Assurance of Salvation (Part II)

[guanophore]

CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.-lf any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.

This is a restatement of what has been handed down to us from the Apostles.

The decrees held for more than three centuries until the next (Vatican) council. I believe the anathemas are towards any Christian-be they Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant who think contrary to the dogmas. The hope was that the decrees would be published and enforced though out the Empire.

Dogmatic decrees form ecumenical councils do not “expire”. They are still just as valid today as they were when they were formed, and as the doctrine was when it was once for all passed down to the church from the Apostles.

There WERE NO Protestants when the dogmas were made. Of course they need to be published everywhere there are Catholics. The purpose of them is to prevent Catholics from falling away from the One Faith.

Don’t think so .The council was intended at first to try to unify the kingdom/church, including the Lutherans. Luther was invited. I believe a few German (Lutheran) princes were there.

The Church constantly invites those who have fallen into heresy or apostasy to return to the One Faith.

Not sure what your point is. The council with it’s “cannons” was a repudiation of any Protestant thought. It did not operate in a vacuum.

No, there is plenty of “protestant thought” that does not represent heresy. Protestants, for the most part, have retained the Aposotlic faith in most areas. For example, they accept the Trinity, the hypostatic union, and the Holy Scriptures as inspired and inerrant. These are all things they received through the Apostolic succession.

I agree, though, no councils combating heresies operate in a vaccuum. The Church has the duty to preserve the One Faith. She must also feed and care for the flock, and make sure the flock does not eat poisoned plants.

 

[guanophore]

Good point ,which is why I think the council still speaks strongly to differing views today, in or out of CC.

Yes. The Church has the duty to uphold the Truth, no matter how unpoplular it is.

You yourself said, though not totally correct, that all Christians back then were Catholic ( “only Catholics,Jews, and pagans”).

They were considered Catholic, or fallen away from the One Faith. Previously, all those who held such heterodox views were considered heretics, or apostates. Having such views as the Reformers meant that communion with the One Church was broken. Since they had departed from the One Faith, they were no longer considered in right relationship with the One Body of Christ, the Church.

So we sprang out of Catholicism, hence we are not ignorant of warnings and anathemas of cannons.

Actually, most Protestants do not know that their faith is defined by how much, and which parts of the Apostolic faith they reject. And most are quite ignorant of the warnings and anathemas. A “cannon” in a device used to forcefully direct weapons of warfare at others. The Church does not have the duty to fire upon those who reject the faith.

A “canon” means a rule or a standard of measurement. The Church has the duty to clarify the standards of what represents the One Faith, and what does not.

Of course you could say if you are second generation Protestant then maybe it does not apply. But Protestants were there at the council, though not as equals and could not vote.

Equal in dignity, though not equal in doctrine. does it make any sense to allow someone who has rejected the doctrines of the faith have a say in how dogmatic proclamations should be worded?

That is like saying a person who has rejected the fundamental mission statements of the United Nations have a say in how their initiatives around the world should be defined.

True that by the third portion of council there presence was minimal at best. Most attendees were Italian and then Spanish. Anyways, understand what you are putting forth, that it only applies to Catholics, but it is not hard to see that the cannons, not dogma, were directed toward Protestant "thought".

No, the “canon” or “rule” of faith was committed to the Church by the Apostles “once for all”. The Church holds that the public revelation was closed at the death of the last apostle. The dogmas are a way of defining and explaining those canons or rules of faith to present societal problems. They are directed against error.

To say they don't apply might be like saying the bible doesn't apply to anyone outside CC because it is a CC book. Maybe. Just some humble thoughts. It all began with taking Jesus's words literally about "eating" and it's consequences also, to be consistent.

Yes, I agree. The Truth is the Truth, whether most people reject it, or not.

 

[guanophore]

I believe he was already excommunicated and not sure if you are still Catholic after excommunication. Otherwise, no extra charge for the laughter. It is good for the soul.

Excommunication just means that the person has done something to remove themselves from communion with the Church. Fr… Martin chose to embrace heresies, and was willfully disobedient to the spiritual authorities placed over him by God, removing himself from good standing. It does not make him a non-Catholic, just a Catholic in a state of heresy.

He also speaks of a "figure". He also speaks of not eating with "mouth". He says Peter ate by faith right there in John 6. What would be nice, and I have never seen it, is to see all his writings together on the topic.He does stress a real presence, just think other communion views are in harmony also.

