John 6: Many left him - but why? (Faith & Trust vs Understanding)

[Non_Serviam]

Catholics often cite that in John 6 (the discourse on eating flesh/drinking blood) we can see the literalness of his discourse based on the fact that many left b/c of this “hard saying” - much like protestants have rejected the Catholic teaching of the Real Presence.

-snip-

Sorry to dump so much here at once… A simple answer to the first thought would suffice, but I welcome any insight into the latter

I’d like to toss my :twocents: into the ring on this question. I believe many Catholics look at this passage anachronistically when they comment on the reaction of the crowd. (not pointing out anyone specifically).

Put yourself in the sandals of one of these people for a moment. Jesus has just said they have to consume his body and blood. There is no Catholic church on the corner for them. No one is suggesting that actual bread may become his body and that they will be eating that. Jesus also doesn’t open the floor for questions.

Based on that, I see them as having three options:

1. Decide Jesus is a nutjob,since God doesn’t endorse cannibalism.
2. Accept what Jesus said, then grab an arm and start gnawing, because they accept LITERALLY what he said.
3. Accept what Jesus said, but hold off on the arm gnawing to see if there will be some future clarification, even though one might be classified as a nutjob by association.

If you had been there that day, which option would you have picked?

I’m guessing that more than a few of those who “believe literally” today might have been reluctant to identify themselves as such back then.

The story of Abraham and Isaac can shed a great deal of light on this passage. Abraham knew God wasn’t a fan of human sacrifice, but nonetheless accepted what God had told him. Note that he didn’t immediately grab and sacrifice Isaac, but gave God time to clarify things.

In doing so he made the decision to sacrifice his son and gave him to God. God accepted the sacrifice without insisting that the actual killing take place and provided a substitute for his son’s actual flesh and blood.

What was important was Abraham’s decision and the action that proceeded from it.

Likewise, the disciples accepted what Jesus said, gave him time to clarify and found themselves sharing a meal during Passover, rather than gnawing an arm in the desert. Whatever one chooses to believe about that meal (I believe in the Real Presence, but not in transubstantiation) it is important to see that their decision and action were honoured by God.

I think keeping the original context of the event in mind when doing apologetics with those who have difficulty may make it easier to be patient and understand their point of view.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

through your questions I can see that you need to have better understanding of the sacraments.

Jesus’ death on the cross merited grace. How is that grace dispensed to us? Through the sacraments.

Maybe this is where I need to begin to try to understand. B/c no where in Scripture do I see it. (forgive my lingering sola scriptura…)

The Church defines a sacrament as “An outward sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace.” “Outward” means “visible.” An outward sign is a visible sign, that we can see with our 5 senses. Whatever action the priest is doing in the natural world, the earthly world, the world we live in, that action is a representation or a sign, of what is actually happening in the supernatural world, the heavenly world, the world God lives in.

I don’t know that the spiritual reality is not possible b/c the ritual is not practiced. It seems to me that the CC admits otherwise. If salvation is attainable outside the church b/c the “law is written in their hearts” then what is the problem with what I am saying? This means, as far as I’m concerned, that graces are bestowed on others regardless of their understanding about the sacraments/ordinances. It looks to me like the church on one hand admits that God’s grace isn’t limited to sacraments or rituals or church affiliation and yet at the same time insists it is the OTC. It just doesn’t make any sense at all to me.

So, in a sacrament, whatever action the priest is doing in the natural world, that action is a sign of what is actually happening in the supernatural world. We say the the sign is efficacious. Efficacious means that the sacrament makes happen what it is representing.

Does it mean that what it represents cannot happen without the “ingredients” of the sacrament? God sent His HS to the Gentiles before they were baptized.

No, the Sacrament of Confession is not valid in the absence of a priest. Only a priest can perform the Sacrament of Confession. Perfect act of contrition, like baptism of desire, is not a substitute for the sacrament. The fruit of the sacrament is received by the recipient, but the recipient should afterward receive the sacrament as soon as the person is able.

which seems to contradict the RCC statement that salvation outside the church is possible. Obviously there is no priest ministering to those outside the church.

