching out to hopefully get an answer to my lifelong question of a central belief in the Christian faith, especially the Roman Catholic faith.
Background: I grew up in a very Roman Catholic family. I am number 10 of 13 children, 8 boys, 5 girls. Mom also had 2 miscarriages which in truth, she became pregnant with 10 boys rather than the 8. Mom had 15 pregnancies in 17 years.
We went to Mass every Sunday and all the holy days. Mom actually taught Catechism to the community and was a very loving soul.
My question since the age of eight and remains 50 years later, why do we have the belief of actually having to eat the body of Jesus Christ?
I am a very logical person, but this concept of consuming the flesh of God's son to obtain salvation simply doesn't make sense. I get that he died for our sins and was sacrificed. I know the history of sacrifices 2000 years ago. Tribes sacrificed lambs, goats and other livestock. But why the eating of his body or any human body? We don't eat humans. I don't even eat animals any more, for digestive purposes. Maybe I am the only one who finds this tenant extremely disturbing.
You also, Almost 69, still trying to help others by the grace of God, and share the gospel and contend for the Truth of Scripture. Have not had to see a doctor in about the last 40 years, except for a piece of rust in my eye due to working on an exhaust system without eye protection (even the $1.00 reading glasses I have used since about age 47), thanks be to God. Looking forward to shoveling some more snow and fix bikes - and race some neighborhood city kids here to the stop sign (when they come out of Covid captivity and video games) if am able, and giving gospel tracts to them and pointing them to Jesus. I am blessed to be able to do such, and glory and all credit to God for whatever is good, but prayer and standing for the truth and reproving sin is the harder part of seeking to be an instrument of righteousness.
Deceptively conflating? When Jesus says, “Unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood, you shall not have life within you” and then months (weeks?) later says, “This [bread] is my body, given for you” you think that’s deceptively conflating? Do you instead prefer Daniel1212’s conflation with “My meat,” using the Greek word that probably meant, “craving” and now means “stink,” “rot,” or “fetish”?
When in the West, a single word was added to the Apostle’s Creed, (translated, “[He proceeds from the Father] and the son”) it tore the Christian world in two, even though the Greeks conceded that what the Latins meant was not a heresy. And Protestants worry that Catholics have invented all sorts of heresies, and spread them successfully from India to Morocco, Norway to Ethiopia in spite of the local churches that weren’t Catholic and had already broken away from the Catholic churches over much, much, much finer theological details. (Sucn as: Since the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, is it false to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in addition to from the Father.)
If you’re disagreeing with me, which I’m not clear about, it’s probably going to be too much for this forum. Here I’ll just loosely say that I dont think Paul means that the “pneumatikon” body is somehow less than the the “psychikon” body. As you say the risen Christ is palpable and able to eat.
Less? "palpable" A piece of non-existent bread that only behaves and tests as bread is certainly "less" than every palpable manifestation of Christ in Scripture. As said, Nowhere was Christ present as an inanimate object or like a phantom" and the Scripture emphasizes the manifest physicality of the true incarnated Christ in His body that was "broken" and His sinless blood poured out. Thus if taken literally, the "This" in "take, eat, this is my body" would mean that the bread actually manifestly became the physical bloody body of Christ, versus an inanimate object that requires metaphysical gymnastics to try to justify as being the body of Christ with its organs, etc.
In addition, as said, nowhere is literally physically eating anything material the mean of obtaining spiritual life (versus as a memorial), nor anywhere interpretive of John 6 (Acts thru Rev.) is the Lord's supper actually referred to as spiritual food versus the word of God which uniquely called "milk" and "meat" (1Co. 3:2; Heb. 5:13; 1Pt. 2:2) by which believers are "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32)
And in the light of the many uses of metaphorical language in John, and in Scripture, including as regards eating and drinking, even to drinking water being plainly called "blood" and poured out unto the Lord since the men who obtained it risked their own lives in so doing, then only the metaphorical understanding easily easily conflates with Scripture.
And considering the importance Catholics ascribe to their Eucharist, “the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ," (CCC 1415) etc. this would surely see Paul listing this as a primary function of pastors and explaining this change as he does justification , but instead the body of Christ and its handling that Paul expounds on and cares for the handling is that of the spiritual body of Christ, the church, the "one bread" that the Lord bought by His sinless shed blood. The union of which with Christ and each other is what the "feast of Charity" (Jude 1:12) is supposed to manifest, thereby declaring His death which effected this, and showing that we remember this. (1 Cor. 10,11)
There is nothing in a wafer and an ounce of wine that will save you.
Read the scene in all three Gospels which record it. Jesus identified the ceremony as a remembrance fo Him until He comes. The salvation of the dead spirit is a spiritual reality, not a hocus pocus through the alimentary tract. Read John 6 again, noting how many times JESUS refers to believing as the measn to receive the SPIRITUAL nourishment.