You are right, Augustine, thoroughly Catholic, believed in the Real Presence (at that time it was not called “transubstantiation”). He also describes communion in metaphorical/spiritual terms. What happens on the spiritual plane is not “unreal” or “symbolic” just because it is not tangible. We do receive Christ spiritually as well as physicially, and we need to understand what is happening on a spiritual plane. Jesus said “this is my Body” so we take Him at HIs word.

Well be careful, for there have been "councilarists" who state councils have ultimate authority, when in fact it is the Pope who does in CC.

You have a misunderstanding about the levels of authority in the CC. Besides, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and carries the unique Petrine responsibility to feed and care for the flock. The councils do not compete somehow with the Pope. There was nothing done in the Council of Trent that the Pope did not approve.

Amen. I believe in that.
It is valid for all. No, we are in communion to the point we embrace common doctrines, universal doctrines, The Nicene Creed is quite universal.

Yes. Unity emanates from adherance to the Truth. All non-Catholics who still embrace the Truth revealed to mankind by God have unity with the One Church, though it may be imperfect.

The problem with using the Nicean Creed is that the Reformers redefined some of the language, so that it does not meant to them what it meant to those who composed it.

You are right that there are many “catholics” who have lost their catholicity, just like Martin Luther did.

I think you will need to study the nature of the memorial. It is an anamnesis, patterned after the Passover. The passover meal was “real”. The real lamb was slain and eaten. Yes, it was done as a “symbol” of the exodus, but that did not make it less “real”. The Passover during which the Eucharist was instituted was a “real” meal, and the bread He held in his hands and consecrated by saying “this IS MY BODY” was Himself. "Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, “This is My Body.” (Augustine).

 

[pocohombre]

poco,

Where are your references? No valid references - it is then just an opinion.

Twice, were Protestants given sage conduct and invited to attend and voice their position at the Council of Trent:

13th Session

Chapter VIII

DECREE FOR POSTPONING THE DEFINITION OF FOUR ARTICLES TOUCHING THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST, AND FOR GIVING A SAFE-CONDUCT TO PROTESTANTS

SAFE-CONDUCT GRANTED TO PROTESTANTS

And then during the 15th Session:

DECREE FOR PROROGUING THE SESSION

And then again, during the 15th Session:

SAFE-CONDUCT GIVEN TO THE PROTESTANTS

Here’s the entire Council of Trent online

I have not seen a credible reference to Protestant attendance during the Council of Trent.

Peace,

Jose

What about 1-15 session? Did state last sessions minimal and as you point out more accurately, not at all.

 

[brb3]

Poco…

Several verses for u to interpret. What did Jesus mean in John 6 when he said—

" Do you take offense at this ? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and life."

 

[Isaiah45_9]

What about 1-15 session? Did state last sessions minimal and as you point out more accurately, not at all.

Lost me here.

Do your research and present you position. Don’t just post to post…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Excellent Jose…

Documents on Reformation, Chp. 8 …in your link above !!

Addresses the Churches desire to let all attend. Yes, wonder how many did ? Probably some, …they even allowed to bring/send their Counsel with them !!
No trap, to arrest them was set.

Maybe some did attend , unless we are shown proof, none did

And not only attend, but actually present their position(s).

 

[pocohombre]

Poco…

Several verses for u to interpret. What did Jesus mean in John 6 when he said—

" Do you take offense at this ? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and life."

Perhaps the disciples weren’t stupid and did not think they had to eat an arm or a leg of Jesus as Augustine put forth (no source other than Aug.quote on one of posts above). Perhaps they saw it as symbolic, but of what -maybe his death. For sure Jesus was not going to sit on the davidic throne right away. For sure Jesus was implying His sacrificial death-but hey He could resurrect. Anyways, the statement of his ascension would have left them even more dumbfounded than just His death. I believe Jesus was trying to show them their error, their carnality. I liken it to what Jesus asked if it is easier to do say you are healed or say you are forgiven ? ( you can see a healing but forgiveness? ) . Likewise Jesus could of said follow me even if I am crucified , I am the sacrificial Lamb. Instead he said you must eat Him. Would the Jews have followed Moses if he had told them he would die, disappear- a"lost" leader" before the Exodus even began ? A lot of talk , but basically they didn’t believe He was the Christ, the sacrificial lamb. Jesus shook his head and said, “Man, you can’t even get to first base(Calvary), much less second base- my ascension”.

 

[pocohombre]

Lost me here.

