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

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Hi all!

Wheels are spinning again. Wanted to pose this question to you:

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.

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.

Don’t you think more likely the reason so many left was b/c they didn’t trust Jesus? They already lacked the faith necessary to be true disciples? Don’t you think that God looks for a humble and trustful disposition above all? Like the CC teaching on “baptism of desire” for instance, God looks more to the heart than to whether or not people have had the intellectual capacity to understand something or the opportunities to be a part of something.

I am also thinking of the oodles of mainstream Catholic who receive communion weekly or more and never seem to progress in the spiritual life. Isn’t it b/c they are not properly disposed? In fact, do any of the sacraments matter at all if faith is not present? I mean, if a marriage can be annuled b/c one of them didn’t have the proper disposition at the time to make it sacramental, doesn’t it go without saying that neither are other sacraments valid if one does not have the proper disposition? And for that matter, why would it matter what church one goes to and what they profess to believe if their hearts are properly disposed to accepting the truth if their flawed understanding could only grasp it?

As a side note and an update:
I had stopped going to mass a few weeks then went back. I actually started going back to daily mass but started questioning if this is right. I definately see a difference in my direction when I go to mass daily. What I labor through reading and prayer to acquire I seem to attain easily by going to mass. I’ve always had a tremendous faith in the Eucharist which has never totally left. But I am starting to question if it is right. I know it is supposed to be Jesus, and we should run after Him and seek Him with all our hearts, but it seems bizarre that I LITERALLY have to run after Him day after day. I question if it is simply an association I have made over the years between holiness/God’s Presence and communion. What would I do if was unable to receive daily? Does it make sense that we NEED to receive it literally? I wonder if I simply crave the discipline, ritual, serenity and contemplative nature of the mass and this is what I am benefitting from…

The literallness of receiving Jesus in communion seems very Old Testament. There was much ritual in it and so many things they actually had to DO, whereas the NT seems to focus more on the interior of the person; the disposition or heart. Jesus certainly used matter to perform miracles, but notice that in some cases the simple and profound faith of a person was all that was needed. I think there are many examples in the NT of ritual taking second place to faith.

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

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Btw, I am not saying we should do away with the ritual aspects of Christian worship. Jesus obviously commanded us to DO things (Lord’s supper, baptism, etc.) and not just have the right heart. What I am questioning is if it really matters exactly how it is done, who does it, or what they understand about it for it to be valid in God’s eyes.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

What about: "Whoever Is Not Against Us Is For Us "?

Ok - I’ll stop answering my own thread

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Btw, I am not saying we should do away with the ritual aspects of Christian worship. Jesus obviously commanded us to DO things (Lord’s supper, baptism, etc.) and not just have the right heart. What I am questioning is if it really matters exactly how it is done, who does it, or what they understand about it for it to be valid in God’s eyes.

If you look in the Old Testament, you will find God getting quite upset with those who did not follow His directions: e.g Nadab and Abihu in Exodus 10; and Korah, Dathan et al in Numbers 16. Note especially Miriam’s attempt to explain the need for a female priesthood in Numbers 12.

 

[mdcpensive1]

JoytobeCatholic, you have put much on the table. Where to start?
You probably know all the technical and theology stuff about the Eucharist, but for all of us for the miracle at each Mass to be effective it has to travel the small number of inches from our brains to our hearts. If only we knew of the graces God showers on us in receiving the sacraments. By not being properly open to them, they are not affecting our lives as they should. Grace, and I mean Sanctifying Grace when I say grace, is the very life of God in us. It is what Jesus recognizes when He sees us and lets Him know that we are His. This is one of the distinctions of justification with our brothers and sisters of the Lutheren persuasion.

I too am a daily mass goer and I feel I am missing a friend when I cannot go. Our goal is intimacy with Jesus and His Spirit who leads us to the Father. We in the RC Church have the many opportunities to develop this intimacy and channels of graces through all the spiritual gifts, especially in hope knowing that Jesus Himself promised that the Church would not be led down the wrong path (Gates of Hell).

