So, i hear...

[Prodigal_Son1]

By John 6 they have had their figurative faculties both scolded by Jesus and thus warmed up. John 6 seems to be about the spirit of heaven, not literal transubstantiation. Jesus even compares his living off his Father in the same way that they should live off of him. Some listeners in the crowd get it, some don’t.

Maybe when the Lord got real specific, it threw them off.

Joh 6:54 (6:55) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Joh 6:55 (6:56) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 (6:57) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.

He did not explain any symbolism, because there was no symbolism to His teaching.

 

[Lapey]

??

I was talking about the metaphor of the Eucharist (ie not literal body and blood).

So am I my brother, so am I! Only difference it is not a metaphor. If that would have been the case, why didn’t Jesus stop those who left?

Why did the author of John’s Gospel use the word that he did? It doesn’t mean to taste or to nibble, it literally means to gnaw and chew of the bone. He meant that He would give us His flesh to eat, no metaphor.

Again I ask you, alittle more straight forward, will you also leave?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So the words were not inspired? I know you don’t believe that prod.

Where in scriptures did Jesus say, write this down or write anything Himself?

The inspiration from God came much later, after Christ’s death and resurrection. The Gospels told events that had already happened.

To think that Andrew truly knew Christ was the Messiah, the real begotten Son of God, conflicts with Christ saying to Peter, that it was not flesh and blood, which his brother was, that revealed the answer to him, but the answer was provided by the Father in heaven. How do you reconcile that?

 

[CMatt25]

If there are believers of Christ being the Son of God, but reject His teaching that the bread IS His body and the cup IS His blood, then they shouldn’t receive what we believe it is. What are they missing from the perspective of their belief, bread and wine…

Catholics sometimes don’t seem to realize there are others who believe in a physical RP. Sure they might not believe only Roman priests can consecrate but they might still believe what they would be receiving is real in the RCC too if only they were allowed to receive. And then others believe in Him, believe in His sacrifice on the cross, believe in His Presence but they are denied as well. Why? Because they don’t believe exactly that only RC priests can consecrate? So we turn them away from His grace? That makes absolutely no sense to me. I know you guys are explaining RC teaching. But I already know RC teaching.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

what does it matter? what matters is what Jesus said.

they were expecting the Messisah. there is no mention they were expecting the Son of God. until St Peter had the revelation. until then no one had such. what are you trying to prove anyway?

In the prophecy of Danial One looking like the son of man comes and this was understood to be the Messiah, though it doesnt say He is the Son of God the interpretation seams to say He is God.

 

[CMatt25]

How can one ‘commune’ with Him if they don’t believe communion is what He taught it was?

By being received at his table.

 

[CMatt25]

Where in scriptures did Jesus say, write this down or write anything Himself?

The inspiration from God came much later, after Christ’s death and resurrection. The Gospels told events that had already happened.

To think that Andrew truly knew Christ was the Messiah, the real begotten Son of God, conflicts with Christ saying to Peter, that it was not flesh and blood, which his brother was, that revealed the answer to him, but the answer was provided by the Father in heaven. How do you reconcile that?

Yes and Christ was God. It only doesn’t conflict if we assume or as you yourself said awhile back “speculate” about Andrew. And believe he was not led by the Spirit.

 

[Lapey]

CMatt-
Lapey, thank you. I do understand RCC teaching on this. And there are many things in the Bible I find difficult on first read to understand fully. But I am not sure we need a commentary on this one. I can’t fathom Jesus turning away a believer in Him and in what He did for us on the cross when they are called to His table.

Jn 6:28 So they asked him, What can we do in order to do what God wants us to do?