The sacramental system is the ordinary way that we receive the grace of Christ. It is Christ operating in the material world in a way we can understand.

Yes, I see this. That is why I don’t think the ordinariness is as important as the extraordinary that underlies it. I think it is what underlies, unseen, that takes precidence over the tangible, ordinary, visible elements we use. This doesn’t mean the ordinary and visible are useless - certainly Jesus performed miracles using matter - but consider the centurion who was considered by Jesus to have great faith b/c he didn’t expect Jesus to need to even be present to heal his servant.

The four marks of the Church are: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic

And non-Catholics differ in interpreting what “apostolic” means. They consider the close adherance to the writings of the apostles (the Bible) to be apostolic, whereas the RCC considers an unbroken lineage of popes to be the mark of apostolicity. I realize that is a loaded statement since they also differ in what “close adherance” means…

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

You used to “congregate with” non-Catholics who would do anything to obey Jesus. Well, have they investigated the Eucharist?

We’ve discussed it at length, and admittedly I see their p.o.v… They don’t see John 6 as literal nor the words of institution at the last supper. I don’t think it is b/c they aren’t willing to, but that they simply don’t see it - just like I didn’t (and still don’t to a good extent) see it in my own reading. They would read Ignatius’ remark about eating flesh and drinking blood as symbolic.

If they truly love Jesus, they will follow Him wherever He leads - even into the Catholic Church.

They obviously don’t feel led that way.

responsibility as Catholics to lead others, you included, to the fulness of faith, the fulness of truth.

I am not equipped to do this at this time as my own faith is very weak.

Running after Jesus daily? This is precisely what the mass of disciples did in the NT.

Yes, I realize this, but in what way? By having to have access to a Catholic church and happening to have access to a daily mass? And happening to be able to receive communion? (I went a long time w/out receiving after I was diagnosed with Celiac and my priest forbade me to receive while he was investigating the new low-gluten host. It gave me a lot to think about) I just don’t think God limits His grace to us based on the opportunities available to us. And ignorance does put a damper on what is available. If non-Cs do not have the sacraments available to them b/c they don’t have the mental capacity for some reason to understand that they should be experiencing them, does God limit His grace to them?

Could you make it to church daily if Christ was teaching there in his human body? … Have you ever …Have you ever …Have you ever…If you had, how could you possibly doubt the faith and seek “friendlier” people outside the church?

B/c something changed after several years of devotion. I wondered if everything I had believed to have ever experienced through the Catholic church was really from God, or if He simply used my devotions in the church to eventually lead me somewhere else. Even some of the greatest Catholic saints questioned the origins of their experiences. We do not all have perfect faith.I for one don’t. Now, I don’t know if the dryness came first and led me to Scripture, or if I first starting reading Scripture on my own and that led to dryness. But it was my reading of Scripture that led me to seek - not friendlier pleople - but those whose interpretation of Scripture matched my own, and I didn’t find it coincidental that mine and the Mennonites matched so perfectly. I’d have been just as content to remain Catholic despite the state the church was in at the time if I had felt led to do so. In fact, the day I decided to leave and attend the other church I remember feeling horrible. I even went to adoration in the middle of the night to basically say goodbye to the God I wasn’t sure was there or not. My worry was that if I stayed with the CC based on former feelings/experiences with the RP that I would be chasing after feelings and not necessarily truth. The truth seemed apparant to me through Scripture, so I decided to seek that instead.

You also mentioned stopping mass attendance and then going again. You made no mention of being reconciled to the Lord before you did this

I did not think it was necessary to state, but since you express concern, yes I did go to confession as I felt I had sufficient enough faith at the time to be reconciled with the church.

Paul warned against consuming “without discerning the Body” If you do such, you risk the eating and drinking of damnation unto yourself. Why do you think some Catholics struggle with scrupulosity?

Which is why I haven’t received communion the past few days. I am careful in this regard.

Yes, Christ came to save, not to condemn, but He also left us commandments to follow, to keep. If you interpret these as symbolic or figurative commandments, how on earth are you to keep them? By what standard can you measure them?