Do your research and present you position. Don’t just post to post…

Sorry.I meant second session -it has been reported some protestanrs were present, but had no opportunity to present their views( may I add, they were very well known anyways). Some say German Catholic princes requested there attendance, as did Emperor. Have not read anywhere that any attended first session or third.
So I will apologize and backtrack ,take back that protestants were participants at Council. It was definitely a Catholic council. Luther was the catalyst, the seed planter for it. In that I was correct. By the time Trent began, it was strictly Catholic, the divide having been too established with several failures at any reconnection.

 

[pocohombre]

You are right, Augustine, thoroughly Catholic, believed in the Real Presence (at that time it was not called “transubstantiation”). He also describes communion in metaphorical/spiritual terms. What happens on the spiritual plane is not “unreal” or “symbolic” just because it is not tangible. We do receive Christ spiritually as well as physically, and we need to understand what is happening on a spiritual plane. Jesus said “this is my Body” so we take Him at HIs word.

Somebody said consubstantiation does not make sense, the elements being two things at the same time, but when Jesus said this is my body, there was bread and his real body, holding the bread (as Aug.quotes says)- two bodies. Some say it is pure “token”, and the obvious is to be taken.

Several verses for u to interpret. What did Jesus mean in John 6 when he said—

" Do you take offense at this ? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.

Perhaps the departing disciples weren’t stupid and did not think they had to eat an arm or a leg of Jesus as Augustine put forth (no source other than Aug.quote on one of posts above). Perhaps they saw it as symbolic, but of what -maybe his death. For sure Jesus was not going to sit on the davidic throne right away. For sure Jesus was implying His sacrificial death-but hey He could resurrect. Anyways, the statement of his ascension would have left them even more dumbfounded than just His death. I believe Jesus was trying to show them their error, their carnality. I liken it to what Jesus asked if it is easier to do say you are healed or say you are forgiven ? ( you can see a healing but forgiveness? ) . Likewise Jesus could of said follow me even if I am crucified , I am the sacrificial Lamb. Instead he said you must eat Him. Would the Jews have followed Moses if he had told them he would die, disappear- a"lost" leader" before the Exodus even began ? A lot of talk , but basically they didn’t believe He was the Christ, the sacrificial lamb. Jesus shook his head and said, “Man, you can’t even get to first base(Calvary), much less second base- my ascension”.

You have a misunderstanding about the levels of authority in the CC. Besides, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and carries the unique Petrine responsibility to feed and care for the flock. The councils do not compete somehow with the Pope.

Some say church governance is not a "democracy,yet why is it that the pope has more bishops/cardinals that support him, are chosen by him,cardinalized by him,and thruout much history the voters were overwhelmingly Italian ? The Council of Constance 1414 decreed Sacosancta-rule by councils(as Jerusalem etc). Was this overturned by another council-Trent-which resettled the matter making the pope -supreme bishop/Vicar ?? Is this an example of one council changing,contradicting another that Luther talked of ? Don’t know for sure. Could be a bunch of Protestant propaganda. Apparently concilarism was decreed at one point though. Would have to read up on it more.

There was nothing done in the Council of Trent that the Pope did not approve.

Is it true that the majority of voters were bishops from Italy, and that the pope appoints cardinals, and majority are Italian . Would a Protestant be wrong in seeing the possible conflict of interest in that time period. I read that protestants had two demands if they were to attend Trent council, that bishops relinquish this conflict of interests to Rome, that they act independently of his authority. It seemed strange to me that Luther asked to be brought to a "council’ instead of the pope, but it makes sense if a century before Sacrosancta was declared/decreed.

I think you will need to study the nature of the memorial. It is an anamnesis, patterned after the Passover. The passover meal was “real”. The real lamb was slain and eaten. Yes, it was done as a “symbol” of the exodus, but that did not make it less “real”. The Passover during which the Eucharist was instituted was a “real” meal, and the bread He held in his hands and consecrated by saying “this IS MY BODY” was Himself. "Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, “This is My Body.” (Augustine).

The second Jewish passover -first one out of Egypt- tokened the first passover . They did not eat the same lamb etc that they ate in Egypt. The passover was first and foremost a memorial with tokens .Yes we eat the tokens.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Sorry.I meant second session -it has been reported some protestanrs were present, but had no opportunity to present their views( may I add, they were very well known anyways).

“Dicen por ahi” doesn’t work bro’. Where are the sources for this? Who reported this? Who were very well known?

Some say German Catholic princes requested there attendance, as did Emperor. Have not read anywhere that any attended first session or third.