I imagine that many more will want to comment, so I will stop now and let others with more important things to say have their turn.

mdcpensive1

 

[epostle]

I am the living bread that came down from heaven… This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world… Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life… For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. (John 6: 51-57)

The heavens burst open quietly and the Son of God comes to us: eternity strolling in time, everlasting light with a human spirit, human innards, human bones, human face and human skin getting burned by the earth’s sun on the dusty little road of Palestine. God is made human flesh, and with a wholly human voice the single Word spoken by God cries out, “My flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink.”

How can we help but say, “What is he talking about? Are we cannibals? His flesh?” God seems either too far or too near. He lives above the galaxies but he comes and speaks these baffling words that rouse our half-buried longing to somehow see ourselves — someday our whole selves — absolutely alive. Job sat in the dung and insisted that his own wept-out eyes would one day see the living God and be satisfied.

God’s words break our hearts with longing. Can any of us believe anything, finally, that is not in the flesh? Our flesh is inescapable. It is as unalterably here as the earth, and it is never right — too much or too little, too insensitive or too painful, not beautiful enough for anyone to cherish, or maybe even so lovely that others devour us. It is here. Our flesh is us. Could we ever possibly have a God who would not touch us in our flesh?

Jesus multiplies the loaves and fishes, heals the wreckage of our dying bodies, and then he looks us right in the face, and his voice pierces to the center of our hearts’ flesh as he says, “My flesh is the true food, and my blood is the true drink.” When the Master speaks these words of prodigal love to us, he is asking us to open our flesh and our spirit to the food that will truly fill us. Eternal life, the limitless outpouring that is Father, Son, and Spirit — endlessly embracing, saturating, overflowing the bottomlessness of my tiny human flesh.

In August we celebrate our Lady’s going home, her Assumption. We fill our rooms with songs and all the flowers of summer because Mary is entering the new Jerusalem, the heavenly city; because this woman, this female body and human being has been taken absolutely home to God. Even if our minds can scarcely grasp it, our hearts understand. The flesh of our mother, the very roots of our recreated earth, is now so glorified by the Holy Spirit that two bodies, one male and one female, from this tiny planet hidden in the vastness of space are caught up — his by the total union with the Word, hers by total union with the Word’s grace — into the very center of the Holy Trinity. Now through Christ’s risen presence filling all creation, Mary too is present everywhere.

Our whole human flesh, male and female — this fragility, this pain, this joy, this burden, this ecstasy, this beauty, this sorrow, this baptized dust that is the image of infinity — is living forever, the sacrament of life for every creature in the universe.
The Master is offering us his solidity — not his “spirit” only, or his mind, or his soul, but his irrefutably human density: his flesh and his blood. He is saying, “If you live my life, if you keep my word, if you only ask me, you will have me. Not an idea of me or a feeling of me or a phantom of me or a dream of me, but me.”

“You will eat me, drink me. I will be your food. I will pass through all your organs, through your bones. I will flow in your blood, move through your arms and legs, fill your brain. My flesh will fill even the unfillable recesses of your spirit, and every cell of you will become a cell of me. I will speak my name in your heart.”

The Blessed Spirit of God — so transcendent that we cannot have even one idea about him that is literally so — has filled our ordinary, blissful or bored, death-aimed life with the glory of the risen flesh of Jesus. If we have eyes to see, we see him in every face we meet, including our own; or ears to hear, we hear him in both tears and laughter; or mouth to taste, we taste him in every bite of food we eat and every bit of earth we kiss.

“Anyone who eats this bread will live forever.” Already, because our flesh and the Master’s are one, we are in eternal life. Our ragged bodies, vessels of hope and anguish, ash heaps and icons, crazy with loss and speechless with love, already are transformed so that when we touch one another, we touch — our Lord and our God! We only need to keep coming to the table, day after day after day until the end, when we will see with our own eyes Jesus’s flesh in our own.

