John Chapter 6

[cooterhein]

But I think a case could be made that to bear the “mark” could be associated with “walking” away from Christ and His Church and Her teachings…

That’d be a really weak case. It’s disappointing that you’d even consider it.

 

[Lapey]

That’d be a really weak case. It’s disappointing that you’d even consider it.

To me as a Catholic who believes 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Eucharist is truly Jesus Christ, body soul and divinity, it is disappointing that so many walk away from Him.

See, sometimes one must be able to see through a different filter than our own. We see people turning away from Jesus when the teachings of the Eucharist are ignored. Just as John wrote about the spirit of anti-Christ, this could be applied here if my perspective is strong in Catholic teaching as it is.

No I am not calling any one the anti-Christ, only illustrating the difference in perspective.

On the other hand, if I were a Protestant who does not believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist then I would be likely to possibly see people who worship the Eucharist as idol worshipers, or at least people who have been duped.

Either way if I look from my own perspective and not from the other’s, I can say it would be a weak case and I am disappointed you would consider it…don’t you think?

 

[StTommyMore]

It is not really all that much of a coincidence. In revelation it is not just a succession of 3 sixes, but six hundred sixty-six. Now if John 6:66 were the six hundred ansixty-sith verse in the Gospel, then that would raise the eyebrows.

The 666th verse: John 16:21:

When a woman is in travail she has sorrow, because her hour has come; but when she is delivered of the child, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a child is born into the world.

 

[cooterhein]

To me as a Catholic who believes 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Eucharist is truly Jesus Christ, body soul and divinity, it is disappointing that so many walk away from Him.

That much is true of any Catholic who takes Catholicism seriously, and I’d expect to see that at every level of apologetics.

See, sometimes one must be able to see through a different filter than our own.

I can do this.

We see people turning away from Jesus when the teachings of the Eucharist are ignored.

I continue to be slightly as to why you’re comfortable with insisting on the specific teaching of transubstantiation instead of the RP teaching that characterized both East and West for the first 8 centuries of Christianity and then continued to exist alongside transubstantiation under an as-yet-united group of leaders until the Schism…but ok, you see transubstantiation as the one true teaching and it’s very disappointing when others don’t see it that way.

Go on.

Just as John wrote about the spirit of anti-Christ, this could be applied here if my perspective is strong in Catholic teaching as it is.

It could be applied there if you’re an amateur apologist who feels like applying it there. But I would start to take it seriously if I were convinced that a more professional Catholic apologist would tend to feel comfortable with making such an application. I’m not really convinced that this is the case. If it were, I’d disagree and continue to be disappointed with the outcome. But at least I’d see it as a legitimately Catholic POV.

No I am not calling any one the anti-Christ, only illustrating the difference in perspective.

Commence with the bad New York accent “Look, I’m not sayin’ the Catlick Church is the whore of Babylon, I’m just sayin’ there’s seven hills outside da Pope’s city. I mean, from a non-Catlick perspective, we’re more open ta that kinda thing. So I’m not sayin’ y’all is the whore- I’m just sayin’ da biblical references ta metaphorical whorishness present some strikin’ oppatunities for comparison, is all I’m sayin’.”

Ok, no more NY accent.

Seriously though, that’s kind of what you’re doing.

On the other hand, if I were a Protestant who does not believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist then I would be likely to possibly see people who worship the Eucharist as idol worshipers, or at least people who have been duped.

Most non-Catholics would actually prefer to not use this as a basis for calling you an idol-worshiper, which one specific CAF Catholic found out on a particularly memorable thread of his. He really wanted to put those words in our collective mouth, but…well, maybe you’ve seen the thread. It’s one of those things where you kind of have to see how it played out.

I think he became legitimately frustrated and a little bit angry when we collectively refused to condemn him for idolatry. I never thought I’d see that on a site like this, but there it was. It was comical, really.

Either way if I look from my own perspective and not from the other’s, I can say it would be a weak case and I am disappointed you would consider it…don’t you think?

I do consider it to be disappointing from a broadly Christian perspective. However, I also see it as something that isn’t sufficiently grounded in good Catholic scholarship. It’s not that I see a thoroughly Catholic perspective and call it “disappointing” simply because it’s Catholic. It’s more like a situation where I recognize something that isn’t an accurate representation of genuine Catholicism, and a couple of things are disappointing about it. One…well, just that it’s not good Catholic teaching, and I expect better from this forum. And two, the fact that someone at more of an amateur level believes it should be taken seriously is also a bit disappointing. It means there’s some kind of disconnect between you and the real apologists that run this thing.

 

[Lapey]

That much is true of any Catholic who takes Catholicism seriously, and I’d expect to see that at every level of apologetics.