If one is keeping them, why is it necessary that they understand the chemistry behind them?

It sounds like you are going through a prolonged period of dryness.

How is one to know this? I try to find God’s hand in my daily life, but what am I supposed to make of everything coming to an end at once while simultaneously discovering what appears to be the truth?

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

There are two instances where Christ uses a literal example to bolster his teaching that He is the Bread of Life. First, in John 6:32, Jesus is pointing out to a specific, actual, real event that took place. The Hebrews ate actual bread that fell from Heaven. Later, He refers to the same real event in verses 49-51, comparing manna to Himself. If Jesus was speaking symbolically, why refer to an actual, physical, real event?

B/c the OT foreshadows the NT and often what was done in the OT was going to be revealed in a deeper sense in the NT. Is Jesus really a lamb? Of course not, but what was learned through the slaughter of lambs in the OT reveals the significance of what was to come in the NT where Jesus, The Unspotted, was to be The Sacrifice for our transgressions. I don’t see the literalness of what was done in the OT to = literalness in the New.

In the New American Bible version, verse 51 ends with, “and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” It doesn’t add up. Why use the word “flesh” to refer to a symbol? Connect that to verse 27, when He uses the term, “Son of Man,” denoting His human nature. So we now know that it is not symbolic, but a physical real Sacrament.

I think I understand what you are saying, but I don’t know how it relates to Jesus meaning that we would literally be consuming His flesh and blood.

Verse 58 concludes the Discourse by once again comparing the manna of the OT to Him. Christ perfected the OT. The entire OT is completed and brought to fruition in Him. He perfected the manna, not replaced it.

Right, but by being literal food?

Refer to verses 32-33 and read that the manna was given by God, not Moses and connect that to verse 51. Both verses refer to the bread as, “life for the world.” Both are given from God. **Since manna was a real thing that the Hebrews ate physically, how can a protestant possibly say that it is now a symbolic gesture now? **

The same way they don’t believe Jesus is actually a lamb. The OT was indicitive of something greater to come; a deeper reality. The unblemished lamb was a symbol that pointed to The Unblemished One to come, but that doesn’t mean Jesus has to literally be a lamb. He is true God and true man, but true lamb? The Israelites ate food from heaven to sustain them; physical nourishment. Now God gives us His Son Jesus from Heaven to sustain us; spiritual nourishment. But b/c we eat Him? Or b/c we have faith in Him?

 

[mdcpensive1]

JoyToBeCatholic,

There is much talk about sacraments and that is a subject difficult to explain when the reality is spiritual. It is like explaining what grace is since we cannot physically feel or see it.

I would begin by saying that covenant is an overriding concept in scripture and in the relationship God had with His people. There have been many major convenants in salvation history, creation, Noah’s, Mosaic, Davidic and the everlasting one of the New Covenant. These are promises by God to us and His promise is as good as it gets. The meaning of “coventant” is to “seven ones self” or to “swear an oath”. Seven is an important number in scripture ie, creation, the building of the first temple, etc. Translated from Greek to Latin the meaning is “Sacramentum”, from which we get the sacraments. What does this mean? It means that sacraments are oaths sworn to by God for our benefit. It is not just a ritual performed by us, but a promise by God to deliver the graces necessary for our salvation, not an unimportant thing. It is not us that makes them powerful and holy, but God Himself as He works on us with His graces.

mdcpensive1

 

[dbacks5439]