29 Jesus answered, What God wants you to do is to believe in the one he sent.

Lapey-

You are welcome, but you don’t hear what I say. Jesus gave the hearers of His words some very hard teachings to understand on the first reading too. But He gave it none the less. I agree that it is hard to imagine Jesus turning away a believer Him given what He did for us on the cross when they are called to His table. But He did not call us unworthily, scripture tells us this. Scriptures cannot contradict each other. Paul is very clear about receiving worthily, what does this mean to you? And BTW, Jesus is not turning away from the believer; the “partial believer” is turning away from Jesus. We as Catholics, must understand that bringing people to receive is an obligation, but it goes much deeper than walking up the aisle to get a piece of special bread and a drink of blessed wine; much much more.

Verses 28 and 29 are exactly what I said in the other post; God wants us to know and believe in Jesus. He gave our fathers the teachings of the Old Testament and fed them manna in the desert but they still died. Do you think this “super natural bread”, manna, is more special than the Eucharist?

CMatt-
31 Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, just as the scripture says, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

32 I am telling you the truth, Jesus said. What Moses gave you was not the bread from heaven; it is my Father who gives you the real bread from heaven.

33 For the bread that God gives is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.

35 I am the bread of life, Jesus told them. Those who come to me will never be hungry; those who believe in me will never be thirsty.

36 Now, I told you that you have seen me but will not believe.

37 Everyone whom my Father gives me will come to me. I will never turn away anyone who comes to me

Lapey-
This is all Jesus teaching us, God the Father insists that we know and believe in Him whom He has sent. Same design here, God teaching us about Jesus.

CMatt-
Now jump to verse 50 where you say the discourse changes to the Eucharist.

50 But the bread that comes down from heaven is of such a kind that whoever eats it will not die.

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If you eat this bread, you will live forever. The bread that I will give you is my flesh, which I give so that the world may live.

CMatt-
Verses 33 and 35 are talking about the same bread as verses 50 and 51

Lapey-
No, they are not. Before verse 50, the teaching is past tense if you will. After 50 the teaching is present and future. Jesus tells us in 51 that He is the bread, and we must eat this bread, Jesus. Doesn’t get any simpler than that.

It the manna was as special and supernatural that the bible makes it out to be, don’t you think the Bread from heaven would be that much more important and supernatural? Were all accepted into the Holy of Holies to access the bread, manna? This is where the law and the super natural bread were kept, in the tabernacle. Could anyone enter?

You cannot look past the Old when you look for the meaning of the new. Check out Scott Hawn’s book, “The Lambs Supper.”

 

[CMatt25]

It is not about discouraging others, it is just the opposite. Instead of showing how you want to change the Eucharist and His Church to invite people up to receive, you need to be able to show people how He and His Church have changed you and that’s why you crave the Eucharist for all. It’s not a right you have to go up and receive worthily, it is a burning desire!!! The more I learn about the Church and its Head, Jesus, the more I crave Him. But I submit to doing it His way, as the Church is asking of you and all.

This is not rhetoric; this is the calling of the Church, Christ as the Head. To believe otherwise is contrary to the teachings of Christ. One is called to come forward only if one is properly disposed to do so. Everyone is invited up to receive a blessing, not the Holy Eucharist.

This is not exclusionary doctrine, it is most definitely “inclusionary”, we want everyone to come up and receive, but not on your terms, but God’s!

No matter how well meaning your misguided opinions are, Jesus gave the authority to bind and loose to the Church not me or you as an individual. If you truly are Catholic, please do the work and learn about His Church.

I hope you can see the charity in my words to you.

By definition all Christians believe Christ the head. And not only RC’s have a burning desire to receive Him. God’s terms was to BELIEVE in Him.

Lapey I am not unlearned about the RCC. All of us have our faith “opinions” if that’s what you want to call them. In charity to each other, peace and God bless.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Catholics sometimes don’t seem to realize there are others who believe in a physical RP. Sure they might not believe only Roman priests can consecrate but they might still believe what they would be receiving is real in the RCC too if only they were allowed to receive. And then others believe in Him, believe in His sacrifice on the cross, believe in His Presence but they are denied as well. Why? Because they don’t believe exactly that only RC priests can consecrate? So we turn them away from His grace? That makes absolutely no sense to me. I know you guys are explaining RC teaching. But I already know RC teaching.

