'Sola Caritas' Trumps 'Sola fide'

[mcq72]

The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. 36 I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Matthew 12

and what makes one good , or evil…we are back to james…words prove what camp one is in, but does not place you there

So you see, people have rejected the Eucharist from the first moment Christ spoke of it.

right because they took it literally, because they did not believe before the discourse. …why cant you see they moreso rejected Christ

So you see, people have rejected the Eucharist from the first moment Christ spoke of it.

except you have a problem. From the beginning the non believers took it literally. Today we are believers who do not take it so literally.

He let them go. Why didn’t He say, hey you all do not understand what I am saying. I just mean figuratively.

Me thinks you totally misunderstand why He let them go.

Why didn’t He correct the that the eating would be in an unbloody manner ? Why did He not explain it would not be in a cannibalistic manner?

Correct. They did not believe the words He was saying.

They did not believe since the beginning, of following Him

“many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men” ,…John ch2…waaaayyy before eating discourse

“But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.” John 6

question, why would Jesus want these disciples back, with all their unbelief and carnal intentions? Why wouldn’t He want to finally disillusion them as he did with the ‘‘eating’’.

 

[mcq72]

just like the thief on the cross Johan [other ways]…Christ knows your heart and if you ‘heard Christ’ [Jn 6] and walked away [Jn 6:66], you would have to answer for that.

we begin with all the addendums and qualifications on what seems a simple statement from Jesus about eating His flesh.

 

[mcq72]

I am quoting Christ…the question I have is why wouldn’t you want ‘life within you’?

lol…maybe Judaizers sounded similar, “like what is the big deal , don’t you want life thru circumcision, Jesus was.”…as if uncircumcised non transubstantiated communion participants don’t have His life in them.

 

[ArchStanton]

Yes – believing Him…that includes His Church, the Eucharist, etc.

 

[ArchStanton]

Christ’s words, not mine

 

[Johan]

No but I can see that they believed what He was saying by their staying by His side and I can see by the rest of the Scriptures what they understood Him to say.

The speech in John 6 predates the Last Supper. There is no way the disciples would have interpreted His words in light of that meal.

 

[ArchStanton]

Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”

Even if the apostles didn’t understand, they believed in Christ!

 

[Johan]

Even if the apostles didn’t understand, they believed in Christ!

Of course, they would not have been His apostles otherwise. But it does not follow that they understood His words in a literal sense. Maybe they simply reasoned “He has spoken in figures many times before; He must be doing it again.”

 

[ArchStanton]

Again, what words should Christ have used for you to believe at that particular time?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

The speech in John 6 predates the Last Supper. There is no way the disciples would have interpreted His words in light of that meal.

The Last Supper was the Passover feast. They would have understood it in light of that feast. He also compared eating His body and drinking His blood to the Manna that came down from heaven while the Israelites were in the dessert. That was real food that sustained them for years, so it is perfectly reasonable for them to understand that He was not speaking figuratively but literally.

Maybe they simply reasoned “He has spoken in figures many times before; He must be doing it again.”

Scripture shows that when there is a misunderstanding the disciples asked Him for an explanation and again this was not there. They understood this as a command.

 

[mcq72]

Yes – believing Him…that includes His Church, the Eucharist, etc.

Yes, as we reason , are convicted, in good conscience, those things to be (church, communion).

 

[mcq72]

Christ’s words, not mine

Yes, thank God for His words , apart from some interpretations.

 

[ArchStanton]

Agreed…too many interpretations. It is much easier to have faith in the Church Christ established.

 

[mcq72]

No but I can see that they believed what He was saying by their staying by His side

The discourse ends abruptly when Peter answers honestly, even to the satisfaction of the teacher one would presume by no further explanation.

"Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God."

As Augustine notes, that here Peter eats with such a faith proclamation, hitting the essential .

Peter does not say ," you have the flesh to eat for eternal life"

 

[mcq72]

Agreed…too many interpretations. It is much easier to have faith in the Church Christ established

Ok…yet only three or for interpretations, and careful, someone might accuse you of being easy peasy or something

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Peter does not say ," you have the flesh to eat for eternal life"

Yes though He just told them to eat and they agreed and believed, despite others fleeing because it was too hard to accept, as we continue to see today

 

[mcq72]

That was real food that sustained them for years, so it is perfectly reasonable for them to understand that He was not speaking figuratively but literally.

yet the literal manna was figurative for real Calvary.

Also He literally says eat Him and drink Him, and you will never thirst, hunger or die, like those in wilderness. Well, pretty sure most Catholics still get hungry, thirsty and die…Oh but he was speaking spiritually you will say, to which I agree. We literally eat the “manna” the elements while spiritually eating Calvary by faith. Like Augustine says, leave you teeth and belly behind,we eat spiritually, by believing.

 

[mcq72]

Yes though He just told them to eat and they agreed and believed,

Believed what, in transubstantiation ? No. They agreed to one thing only in discourse, as i posted, and has nothing to do with communion understanding.

We all agree Peter said His words are eternal life (leaving aside what eating means, though I would render they they hoped in figurative), and He is the Son of God, to be followed (into future understanding ).

 

[Johan]

The Last Supper was the Passover feast. They would have understood it in light of that feast.

For what specific reason? I hardly think that they connected the Passover feast with the notion of eating the body and drinking the blood of their Lord. Far-fetched is just the forename.

He also compared eating His body and drinking His blood to the Manna that came down from heaven while the Israelites were in the dessert. That was real food that sustained them for years, so it is perfectly reasonable for them to understand that He was not speaking figuratively but literally.

He had previously used food in a figurative sense to denote the salvific work He had to do (John 4:34). The expression “bread of life” is figurative (I would imagine that even Catholics think so). Moreover, Peter protested strongly at the idea of eating unclean animals (Acts 10), yet there was no outrage when Jesus talked about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Still, in Acts 15 the apostles agreed not to require the Gentiles to follow the Mosaic Law, but the prohibition against consuming blood remained. All in all, there is very little reason to think that they understood His words in John 6 literally.

Scripture shows that when there is a misunderstanding the disciples asked Him for an explanation and again this was not there. They understood this as a command.

But the disciples that remained obviously did not misunderstand Jesus. It does not follow that they understood His words in a literal sense. As said, why would Peter fight against the idea of eating unclean animals but be perfectly fine with the notion of drinking human blood? Common sense tells us that he was not taking Jesus’ words in a literal sense.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

As Augustine notes, that here Peter eats with such a faith proclamation,

St. Augustine did believe in the Real Presence as quoted here:

The bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the blood of Christ. {Sermo 227; on p.377}

[Referring to the sacrifice of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18 ff.)]* The sacrifice appeared for the first time there which is now offered to God by Christians throughout the whole world. { City of God *, 16, 22; on p.403}

Taken from: St. Augustine’s Belief in the Real Presence - The Coming Home Network