A Catholic explanation of John 6

[VociMike]

 

[BrianH]

It appears that Ignatius was not the only ECF who believed in the Real Presence (unless of course, these writing are nothing but forgeries as well).

I am a patient person. I will simply refer you to my now two previous posts which address this…

 

[RNRobert]

Dang it runandsew, you beat me to it!

 

[runandsew]

Runandsew. I have granted the 150 AD. I have not granted the Ignatius, although ONE person contending this 70 years later would not surprise me. Scripture clearly records how the church at Corinth had already messed it up only 20 years later!

And Paul wrote to them about this, you can see this in the Bible, but you don’t see any writings refuting the teaching of the real presence.
And you don’t see any writings refuting the teaching of the real presence because it was widely accepted by the Church.

And it was widely accepted by the Church because it is one of the Sacred Traditions passed down from the Apostles.

 

[Nicene]

120 years, thats a little more than a few

 

[BrianH]

BrianH;1901282:

Simply claiming “argument from silence” doesn’t cut it, since I am not making a logical argument but an historical one. Arguing from silence certainly does play a part in the evidence-gathering process when one is asserting historical hypotheses, especially when one is talking about an organization with millions of members spread out over millions of square miles.

It cuts it. From 30 AD to 150 AD, maybe 107 AD but one cannot be sure, there is nothing to say how the church interpreted it. Do we agree on that statement?

 

[BrianH]

BrianH;1901282:

Actually it would have to be 60 years (less than one persons lifetime) then because Jesus died in 33 A.D.

However please show us the opposite tradition where the symbolic rendering is espouced by the early christians. There must be documentation somewhere>

Or is it an argument from silence?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

I am willing to grant Ignatius if you can tell me WHEN this letter was found, where, etc, if it is 300 or 400 years later and even Catholic scholars admit forgeries for some of his letters…I do not see how I can. I have read the same links over and over but nothing to tell me exact details, which is not too much to ask. Does not matter if it is 10 years though I suppose , when you get it wrong, it is wrong…

 

[NotWorthy]

The Holy Spirit dwells inside of us from the moment that we are baptized.
No the Holy Spirit does not leave us in sin, but we seperate ourselves from God.
We need to recieve the Eucharist to recieve the Graces which this sacrament (name removed by moderator)arts in us.

But I am not positive on all this, I could be wrong, and probably I am.

The Holy Spirit is infused in our soul any time we receive Sanctifying Grace.

When we commit mortal sin, we basically separate ourselves from God, in other words, the Holy Spirit no longer dwells within us for we are now a corrupt temple. The infusion of Grace can come from numerous ways, BUT the church teaches that in Confession and the Eucharist we receive the Holy Spirit. Again, they are not the ONLY way to receive His graces.

This little “out” that I just talked about helps to explain how Non-Catholic Christians can still receive the Grace that helps them get to heaven.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Wrong.

The disciples are saying THEY do not understand it. How can you say it did not require further explaining?

The actual words of the text indicate not that they did not “understand” but that they would not “accept” them."On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” (NIV)“Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” (KJV)"Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (RSV-CE)"Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” (NAB)Even if you claim the interpretation that His disciples did not understand Him, Jesus would have had the moral obligation to clarity and correct their misunderstanding so that none would be lost. Unfortunately, many no longer followed him after this. (John 6:66)

This he could not “clarify” a misunderstandig where there was non. The Jews and His disciples understood the literal meaning and rejected it because they judged according to the flesh or carnal mind.

That’s why Jesus then put the question directly to the Twelve. Peter answered for them all, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

They didn’t understand, either, at that moment just as they didn’t understand what “rising from the dead” (Mark 9:10) meant initially. But it all became clear at the Last Supper.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

The Holy Spirit dwells inside of us from the moment that we are baptized.
No the Holy Spirit does not leave us in sin, but we seperate ourselves from God.
We need to recieve the Eucharist to recieve the Graces which this sacrament (name removed by moderator)arts in us.

But I am not positive on all this, I could be wrong, and probably I am.

Thank you for answering if even if you think you are wrong. I also dont understand how you get grace by receiving /doing a sacrement. Is their biblical evidence for this. I have been looking but I cant find any. Maybe somone can point me to some.

