'Sola Caritas' Trumps 'Sola fide'

  • Thread starter Thread starter dopeyMS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
because it was too hard to accept,…(they believed, Peter)
Well, Peter struggled to the end with such eating, the death of our savior, cutting off the ear of one who would dare arrest Him for that purpose…did he really believe , understand in John 6, or Mat 16 (that Christ would never suffer)?
 
Last edited:
St. Augustine did believe in the Real Presence as quoted here:
Augustine’s Real Presence is not transubstantiation…even in figurative speech one can utterly say what is really being represented, the shed blood of Christ , and His broken body. (no longer ordinary bread or wine, per Martyr…he does not say" no longer bread")
 
Last edited:
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.
They would have understood because at the Passover a lamb was sacrificed. Blood sprinkled on the doors. At every Passover after that a perfect lamb was sacrificed. John the Baptist had told his followers, who later became Jesus’ followers, that Jesus was the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world and at the passover they would eat of the sacrificial lamb.
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.
Exactly, which is why we can understand that they would have taken it literally because otherwise every Jewish person should have left, at just the thought of Jesus speaking that way but they understood Him to be the Lamb of God.
But the disciples that remained obviously did not misunderstand Jesus. It does not follow that they understood His words in a literal sense
So, we will just have to agree to disagree here. You are speaking for what you yourself are thinking, and I used to believe as you do, but no longer do as I have come to know that what the Church teaches is correct, not individual persons who were not promised the authority to interpret, even myself. I do not have the authority to intepret that Scripture any other way than what the Holy Spirit led the Church to understand.
Common sense tells us that he was not taking Jesus’ words in a literal sense.
Common sense is what the world tells Chritians to have but that will never help us understand Jesus’ Words and the Scriptures. As Christians we are to expect and believe in miracles and things that do not make common sense, such as a virgin birth or a sea parting open so people can cross over. How about just having faith that our sins are washed away and we become new creatures and most importantly Christ giving Himself so totally to us every day in the Eucharist as the Scripture tells us. This is why we are expected to walk by faith and not by sight. This is faith. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

I stopped having the common sense this world wants me to have, a long time ago.
 
Last edited:
Exactly, which is why we can understand that they would have taken it literally because otherwise every Jewish person should have left, at just the thought of Jesus speaking that way but they understood Him to be the Lamb of God.
again you set up the scenario that it is not really a literal eating.It is not a bloody eating.
 
Last edited:
Augustine said many things. With respect to John 6 I don’t think he believed Jesus was speaking literally.
If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.
(On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 16, Paragraph 24)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

In his teaching on John he doesn’t indicate he took it literally.
“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perishes, but for that which endures unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already.
(Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 25, Paragraph 12)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701025.htm
Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.
(Tractates on the Gospel of John. Tractate 26, Paragraph 1)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm
“But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured at it,”—for they so said these things with themselves that they might not be heard by Him: but He who knew them in themselves, hearing within Himself,—answered and said, “This offends you;” because I said, I give you my flesh to eat, and my blood to drink, this forsooth offends you. “Then what if you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before?” What is this? Did He hereby solve the question that perplexed them? Did He hereby uncover the source of their offense? He did clearly, if only they understood. For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: “When you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;” certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting.
(Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 27, Paragraph 3)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701027.htm
 
again you set up the scenario that it is not really a literal eating.It is not a bloody eating.
Here again is where we will have to agree to disagree. I will not disagree with the Holy Spirit’s leading of the Church and this is what the Holy Spirit has instructed us.

Again, just hearing Jesus talk that way would have caused them to leave but they knew He was the Lamb of God and what He was saying was literally what they were to do.

It would have been the same at the Last Supper when He said, Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins

No where does He say, this represents my body and since the Holy Spirit is promised to lead us into all truth and all of Scripture is the inerrant Word of God, we believe it because He said it.
 
Last edited:
I stopped having the common sense this world wants me to have, a long time ago.
well yes and no. it may seem pious, not to lean on common sense, but exegesis is exegesis, and having the mind of Christ is having the mind of Christ.

“Let us not suppose that because God can, that He has.”
 
Again, just hearing Jesus talk that way would have caused them to leave but they knew He was the Lamb of God and what He was saying was literally what they were to do.
Maybe. Do the gospels say they understood Him to be the Lamb at this time ? yes they feared for His life , but do you fear what the lamb must do ? Peter resisted the notion till the end , right up to His arrest.
 
well yes and no. it may seem pious, not to lean on common sense, but exegesis is exegesis, and having the mind of Christ is having the mind of Christ.