B/c the OT foreshadows the NT and often what was done in the OT was going to be revealed in a deeper sense in the NT. Is Jesus really a lamb? Of course not, but what was learned through the slaughter of lambs in the OT reveals the significance of what was to come in the NT where Jesus, The Unspotted, was to be The Sacrifice for our transgressions. Actually, He is. Read in Revelations where St. John describes a multitude of people, all wearing white, and in the center of the room is a lamb that appears to be slain. Obviously Christ is a lamb in Heaven. Since the Mass is Heaven on earth, Christ is the lamb here on earth as well. I don’t see the literalness of what was done in the OT to = literalness in the New. I think I understand what you are saying, but I don’t know how it relates to Jesus meaning that we would literally be consuming His flesh and blood.Right, but by being literal food? **At the last supper, Christ says, "This is my Body, this is my Blood. Is Jesus a liar, because by your understanding, Jesus was using bread and wine? Which is it, bread or His Body?**The same way they don’t believe Jesus is actually a lamb. The OT was indicitive of something greater to come; a deeper reality. The unblemished lamb was a symbol that pointed to The Unblemished One to come, but that doesn’t mean Jesus has to literally be a lamb. He is true God and true man, but true lamb? The Israelites ate food from heaven to sustain them; physical nourishment. Now God gives us His Son Jesus from Heaven to sustain us; spiritual nourishment. But b/c we eat Him? Or b/c we have faith in Him? Simple. If it was faith, then why didn’t He simply say, “Whoever has faith in Me will live forever?” Christ instead said, “Whoever eats my body and drinks my blood will remain in Me and I in him.” Christ is both God and Man. We can partake of His divine nature through faith and grace, but how can we be one with Him in His human nature? It would be easy if Christ had one nature, that being God. Then we would only have to be one with that nature. However, He has two natures, one spiritual, one physical. The Eucharist makes union with both possible.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

ME: Now God gives us His Son Jesus from Heaven to sustain us; spiritual nourishment. But b/c we eat Him? Or b/c we have faith in Him?

YOU: **Simple. If it was faith, then why didn’t He simply say, “Whoever has faith in Me will live forever?” Christ instead said, “Whoever eats my body and drinks my blood will remain in Me and I in him.” **

But read previously where He says: (vs 35) " I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

vs 40: every one which seeth the Son, and** believeth on him, may have everlasting life:**

vs 47: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life

Now I read the rest of John 6 w/in this context. When I go on to read about eating and drinking I do not lose sight of these 3 important verses.

And then of course, in conclusion (and as if anticipating the literalness with which some would take His words…) He says: " *63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. *
*64But there are some of you that believe not. *

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Much of what is depicted in Revelation is not to be taken literally. When Jesus is depicted as a Lamb, it does not mean He literally is a lamb any more than the rest of the imagery depicted therein is supposed to be taken literally. The lamb is a symbol.

 

[tdgesq]

I was just reflecting on the non-Catholic community I used to congregate with, and their love for God and willingness to go to any extent to obey Him, and realized that, most likely, if they had been present amongst Jesus’ disciples at that time, they would not have left over His discourse - not necessarily b/c they took His saying as literal, but b/c they trusted Him.

Then they would trust Jesus even if he claimed that the bread and wine are literally his body and blood. Correct?

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Then they would trust Jesus even if he claimed that the bread and wine are literally his body and blood. Correct?

Or course, just like they would trust Him when He said He was the vine, the door, etc… It doesn’t mean they understand Him to mean that what He is saying should be taken literally.

 

[elvisman]

Now I read the rest of John 6 w/in this context. When I go on to read about eating and drinking I do not lose sight of these 3 important verses.

And then of course, in conclusion (and as if anticipating the literalness with which some would take His words…) He says: " 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
*64But there are some of you that believe not. *

No offense to you personally, but this is the weakest argument of all used by Protestants when trying to show that Jesus wasn’t speaking literally of his flesh and blood.
If Jesus’ flesh profits nothing then the crucifixion means nothing - it’s a sham.
No - His flesh profits EVERYTHING because He is our salvation. In fact - His is the ONLY flesh that profits us.

Why would Jesus say, over and over that His flesh is TRUE food and His blood is TRUE drink only to admite a few verses later, “Oh, wait a minute!! What I said is true, but it’s really not!! My flesh profits NOTHING!”?
When you read John 6 in context, you can only come to ONE conclusion:
Jesus WAS speaking literally that we must consume His flesh and blood in order to have life within us.