Who is “some”? What German Catholic Princes? What Emperor?

It was definitely a Catholic council.

the divide having been too established with several failures at any reconnection.

Indeed… and both were just as guilty for it…

 

[pocohombre]

Just laughed a bit .In my speed reading I thought you were giving me Latin as is customary with Catholics .But Spanish is close. No, the “views”, the protestant views were very well known by the Jesuits especially and most Council attendees. Have not seen any list of attendees of the three sessions. Apparently the third would be a very long list .

Who is “some”? What German Catholic Princes? What Emperor?

It was Charles as Empereor and it was Catholic German Bishops who may have wanted their presence. There were German bishops there weren’t there?

Indeed… and both were just as guilty for it…

]Thank you. Agreed -maybe we have been reading similar sources.

 

[guanophore]

 Perhaps the disciples weren't stupid and did not think they had to eat an arm or a leg of Jesus as Augustine put forth (no source other than Aug.quote on one of posts above).

It is not about being “stupid”. Jesus was clear that he was talking about physically eating. This is what upset the Jews. To clarify, he added more emphasis as he encountered resistance.

He starts with calling HImself the bread of heaven that must be “phago” (eaten).

Then in 6:54 he says “trogo” which communicates the idea of a crunching sound; to gnaw or chew, i.e. to physically crunch during eating. This shift took away any sense of a metaphor or symbolic meaning. The word “sarx” (physical flesh) is used when He says “my flesh is true food”. To gnaw or “crunch” on flesh. This is what offended the Jews. Why would they have been offended by a metaphor? They gave Him a chance to make it metaphorical, but instead, he made it more physical.

perhaps they saw it as symbolic, but of what -maybe his death.

If this were the case, those disciples would not have left Him. They were offended because it was not symbolic. They knew He was talking about his “sarx” and his “aima” (blood)… They had been taught never to drink blood, for the life of the being is in the blood.

Gen 9:3-5
I give you everything. 4 Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life.

I believe Jesus was trying to show them their error, their carnality.

I agree. He was saying that the natural human (carnal) mind cannot grasp the concept of the real presence. It is something that can only be apprehended with the spiritual mind. The flesh is of no avail.

Likewise Jesus could of said follow me even if I am crucified , I am the sacrificial Lamb. Instead he said you must eat Him. Would the Jews have followed Moses if he had told them he would die, disappear- a"lost" leader" before the Exodus even began ? A lot of talk , but basically they didn’t believe He was the Christ, the sacrificial lamb. Jesus shook his head and said, “Man, you can’t even get to first base(Calvary), much less second base- my ascension”.

I agree, but that was not the only reason He was teaching about the real presence in the Eucharist. He was planning to commune with HIs disciples through it after HIs resurrection, and use it to reveal HImself to them.

Luke 24:30-32
30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight.

In joining with Him in the Body and Blood, our eyes are opened to recognize Him.

 

[pocohombre]

No, the “canon” or “rule” of faith was committed to the Church by the Apostles “once for all”. The Church holds that the public revelation was closed at the death of the last apostle. The dogmas are a way of defining and explaining those canons or rules of faith to present societal problems. They are directed against error.

 

[guanophore]

 Somebody said consubstantiation does not make sense, the elements being two things at the same time, but when Jesus said this is my body, there was bread and his real body, holding the bread (as Aug.quotes says)- two bodies. Some say it is pure "token", and the obvious is to be taken.

Yes, some say that, but when reading John 6, it seems quite clear that Jesus was talking about physically eating his “sarx” and drinking His 'aima". He used graphic language to clarify what He meant. The question stands:

John 6:52
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

His disciples understood that He was really present through the elements of bread and wine, after they were consecrated.

Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Augustine all speak to the Real Presence. Justin Martyr says “we have been taught”. Taught by the Bishops, who were taught by the Apostles, who were taught by Jesus Christ. .

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

By 110, barely a decade after the Gospel of John was written we have testimony that the Apostolic teaching was that those who denied the real presence were outside of communion with the One Church founded by Christ.

Perhaps the departing disciples weren’t stupid and did not think they had to eat an arm or a leg of Jesus as Augustine put forth (no source other than Aug.quote on one of posts above).

They were not stupid. They understood He was talking about real flesh and real blood. This is the very thing that was offensive. They did not have the faith of the Apostles that understanding would come later. Peter wanted to leave, but realized there was nowhere else to go.

Some say church governance is not a "democracy,yet why is it that the pope has more bishops/cardinals that support him, are chosen by him,cardinalized by him,and thruout much history the voters were overwhelmingly Italian ?