In the scene of the remembrance ceremony the night He was betrayed, JESUS shows us the metaphor is just that by identifying the fruit of the vine after the ceremony is completed. Jesus uses the physical bread and wine to illustrate our need to SPIRITUALLY feed on Him spiritually just as He was nourished SPIRITUALLY by His Father while in His physical body. And to top it all, right there at the end of John 6 it is JESUS Who says the flesh profiteth nothing, it is the spirit which gives life and His words are spirit and life!
>> Upon completing the remembrance ceremony, Jesus referred to the contents of the cup as wine and said He would not drink again of the fruit of the vine until in The Kingdom. <<
This goes back to my main argument with Daniel1212: the tendency to offer an additional meaning and pretend like it negates the Catholic meaning in dispute. What you say is true, but in no way negates the plain language of what he said.
>> Read the scene in all three Gospels which record it. Jesus identified the ceremony as a remembrance fo Him until He comes. <<
Yes. But even here, he means “remembrance” in a very literal meaning which has almost been lost to modern English. To “remember” is to bring someone back to you; they become a “member” (part of), as opposed to simply returning to mind (”reminder”).
>> The salvation of the dead spirit is a spiritual reality, not a hocus pocus through the alimentary tract. Read John 6 again, noting how many times JESUS refers to believing as the measn to receive the SPIRITUAL nourishment. <<
Again, please read what I wrote to Daniel1212 about the fact that sacraments are physical-world signs given to us so the spiritual world becomes more perceptible/understandable/objective/concrete.
>> JESUS shows us the metaphor is just that by identifying the fruit of the vine after the ceremony is completed. <<
You keep saying the ceremony is complete. Where do you get that actually drinking of the cup and eating the bread is somehow some epilog to the real ceremony, rather than its climax? Do you not understand the ceremony he is performing is the ritual Moses taught the Jews so that they would be passed over by plague of the death of the first-born? By splashing blood on the doorway, they were marked so that they wouldn’t die. Herein, they splash blood on their souls so that their soul will not die. If someone performed the ritual slaughter of the lamb, but did not mark their door, would they be spared? Maybe, but only by some miracle beyond what is promised by the ritual (c.f., “the good theif.”) You certainly would never say, “Meh, the lamb was only symbolism. You don’t need to pour the blood on the doorway.”
And yet, what purpose did splashing the doorway actually achieve? Does God not know who is an Israelite without seeing blood on the door? The purpose was that so the world might understand the meaning of marking their souls with the blood of the lamb.
The Calvinist, pseudo-Augustinian* worldview separates the physical world from the Spiritual world as if they have nothing to do with one another; the Catholic worldview follows the Jewish and ancient Christian one in the belief that the physical world is a manifestation of the spiritual world. (*Called pseudo-Augustinian because Augustine in no way believed just about any of the nonsense Protestants have attributed to him.)
Do you really believe your soul is in the same spacetime coordinate system as the body? And what of the spirit which is aligned with the soul, the behavior mechanism? Jesus told us that a man eating or drinking something does not defile the soul or spirit because it comes out in the rought. Can you see how that applies to not gaining spiritual realness by eating of drinking something? Try to avoid using magic thinking when contemplating that issue.
Why are you reluctant to follow the Teachings of Christ Himself?
You don’t question what you believe, you can’t.
I must.
So you’re a mind reader too? Methinks you are trolling,
>> So you believe you can ‘mark your soul’ with eating into your digestive tract something your priests have through an incantation transmogrified into the flesh and blood of Jesus? <<
You’re interpeting that Catholics claim what we do on Earth causes God to do something. THAT’S magic. Magic is not real. God doesn’t do anything because of what WE want. What really happens is that when God does something, he often creates a sacrament/sign of it here on Earth. When God wants to perform a miracle, he leads us into prayer. When he wants to save a soul, he leads us to the gospel and ultimately the Church. He wants us to SEE in ways we can understand what it is that he does. When we do things because God leads us to do them, that isn’t magic, that’s a miracle.
Do you believe that Jesus’ healing of the blind man required him to bend down and draw in the mud, then plaster the mud on the man’s eyes? Do you believe that God really needed the lamb’s blood on the doors to know who were Hebrews and therefore spare them? Do you believe there just happened to be an earthquake when Jesus died, and the gospel tells us of this just for historical curiosity?
The “incantations” you sacrilegiously reference is the Word, itself.
“On the day before he was to suffer,
he took bread in his holy and venerable hands,
giving you thanks, he said the blessing,
broke the bread
and gave it to his disciples, saying:
He bows slightly.
Take this, all of you, and eat of it,
for this is my Body,
which will be given up for you. (A bell rings to signify the transubstantiation)
“In a similar way, when supper was ended,
he took this precious chalice
in his holy and venerable hands,
and once more giving you thanks, he said the blessing
and gave the chalice to his disciples, saying:
Take this, all of you, and drink from it,
for this is the chalice of my Blood,
the Blood of the new and eternal covenant,
which will be poured out for you and for many
for the forgiveness of sins.
Do this in memory of me.” (A bell rings to signify the transubstantiation)
You’re not digesting the meaning.
I’m still not clear enough to disagree.