If we keep coming, then even before our eyes are clear enough to see the full glory of our own flesh, we will find that the Master has laid his table for us by every tree, in the middle of every moment, in the silent core of every heart. Jesus has spread out his banquet of love in my brother’s flesh, in my sister’s, in my own.

“Come,” he says. So I will eat and drink, and I will live forever.

From Circling the Sun: Meditations on Christ in Liturgy and Time by Fr. Robert D. Pelton

 

[jpjd]

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.

I don’t follow your line of thinking here.

1. If the non-Catholic community you used to congregate with would have followed Jesus if they were there at the time, why don’t they follow Him now?
2. If you trust someone, then at some level you believe in them. So this phrase “- not necessarily b/c they took His saying as literal, but b/c they trusted Him” makes no sense to me. If you believe what someone says, you trust them. If you trust someone, you believe what they say.

Don’t you think more likely the reason so many left was b/c they didn’t trust Jesus? They already lacked the faith necessary to be true disciples?

Yes and yes.

Don’t you think that God looks for a humble and trustful disposition above all?

I’m not sure what you mean by “looks for”. God wants to gather all of us to Himself. He wants us to love Him, believe in Him, follow Him. He doesn’t give Himself to us only if we are a certain way. He is always there and we have to come to Him.

Like the CC teaching on “baptism of desire” for instance, God looks more to the heart than to whether or not people have had the intellectual capacity to understand something or the opportunities to be a part of something.

You are misunderstanding the Catholic doctrine of baptism by desire.
I quote from the CCC: “For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament” (CCC 1259). It is not a substitute for the Sacrament of Baptism.

From Wikipedia: “a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church explaining that those who desire baptism, but are not baptized with water through the Christian ritual, because of death, nevertheless bring about the fruits of Baptism, if their grace of conversion included an internal act of perfect love and contrition which automatically cleanses the soul of all sin.” (Italics mine.)

I am also thinking of the oodles of mainstream Catholic who receive communion weekly or more and never seem to progress in the spiritual life. Isn’t it b/c they are not properly disposed?

They don’t progress in the spiritual life because they don’t live and grow their faith. It is very good that they recieve communion, but it takes more than that to grow in the faith, to become more holy.

In fact, do any of the sacraments matter at all if faith is not present?

Yes, yes, yes! The sacraments dispense grace to us! If we are not open to such grace, that is our loss, but who is to know when someone of little faith might be open to and therefore touched by grace? There have been many, many instances of hardened people touched by God at the most unlikely of times and places.

I mean, if a marriage can be annuled b/c one of them didn’t have the proper disposition at the time to make it sacramental…

This is a complete misunderstanding of marriage and annulment.

1. A marriage is sacramental when both members have been baptized.
2. An annulment doesn’t mean that the marriage was never sacramental. It means that the marriage never existed due to a defect at the time of the marriage. I believe examples of a defect would be deception or duress, among other things.

…doesn’t it go without saying that neither are other sacraments valid if one does not have the proper disposition?

No, no, no! A sacrament is valid when the proper form (words) and matter (actions) are carried out. For example, when a priest says “…This is my Body…This is the cup of my Blood…” the consecration takes place regardless of whether the folks in the pews have the proper disposition. Disposition does not affect the validity of the sacrament. It does affect how the person receives the grace from the sacrament. I think of it like this: does the person receive the grace in a tall glass, a shot glass, or no glass at all?

And for that matter, why would it matter what church one goes to and what they profess to believe if their hearts are properly disposed to accepting the truth if their flawed understanding could only grasp it?

It matters because the Catholic Church has the fullness of the Truth. It goes full circle back to what you talked about at the beginning of your post. Those that accept the “hard saying” of eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood followed Christ and became His Church. Protestants denominations split from Christ’s Church (the Catholic Church) because they rejected a teaching of the Church. Therefore they don’t have the fullness of the Truth. People have to believe all that Christ taught, even the “hard sayings.”