It is not a democracy. The Bishops choose from among themselves who will serve as the successor of Peter. The composition (ethnic and nationality) of the college of cardinals has been affected by politics, economics wars, disease, transportation problems and everything else that affects the gathering of people together. At present we are fortunate to have few impediments in these matters, and as you can see, habemos papam from Argentina!

Are you changing the subject because you are admitting that the early Christians believed in the REal presence?

The Council of Constance 1414 decreed Sacosancta-rule by councils(as Jerusalem etc). Was this overturned by another council-Trent-which resettled the matter making the pope -supreme bishop/Vicar ?? Is this an example of one council changing,contradicting another that Luther talked of ? Don't know for sure. Could be a bunch of Protestant propaganda. Apparently concilarism was decreed at one point though. Would have to read up on it more.

How about one thing at a time?

Is it true that the majority of voters were bishops from Italy, and that the pope appoints cardinals, and majority are Italian.

Where are you getting your information on this? Today’s cardinals have been appointe by JPII and BXVI. JPII was Polish, and B was German!

Would a Protestant be wrong in seeing the possible conflict of interest in that time period.

No, there have been plenty of politics in the curia and conflicts of interest. It is for these reasons that God had to give the HS to the Church to lead us into “all Truth”. Without it, the Church would have collapsed under the frailties of man long ago.

I read that protestants had two demands if they were to attend Trent council, that bishops relinquish this conflict of interests to Rome, that they act independently of his authority. It seemed strange to me that Luther asked to be brought to a "council’ instead of the pope, but it makes sense if a century before Sacrosancta was declared/decreed.

I would not want to meet either with anyone who said the stuff about me that Leo said about Luther!

I am sure Luther thought he would be better able to make his case in a council. I know he was disappointed when he could not.

The second Jewish passover -first one out of Egypt- tokened the first passover . They did not eat the same lamb etc that they ate in Egypt. The passover was first and foremost a memorial with tokens .Yes we eat the tokens.

You are inventing a word here that is not in Scripture or in the Early writings. They are never called such things except by those persons labelled by the successors of the Apostles as heretics or pagans. Ignatius does not say Jesus held “tokens” in his hands, but Himself!

 

[pocohombre]

It is not about being “stupid”. Jesus was clear that he was talking about physically eating. This is what upset the Jews. To clarify, he added more emphasis as he encountered resistance.

He starts with calling HImself the bread of heaven that must be “phago” (eaten).
Then in 6:54 he says “trogo” which communicates the idea of a crunching sound; to gnaw or chew, i.e. to physically crunch during eating. This shift took away any sense of a metaphor or symbolic meaning. The word “sarx” (physical flesh) is used when He says “my flesh is true food”. To gnaw or “crunch” on flesh. This is what offended the Jews. Why would they have been offended by a metaphor? They gave Him a chance to make it metaphorical, but instead, he made it more physical.
If this were the case, those disciples would not have left Him. They were offended because it was not symbolic. They knew He was talking about his “sarx” and his “aima” (blood)… They had been taught never to drink blood, for the life of the being is in the blood.

 

[brb3]

Perhaps the disciples weren’t stupid and did not think they had to eat an arm or a leg of Jesus as Augustine put forth (no source other than Aug.quote on one of posts above). Perhaps they saw it as symbolic, but of what -maybe his death. For sure Jesus was not going to sit on the davidic throne right away. For sure Jesus was implying His sacrificial death-but hey He could resurrect. Anyways, the statement of his ascension would have left them even more dumbfounded than just His death. I believe Jesus was trying to show them their error, their carnality. I liken it to what Jesus asked if it is easier to do say you are healed or say you are forgiven ? ( you can see a healing but forgiveness? ) . Likewise Jesus could of said follow me even if I am crucified , I am the sacrificial Lamb. Instead he said you must eat Him. Would the Jews have followed Moses if he had told them he would die, disappear- a"lost" leader" before the Exodus even began ? A lot of talk , but basically they didn’t believe He was the Christ, the sacrificial lamb. Jesus shook his head and said, “Man, you can’t even get to first base(Calvary), much less second base- my ascension”.

Nope …way off base here.

I see u haven’t finished viewing the Pitre Video. Find 50 more minutes in your busy week …finish what u started, and u will have another, fuller understanding of John 6.