I can do this.

I continue to be slightly as to why you’re comfortable with insisting on the specific teaching of transubstantiation instead of the RP teaching that characterized both East and West for the first 8 centuries of Christianity and then continued to exist alongside transubstantiation under an as-yet-united group of leaders until the Schism…but ok, you see transubstantiation as the one true teaching and it’s very disappointing when others don’t see it that way.

Go on.

It could be applied there if you’re an amateur apologist who feels like applying it there. But I would start to take it seriously if I were convinced that a more professional Catholic apologist would tend to feel comfortable with making such an application. I’m not really convinced that this is the case. If it were, I’d disagree and continue to be disappointed with the outcome. But at least I’d see it as a legitimately Catholic POV.

Commence with the bad New York accent “Look, I’m not sayin’ the Catlick Church is the whore of Babylon, I’m just sayin’ there’s seven hills outside da Pope’s city. I mean, from a non-Catlick perspective, we’re more open ta that kinda thing. So I’m not sayin’ y’all is the whore- I’m just sayin’ da biblical references ta metaphorical whorishness present some strikin’ oppatunities for comparison, is all I’m sayin’.”

Ok, no more NY accent.

Seriously though, that’s kind of what you’re doing.

Most non-Catholics would actually prefer to not use this as a basis for calling you an idol-worshiper, which one specific CAF Catholic found out on a particularly memorable thread of his. He really wanted to put those words in our collective mouth, but…well, maybe you’ve seen the thread. It’s one of those things where you kind of have to see how it played out.

I think he became legitimately frustrated and a little bit angry when we collectively refused to condemn him for idolatry. I never thought I’d see that on a site like this, but there it was. It was comical, really.

I do consider it to be disappointing from a broadly Christian perspective. However, I also see it as something that isn’t sufficiently grounded in good Catholic scholarship. It’s not that I see a thoroughly Catholic perspective and call it “disappointing” simply because it’s Catholic. It’s more like a situation where I recognize something that isn’t an accurate representation of genuine Catholicism, and a couple of things are disappointing about it. One…well, just that it’s not good Catholic teaching, and I expect better from this forum. And two, the fact that someone at more of an amateur level believes it should be taken seriously is also a bit disappointing. It means there’s some kind of disconnect between you and the real apologists that run this thing.

Thanks for your charity, this amature apologist is done, unless you care to have a conversation…

May God bless you.

 

[cooterhein]

Thanks for your charity, this amature apologist is done, unless you care to have a conversation…

May God bless you.

Long as I’m being charitable, I want to acknowledge one more time that you didn’t actually say or imply that I or any group of Christians associated with me actually are the antichrist. Can I make a quick suggestion, though? I happen to think that for an average Christian, you should be able to make it through a completely average day without having to clarify that you don’t really think another Christian is the antichrist. I can usually do this. It’s really hard sometimes, but I can usually make it happen.

If you would like a conversation, I’d be interested in closing the perceived gap that I believe exists between you and the real apologists in this specific instance. To that end…

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0304bt.asp
This Rock article on the antichrist, by Jimmy Akin. His initial summary of what we can possibly say about the antichrist (apart from “all the speculation”- “much of it wild and fanciful”)…

“This clarifies the specific deception being perpetrated by the spirit of Antichrist and its human collaborator, suggesting that it involves a denial of the coming of Jesus in the flesh. This could be construed in one of several ways: (1) that Jesus was a mere man and not God Incarnate (as in the early heresy known as Ebionism), (2) that the humanity of Jesus was only an illusion (as in the early heresy known as Docetism), or (3) that Jesus was not the Messiah (as in non-Christian Judaism).”

You’ll notice that the denial of the RP in communion wafers does not make the list. Why would Jimmy exclude that? Given his background, don’t you think it would weigh somewhat heavily on his mind if he’d come to the realization that for much of his life, he was collaborating with the spirit of the antichrist in some significant way?

The next link includes a series of “quick questions” having to do with the antichrist and the number six hundred and sixty six.
devthrone.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/antichrist

If you want to pick one from there, go for it. And if you can find any Catholic literature from people on staff at CAF that makes some sort of link between the spirit of the antichrist and the denial of the RP (although, again, you’re not actually saying I’m the antichrist as that would be most uncharitable)…well, I’ll be surprised if you find anything. But if you can, surprise me.

For the time being, I’m putting the RP-antichrist connection down for “wild and fanciful speculation.” And it’s not personal, of course. It’s not because of who you are or what your beliefs are in general. It’s just a merit-based assessment of the assertion, and I believe there’s good reason to call it baseless speculation that isn’t representative of good Catholic teaching. It’s also counter-productive in any sort of Protestant-Catholic dialogue.

