John 6 and Eucharist?

[bene7]

ncgolf:

How do you reconcile your personal interpretation with 2 Peter 1 20:21. Peter says it is not a matter of personal interpretation but rather humans moved by the Holy Spirit under the influence of God. That is the legacy of our Catholic saints.

Actually, you’ve been duped by the hierarchy of your church by the interpretation they’ve provided for you.

Peter is not at all prohibiting individuals from interpreting Scripture. The context is about “prophecy,” not God’s written Word in general. He’s not, in context, talking about “interpretation,” but actually “authentication” of the prophetic Word (see vs. 19).

The Gospel message of Peter (and the other Apostles) through which is made known to us the power and coming of the Lord, was not a cleverly devised tale made up by them. But they were, in fact, eyewitnesses of His majesty (1:16), i.e., the Transfiguration (1:18). And the same God who spoke to them that day on the mountain also spoke through the O.T. prophets concerning the coming of Messiah they eyewitenessed. Hence, the prophetic word was made more sure to them.

What Peter is saying in verses 20 and 21 is a consistent and necessary conclusion to what he stated in the previous verse, i.e., that we can rely on the prophetic word because behind its human authors is God Himself. The same God who spoke to them concerning His Son on the Mountain. The O.T. prophets who, through their word, predicted the coming of Messiah, didn’t make up what they wrote. They did not arbitrarily unravel it, but those men, moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke from God. The SAME GOD who spoke to Peter and his companions on the Mt. of Transfiguration concerning His Son.

“But,” Peter goes on to say in 2:1, “FALSE PROPHETS also arose from among the people," just as there will be FALSE TEACHERS among you (i.e., in the Church), who will secretly introduce destructive heresies…”

No, nc, Peter was not at all prohibiting individuals from interpreting the Scriptures. That’s not even remotely close to what he was talking about in context. That itself is a false teaching.

Rome’s interpretation certainly is self-serving, but that interpretation does injustice to what Peter was actually communicating.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

And your point is…?

You have as stilted a view of non-catholics, and their churches, as you claim non-catholics have of you, and your church.

I think the point is that he was a highly educated, committed non-Catholic who discovered Truth in the Catholic Church despite his bias to remain outside of it. This is in contrast to the seemingly endless good-hearted folks who knew nothing of the Catholic faith until they left it and were “educated” about it by the folks in their new faith tradition and who now feel that they know it all regarding the Catholic Faith.

sandusky:
You forget that my church lineage is the same as yours, until the reformation, which I support, or I wouldn’t be where I am. You fail to recognize that my church lineage, as well as yours, goes back 2,000 years. Unfortunately, you have never been taught that. You have been taught that the churches of today are only some 500 years old, but they are not. There was no new messiah that came along 500 years ago. Dig? I do not reject the major councils.

Boy, that is treading on thin ice. The major councils as defined by whom? Your lineage goes back to whom exactly and how exactly? And the evidence of this would be found where?

sandusky:

The ECFs are as much my theological ancestors as they are yours. We disagree in many areas with the understanding of their writings. Where your church has strayed from scripture, is where I stray from your church.

Sounds good, but you admit to not having a comprehensive knowledge of the ECFs in the following paragraphs - that would make your ability to determine whom is straying from Scripture somewhat subjective.

sandusky:

I think that you haven’t read the ECFs carefully, if at all, with the exception of excerpts provided by others in an apologetic format. I find that when I go to ECF sources, I come away with a completely different understanding than you.

Sounds good, but you admit to not having a comprehensive knowledge of the ECFs in the following paragraphs - that would make your ability to determine whom is straying from an understanding of them somewhat subjective.

sandusky:

That’s why I am going to read them for myself, from beginning to end, for as long it takes. And I am certain I will remain in the church that I am in, because its basis of authority is scripture alone.

Im motivated to do the same! But Im not afraid to do so with an open mind - I have no fear that I will be changing churches and I fully expect that this pursuit will strengthen my faith to remain in the church I am in, but to claim that I am “certain” would be a lie - or at least a misuse of the term “certain” - since I cannot possibly know the future. It also fails to humble oneself to the possibility that they lack important perspective and prevents true receptivity of that knowledge when they do encounter it.

I wish you well

Phil

 

[Mickey]

sandusky:

You forget that my church lineage is the same as yours, until the reformation, which I support, or I wouldn’t be where I am. You fail to recognize that my church lineage, as well as yours, goes back 2,000 years.
The ECFs are as much my theological ancestors as they are yours.

Right on Sandusky! Your ancestors are Catholic!
But here is the dilemma: For the most part, the reformation decided to throw out much of Sacred Tradition. So which reformer did you follow? It was not Luther because he believed in the Real Presence and had a strong devotion to the blessed virgin Mary. Who did you follow Sandusky? I am not saying this facetiously–I am truly curious.