Consider this:
**This is the only place in ALL of the New Testament where His followers leave Him for doctrinal reasons. It’s also the only place where He doesn’t explain that he is speaking in parables or metaphors - because he ISN’T. **

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

If Jesus’ flesh profits nothing then the crucifixion means nothing - it’s a sham.
**No - His flesh profits EVERYTHING **because He is our salvation. In fact - His is the ONLY flesh that profits us.

Surely, but is that what Jesus is talking about when He says the flesh profits nothing? I never said I believed He was! You say He cannot be talking about the Eucharist, but you realize also He cannot be talking about His crucifixion. So what is He talking about then? Even my Catholic Bible footnotes explains: “Probably…a reference to… the supernatural and the natural.” I think it is possible that a literal interpretation of eating His flesh and drinking His blood can be seen as a “natural” understanding of the discourse. IOW, thinking as men and not as God.

Why would Jesus say, over and over that His flesh is TRUE food and His blood is TRUE drink only to admite a few verses later, “Oh, wait a minute!! What I said is true, but it’s really not!! My flesh profits NOTHING!”?
When you read John 6 in context, you can only come to ONE conclusion:
Jesus WAS speaking literally that we must consume His flesh and blood in order to have life within us.

I don’t think so. In fact, look at John 6 in context to the rest of the gospels and it is easy to see that literal eating and drinking something is not going to give you eternal life. Only faith in Christ will.

Consider this:
This is the only place in ALL of the New Testament where His followers leave Him for doctrinal reasons. It’s also the only place where He doesn’t explain that he is speaking in parables or metaphors - because he ISN’T.

But as I demonstrated above He does explain. He explains what will quench our hunger and thirst and neither of which are literal eating or drinking. (vs 35,40,47) His followers did not leave Him for doctrinal reasons - they left b/c they didn’t trust Him. I’ll use a Catholic example to demonstrate: Fulton J. Sheen once said that there are many people who hate the Catholic church for what they mistakenly believe Her to be. (not verbatum) Isn’t the issue over the claims of the RCC rooted in authority? It always boils down to authority. Jesus Christ was God. He was THE Authority. Those who left, left b/c they didn’t trust. Whether or not they took Him literally doesn’t really matter, for I’m certain there were some who remained with Him who weren’t sure what His words meant - just like the apostles in other circumstances were said to not have understood what Jesus was saying until the coming of the HS. The point isn’t that they had to have understood, but that they trusted regardless of whether or not they had the capacity to understand.

 

[elvisman]

Surely, but is that what Jesus is talking about when He says the flesh profits nothing? I never said I believed He was! You say He cannot be talking about the Eucharist, but you realize also He cannot be talking about His crucifixion. So what is He talking about then? Even my Catholic Bible footnotes explains: “Probably…a reference to… the supernatural and the natural.” I think it is possible that a literal interpretation of eating His flesh and drinking His blood can be seen as a “natural” understanding of the discourse. IOW, thinking as men and not as God. I don’t think so. In fact, look at John 6 in context to the rest of the gospels and it is easy to see that literal eating and drinking something is not going to give you eternal life. Only faith in Christ will. But as I demonstrated above He does explain. He explains what will quench our hunger and thirst and neither of which are literal eating or drinking. (vs 35,40,47) His followers did not leave Him for doctrinal reasons - they left b/c they didn’t trust Him. I’ll use a Catholic example to demonstrate: Fulton J. Sheen once said that there are many people who hate the Catholic church for what they mistakenly believe Her to be. (not verbatum) Isn’t the issue over the claims of the RCC rooted in authority? It always boils down to authority. Jesus Christ was God. He was THE Authority. Those who left, left b/c they didn’t trust. Whether or not they took Him literally doesn’t really matter, for I’m certain there were some who remained with Him who weren’t sure what His words meant - just like the apostles in other circumstances were said to not have understood what Jesus was saying until the coming of the HS. The point isn’t that they had to have understood, but that they trusted regardless of whether or not they had the capacity to understand.

Wrong again. He wasn’t explaining away what he told them.
NONE of the Church Fathers believed that he was speaking metaphorically. NONE of them saw it as the Protestants of today do.
They all believed that he spoke literally on the matter and many of them died violent deaths as a result. As a matter of fact, they believed it so strongly that they were condemned as “cannibals” by the Jews and Romans.