 

[fbl9]

snip…
You’ll notice that the denial of the RP in communion wafers does not make the list. Why would Jimmy exclude that? Given his background, don’t you think it would weigh somewhat heavily on his mind if he’d come to the realization that for much of his life, he was collaborating with the spirit of the antichrist in some significant way?

.

In Catholic beleif the host really actually is Christ, not in rather is.

Of course one could flip this the other way around and make a case for what this “numerical” coincedence means is that those whom beleive in a RP are the real servents of the anti-christ.

 

[Lapey]

Long as I’m being charitable, I want to acknowledge one more time that you didn’t actually say or imply that I or any group of Christians associated with me actually are the antichrist. Can I make a quick suggestion, though? I happen to think that for an average Christian, you should be able to make it through a completely average day without having to clarify that you don’t really think another Christian is the antichrist. I can usually do this. It’s really hard sometimes, but I can usually make it happen.

If you would like a conversation, I’d be interested in closing the perceived gap that I believe exists between you and the real apologists in this specific instance. To that end…

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0304bt.asp
This Rock article on the antichrist, by Jimmy Akin. His initial summary of what we can possibly say about the antichrist (apart from “all the speculation”- “much of it wild and fanciful”)…

“This clarifies the specific deception being perpetrated by the spirit of Antichrist and its human collaborator, suggesting that it involves a denial of the coming of Jesus in the flesh. This could be construed in one of several ways: (1) that Jesus was a mere man and not God Incarnate (as in the early heresy known as Ebionism), (2) that the humanity of Jesus was only an illusion (as in the early heresy known as Docetism), or (3) that Jesus was not the Messiah (as in non-Christian Judaism).”

You’ll notice that the denial of the RP in communion wafers does not make the list. Why would Jimmy exclude that? Given his background, don’t you think it would weigh somewhat heavily on his mind if he’d come to the realization that for much of his life, he was collaborating with the spirit of the antichrist in some significant way?

The next link includes a series of “quick questions” having to do with the antichrist and the number six hundred and sixty six.
devthrone.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/antichrist

If you want to pick one from there, go for it. And if you can find any Catholic literature from people on staff at CAF that makes some sort of link between the spirit of the antichrist and the denial of the RP (although, again, you’re not actually saying I’m the antichrist as that would be most uncharitable)…well, I’ll be surprised if you find anything. But if you can, surprise me.

For the time being, I’m putting the RP-antichrist connection down for “wild and fanciful speculation.” And it’s not personal, of course. It’s not because of who you are or what your beliefs are in general. It’s just a merit-based assessment of the assertion, and I believe there’s good reason to call it baseless speculation that isn’t representative of good Catholic teaching. It’s also counter-productive in any sort of Protestant-Catholic dialogue.

You’ve got some serious issues…if you would like to check my profile, my signature or anything at all to do with my account, even a brilliant humble person as yourself can see that I never ever have tried to pass myself off as an apologist.

I am a deacon in the Catholic Church, not Jimmie Aiken. But you sir are not a very nice. Unless you consider ridiculing Christ like. My simple amateurish attempt at an apologist remark went right over your head.

And by the way, please produce anything from the patristic period, that would be the first 500 years of Christianity in case you don’t know, that goes against the teaching of the RP. No it was not called transubstantiation, but I can assure you that you will not find Catholic writings to go against that teaching. The Church doesn’t change Her mind after a few centuries, she makes statements of declaration or clarification when needed. As She did in the council of Trent concerning Faith and works.

 

[cooterhein]

In Catholic beleif the host really actually is Christ, not in rather is.

Of course one could flip this the other way around and make a case for what this “numerical” coincedence means is that those whom beleive in a RP are the real servents of the anti-christ.

What basis is there for saying the RP has anything to do with the antichrist? I’ve looked at several pieces by apologists from this site that deal with the antichrist and the spirit of the antichrist and so forth, but from what I’ve seen so far, the issue of the RP doesn’t come close to being relevant.

 

[cooterhein]

You’ve got some serious issues…if you would like to check my profile, my signature or anything at all to do with my account, even a brilliant humble person as yourself can see that I never ever have tried to pass myself off as an apologist.

I am a deacon in the Catholic Church, not Jimmie Aiken. But you sir are not a very nice. Unless you consider ridiculing Christ like. My simple amateurish attempt at an apologist remark went right over your head.

And by the way, please produce anything from the patristic period, that would be the first 500 years of Christianity in case you don’t know, that goes against the teaching of the RP. No it was not called transubstantiation, but I can assure you that you will not find Catholic writings to go against that teaching. The Church doesn’t change Her mind after a few centuries, she makes statements of declaration or clarification when needed. As She did in the council of Trent concerning Faith and works.

