John 6 and Eucharist?

[wpr]

Hello Bene,

I love you man. You are so zealous (in a positive way).

**

bene7:

How would underlining "of the Lord

" add to the validity of your argument?

Bene, it modifies the context of the “Bread” and the “Cup”. It could read “eats the bread of the Lord” and “drinks the cup of the Lord.” I only said it would have been helpfull to see our view. I certainly did not expect you to change your mind. Just take it at that.

The Scriptures are inerrant because they’re theopneustos, “God-breathed,” not because they’re recognized by men as so.

In your reasoning you start from the conclusion “The NT writings are God-breathed”. But how do you arrive at that? As a Catholic, I can tell you my view and it is not a circular argument.

This is a bit off topic from the True Presense. But relevant in a way in that your distrust of the ECF is apparent.

Although, I suppose to you Scripture is totally clear due to your years of study. How you would know that yours is superior to m ine I hav e no idea. However, consider Scripture; Peter asserted that Paul’s letters could be confusing. Do you argue with Scripture? Who may have helped a Christain a the time understand Paul after his death?

Certainly they have historical value, but they cannot be totally trusted for their theological accuracy. Unless you’re claiming infallibility for the authors, are you? If not, then their theological content must be tested against GOD’S written Word.

I did not assert the writings of the ECF are inspired writings. I simply said that the fact that they are not does not make them false. Some writings are indeed heretical. (Actually in both my view and yours concerning topics of which we do not disagree)

Yes, theological issues need to be considered by an outside body and in full view of Scripture. I explained the Magistirium in my previous post.

**You’re mistaken by trying to juxtapose those writing with Scripture. You’re treating and accepting their contents AS Divine revelation, rather than testing their content BY Divine revelation. And that, my friend, is checking your brain at the door. **

First, I did not juxtapose the writings of the ECF versus Scripture in that I did not put them on equal ground in terms being God-breathed. Not at all. So my brain remains intact atop my neck inside my skull. Your “juxtapose” argument is just a straw man.

Bene, we disagree on the matter in question. (True Presence). As I mentioned, my Catholic brothers/sisters have been galantly trying to persuade you to see it as we do. Or at least understand why we have this view.

Therefore, is it not fair for us to point to writings (of which few scholars debate the historic authenticity), of early Christians that support our view? Nobody has asked you to take them as inspired.

A challenge has been issued to you many times to produce some historical evidense outside the Bible that the True Presence was not held by early Christians (including those who walked with the Apostles). You have failed to produce a scintilla of evidense.

You rather revert back to pounding us over the head with your straw man argument that the ECF are not inspired writings, so cannot be considered in the matter. You further taunt with your straw man by accusing us of elevating them to the status of inspired writings. A straw man of your own making.

**First study what all of us know to be the Divinely inspired N.T. Scriptures, saturate your mind with the divine truths revealed in those writings (that will take you several years), THEN, and ONLY THEN **

Bene, my good brother. Insults are not necessary. (I was a bit cantancerous in pressing you myself, I admit). However, the Catholic Church has been at this for 2000 years. It is She with whom you disagree, not just some amatuer Bible scholar.

As for me, I have studied and do revere the Scriptures and read them frequently. However, I am not so haughty as to beleive I know it all.

Furthermore, NT Scripture does not claim the Authority you give it as the end-all to any theological matter.

In fact in contrast, I have shown you evidense that the Catholic Apostolic succession view is Scripturally supported. ACTS is rich as are the Apostolic Letters! The Faith was to be handed down orally by men taught by the Apostles. 2 Thes 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2., among others.

Merry Christmas**

 

[Philthy]

bene7:

Catholics deny that they view the writings of the ECFs as inspired writings, but in reality they treat them as if they are.

False. We use them to show that early reliable witnesses of the faith believed what we believe in the multitude of cases where Scripture is ambiguous. In addition, the lack of support among the ECFs for a particular doctrine also contributes to denying it’s Apostolicity.

bene7:

You guys quote those writings as if they’re qualified to adjudicate arguments and settle doctrinal controversies. Sorry, but they’re not. Only the Scriptures have that inherent authority.