Ok, let’s write the Vatican and tell them we have to let everyone receive the body and blood of Christ, because they might happen to believe it to be the real presence? That’s not how Christ setup the hierarchy of the Church, with the authority to bind and loose. The method to receiving communion comes from scriptures and sacred Tradition. It has been the way since the beginning of the Church, as determined by the men of the Church who learned directly from Christ.

When you receive communion, it is stated, ‘the body of Christ’ to which you reply ‘Amen’. Amen means, this is true.

Now, let’s go a step further with your explanation. Someone happens to believe in the real presence, but they reject confessing their sins. Is there a problem with them receiving communion?

It’s simple, if you really believe in the real presence as Catholics do, take the next step in your journey of faith and accept all the truths…

 

[CMatt25]

you don’t hear what I say.

Paul is very clear about receiving worthily, what does this mean to you?

Before verse 50, the teaching is past tense if you will. After 50 the teaching is present and future. Jesus tells us in 51 that He is the bread, and we must eat this bread, Jesus. Doesn’t get any simpler than that.

You cannot look past the Old when you look for the meaning of the new. Check out Scott Hawn’s book, “The Lambs Supper.”

Yes I hear what you say Lapey.

To me receiving worthily means to believe in Christ and to discern Christ’s Sacrifice for us on the cross. That may not be enough for the Church or you but I believe it was/is enough for Christ.

If you believe before vs 50 the bread of life that came down from heaven to give life to the world (verses 33 and 35) was not the same bread of life that came down from heaven in verse 51, you can believe that.

Why would I need Scott Hahn? I have you, Prod, and Wisdom.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Catholics sometimes don’t seem to realize there are others who believe in a physical RP. Sure they might not believe only Roman priests can consecrate but they might still believe what they would be receiving is real in the RCC too if only they were allowed to receive. And then others believe in Him, believe in His sacrifice on the cross, believe in His Presence but they are denied as well. Why? Because they don’t believe exactly that only RC priests can consecrate? So we turn them away from His grace? That makes absolutely no sense to me. I know you guys are explaining RC teaching. But I already know RC teaching.

Matt,

i dont think you understand the Mass, the Church, and so forth.

when the priest consagrate the Bread and Wine. they become the Body and Blood of Christ for us Catholics. this is the Sacrifice offered for the sins of the people in the CC.

all are welcome to believe and become Catholics. the Church does not, correct me if am wrong, offer this Sacrifice to those outside the Church. remember when the jews met in teh Temple, the Sacrifice was for the people of Israel. the atonement for their sins and not for umbelievers.

protestants does not accept the CC is the True Church, they dont even believe in the priests. they dont believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass. the Church is not an anarchy system where any one can do whatever they want with it.

i am sorry to say this to you. what you are suggesting is insanity.

you dont mess wiht the House of God. He gives the rules, we dont do as we please and expect God to accept. this kind of judgement are for those who dont know God.

 

[CMatt25]

It has been the way since the beginning of the Church, as determined by the men of the Church who learned directly from Christ.

When you receive communion, it is stated, ‘the body of Christ’ to which you reply ‘Amen’. Amen means, this is true.

Now, let’s go a step further with your explanation. Someone happens to believe in the real presence, but they reject confessing their sins. Is there a problem with them receiving communion?

Prod, and lets just say if believers were closed to breaking bread together in remembrance of Him, that makes it right?

Yes Prod, this is true. Christ sacrificed His body for us and we do this in remembrance of Him. Amen.

No problem if they are healed at that moment when they say Lord I am not worthy to receive but only say the word and I shall be healed and they feel called by Him to receive.