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

awesome responses to ponder. thanks so much. I know this is not a good time for me to respond thoughtfully, so I’ll just think upon them a while and get back here tomorrow.

Thanks, and God bless!

 

[PC_Master]

Joy> While I’d like to respond at length, I don’t have the time right now. You did, however, say one thing that I find very important:

What would I do if was unable to receive daily? Does it make sense that we NEED to receive it literally? I wonder if I simply crave the discipline, ritual, serenity and contemplative nature of the mass and this is what I am benefitting from…

This resounds strongly with me, both in my own personal experiences and in my observance of others. Rituals, and in general earthly events which give cause to set your mind upon God fully, often seem the most rewarding. While it’s the focus on God, I think, that is the benefit in these instances, the particular ritual or event itself doesn’t seem to be so important, except for the result it accomplishes in the mindset of the individual.

I think there are many examples in the NT of ritual taking second place to faith.

Absolutely. Paul focused on this at length, as did Christ.

 

[Church_Militant]

I am also thinking of the oodles of mainstream Catholic who receive communion weekly or more and never seem to progress in the spiritual life. Isn’t it b/c they are not properly disposed?

But the fact is that you do not know this “oodles of mainstream Catholic” and cannot therefore even rightly speak of their disposition or “never seem to progress in the spiritual life”, because you again, do not know their hearts. This whole idea may well be a carry over from your n-C experiences, where they are often somewhat judgmental of other members of the Body of Christ. (Case in point, consider how often those types will make blanket generalizations about Catholics that are simply not true…)

In fact, do any of the sacraments matter at all if faith is not present? I mean, if a marriage can be annuled b/c one of them didn’t have the proper disposition at the time to make it sacramental, doesn’t it go without saying that neither are other sacraments valid if one does not have the proper disposition?

Look at the liturgy of the Mass. It is designed to help us come into that proper disposition from beginning to end.

Still because one cannot know another’s heart, I think it is unwise to speculate as to their spiritual condition and response (or lack of) to the Grace supplied. Whenever I find myself thinking like this I immediately pray, “Lord be merciful to me, a sinner.” (Luke 18:13) and refocus upon my own response to His grace so that I may pray well for my brothers and sisters and beg God to help me be a better example and instrument to draw others closer to Him.

And for that matter, why would it matter what church one goes to and what they profess to believe if their hearts are properly disposed to accepting the truth if their flawed understanding could only grasp it?

It matters a great deal, since most of said “churches” reject sacraments to begin with and yet there is more than ample New Testament support for them. Here again, it is unwise to speculate since this is something that is God’s own realm and our own “flawed understanding” can, like Job’s friends, cause us to be judgmental, when we would be better off to remain silent.

I guess basically, I believe that we are better servants of the Body of Christ if we follow the New Testament mandate to “pray for one another” and focus upon our own inadequacies.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

But the fact is that you do not know this “oodles of mainstream Catholic” and cannot therefore even rightly speak of their disposition or “never seem to progress in the spiritual life”, because you again, do not know their hearts.

“You may know them by their fruits” How do we know their fruits unless we judge by externals?

"1 Corinthians 5:1It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife…
5To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?..

9I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

I think we are to judge one another in ways that can be observed. How else do we prevent apostacy? And how do we keep ourselves “unspotted by the world”? Do you mean to tell me that given the choice between going to a Catholic parish where the parishioners are quiet before and after Mass in respect for the Lord’s Presence, and do not leave before the final blessing, and receive communion reverently, etc. and going to a parish where the Eucharist is received like popcorn, no one genuflects, people talk out loud before and after Mass, the women dress immodestly, etc… Would you not have to use some judgement here? Wouldn’t you choose to worship amongst those who exhibit reverence and respect?

I am a seeker - I’ve many doubts. How am I to find truth if I do not exercise judgement?

Still because one cannot know another’s heart, I think it is unwise to speculate as to their spiritual condition and response (or lack of) to the Grace supplied.

I agree. That is why even the RCC does not consider those outside the RCC to be damned necessarily.