 

[Nicene]

Nicene;1901306:

You said:

You infer that Jesus needed to clarify further and that he did so somewhere. So I will post it again, show us the verses beyond v71 where he does so:

60: Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can UNDERSTAND it?”

And what did they do when he didn’t further explain it to them? Yep, they walked away.

Right here. My flesh(specifically eating it like he has previously talked about, not his death) is of no avail. The words are spiritual and they will give you life. Eternal life.

Actually it is their flesh that is no avail that he is talking about, their words are of the flesh. Jesus words are of Spirit and life, the ones they cannot accept. And what are the words of spirit and life they could not accept?:

Jn 6:56: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

God has sent him, he is the Holy One of God. Rather hard for the Jews to accept.

So you are saying they had no problem at all with Jesus saying you must eat my flesh, even though that is the context of their refusal:

Jn 6:56: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
57: As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
58: This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."
59: This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper’na-um.
60: Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

No offense Brian, but you are going to have to rearrange the gospel to make it say anything different.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[ALLFORHIM]

The Holy Spirit is infused in our soul any time we receive Sanctifying Grace.

When we commit mortal sin, we basically separate ourselves from God, in other words, the Holy Spirit no longer dwells within us for we are now a corrupt temple. The infusion of Grace can come from numerous ways, BUT the church teaches that in Confession and the Eucharist we receive the Holy Spirit. Again, they are not the ONLY way to receive His graces.

This little “out” that I just talked about helps to explain how Non-Catholic Christians can still receive the Grace that helps them get to heaven.

Hi Notworthy,
Are you running yet?
Can you answer my specific questions that I posted above before Runsadew answered me.

 

[BrianH]

The actual words of the text indicate not that they did not “understand” but that they would not “accept” them.

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” (NIV)

“Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” (KJV)

Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (RSV-CE)

Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” (NAB)

Even if you claim the interpretation that His disciples did not understand Him, Jesus would have had the moral obligation to clarity and correct their misunderstanding so that none would be lost.

This he could not do - because there was not misunderstanding.

Jesus did clarify, I am one lone protestor and I do not have time to repeat what I am saying!

 

[runandsew]

It cuts it. From 30 AD to 150 AD, maybe 107 AD but one cannot be sure, there is nothing to say how the church interpreted it. Do we agree on that statement?

Well I don’t agree!!!
I would agree with you, except for that pesky Sacred Tradition which was passed down from the Apostles themselves. Where do you think these Church fathers came up with their interpretation? They weren’t coming up with some exegesis interpretation of Scripture, they were countering the false teachings of their times. There was error, like you have referred to in your post, but it was on the side of claiming that the Eucharist was only symbolic. The Church Fathers interpret scripture in light of the Tradition which was passed on down to them, and used understanding of scripture to counter the errors of the heretics which denied the real presence.

 

[NotWorthy]

Read Peter in Acts 2:38 - Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

 

[BrianH]

He did explain it further.

Actually it is their flesh that is no avail that he is talking about, their words are of the flesh. Jesus words are of Spirit and life

, the ones they cannot accept. And what are the words of spirit and life they could not accept?:

Jn 6:56: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

Oh…well I suppose one can randomly pick that for the answer to your question…
Actually that IS part of the total answer. Quite selective in my view

So you are saying they had no problem at all with Jesus saying you must eat my flesh, even though that is the context of their refusal:

No, never said that. They had a problem, you bet.
That was explained though and the chief problem was who he said he was in comparision to the role they perceived based upon their importance(manna reference etc).

No offense Brian, but you are going to have to rearrange the gospel to make it say anything different.

Those Catholic glasses are heavily tinted
No offense…really

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Read Peter in Acts 2:38 - Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

How is this referring to the eucharist or are you trying to prove something else.

 

[NotWorthy]

Read Peter in Acts 2:38 - Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

Compare Peter’s Words with Ezekiel’s in chapter 36:
I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you and make you live by my statutes, careful to observe my decrees. You shall live in the land I gave your fathers; you shall be my people, and I will be your God. I will save you from all your impurities.

 

[BrianH]

Well I don’t agree!!!
I would agree with you, except for that pesky Sacred Tradition which was passed down from the Apostles themselves.

Fair enough. I understand your viewpoint.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi Notworthy,
Are you running yet?
Can you answer my specific questions that I posted above before Runsadew answered me.

Let’s call it “Hobbling quickly”.

See my post 167, where I replied to Runandsew