Congratulations on being a deacon, and congratulations to the Catholic Church on establishing a permanent diaconate. It’s a good thing to have.

I did see your point- you see where John writes about the spirit of the antichrist and you feel that this can be applied when you see people ignoring Rome’s teachings on the Eucharist. I’ve looked around a bit in order to see if any CAF apologists make a similar connection, but I don’t see it. If you see anything of the sort here or anywhere else, please let me know.

 

[StTommyMore]

What basis is there for saying the RP has anything to do with the antichrist? I’ve looked at several pieces by apologists from this site that deal with the antichrist and the spirit of the antichrist and so forth, but from what I’ve seen so far, the issue of the RP doesn’t come close to being relevant.

Denial of the Real Presence is one of the marks of a heretic (the others being having no concern for the poor and being divisive). This comes from a very early 2nd century document, though not scripture,was written by a disciple of St. John the Apostle–St. Ignatius of Antioch. St. Ignatius was a bishop, meaning he had episcopal authority. Also considering that the letters have survived, and were not destroyed, also suggests their acceptance by the Church. So here we have an early Church document which maintains the teaching of the Real Presence, that is, a literal interpretation of John 6.

 

[Lapey]

Congratulations on being a deacon, and congratulations to the Catholic Church on establishing a permanent diaconate. It’s a good thing to have.Hey, we have an agreement here, there is hope.

I did see your point-No you don’t, you are too busy knowing better than me who I am. you see where John writes about the spirit of the antichrist and youPlease provide the link to where you saw me write that this is my belief. feel that this can be applied when you see people ignoring Rome’s teachings on the Eucharist. I’ve looked around a bit in order to see if any CAF apologists make a similar connection, but I don’t see it. If you see anything of the sort here or anywhere else, please let me know.

If you would take the time to look past your nose, you would see that I don’t think that! I used both extremes to illustrate my point that we add to beliefs or use them out of context!

Where in my post, not just the apologists, do you read that this was stated as my belief? You won’t find that, to the contrary you will find a simple discussion untill you decided to attack my statement and me personally, making the point as has been made already about the OP’s topic. Interesting for conversation but a stretch, as would be the spirit of anti-Christ or the title of idol worshiper.

Okay, did I break through yet?

 

[Lapey]

To me as a Catholic who believes 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Eucharist is truly Jesus Christ, body soul and divinity, it is disappointing that so many walk away from Him.As Catholic, why should this not diappoint me???

See, sometimes one must be able to see through a different filter than our own. We see people turning away from Jesus when the teachings of the Eucharist are ignored.This is just as true now as when John wrote 6:66.

This is where the example of absurdidty begins, keep up my friend.
Just as John wrote about the spirit of anti-Christ, this could be applied here if my perspective is strong in Catholic teaching as it is.

Was there any thought in your mind that I was not calling anyone this? If not you decided how dumb I was long before you responded. If the way I worded this was confusing, I am sorry, but I thought the absurdity would be obvious; guess not, sorry.
No I am not calling any one the anti-Christ, only illustrating the difference in perspective.

On the other hand, if I were a Protestant who does not believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist then I would be likely to possibly see people who worship the Eucharist as idol worshipers, or at least people who have been duped.This is also said by some, there are websites deticated to showing all who Catholics “truly” are. Look them up, you’l find many. But that statement is just as absurd as the AC one.

Either way if I look from my own perspective and not from the other’s, I can say it would be a weak case and I am disappointed you would consider it…don’t you think?Still never got an answer to my simple question, if I missed it I am sorry again.

Just thought I would try to put footnotes to my initial responce to you.

 

[PRmerger]

You’ve got some serious issues…if you would like to check my profile, my signature or anything at all to do with my account, even a brilliant humble person as yourself can see that I never ever have tried to pass myself off as an apologist.

I am a deacon in the Catholic Church, not Jimmie Aiken. But you sir are not a very nice. Unless you consider ridiculing Christ like. My simple amateurish attempt at an apologist remark went right over your head.

And by the way**, please produce anything from the patristic period, that would be the first 500 years of Christianity in case you don’t know, that goes against the teaching of the RP. ** No it was not called transubstantiation, but I can assure you that you will not find Catholic writings to go against that teaching. The Church doesn’t change Her mind after a few centuries, she makes statements of declaration or clarification when needed. As She did in the council of Trent concerning Faith and works.

I’d be interested in seeing this, too.

Of course, transubstantiation, being a Latin term, would not be used by the Eastern churches.

Yet the belief in the RP was not denied by Christendom until the 16th century.