Whenever I find myself thinking like this I immediately pray, “Lord be merciful to me, a sinner.” (Luke 18:13) and refocus upon my own response to His grace so that I may pray well for my brothers and sisters and beg God to help me be a better example and instrument to draw others closer to Him.

I do, but I still have to look at externals to some extent to judge the sincerity and faithfulness of a church.

It matters a great deal, since most of said “churches” reject sacraments to begin with and yet there is more than ample New Testament support for them.

Many of these churches don’t reject sacraments - they reject the idea that they themselves impart the grace - especially irregardless of the disposition of the person. Notice that Jesus would not perform a miracle where faith was absent.

Here again, it is unwise to speculate since this is something that is God’s own realm and our own “flawed understanding” can, like Job’s friends, cause us to be judgmental, when we would be better off to remain silent.

and that is exactly my point with regard to non-Catholic denominations. We cannot assume that b/c they do not define the sacraments as the Catholic church does that they do not perhaps receive more from God through thier own sacraments b/c their hearts are more properly disposed.

I guess basically, I believe that we are better servants of the Body of Christ if we follow the New Testament mandate to “pray for one another” and focus upon our own inadequacies.

Exactly - I totally agree. I am far more concerned with my own sanctification, but I also realize that I will progress better if I am where God wants me to be. I do not content myself with being somewhere b/c it seems to make more logical sense through a look at history, etc… I feel like I am overlooking some of the obvious when I choose to leave those who show evidence of holiness and overwhelming love for God for those who show irreverance, immodesty, and a love for the world over a love for God.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

If you look in the Old Testament, you will find God getting quite upset with those who did not follow His directions: e.g Nadab and Abihu in Exodus 10; and Korah, Dathan et al in Numbers 16. Note especially Miriam’s attempt to explain the need for a female priesthood in Numbers 12.

Right. Like I said - I’m not suggesting sacraments be done away with or that ritual be done away with since God obviously commanded us to perform certain rituals/sacraments. What I am saying is that I think what matters more than the mode or understanding of a ritual/sacrament is the faith of the reciprocant/participant. In this way, I question why non-Catholic sacraments/ordinances would not be considered valid.

Lets take a look at confession:

In order for a confession to be valid, one must have the proper disposition/heart. If one is not truly sorry for their sins and resolved not to commit them again - the sacrament is invalid. The RCC also teaches that it is possible to make a “perfect act of contrition”, and the requirement for that are not unlike those for the sacrament of reconcilition. It seems to me that the church recognizes that the sacrament of confession is valid elsewhere even in the absence of a priest, yet it still insists it is the OTC. The church recognizes that sanctification and salvation are possible outside the RCC, yet it still insists it is the OTC.

I’m certain there are churches that do not follow some of the Lord’s commands - and many of them have totally distorted their meaning and purpose - but there are also many non-C churches that have the same sacraments/ordinances but simply don’t believe God is limited by them or that they themselves are the dispensers of grace.

I guess my beef is with those who appear to believe that God’s grace is limited to Catholic sacraments or in some special measure to the - and with the RCC still insisting it is the OTC despite the admittance that salvation is possible outside it. I think the church can’t admit that it is EQUALLY possible to attain salvation outside the RCC, just as it is equally possible to be damned inside it.

 

[elvisman]

Hi all!

Wheels are spinning again. Wanted to pose this question to you:

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.

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.

Don’t you think more likely the reason so many left was b/c they didn’t trust Jesus? They already lacked the faith necessary to be true disciples? Don’t you think that God looks for a humble and trustful disposition above all? Like the CC teaching on “baptism of desire” for instance, God looks more to the heart than to whether or not people have had the intellectual capacity to understand something or the opportunities to be a part of something.

**Nice try. **
I think you habve a lot of hope for this to be the case because of your non-Catholic roots and that’s commendable.
BUT the fact remains that the disciples who left Jesus at that point turned away because they refused to believe:
**“But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. ****And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” **As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. In the same way, Protestants have rejected this truth.