 

[bene7]

mercygate:

Duh. It has been clarified many times in this thread that the ambiguity of the “real presence” required clarification in an attempt to understand the character of the real presence, and that the term “transubstantiation” was coined in the early 13th Century as a way of describing the way in which the essential Body of Christ becomes present under the forms (accidents) of bread and wine. Scholasticism one-oh-one. The theology of transubstantiation in no way contradicts the doctrine of the real presence.

After all this time, we would insult you if we did not expect you to have absorbed a basic understanding of Catholic thinking concerning this difficult doctrine.

But like I said, transubstantiation is strictly a post Apostolic idea, along with its terminology. It’s been demonstred to you that there is no indication in the Scriptures themselves, the true Apostolic writings, that any of them actually believed in that concept. In fact, it’s very interesting that ONLY Paul writes about it in the Epistles and, as pointed out, very briefly. But in what he did write he retained the elements of “the bread” and “the cup.” And he clearly defines Communion as how Jesus said it was to be done, "in remembrance of" Him, and as Paul points out, a proclamation of His death until He comes (which also proclaims nul and viod your notion that it involves the resurrected, glorified body of the living Christ).

“Real Presence” is a post-Apostolic term, not even a Pauline one. It could mean literal/physical or figurative/spiritual. Depends on the belief of the one using it. And that, like with Ignatius, is not always revealed.

As I pointed out in a much earlier post, the Church took on a *mystical * view of Communion quite early, even partaking of it behind closed doors after dismissing those not yet baptized. That’s where the word “Mass” comes form, meaning “dismiss.”

“A little leaven leavens the whole lump” (Gal. 5:9). “Transubstantiation” is the final result of the introduction of a “little leaven.” The introduction of the non-biblical, ambiguous term, “real presence.”

Your argument stems from the words of men, mine from the Word of God. Now which do you think holds the greater weight, and yet, free of “leaven?”

Blessings,
Bene

 

[sandusky]

Mickey:

Right on Sandusky! Your ancestors are Catholic!
But here is the dilemma: For the most part, the reformation decided to throw out much of Sacred Tradition. So which reformer did you follow? It was not Luther because he believed in the Real Presence and had a strong devotion to the blessed virgin Mary. Who did you follow Sandusky? I am not saying this facetiously–I am truly curious.

The church is the pillar and support of the truth, and that is the scripture.

What I will find in the ECFs is not scripture.

Christ is who I am called to imitate.

I am not interested in your devotion to Mary, except to understand how it came about, because I cannot find anything in scripture remotely resembling what it has become.

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

You have as stilted a view of non-catholics, and their churches, as you claim non-catholics have of you, and your church.

I think the point is that he was a highly educated, committed non-Catholic who discovered Truth in the Catholic Church despite his bias to remain outside of it. This is in contrast to the seemingly endless good-hearted folks who knew nothing of the Catholic faith until they left it and were “educated” about it by the folks in their new faith tradition and who now feel that they know it all regarding the Catholic Faith.

Boy, that is treading on thin ice. The major councils as defined by whom? Your lineage goes back to whom exactly and how exactly? And the evidence of this would be found where?

Sounds good, but you admit to not having a comprehensive knowledge of the ECFs in the following paragraphs - that would make your ability to determine whom is straying from Scripture somewhat subjective.

Sounds good, but you admit to not having a comprehensive knowledge of the ECFs in the following paragraphs - that would make your ability to determine whom is straying from an understanding of them somewhat subjective.

Im motivated to do the same! But Im not afraid to do so with an open mind - I have no fear that I will be changing churches and I fully expect that this pursuit will strengthen my faith to remain in the church I am in, but to claim that I am “certain” would be a lie - or at least a misuse of the term “certain” - since I cannot possibly know the future. It also fails to humble oneself to the possibility that they lack important perspective and prevents true receptivity of that knowledge when they do encounter it.

I wish you well

PhilThanks for the psychoan Phil.

You are correct, I do not have an intimate knowledge of the ECFs, but I do have an intimate knowledge of the One who saved me.

 

[bene7]

Mickey:

Right on Sandusky! Your ancestors are Catholic!
But here is the dilemma: For the most part, the reformation decided to throw out much of Sacred Tradition. So which reformer did you follow? It was not Luther because he believed in the Real Presence and had a strong devotion to the blessed virgin Mary. Who did you follow Sandusky? I am not saying this facetiously–I am truly curious.

I think it is quite clear from his posts that he follows a Biblical view. Not the words of men, but the Word of God. Not trying to be facetious here, but pointing the reality behind his posts.