Blessings,
Bene

The scriptures certainly have the AUTHORITY, but they lack the CAPABILITY. That requires human interaction with the Scriptures. Now who is/are the human/humans which have the capability to settle arguments regarding what Scripture authoritatively contains?

Peace,

Phil

 

[mercygate]

bene7:

. . . . Catholics deny that they view the writings of the ECFs as inspired writings, but in reality they treat them as if they are. You guys quote those writings as if they’re qualified to adjudicate arguments and settle doctrinal controversies. Sorry, but they’re not. Only the Scriptures have that inherent authority.

Blessings,
Bene

Bene, when Scripture can be interpreted in more than one way (the idea that Paul’s declaration that we can be “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” can be read only *your *way, especially when taken together with the other scriptural references to the Eucharist, is belied by the very existence of this thread), of course we look to those nearest in time to the writing of Scripture in order to see what the first Christians actually believed and practiced.

The idea that the Bible is a stand-alone book, independent of the Church which produced it, up for grabs to anybody who cares to snatch it from the bedrock of its origin, for interpretation without reference to its history or the charism (God-breathing) which still infuses it through the living Magisterium of the Body of Christ is simply naive. When the ambiguities of Scripture are illuminated by the writings of the Early Fathers, we have a sure norm for determining what the Apostolic teaching is, and since Paul reminds us to “stand firm and hold to thetraditions which you were taught,” that is exactly what the Church does.

This does not equate to treating the ECFs with the same reverence we hold for Scripture. But we do hold that the ECFs reflect the deposit of faith “once delivered to the saints” more reliably than the idiosyncratic interpretation of someone who, fifteen-hundred or two-thousand years removed from the writing, who is separated from, isolated from, and hostile to the Apostolic faith.

Everything goes back to authority and credibility.

 

[ncgolf]

sandusky:

You are taking that passage out of context.

Peter starts in v16 using the pronoun “WE. The “we” are those who followed Christ at that time, and wrote what is in the N.T. canon.

Actually I believe the “we” were those apostles present at the Transfiguration not a larger “we” as even all the apostles. Anyway, Peter had no idea he was writing the NT canon. That was not settled for another what … another couple hundred years. You never addresssed the “personal interpretation” section of the passage.

sandusky:

What you are saying, in effect, is that the writings of the Saints of the Catholic Church are scripture, and that is not so. The canon is closed. Now I’m not advocating throwing out their writings at all. But I am saying, with certainty, that they are not inspired scripture.

Nope never said they were adding to the canon. I am saying they have a duty to speak on the canon. Nothing ever written by the saints ever added to the canon only help explain the Canon.

sandusky:

It is easy to prove. In 2 Cor 12:12, Paul states that the true apostle is known by his ability to perform signs, wonders, and miracles. In fact, if apostolic authority is as you say it is, then your magisterium and Pope, can prove that authority by working, signs, wonders, and miracles. I have yet to see any evidence of that on their part. Me thinks that is why it generally takes so long for one to become canonized. Certainly, there are no eye-witnesses alive when the process completes.

Please reread your scripture. Paul does not say “the signs of an apostle is known”. He said the “signs of the apostle were known”. He uses a past tense verb … something that had already happened. He is talking about the original apostles … probably martyred by then and the deeds that gave them the credibility of an apostle. He never gave any notion on what the future may hold.

sandusky:

I do not deny the working of signs, wonders, and miracles, but question their source.

What are you saying here?

sandusky:

But, until that happens, God is finished speaking, and no new revelation to Christ’s church is forthcoming.

Christ said, “*Your *[God’s] word is truth.” It is pretty simple, really. God has promised to preserve His word, as CM said, “Oh you of little faith.” Trust God; He has preserved His word, which, according to Jesus Himself, is the only sure truth.

He preserves His word through the Church for the Catholic Church and Christ are forever entwined.

This does not take away from Peter’s warnings about false teachings. It is not protected by everyone’s private interpretaion of scripture. He promisted to preserve it through His church … the Catholic Church of which the gates of hell will never prevail.