In fact, I would say that Protestants today are MORE culpable than those who left Jesus because they have the example of the Early Church Fathers, the New Testament and 2000 years of faith tradition as their reference - yet they STILL refuse to believe.

 

[Church_Militant]

As a side note and an update:
I had stopped going to mass a few weeks then went back. I actually started going back to daily mass but started questioning if this is right. I definately see a difference in my direction when I go to mass daily. What I labor through reading and prayer to acquire I seem to attain easily by going to mass. I’ve always had a tremendous faith in the Eucharist which has never totally left. But I am starting to question if it is right. I know it is supposed to be Jesus, and we should run after Him and seek Him with all our hearts, but it seems bizarre that I LITERALLY have to run after Him day after day. I question if it is simply an association I have made over the years between holiness/God’s Presence and communion. What would I do if was unable to receive daily? Does it make sense that we NEED to receive it literally? I wonder if I simply crave the discipline, ritual, serenity and contemplative nature of the mass and this is what I am benefitting from…

The literallness of receiving Jesus in communion seems very Old Testament. There was much ritual in it and so many things they actually had to DO, whereas the NT seems to focus more on the interior of the person; the disposition or heart. Jesus certainly used matter to perform miracles, but notice that in some cases the simple and profound faith of a person was all that was needed. I think there are many examples in the NT of ritual taking second place to faith.

What does Our Lord tell us?

Luke 9:23 And he said to all: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Mark 8:34 And calling the multitude together with his disciples, he said to them: If any man will follow me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me

Yes, we must take up our cross daily and follow Him. Will we ever cease to “run after” Him until we enter Heaven?

Right now, at this point in your journey of faith, perhaps you do need to receive Him every day, in view of all you have been through. Something to think about…

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

** the disciples who left Jesus at that point turned away because they refused to believe:**
**“But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. ****And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” **As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. In the same way, Protestants have rejected this truth.

But they did not believe what? Isn’t it that they did not believe He was the Christ? If they did they would not let a hard saying be the cause of turning away from Him. I think the “hard saying” proved who believed in and trusted Jesus. The apostles did not walk away - not necessarily b/c they understood what Jesus said, but b/c they knew whatever it meant, it was true and significant. Just like there were many other sayings of Jesus that they did not fully understand until the coming of the HS.

 

[jpjd]

Joy,

You ask good questions, but 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.

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.

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.

Let’s see how this works with some of the sacraments:

For example, in the Sacrament of Baptism, the priest pours water over the baby’s forehead 3 times while saying, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” While he is doing that here in the natural world, it is actually happening in the supernatural world. The original sin, which is the absence of grace in the soul, is being washed away. Grace is coming into the soul.

In the Sacrament of Penance (also called Sacrament of Confession or Sacrament of Reconciliation – they are 3 ways of referring to the same sacrament), you confess your sins in the confessional. Father says a certain prayer that ends with these words: “…I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” As Father says these words, Christ is forgiving you!

At Mass, we have the Sacrament the Eucharist, or it may be called the Sacrament of Holy Communion. Father holds the bread and says, “…This is my Body…” and he holds the cup and says, “…This is the cup of my Blood…” Christ is changing the bread and wine into His Body and Blood.

So, as you can see, whatever action the priest is doing in the natural world, that action is a sign of what is actually happening in the supernatural world. And it is “efficacious.” It makes happen, or brings on “the action of Christ.” What Father is doing naturally, Christ is doing supernaturally. In Baptism, as Father pours water, Christ washes away original sin; in Confession, as Father says the words, Christ forgives your sin; in the Eucharist, as Father says the words over the bread and wine, Christ actually changes them into Himself. And it’s the same way with the other sacraments.

What I am saying is that I think what matters more than the mode or understanding of a ritual/sacrament is the faith of the reciprocant/participant. In this way, I question why non-Catholic sacraments/ordinances would not be considered valid.

The answer is, because the sacraments happen, the grace is dispensed, based on the proper sign performed by the minister of the sacrament, not based on the recipient’s depth of faith.