Answer me this - what did he mean by, “It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail.” ??
What did he mean by “My flesh is TRUE food and my blood is TRUE drink.”??
What did he mean later when he said,* “This IS my body - NOT *just a symbol of my body, but This IS my body?”
**

 

[pneuma07]

In fact, look at John 6 in context to the rest of the gospels .

Dear Joy,

      first of all wellcome back to the forum.

Have you considered the thread on transubtantiation started by PCMaster ? Several lines do appear to overlap in the two threads. You can find many important points there in contributions by Catholic Author, JReducation, Toaslan and others.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

He wasn’t explaining away what he told them.

He did explain - at the beginning. Again: vs 35,40 & 47

NONE of the Church Fathers believed that he was speaking metaphorically. NONE of them saw it as the Protestants of today do.

I don’t see definitive proof. There are some letters by ECF - not all of them - that use similar language, but can be understood as also not being literal. Ex:“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (*Letter to the Romans *7:3 [A.D. 110]). This can be understood in the context of suffering and his impending death. It can possible be a reference to communion as well, but not meaning he actually believes the bread and wine to become the body and blood. He may simply be using the same language of Christ to refer to what the bread and wine symbolize. There are other ways to take his quote as well, but these are just examples. The ECF were not infallible either. There may be what appears to be evidence to support Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist, but I don’t consider it definitive proof. As I said, literal eating and drinking does not seem to jive with the context of the whole of the gospels.

**They all believed that he spoke literally on the matter **

This simply cannot be proven **

and many of them died violent deaths as a result.

Perhaps they did, perhaps they didn’t. Others have died violent deaths for their beliefs as well - such as the mass persecution of the anabaptists.

As a matter of fact, they believed it so strongly that they were condemned as “cannibals”

by the Jews and Romans. And Jesus was called a drunkard too. Should we draw conclusions from accusations?

Answer me this - what did he mean by,

**

"It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail." ??

I already answered this in a previous post to you. Even my Catholic bible footnote explains that it is: “Probably…a reference to… the supernatural and the natural.” I think it is possible that a literal interpretation of eating His flesh and drinking His blood can be seen as a “natural” understanding of the discourse. IOW, thinking as men and not as God.

**What did he mean by *****“My flesh is TRUE food and my blood is TRUE drink.”?? ***

That without the sacrifice of His flesh and blood we would not have life. What does Jesus mean when He says “Man cannot live on bread alone”?

What did he mean later when he said,* “This IS my body - NOT *just a symbol of my body, but This IS my body?”

He also said to “do this in rememberance of me”. He also said He IS the gate, the door, the vine, etc… Must we interpret every instance of “IS” as literal? He “is” what these things represent, but He is not literally any of these things.

Peace

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Dear Joy,

first of all wellcome back to the forum.

Have you considered the thread on transubtantiation started by PCMaster ? Several lines do appear to overlap in the two threads. You can find many important points there in contributions by Catholic Author, JReducation, Toaslan and others.

Thank you. I did consider it, but haven’t had the time to go through all of it - it’s quite lengthy. I’m already also following a few other threads. I’ll take a look at some of it though later tonight.

 

[tdgesq]

Or course, just like they would trust Him when He said He was the vine, the door, etc… It doesn’t mean they understand Him to mean that what He is saying should be taken literally.

Joy,

This is not an answer to my question. The question was whether your n-c friends would trust Jesus if indeed He claimed that the bread and wine are literally His body and blood. There is no indication in Scripture that anyone understood Christ to literally be a vine or a door. His disciples did not leave him en masse after those teachings like they did after the discourse on the bread of life. What exactly is it about what Jesus taught in John 6 that caused the exodus of his disciples and the betrayal of Judas?