Spiritualy speaking, we’re both still “Catholic.” We both belong to the “universal” Church Christ is still building today. That’s the point he’s making, which seems to have flown right over your head. We proclaim the same Messiah, the same salvation through faith as Peter, Paul, John and the others. Only, from a strict Biblical viewpoint, not from the traditions of men.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[sandusky]

bene7:

I think it is quite clear from his posts that he follows a Biblical view. Not the words of men, but the Word of God. Not trying to be facetious here, but pointing the reality behind his posts.

Spiritualy speaking, we’re both still “Catholic.” We both belong to the “universal” Church Christ is still building today. That’s the point he’s making, which seems to have flown right over your head. We proclaim the same Messiah, the same salvation through faith as Peter, Paul, John and the others. Only, from a strict Biblical viewpoint, not from the traditions of men.

Blessings,
Bene

Yes! I shouldn’t respond when I am not fully awake.

In the Council determinations concerning Christology, the Trinitity, in fact, in any area where the councils and declarations use scripture as the authority for their determination, I have no problem. When piety, spiritualizing, allegorizing and hubris are the authority, I set aside the writings.

The writers of scripture and their writings are inspired, as God clearly states. The ECFs are not inspired in their writings in the same way as God’s prophets and apostles.

 

[CindyGia]

bene7:

We proclaim the same Messiah, the same salvation through faith as Peter, Paul, John and the others. Only, from a strict Biblical viewpoint, not from the traditions of men.

Blessings,
Bene

Sorry to interrupt, but I just had to comment on the above. I don’t know why this thread keeps emailing but this post really had me going! But anyway, “traditions of men?” my dear? Have you forgotten what Paul says time and time again?

(Not By Scripture Alone!!!)

Is Scripture the sole rule of faith? Not according to the Bible. While we must guard against merely human tradition, the Bible makes clear the necessity of clinging to apostolic Tradition.

Thus Paul tells the Corinthians: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the Traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the Traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).

He even goes so far as to say, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the Tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

To make sure that the apostolic Tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). He refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession-his own generation, Timothy’s, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation next in turn.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the Traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously, as the following quotations show.

Pope Clement I

“Then the reverence of the law is chanted, and the grace of the prophets is known, and the faith of the Gospels is established, and the Tradition of the apostles is preserved, and the grace of the Church exults” (Letter to the Corinthians 11 [A.D. 80]).

Oh dear, dealing with Protestants is so tiring…
They just don’t get it.

 

[MariaG]

sandusky:

The church is the pillar and support of the truth, and that is the scripture.

The Church is not the* support* of the Truth it is the foundation. Nor is Scripture the Church. Nowhere in Scripture does it tell us that

Church=Scripture

:bible1: 1Tim3:15 But if I should be belayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

[Mickey]

sandusky:

The church is the pillar and support of the truth, and that is the scripture.

What I will find in the ECFs is not scripture.

Christ is who I am called to imitate.

I am not interested in your devotion to Mary, except to understand how it came about, because I cannot find anything in scripture remotely resembling what it has become.

That was a complete evasion of my question.

 

[sandusky]

wpr:

Sandusky,

Have you not read the ECF from the begginning to the end? Did I misunderstand? (I am humble Sandusky, so please be charitable)

I have not read the ECFs from beginning to end, but I intend to.

wpr:

I did not find Sola Scriptura. Equally, I did not find any Bishops who assumed to correct or contradict any of what they viewed as authentic Canonical writings. Sola Scriptura does not follow from that.

What did you find them to believe were “authentic Canonical writings?” The true understanding of Sola Scriptura, IMHO, is found within one’s heart. It cannot be understood logically, as Paul states in 1 Cor 2. Isaiah as well speaks to the importance of it in Is 8:20. The demand of the reformers for the solas, was not a capricious demand, but a necessary one.

wpr:

It seems they were more interested in whether a particlar writing was of Apostolic origen by determining whether the Church possessing it was itself Apostolic. Meaning, could they trace their roots back the Apostles did the Traditional doctrine. The human aspect was more prevalent in my view.

I am aware of how the canon came into being.

wpr:

I wonder when you beleive the ECF began to ere? With the risk of sounding haughty, Did St Clement of Rome ere (AD 80)? Did St Ignatius of Antioch (AD 110).

At this time, I cannot give a reasoned response as to when, but only in what areas. The sacraments, anthropology, salvation, eschatology, Mary, and every detail associated with those. At this point, it is what your church is now.

Scholars say that the bulk of the writings of Ignatius were not written by him, and his remaining writings are spurious as well. That is why his writings contain long and short versions. There is one quote of his that is continually appealed to about the flesh of Christ in the Eucharist. No exposition is made, no exegesis is offered, just a statement quoted.

wpr:

The citation most used to support the true presence in this thread was from St. Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans. (my weak attempt to bring the topic back to True Presence and John 6)

So was Ignatius already corrupt?