 

[tweetymom]

Matt,

i dont think you understand the Mass, the Church, and so forth.

when the priest consagrate the Bread and Wine. they become the Body and Blood of Christ for us Catholics. this is the Sacrifice offered for the sins of the people in the CC.

all are welcome to believe and become Catholics. the Church does not, correct me if am wrong, offer this Sacrifice to those outside the Church. remember when the jews met in teh Temple, the Sacrifice was for the people of Israel. the atonement for their sins and not for umbelievers.

protestants does not accept the CC is the True Church, they dont even believe in the priests. they dont believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass. the Church is not an anarchy system where any one can do whatever they want with it.

i am sorry to say this to you. what you are suggesting is insanity.

you dont mess wiht the House of God. He gives the rules, we dont do as we please and expect God to accept. this kind of judgement are for those who dont know God.

Sorry to disagree with you but just because that some peopledo not believe in all the CC teaches does not mean that they do not love and have a relationship with God.

 

[CMatt25]

Matt,

i dont think you understand the Mass, the Church, and so forth.

i am sorry to say this to you. what you are suggesting is insanity.

you dont mess wiht the House of God. He gives the rules, we dont do as we please and expect God to accept. this kind of judgement are for those who dont know God.

Wisdom I understand. I was baptized, catechized, confirmed. Have my Outlines of the Catholic faith and my Bible right here with me. Why do some Catholics always think another does not understand or is not informed?

I’m sorry you believe it is insanity to believe Christ would not turn a believer away. But then I am insane if that is the case because I can’t help it. That is what I believe.

 

[CMatt25]

Sorry to disagree with you but just because that some peopledo not believe in all the CC teaches does not mean that they do not love and have a relationship with God.

Thank you tweetymom. You bring tears to my eyes.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thank you tweetymom. You bring tears to my eyes.

What does, ‘I believe in the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ mean to you?

It seems to mean, you believe what you want to believe of it and the rest…well it’s not needed.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Wisdom I understand. I was baptized, catechized, confirmed. Have my Outlines of the Catholic faith and my Bible right here with me. Why do some Catholics always think another does not understand or is not informed?

I’m sorry you believe it is insanity to believe Christ would not turn a believer away. But then I am insane if that is the case because I can’t help it. That is what I believe.

you have done all this. Why? you seem to question everything the Church does. you might not realize but you are in contempt with the Church’s teachings. this may be a grave sin. i suggest you confess and come clean with the Church. you are not obligated to stay in the Church if you dont feel she is right. you seem to think you know more than teh Church.
i hope you dont take offense to this. but you remind of Judas. Jesus was teaching something but judas wanted something else. he just couldnt bring his heart to the teachings of Jesus. he wanted his ways no matter what. well, you know the story.
this always happens when we think we know more than God. many people have the tendency to think that they could be better than God. your contemption against the Church is that the Church is not kind enough, she is somehow doing evil. why would you want to be in the Church if you think she is not good enough.

you could be doing a lot more good by having others coming into the Faith. no matter how you try you can never be as good as God or better than God. it is a mistake to think taht you are much better than the Church.

 

[CMatt25]

What does, ‘I believe in the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ mean to you?

It seems to mean, you believe what you want to believe of it and the rest…well it’s not needed.

No it means to me I believe in the Holy Universal Church of Christ and in the gospels written by the Apostles and in their Acts.

 

[spn82756]

I agree we cant judge the heart but there are some actions that must be considered. the best example I can think of is the Catholic Senator that votes to block abortion regulation. He basicly has the power to save lives and refuses to do so. Should he not be admonished by the church?

Yes he should! He should also be prevented from receiving Holy Communion as some bishops would like to see done. To commit the same sin over and over and over again does in no way signify any kind of repentance…but rather obstinence. At least the Church had the intestinal fortitude to correct Pelosi on her false preachings. She may actually be worse that a Kerry or Kennedy.

BTW…praise God! Patrick Kennedy is not running for re-election in RI!!!