Again, it is no answer to say that many of his followers left because they didn’t “trust” Jesus. It is why they no longer trusted him that matters. And you have not given any indication as to why that might be, other than that his disciples did understand Him to claim that the bread and wine are literally His body and blood. It cannot be, as you suggest, that they didn’t trust Him because He declared Himself to be the Son of God. He had already been declared multiple times before John 6. See John 1:29-51.

Perhaps you are saying that Jesus didn’t literally mean his body and blood, and those disciples who took it that way and left Him simply misunderstood.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Also, my issue here isn’t really transubstantiation. Perhaps it is true, perhaps not. I question whether or not we need to claim to have an understanding of the Eucharist at all in order for God to do His work in us. My Mennonite friends have a childlike faith (what we are all called to in fact) and they are content to just obey His command to “do this in memory of Me”. They do not see the necessity in trying to understand every aspect of it. They have beautifully enlightening things to say about it, but they do not confine themselves to a particular understanding. They are content to simply obey and remain open and contemplative about the deeper aspects of the Christian faith. It is true that they, like me, do not see Christ’s words as meaning to be taken literally, but they, like me (as far as I know anyway), certainly are not lacking in faith and trust in Jesus. They way I feel about it is that if that is what Jesus meant, I’m okay with it. I’ve no problem with literally consuming Jesus if that is what He wants. If not, I’ve no problem with that either. I just don’t know that I have to be Catholic b/c it is possible that it was meant literally. I would rather be with those with humble and trustful dispositions who don’t believe than with those who believe but don’t live like they do.

 

[mdcpensive1]

I just don’t know that I have to be Catholic b/c it is possible that it was meant literally. I would rather be with those with humble and trustful dispositions who don’t believe than with those who believe but don’t live like they do.

If it is true then you should definitely be Catholic. Why would you not want to be if it is true?

Anyway, it is not as you state in your reply, about what “group” to join, it is about being in the place where the Graces are given according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I would rather be with those who do not believe and be in Christ’s Church that with those who believe in Him but be in the wrong place. It boils down to what Christ has told us and how that has been handed down from the time of the apostles. He did not die on the Cross just for us to feel good about our beliefs.

mdcpensive1

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

If it is true then you should definitely be Catholic. Why would you not want to be if it is true?

Anyway, it is not as you state in your reply, about what “group” to join, it is about being in the place where the Graces are given according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I would rather be with those who do not believe and be in Christ’s Church that with those who believe in Him but be in the wrong place. It boils down to what Christ has told us and how that has been handed down from the time of the apostles. He did not die on the Cross just for us to feel good about our beliefs.

mdcpensive1

No, of course. That is why I’m here. But what I meant is that it seems unlikely I will ever have peaceful certainty about this, and if that is the case, I cannot remain at home to worship alone - I have to make a choice. I am not basing my choice on the people (that was a bonus!). What I see scripturally jives completely with the Mennonite and like faiths. That is why I sought them. I had no idea what they were like when I did this - I only knew what they believed and practiced - and that was what I based my decision on. But I still have doubts and so I go back and forth. I cannot do this forever. I will have to make a choice. I don’t know if I can ever in good conscience remain Catholic in light of what I see Scripturally, so it makes sense to me that God would have mercy on my inadequacy if I choose to leave for fear of commiting idolatry.

Considering that, I think RCC claims of OTC cause a lot of unecessary anxiety for those of us who simply don’t
know what to believe. I mean, look at a non-C p.o.v.: What if I follow extra-biblical
evidence and decide it looks Catholic, so I join the Catholic church, sit in adoration, etc…
then I find out it wasn’t Jesus after all. That seems worse to me than if I had been in a
non-C church, didn’t believe the Eucharist to have the RP, then found out it was. At least
I was being careful not to be committing idolatary; at least I was still obeying His commands. I think God would find it more
offensive that we are willing to risk committing idolatry when we should be avoiding it -
and that touches on many more areas w/in the RCC than just communion.

How does fallible man infallibly discern the OTC? I think God is capable of
doing His work in us regardless of our inadequacies; regardless of the name of the church; regardless of our understanding or misunderstanding about the chemistry behind our practices. I think he rather looks at our faith and willingness to obey b/c we trust.