This is the crucial thing you are overlooking or misunderstanding.

The question you should be asking is, since the sacrament happens and grace is dispensed regardless of the recipient’s depth of faith, what happens to the grace dispensed if the recipient is not disposed to recieve it? Is it wasted, or is it “hanging out there” available for when the recipient is open to receiving it? My hope is that it’s not wasted.

The RCC also teaches that it is possible to make a “perfect act of contrition”, and the requirement for that are not unlike those for the sacrament of reconcilition. It seems to me that the church recognizes that the sacrament of confession is valid elsewhere even in the absence of a priest,

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.

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.

…yet it still insists it is the OTC. The church recognizes that sanctification and salvation are possible outside the RCC, yet it still insists it is the OTC.

What does it mean to be the One True Church? The four marks of the Church are: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. I can’t go into the meaning of that here, it would take too long and this post is long already. Read up on it!

I’m certain there are churches that do not follow some of the Lord’s commands - and many of them have totally distorted their meaning and purpose - but there are also many non-C churches that have the same sacraments/ordinances but simply don’t believe God is limited by them or that they themselves are the dispensers of grace.

I guess my beef is with those who appear to believe that God’s grace is limited to Catholic sacraments or in some special measure to the - and with the RCC still insisting it is the OTC despite the admittance that salvation is possible outside it. I think the church can’t admit that it is EQUALLY possible to attain salvation outside the RCC, just as it is equally possible to be damned inside it.

This is the crux of your difficulties with the Church. It requires another post to answer. Maybe another poster here will address it. If not, I will try to answer later; I have to go now! God’s Blessings as you discover the Church.

 

[po18guy]

What about: "Whoever Is Not Against Us Is For Us "?

Ok - I’ll stop answering my own thread

You used to “congregate with” non-Catholics who would do anything to obey Jesus. Well, have they investigated the Eucharist? If they truly love Jesus, they will follow Him wherever He leads - even into the Catholic Church. That is part of “denying self”. It is our responsibility as Catholics to lead others, you included, to the fulness of faith, the fulness of truth.

Running after Jesus daily? This is precisely what the mass of disciples did in the NT. They travelled far from home for three days with no food, in just one example. How does our desire for Christ compare with that? “Take up your cross and follow me” This does not specify which days, except to call us each and every day to follow Him. If He is present at daily mass, and you feel called to go, what is the concern? It is, rather, a blessing that we sometimes fail to see.

Could you make it to church daily if Christ was teaching there in his human body? I bet you could. Have you ever spent time in Adoration? Have you sever witnessed a Eucharistic miracle? Have you ever interceded before our Blessed Lord and had your prayers answered? If you had, how could you possibly doubt the faith and seek “friendlier” people outside the church?

You also mentioned stopping mass attendance and then going again. You made no mention of being reconciled to the Lord before you did this. Since the Eucharist and Reconciliation are the two Sacraments that are to be celebrated repeatedly, your faith is dead if you have only one and not the other. I certainly hope you went back with a contrite heart, and were reconciled to Him.

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? We have fear of unworthily consuming. It’s Christ, after all.

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?

It sounds like you are going through a prolonged period of dryness. This is the Lord testing you, out of love of you. Many of us undergo exactly this type of testing. Blessed are those who stay the course, even though the evil one labors without rest to lead them astray. I must keep you in prayer.

Christ’s peace.

 

[dbacks5439]

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? 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.

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. 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? **

 

[elvisman]

But they did not believe what? Isn’t it that they did not believe He was the Christ? If they did they would not let a hard saying be the cause of turning away from Him. I think the “hard saying” proved who believed in and trusted Jesus. The apostles did not walk away - not necessarily b/c they understood what Jesus said, but b/c they knew whatever it meant, it was true and significant. Just like there were many other sayings of Jesus that they did not fully understand until the coming of the HS.