I don’t about Ignatius, personally, but it seems that his writings were.

 

[jim1130]

Mickey:

That was a complete evasion of my question.

Why do you and others persist in the dialogue with Sandusky and Bene7? I’ve been following this discussion for some time now and I would say the discussion is at an impasse. It is obvious that all of you involved, including Sandusky and Bene7, are well educated, intelligent, and learned individuals with strong communication skills, but I am afraid the discussion has deteriorated from the original premise. I am Catholic and will stay Catholic, no matter what anyone argues.

 

[Philthy]

sandusky:

Thanks for the psychoan Phil.

You are correct, I do not have an intimate knowledge of the ECFs, but I do have an intimate knowledge of the One who saved me.

I don’t doubt it Sandusky! That should have been the stated reason for your confidence that you would remain in the church where you are - because you know thats where He wants you. It just seemed to me that you were deciding in advance of His directive where He’d be leading you rather than being led …

I wish you a blessed Christmas filled with peace, love and joy,

Phil

 

[Mickey]

bene7:

I think it is quite clear from his posts that he follows a Biblical view. Not the words of men, but the Word of God. Not trying to be facetious here, but pointing the reality behind his posts.

Spiritualy speaking, we’re both still “Catholic.” We both belong to the “universal” Church Christ is still building today. That’s the point he’s making, which seems to have flown right over your head. We proclaim the same Messiah, the same salvation through faith as Peter, Paul, John and the others. Only, from a strict Biblical viewpoint, not from the traditions of men.

Blessings,
Bene

Hmmmm? Perhaps I was not clear. Yours and Sandusky’s ancestors belonged to the Catholic Church. You know, the one with the papacy. When the reformers split from that Church, they adopted various doctrines that opposed the Catholic (and Orthodox) teachings. Each reformer had a different understanding and interpretation of Scripture. Luther differed from Calvin who differed from Zwingli who differed from Wesley etc. etc. etc.
Whose reformation do you mirror? Or perhaps you are saying that your interpretation is correct. I have never heard of the “Independent Bene church” or the “southern united Sanduskies”.

I apologize for the sarcasm, but do you understand my question now?

 

[Mickey]

jim1130:

Why do you and others persist in the dialogue with Sandusky and Bene7? I’ve been following this discussion for some time now and I would say the discussion is at an impasse. It is obvious that all of you involved, including Sandusky and Bene7, are well educated, intelligent, and learned individuals with strong communication skills, but I am afraid the discussion has deteriorated from the original premise. I am Catholic and will stay Catholic, no matter what anyone argues.

Alas, you are correct. And I have seen a gradual descent into lack of charity.

God bless you Jim,
Mickey

 

[jim1130]

Mickey:

Alas, you are correct. And I have seen a gradual descent into lack of charity.

God bless you Jim,
Mickey

I REALLY enjoy reading your posts, though. I learn a lot from you. You help confirm my Catholic core. Thank you. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year,and God Bless you and your fmaily.

 

[sandusky]

MariaG:

The Church is not the* support* of the Truth it is the foundation. Nor is Scripture the Church. Nowhere in Scripture does it tell us that

Church=Scripture

:bible1: 1Tim3:15 But if I should be belayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

No, MariaG, you have a bad translation.

In 1 Tim 3:15 the Church is the hedrioma, or support of the truth. The truth is the Word of God (Jn 17:17), and the foundation, (Gk themelios), is the apostles and prophets, with Christ the corner stone (Eph 2:20; 1 Cor 3:11).

I have not said that the Church is Scripture, you misread my post.

 

[sandusky]

Mickey:

Hmmmm? Perhaps I was not clear. Yours and Sandusky’s ancestors belonged to the Catholic Church. You know, the one with the papacy. When the reformers split from that Church, they adopted various doctrines that opposed the Catholic (and Orthodox) teachings. Each reformer had a different understanding and interpretation of Scripture. Luther differed from Calvin who differed from Zwingli who differed from Wesley etc. etc. etc.
Whose reformation do you mirror? Or perhaps you are saying that your interpretation is correct. I have never heard of the “Independent Bene church” or the “southern united Sanduskies”.

I apologize for the sarcasm, but do you understand my question now?

The prophets, the apostles and the Lord.

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

I don’t doubt it Sandusky! That should have been the stated reason for your confidence that you would remain in the church where you are - because you know thats where He wants you. It just seemed to me that you were deciding in advance of His directive where He’d be leading you rather than being led …

I wish you a blessed Christmas filled with peace, love and joy,

Phil

You have a blessed Christmas as well, Phil