Maybe this will help me. What does the word “metaphysical” mean to you?)
Oh.. I see what you did there! Good one. :)
You posed your question incorrectly. The blood on the door post and lintel was a sign to the Destroying Angel that a 'first born' of faith was in that household. God needs no signs or works; He knows the end from the beginning and knows the inner most heart of each of us ... apparently, the Angel God sent to do the task did need a sign. Do you realize the significance of that scene for our epoch? Have you cited a passage yet do not understand the significance of that passage?... The blood on the door posts and lintel indicated the folks inside were of faith in the Promise of God. Your religion of catholiciism focuses upon the work to get the blood on the doorpost and lintel while failing to see the principle of the exercise. It was by faith that they were saved from the destroying angel. Abraham believed God and it was counted for him righteousness ... the Hebrews who believed God and it was counted for them righteousness thus not a target of the destroying angel.
The incantation is what you posted, not the actual BIBLE verse. Your illustration is a good example of magic thinking, just as the pagans did when eating the foods they brought to their idols. The cup held wine, not transubstantiated something you believe to be the blood of Jesus. But Jesus Himself tells you the cup holds wine before and after the sharing of the cup. Israelites were forbidden BY GOD to drink blood. Jesus had not yet been tot eh Cross where His blood would be shed for our Salvation. The cup held wine before during and after in was shared.
Your Catholic ceremony of pretending to drink the blood of Jesus is satan's mockery of the command from GOD against drinking blood, a command issued for 'throughout all your generations' which would include the generation men sharing the Passover supper with The Messiah.
"Transcending physical matter or the laws of nature" (WordWeb)? Whatever we want it to mean, the issue is not that God cannot transcend physical matter or the known laws of nature or of physics, but that the christ of the words Catholics invoke as taking literally (meaning non-existent bread that otherwise behaves and tests as just being what it appears to be is really Christ in substance, until the bread or wine behaves in a negative way that also manifests it is real bread, for then this christ is gone) does not conform to how the incarnated and crucified Christ is defined and emphasized, in contrast to a christ whose appearance does not conform to what He materially was.
In contrast the metaphorical meaning of both the words at the institution of the Lord's supper and John 6 alone easily conforms to Scripture.
I see there are two meanings to the words “metaphysical” and “mystical.” One set of meanings is what we, um, metaphysicians jokingly describe as “oogedy-boogedy.”
The other is boring to many. It might deal with questions like,
“Whether (and if so, how) we can say that God exists, triangles exist, my big toe exists?”
“Is there a difference between what a thing IS and what it is made of; are a beanbag chair and a golden throne both chairs?”
“Can we know the answers to these questions? How?”
When I read a clause like “What He [Christ] materially was,” the words “materially was,” get my attention. In my thinking what Christ IS is a such a different question from what he is made of that I want to stop there and look at “materially was” for a while.
So I think I'm right that we can't get far with Transubstantiation or the rest of that clump of questions.
As I have suggested, before we discuss what the Consecrated Bread is, I need to get clear about what regular everyday bread is.
You can debate semantics (and you might like to read what one of your monks says in regards to transubstantiation: https://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2010/05/30/transubstantiation-and-aristotle-warning-heavy-philosophy) but whatever terminology you want to use, the only incarnated Christ whose body was "broken" and His sinless blood poured out was not that of an inanimate object whose appearance did not conform to what He manifested Himself to be as a partaker of flesh and blood, but one that was tangibly incarnated, and felt, behaved etc, as such and thus was "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin," (Hebrews 4:15) which stood in contrast to a christ whose appearance did not conform to what He manifested Himself to be "as concerning the flesh."
This is the Christ John identifies as Christ "come in the flesh" (1 John 4:2) versus one whose physical looks do not correspond to what He physically is. Certainly Jesus could feel our pain somehow without being incarnated, but the He chose to be so, and Scripture emphasize this, and even in His glorified physical body it was one of flesh and bones and in which He manifested His wounds and eat with the disciples, and thus His physicality identifies the true Christ.
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested.. (1 John 1:1-2)
This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (1 John 5:6)
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; (Hebrews 2:14)
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. (Hebrews 2:16)
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect [experientially], he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; (Hebrews 5:8-9)
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:39)
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. (John 20:27)
If is only because Catholic priests cannot product the bloody physical flesh of Christ (alleged rare miracles notwithstanding) which a literal understanding if "this is my body which is broken for you" would mean that your theologian have has to labor to explain how Catholics receive the whole of Christ, the “true Body of Christ and his true Blood,” "the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord,” "the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins,"(CCC 1365) with His human body and human soul, with His bodily organs and limbs and with His human mind, will and feelings. "being corporeally present whole and entire in His physical "reality.” "Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.” (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist) But which appear, behaves, tastes, etc., tests as mere bread and wine, yet which do not exist although as the true body and blood of Christ would, they do behave, taste, etc. and test as being what they appear to be, and when they do appear to be so in a negative way (decay) - and only if this can be seen - then the true Body of Christ and his true Blood no longer exist either under that misleading form.
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.