 

[Truthseeker4]

I am corresponding with a friend on this issue. What is the take on the following?

In the traditional hebraic understanding of the scripture is that every time we take and bless bread and wine in like manner; and when we have the same supper- we are reminded of his death and resurrection until he sups with us again.

If it were literally his body and literally his blood; as some do teach - it would go against scripture about eating flesh with blood still in it, and as well- the same of eating/drinking blood…

The prayers:
[qoute]
Baruch Atah YHVH Melek HaOlam HaMotzi Lechem Min Ha’aretz. Amen
Blessed are you YHVH King of the Universe who brings bread from out of the earth.

Literally Bringing Y’shua, the bread from heaven from death back to life, and from literally creating bread (wheat/barley/rice) from the earth
Quote:
Baruch Atah YHVH Melek HaOlam Boray Pri Hagafen. Amen
Blessed are you YHVH King of the Universe who created the fruit of the vine.

Literally created the vine and the wine that we get from it, and also literally THE VINE - which is Y’shua, whom all of us are grafted into… and who gives us eternal life.

Also, the hidden afikomen (That which comes after) a peice of the matzah bread, points to the death, burial and resurrection of Y’shua, as well as G-d’s triune nature…

The cups of wine (several) point to prophetic events in history as well as parts of the trib imho.

We are taught about Hebraic blessings that you never say the name of G-d lightly, nor do you lightly bless him (honor him) nor do you ask blessing on yourself (or the food you eat) Lightly either - -and especially with these prayers, we are to remember what G-d did every time we say them and eat bread or drink grape juice or wine…

All Hebrew prayers are pretty weighty once you come to think about it…

the reference to “this is my body” has to do with the fact that Y’shua was using matzah- bruized, striped, and with holes in it- as well as broken to hand peices out to everyone.
He is completely represented in the institution that YHVH set forth of Passover with Matzah, wine, the bitter herbs and lamb.

When he says “this is my blood” we also have to take into effect how wine is made - and how it is stored, and the prayer said over each cup.

Every Hebrew prayer, whether the Rabbis realize it or not are to contain not only the name of YHVH but the sign of messiah, the aleph tav, within the verb “Atah” (you are)…

Thanks.
Melissa

 

[ncgolf]

I do not want to get the thread off track but I just wanted to point out Peter’s warning on false teachings. Since the Catholic Church was built on apostolic succession beginning with Peter himself the Church remains the protector of the truth concerning the interpreation of Scripture … including John 6 and the issue of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. I think we have narrowed down the argument to how is the truth about Scripture revealed … in one’s own personal interpretation or in conjunction with the interpretation passed down in the Catholic Church beginning with Peter’s leadership after Christ’s acension.

I have a feeling my recent post’s may be heading off the topic so if any rebuttals come this way can we make them in light of John 6.

Anyway if I am off target on this too … then let me have it.

 

[Philthy]

mercygate:

Bene, when Scripture can be interpreted in more than one way … is belied by the very existence of this thread), of course we look to those nearest in time to the writing of Scripture in order to see what the first Christians actually believed and practiced.

The idea that the Bible is a stand-alone book, independent of the Church which produced it, … is simply naive.
This does not equate to treating the ECFs with the same reverence we hold for Scripture. But we do hold that the ECFs reflect the deposit of faith “once delivered to the saints” more reliably than the idiosyncratic interpretation of someone who, fifteen-hundred or two-thousand years removed from the writing, who is separated from, isolated from, and hostile to the Apostolic faith.

Everything goes back to authority and credibility.

I whole-heartedly agree!

 

[mercygate]

bene7:

The idea of transubstantiation is a post Apostolic development.

Blessings,
Bene

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.

 

[AquinasXVI]

Gravity was in effect for the early civilizations way before the word was coined. Electricity was observed by the cave men way before the word electricity explained electrons travelling through a conduit or as lightning. Same thing with the word transubstatiation. The word became a necessity from the phenomena not the other way around.

in XT.