“Let us not suppose that because God can, that He has.”
The world tells us not to believe. They tell us not to believe in the Bible, they say have common sense, don’t believe in that stuff, but I choose different. I choose to believe.

 
It would have been the same at the Last Supper when He said, Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins

No where does He say, this represents my body and since the Holy Spirit is promised to lead us into all truth and all of Scripture is the inerrant Word of God, we believe it because He said it.
Nor does he say this is no longer bread but my body , nor no longer wine but my blood. In fact after the consecration Jesus refers to the cup as fruit of the vine still.

Again, when speaking figuratively , one discloses what is being represented, and sometimes with out the announcement of “attention. attention, this is figurative”. or else what a cumbersome linguistic tool.
 
Last edited:
The world tells us not to believe. They tell us not to believe in the Bible, they say have common sense, don’t believe in that stuff, but I choose different. I choose to believe.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Catholic Answers
agreed, as per my yes above., how be it with also a “no” qualification (hence “yes and no” to common sense). Christianity is reasonable, for those who can see it.
we believe it because He said it.
yes we believe what He said.
 
Last edited:
Augustine said many things. With respect to John 6 I don’t think he believed Jesus was speaking literally.

“To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already.”
thank you thank you old “radical”

I have been citing that “teeth and belly” quote for awhile, (such flowery speech, how could one forget) having seen it here years ago, but perhaps not since…am encouraged it that I remembered it right, even feared someone calling me out on it, not remembering where to find it…thank you
 
Last edited:
As Augustine notes, that here Peter eats with such a faith proclamation, hitting the essential .
Augustine said many things. With respect to John 6 I don’t think he believed Jesus was speaking literally.
It is true that St. Augustine said many things and used much language to describe the body and blood of Christ but to say he did not believe in the real presence would be incorrect and to say he did not believe in transubstatiation would be wrong to assume since the Church did not use that word authoritatively until the 4th Lateran council in 1215 AD but the belief in the real presence was something all early church fathers agreed on. St. Augustine said many other things that shows he did agree witht the other church fathers.


Also we do know that St. Augustine was loyal to the Catholic church and would not have stood against a teaching of the Church.

I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church Against the Epistle of Manichaeus
 
Last edited:
Also we do know that St. Augustine was loyal to the Catholic church and would not have stood against a teaching of the Church.
Well yes he was a loyal Catholic. He must be. He has to be, from CC point of view.

Just that CC insists that what is today was from the beginning as far as all teaching on faith and morals, all and infallibly so.

So of course someone like Augustine towed the line and must be read so. I mean if scripture must be Catholicly read, so to all the Fathers. All it takes is the mentioning once that the bread is the body and the cup the blood as writ does and wallah, there is the essence of transubstantiation, irregardless of any other explanation expressed. I mean the Lord must also be a Door, a Vine, Bread, the Greek alphabet, a Shepherd and we sheep, literally.
but the belief in the real presence was something all early church fathers agreed on
See what I mean, the forever unanimous “all”… just like the reality today for the Universal Church…?

Transubstantiation developed. Transubstantiation came to rule out the several other understandings existent at the beginning, as it continues to do so today.

Please don’t insist the origination if the term is what we mean but the essence. So it is not like the useful explanatory term of “trinity”. We all understand the reality was always from the beginning but the term trinity came later. It is a hard press to say the same with transubstantiation. In fact the very historic long development time wise suggests there were other views existent in the Church that needed “clarifying”. For the sake of unity more so than proper exegesis, even to deny other views existence early on or later just call them heretical. Everything neat and tidy, just like at the beginning…?

Anyways I babble. Thank you for your response. Yes, one can take a look at at Augustine quotes that are provided that seem contrary to others posted. Folks could debate this easily into a thousand posts, as I have seen here before. From my vantage point, the experts are split on this matter (those well read on Augustine), just as on Scripture texts. His absolute truth marches on.
 
Last edited:
Pardon my sarcastic tone, but have you heard of faith ? That is how we unworthy individuals “respond” to the amazing grace of God.
Well…that was the point -so sarcasm wouldn’t fit here anyway-sorry. We must respond with faith, to begin with, or else the cross of Christ is of no avail to us. Man must do his part, beginning with faith-because God has deemed that to be good.
Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” (John 6:28–29)
Faith implies more than trust or reliance here; it to means to act, to follow, to live as if one believes, having come to know the true and living God. Here righteousness can also be defined as ‘doing unto others…’, and Jesus rejects workers of lawlessness:
"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’

Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’ Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain fell, the torrents raged, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because its foundation was on the rock."

But everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the torrents raged, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its collapse!”
Matt 7

continued:
 
Last edited:
And Jesus spoke many other words and did many things, much of it not even written down. And this, incidentally, is one reason why a fellow picking up a book such as the Bible centuries after the fact and determining that he understands it well, without regard to the (name removed by moderator)ut of the churches whose members produced it and which assembled and carried it down through the centuries along with the unwritten knowledge that the church also received is in a decidedly disadvantaged position, to put it mildly. But folks are obstinate, even when they disagree with others who believe themselves to be likewise right (infallibly?) in interpreting the bible. Here are some more of His words:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
Matt 5
(Faith, for one thing, is intended to produce this true righteousness, not to replace or act as the equivalent of it.)

"But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments." Matt 19

And of course John weighs in heavily on this:
"Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God."
1 John 3
 
Last edited:
I mean the Lord must also be a Door, a Vine, Bread, the Greek alpgabet, a Shepherd and we sheep, literally.
So do we pick and choose what we take literally and what we do not or do we follow the Holy Spirit as He guides the Church. He did promise to lead us into ALL truth and He said He was Truth. How is it we came to know that is true?
His absolute truth marches on.
yes it does
 
Last edited:
So do we pick and choose what we take literally and what we do not or do we follow the Holy Spirit as He guides the Church
Indeed but as put forth by CC that is done for you, otherwise it is to be discerned if we lean on the church at the expense of also individually leaning on Holy Spirit.
He did promise to lead us into ALL truth.
I agree but others tell me Jesus said that to the apostles. We are not apostles nor successors/ clergy and must not read that claim individually is what some say. Oh He guides us, but not to decide on faith and morals, but to live by them yes, so they say.

Again neat and tidy, as only absolute authority can give you, unlike the rest of the church…
 
Last edited:
He said He was Truth. How is it we came to know that is true?
Same way Peter knew, professed Christ to be the Son of God. He heard and even saw the Word of God per Jewish " medium", coupled with divine revelation and discernment of such.

So today we hear and see the Word of God, per Christian “medium”, coupled with divine revelation and discernment of such.

Salvation and Truth is of the Jews, known today as Christians, proclaiming the gospel.

Jesus and the Holy Spirit are in us, even as Truth and Wisdom and Love. They are not a respector of persons. Just as they would not tell us things differently from themselves to us, or say different things , they would also not withold things from those who diligently ask and seek.

They, the Godhead, are unified as one, both in message and in desire to give to all, not just office holders, so that we may all also be one. Indeed all a royal priesthood.
 
Last edited:
And Jesus spoke many other words and did many things, much of it not even written down. And this, incidentally, is one reason why a fellow picking up a book such as the Bible centuries after the fact and determining that he understands it well, without regard to the (name removed by moderator)ut of the churches whose members produced it and which assembled and carried it down through the centuries along with the unwritten knowledge that the church also received is in a decidedly disadvantaged position, to put it mildly. But folks are obstinate, even when they disagree with others who believe themselves to be likewise right (infallibly?) in interpreting the bible. Here are some more of His words:
Well said, thank you. Yet the sword cuts both ways, always has, in all covenants, testaments.

Jesus and the apostles were thought to be Korahs, rebels ,even of Satan, untraditional, throwing it all aside, ( tradition, early fathers, magisterium, writ).

So some words for you, from a young whipper snapper named Elihu, who properly chastised the perfect and upright Job, and his three friends, all his elders.,…saying that age should teach wisdom but does not always, but God places understanding in the heart of a man, even if it is contrary to the aged “elders”.

So beware, both sides can be obstinate. Are we Korahs, obstinate rebels rightly to be deposed as such, or are we prophets of God, messengers like Elihu, thru whom God speaks into a season, rightly to be listened to and not obstinately and wrongly deposed as rebels.

Such is History, under His divine guidance of a free willed covenant peoples.
Faith implies more than trust or reliance here; it to means to act, to follow, to live as if one believes, having come to know the true and living God
I think so. The kind of faith that is implied by " faith alone". That is, a totally different faith/ belief that devil’s have.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top