 

[guanophore]

Sorry, thought "dogma' was the actual doctrine as given by apostles

Dogma is a modern proclaimation or definition of an actual doctrine given by the Apostles. The hypostatic union, Trinity, Theotokos and contents of Scripture are dogmas.

while cannon was what it is not and i have been speaking in “trent” terms.

This is a cannon:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I think what you are referring to with Trent is a “canon” or rule. One is the contents of Scripture. The “canon” of Scripture is the authorative collection of books approved by the Church.

Weren’t the "cannons’ the negative side of dogma in trent?

No. A canon is just a rule or a standard used. The anathemas are the negative side of the dogmas.

For instance dogma is the Lord God is One

That would be a doctrine, since it came direct from the Apostles. Where Trinity, a word not found in the Bible, is a dogma, which defines that the Lord God is on, in 3 persons.

,while cannon might state anyone who says there are many Gods and not one , let him be anathema as an example(not found in trent ,I think)

Such statements are made based upon dogmas and doctrines. This is the form used by the Apostles.

Paul even uses it for himself:

Rom 9:3-4
3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh.

The Gk here is “anathema”, meaning cut off from Christ.

1 Cor 16:22
22 Let anyone be accursed who has no love for the Lord.

Gal 1:8-9
But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!

This is the format used by all the councils since the first on described in Acts.

This reference in Gal, by the way, is the reason that the Reformers’ “gospels” needed be rejected. The innovative doctrines of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and those who have followed in their footsteps were substantially different than those handed down to us from the Apostles. Accepting them would have left those of Aposotlic faith “accursed” or separated from Christ as He was handed down from the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

Have to find post but BRB3 has nice site talking of jewish passover and the mindset of Jews in this regard. They should have understood it terms of Passover, as their was an expectancy for the new one-they just didn't believe he was the new Moses, the messiah .

Yes, a great site. But there is no context of Passover in John 6. There would be no reason for the Jews to hear what Jesus was saying in that context. On the contrary, Jesus brings in the context of of Moses and the manna from heaven.

I don’t think the disciples understood at Passover, either. There was a lot they did not understand until later. For all we know, He had to spend the 40 days after His resurrection explaining it all again!

  Jesus says right there in john  ,they did not believe in Him "from the beginning" not after the eating bit. John does not say they believed in Him until the eating part, then they dibelieved . They disbelieved from the beginning and were shown this, needfully, by the superfluos eating. Did not Jesus see the heart of his audience(s),and many times brought the person to the brink of of his faith to show their lack of it (the rich young ruler).....

No, it does not say that.

John 6:60-65

When many of** his disciples **heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” 61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But among you there are some who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him. 65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.”

Some mocked, some scoffed, and some believed. In fact, it was the words about chewing and gnawing (crunching) that separated the faithful from those who were not.He said these things about His Body and Blood to the believers and non-believers together.

Don’t think it was cannibalism that turned them off-they were Jews, yet they did not properly process it within their own Jewish context.

So I should accept your opinion, rather than the inspired text?

**John 6:66-67 “Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.” **

He wasnt’ talking about cannabalism, but His resurected Body and Blood. But I agree, they didn’t "get’ it. But neither did the Apostles. They only stayed by faith, not by understanding.

Here the recognition of the breaking of bread and of Jesus thru it is possible with with several views of RP, including symbolic elements.

I do agree there are symbolic elements. They exist together with the Apostolic doctrine of the Real Presence.

The other Scripture is in ICor 11:27-29

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves.

How does one answer for that which is not present? How does one “symbolically” answer for someones Body and blood?

 

[brb3]

Poco …

The Jews believed the Messiah would restore to them the Manna from Heaven. That was the proof standard they were looking for. So, when Jesus multiplied the boy’s bread & fish lunch into a meal for 5000…that got their attention big-time. Thats when they asked Jesus if he would restore the Manna to them. So, Christ gives them John 6, making connection of himself as the Manna. They were stumped …asking in essence “how does your earthly, fleshy body connect us to the Manna from Heaven ----( that the New Moses is to bring us). So, Christ answers " what if you saw me ascending to Heaven?”.

But, they didn’t perceive that the SPIRIT of God (resurrected Jesus) could avail them the True New Covenant heavenly Manna bread …via The True Presence Eucharist. But, after the Lord’s Supper & Christ death, Resurrection, & Ascension…the New Moses of the New Passover who could bring them the Eucharist Manna was fully recognized. Needed by all Christians, during they sojourn ‘perseverance’ in the wilderness, until their deaths and crossing of Jordan into the PromiseLand/ Kingdom.