They didn’t believe what he was saying. They LOST their faith.
It doesn’t say that these disciples were weak in their belief in Jesus BEFORE he said this. I think you’re trying to see something that isn’t there.

John 6:60-61 says:
"Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?"

---

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I don’t follow your line of thinking here.

1. If the non-Catholic community you used to congregate with would have followed Jesus if they were there at the time, why don’t they follow Him now?

You see, I don’t consider them to not be following Him. although they interpret John 6 differently than Catholics do, I’ve no doubt if they understood it should be taken literally, they would. I don’t think they would have left so quickly b/c Jesus had said something difficult.

1. If you trust someone, then at some level you believe in them. So this phrase “- not necessarily b/c they took His saying as literal, but b/c they trusted Him” makes no sense to me. If you believe what someone says, you trust them. If you trust someone, you believe what they say.

You are mistaking believing and understanding. Those who remained with Jesus were those who believed in Jesus and believed in what He said, but didn’t necessarily understand Him. Those who left were those who did not believe in Jesus or what He said and that is why they left. Those with real faith in Jesus did not leave despite their lack of understanding about His hard saying. I think this is the entire problem I have seen with the Catholic interpretation of this passage and the reason I initially had doubts about the Real Presence.

I’m not sure what you mean by “looks for”. God wants to gather all of us to Himself. He wants us to love Him, believe in Him, follow Him. He doesn’t give Himself to us only if we are a certain way. He is always there and we have to come to Him.

He does not force Himself upon us either. Certainly there are those in every faith who go through the ritual without desiring to really come to God, b/c coming to God means dying to self; something most people are not willing to do. As I said earlier, Jesus would not perform miracles where faith was absent.

You are misunderstanding the Catholic doctrine of baptism by desire.

I may be thinking of the CC statement on salvation outside the church. I’ve no idea where to find it, but basically the CC says that salvation is possible outside of the RCC if one is sincerely seeking the truth; who, like the:
(Romans 2:14) …Gentiles, which have not the Law, do by nature the things contained in the Law, these, having not the Law, are a Law unto themselves:

15. Which shew the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Yes, yes, yes! The sacraments dispense grace to us! If we are not open to such grace, that is our loss, but who is to know when someone of little faith might be open to and therefore touched by grace? There have been many, many instances of hardened people touched by God at the most unlikely of times and places.

But does this mean it is b/c of the Sacraments? God has touched the lives of unlikely people outside of the sacraments too! I’m not saying God doesn’t use the sacraments - He can use anything He wishes.

An annulment doesn’t mean that the marriage was never sacramental. It means that the marriage never existed due to a defect at the time of the marriage. I believe examples of a defect would be deception or duress, among other things.

So, deception for example: You wouldn’t classify a deceptive person as one not properly disposed for reception of God’s grace - in this instance, in marriage? I think we are saying the same thing with different words.

No, no, no! A sacrament is valid when the proper form (words) and matter (actions) are carried out. For example, when a priest says “…This is my Body…This is the cup of my Blood…” the consecration takes place regardless of whether the folks in the pews have the proper disposition. Disposition does not affect the validity of the sacrament

It does in the case of confession and matrimony so far. Now perhaps consecration takes place regardless of the disposition/belief of the people in the pews, but perhaps the graces received in our faithful reception of communion are also received by those of other faiths who have the proper disposition. Similarly, Catholics who receive communion w/out the right disposition are NOT receiving the same graces as those who do. I am saying that there doesn’t seem to be a difference. Humility and faith are at the root of it. W/out these our reception leads to condemnation.

I just don’t think we can expect the entire world to understand about the RP or conclude that the RCC is the OTC and I have a difficult time believing that those who don’t believe it b/c they don’t understand it are not receiving the same graces. We are imperfect people who draw wrong conclusions all the time. I think it is enough to God to know that if our inability to believe in the RP is b/c of ignorance, but our hearts are right anyway, He would dispense the same graces upon us.

Those that accept the “hard saying” of eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood followed Christ and became His Church.

But didn’t necessarily interpret Him literally.

Peace,