Posted on 09/26/2006 4:48:31 PM PDT by NYer
They have to be shown where the Mass comes from. I have posted a few links - the one from St. Paul Center is the best, imo. It does take some time to read it but it is laid out very well.
All we can do is post the truth. Others have Free Will to accept or reject it.
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." - John 6:51-56
"That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Sermons 227)
"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)
"How this ['And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (Psalms 33:1:10)
"Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED." (Letters 98:9)
"Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him." (City of God 10:20)
"By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof." (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)
"Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is OFFERED for them, or when alms are given in the church." (Ench Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)
"But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death." (Sermons 172:2)
"...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (Psalms 98:9)
There is nothing in Psalms 33 that remotely says anything like this...
And likewise with this:
AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (Psalms 98:9)
There is nothing whatsoever in Psalms 98 that could be construed to be close to this at all...
St. Augustine
Why someone would chose the writing of Augustine over the bible is beyond me...I certainly don't...
He was most certainly talking about exactly that. The Greek *screams* literal interpretation: First of all, the word used for eat here in verse 54 & 56 & 58 is trogo--this is not just plain old 'eat" (which is phago)--this is gnaw, munch, crunch, chew. Christ in verse literally says "Whoever chews my flesh and drinks my blood"...then later in verse 58 whoever chews on this bread will live forever.
Secondly, let's look at verse 55: for my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink....real food, real drink. And quite frankly, the English here is not even as strong as the Greek, which says "alethes brosis, alethes posis"--true food, true drink--and true in substance, not true in similarity or analogy.
These people didn't leave because they believed Jesus was talking about cannibalism...They left because of the entire message that Jesus was the 'spiritual' bread of life...
The text says straight out why they were grumbling...it is right there in plain Scripture..."How can this man give us his flesh to eat"? So why were they saying "this is a hard saying, who can listen to it"? Some inoffensive discourse about the bread from heaven? That makes zero sense, I'm sorry.
You are doing exactly what you accuse us of doing--and that is going against the plain sense of Scripture to defend a theological position which grew up many many years after the fact. Every Church father, St. Paul, everyone in the early centuries believed that Christ meant this text literally. The Christians were accused by the Roman pagans of cannibalism--now why would that be if they just meant all this in a bland, inoffensive "bread of Life" type way?
“How a Non-Catholic respectfully communes at Mass”(Bush At St Louis)
Giving to God in Mass [Liturgy of the Eucharist]
The New Order of the Mass takes its next step on Monday
Archbishop Burke, Bishop Rifan comment: Will classical liturgy aid reunion with Eastern Orthodox?
Australian Bishops approve new English translation of the mass
Pope Against Pop Music In Mass
Liturgy changes for U.S. Catholics (some clarifications)
Bishops to vote on new Order of Mass in English
"Anything But 'Dew'!" (follow up on the USCCB liturgy discussions)
The Votes Are In! And the Winner Is .... (USCCB meeting on revisions to the Latin liturgy)
Liturgy translation tops (Catholic) bishops' agenda for L.A. meeting
Teach Us! [About the True Presence -- Summit of the Mass, Holy Communion]
Yes to the Mass "with the back to the people"
So you believe He is in Spirit form again?
You got your bible from Jerome...Why didn't Jerome use 'knaw' or 'crunch' instead of good ole 'eat'???
The Greek used in the 'Majority Text' means eat...
φάγω
phagō
fag'-o
A primary verb (used as an alternate of G2068 in certain tenses); to eat (literally or figuratively): - eat, meat.
Secondly, let's look at verse 55: for my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink....real food, real drink. And quite frankly, the English here is not even as strong as the Greek, which says "alethes brosis, alethes posis"--true food, true drink--and true in substance, not true in similarity or analog
From your Catholic bible...
Joh 6:55 (6:56) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
Neither your Catholic bible nor my bible, nor the Majority Greek Texts use the term 'real' or 'true' food or drink... Surely if this is the 'original' greek, Jerome would have put it in your bible...
The text says straight out why they were grumbling...it is right there in plain Scripture..."How can this man give us his flesh to eat"? So why were they saying "this is a hard saying, who can listen to it"? Some inoffensive discourse about the bread from heaven? That makes zero sense, I'm sorry.
Ya they were grumbling...But that was just the icing on the cake...Jesus says he already knew they didn't believe him before He mentioned the eating of flesh...And you'll notice they didn't pick up and leave til Jesus told them;
Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
And then;
Joh 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
I don't believe Paul looked at it the way you do...Or any of the apostles for that matter...They knew it was a metaphor just like I do because of verses 35, 62, 63, 69, 47, etc...
Yes, with a heavenly physical body...
1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
Even John had no idea what Jesus looks like in Glory...But I'll bet a year's worth of paychecks it won't be a frail, beat up Jewish fella with a crown of thorns on his head...
Maybe that's not the best way to describe our Crucified Lord.
Uhh... he did. The original Vulgate has: "dixit ergo eis Iesus amen amen dico vobis nisi MANDUCAVERITIS carnem Filii hominis et biberitis eius sanguinem non habetis vitam in vobis". Manducare in Latin is more like "chew" rather than "edere" which is just plain old "eat".
Neither your Catholic bible nor my bible, nor the Majority Greek Texts use the term 'real' or 'true' food or drink... Surely if this is the 'original' greek, Jerome would have put it in your bible...
Umm..I dunno what you are talking about "Majority" Greek. The Greek New Testament is the Greek New Testament....I am not aware of a manuscript tradition that differs in the word here. The word phago does appear in John 6, but the word trogo *also* appears. It's as if Christ was making a point...switching from "eat" to "gnaw" to make the point.
Neither your Catholic bible nor my bible, nor the Majority Greek Texts use the term 'real' or 'true' food or drink... Surely if this is the 'original' greek, Jerome would have put it in your bible...
Balderdash! It's right there in the Greek...."sarx mou ALETHES estin brosis, kai to aima mou ALETHES estin posis". Alethes means what? True, real. And in fact Jerome did put it in the Vulgate, so I have no idea which Vulgate you are reading: "caro enim mea VERE est cibus et sanguis meus VERE est potus".
I don't believe Paul looked at it the way you do...Or any of the apostles for that matter...They knew it was a metaphor just like I do because of verses 35, 62, 63, 69, 47, etc...
Oh, I'm well aware you don't believe it. But he did indeed look at it that way. Look up 1 Corinthians 11:26:
"26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.Not discerning the body of the Lord.
When Christ appeared to Thomas, did he still have the wounds in His hands and side or not?
That dispute was settled long ago, by the Church.
And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Claud (and Iscool),
Iscool wrote: "Neither your Catholic bible nor my bible, nor the Majority Greek Texts use the term 'real' or 'true' food or drink... Surely if this is the 'original' greek, Jerome would have put it in your bible..."
Well, I can see in the Greek NT that Jesus said "truly is food" and "truly is drink" in John 6:55. This is true in the TR and the Majority Text. The TR text I consulted is Trinitarian Bible Society (1976) text from London and the MT text is the Nestle-Aland (2002 printing).
I also checked the Clementine Vulgate (which is closest to Jerome's vulgate): verse 56: "Caro enim mea vere est cibus: et sanguis meus, vere est potus." So it is in the Clementine. It is also in the newest Vatican Vulgate: verse 55: "Caro enim mea verus est cibus, et sanguis meus verus est potus."
This seems so obvious that I can't claim to know what Iscool is driving at here.
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.