 

[sandusky]

Mickey:

Again, we are talking about interpretation here. I will pose the same question to you that I posed to Bene. Why are **your **interpretations more theologically correct than the saints and Church fathers?

The deepest wells have the clearest water.

I said nothing about the ECFs interpretation of scripture, I said that their writings are not scripture.

 

[sandusky]

wpr:

In your reasoning you start from the conclusion “The NT writings are God-breathed”. But how do you arrive at that? As a Catholic, I can tell you my view and it is not a circular argument.

What is your view?

 

[Mickey]

sandusky:

I said nothing about the ECFs interpretation of scripture, I said that their writings are not scripture.

Ah, now we’re getting somewhere!

 

[mercygate]

sandusky:

What is your view?

There is more than one way to mount a case for the Catholic view that Scripture is the inspired and inerrant word of God. But the subject is off topic. My preferred way of demonstrating the authority of Scripture, based on an argument originally framed by Arnold Lunn, is found in posts 13 & 14 in this thread. Unfortunately, I copied a MS word text into the posts, and somehow, things like quotation marks and certain codes transferred as odd characters, such as = for quotation marks and @ signs or the letter B . . . . Sorry. Hope you can make sense of it notwithstanding those errors.

 

[sandusky]

Mercygate,

I read the links you provided, and with the exception of the identity of Christ’s church, and the accompanying scriptures used to prove it, I am in agreement.

Look at the manuscript evidence, more than 25,000 extant manuscripts. Scribal errors and additions can be traced geographically, etc., etc. Somehow you have it in your head that the only reason I believe the scriptures are His word is because He says they are. While that is the most important reason, for me, and for many others, it is not the only reason. You have as stilted a view of non-catholics, and their churches, as you claim non-catholics have of you, and your church. It doesn’t bother me that your view is stilted; I am just pointing that out to you.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[mercygate]

sandusky:

Mercygate,

I read the links you provided, and with the exception of the identity of Christ’s church, and the accompanying scriptures used to prove it, I am in agreement.

Look at the manuscript evidence, more than 25,000 extant manuscripts. Scribal errors and additions can be traced geographically, etc., etc. Somehow you have it in your head that the only reason I believe the scriptures are His word is because He says they are. While that is the most important reason, for me, and for many others, it is not the only reason. You have as stilted a view of non-catholics, and their churches, as you claim non-catholics have of you, and your church. It doesn’t bother me that your view is stilted; I am just pointing that out to you.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sandusky, I was a non-Catholic for more than 50 years. So, yeah I “dig.” Moreover, I have the education of a priest in the denomination I left, so yeah: I “dig.” And I have read vast tracts of the ECFs: unabridged, so yeah: I “dig.” Dig?

 

[sandusky]

mercygate:

Sandusky, I was a non-Catholic for more than 50 years. So, yeah I “dig.” Moreover, I have the education of a priest in the denomination I left, so yeah: I “dig.” And I have read vast tracts of the ECFs: unabridged, so yeah: I “dig.” Dig?

And your point is…?

 

[jim1130]

sandusky:

And your point is…?

I think thet point is that it goes both ways: You were once Catholic and became non-Catholic and Mercygate was non-Cahtolic and became Catholic. both of you are well versed and educated in theology and Scripture. Both of you are very polished and persuasive in your opinions.

 

[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 actually did read them from start to finish chronologically (a bit dry at times). Frankly, I really liked Tertullian’s style and I am genuinly dissapointed he seemed to have fallen from the faith.

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.

They did assume the ability and responsibility to discern which writings were Apostolic, which were acceptable for teaching, and which were spurious. The topic is touched on from time to time over the first centuries.

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.

They did most zealously defended the Scriptures against misinterpretion and outright highjacking!

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).

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?

 

[mercygate]

sandusky:

And your point is…?

sandusky:

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?

My point? You have made supercilious, ungrounded judgments about my background.

 

[sandusky]

mercygate:

My point? You have made supercilious, ungrounded judgments about my background.

Forgive me if it came across that way.