Why did He let them walk away?

[Church_Militant]

Stone:

But do you insist we don’t talk about it? It was a Catholic who brought up the question, “why did they walk away?” in reference to Jn. six which is one of the most important passages of Scripture concerning the Mass. When the question was asked, was it just for the Catholic point of view? Is it not good to get other opinions? From all I’ve read these discussions actually increase and seem to confirm the Catholic’s faith, not discourage it.

You’re knowledgeabe in Catholic doctrine. May I ask you, do you equate me with those who walked away and supposedly sealed their doom?

When Felicity opened this thread it was no doubt to discuss the reasons that we have already stated as to why Our Lord allowed so many to desert him at that point.

I would say that both sides have been very thoroughly presented and that at this point it is just flogging a dead horse.

Stone…gimme a break. We all know your “opinions” we’ve heard 'em all, day in and day out for weeks. So far as you’re concerned we can do nothing right short of joining your church and you can flat out forget that.

What do you care what Catholic doctrine is concerning you?
You have none of those “invincible ignorance” defenses, and you believe whatever you choose to believe. It is not my place to try to discern your eternal end at this point and I offer no opinion on it one way or the other. That is the venue of the Holy Spirit to convict or aquit your heart about what you have heard. He is the spirit of truth and leads into all truth.

Yes, I’d equate you with those who walked away, but I don’t pretend to know the eternal fate of those disciples in John 6…or you. As the saying goes: “While there is life there is hope.” Some may indeed have failed to enter the kingdom of God…some may have even been in the crowd who cried for Our Lord to be crucified…does that mean that we will not meet them in Heaven? No one can say with certainty, so I don’t lose sleep about that…or you.

As for discussion…when it reaches the impass that ours has with you…then I submit it’s time to do like the unbelieving disciples…and walk away…

 

[Jim_B]

You’re knowledgeabe in Catholic doctrine. May I ask you, do you equate me with those who walked away and supposedly sealed their doom?

Stone,
“It is you who have said it.”

Earlier you questioned if ‘walking away’ meant you had sealed your doom because you do not participate in the Eucharist.

The responsibility for your action is yours.
The Catholic Church is open to all. The only thing preventing you from receiving Jesus in the Eucharist is your own will of
‘persistent belief in one’s own opinion, in spite of having been shown convincing information which contradicts such opinion’ (definition - obstinate).

 

[Jim_B]

The first two lines on the above post are a quote from Stone - and not my words.
Jim B

 

[Mickey]

I think that our friend stone is on this Catholic forum because he has an inclination deep within his heart that the Eucharist is exactly as Scripture and the church fathers and the Catholic/Orthodox Church says that it is. He has not walked away yet. Why else would he attempt to filibuster this subject? To convince a devout Catholic that they are wrong about the Blessed Sacrament? I think not. God can soften a hardened heart–even a heart made of stone.

 

[st_felicity]

Stone:

Then based on your logic my doom is sealed as well, right? Mickey equates not believing and partaking in the Catholic Eucharist with those who "walked away. And you deemed them doomed.

You are very hard-headed. I said I believe the Scriptures. The Scriptures say they walked with him “no longer.” That means the inerrant Scriptures say they never walked with Him again. THAT is what sealed their doom–Never walking with Christ again–they died without Christ–thus, sealed their doom. Do you get it now?

You are still alive and walking–and I believe you “walk with Christ” --though not fully. You still have an opportunity to turn around and walk with Him acccording to His commandments which are protected within His Church–or as I said, there may be circumstances that mitigate your culpability–I don’t know, God knows.

I am not commanded to follow any church.

No–you’re not commanded…but it is here for the taking.

I don’t believe Christ “founded” any church.

Different argument–but He did…I know you probably think “the rock” in Matthew 16 is something other than “Simon, son of Jonah”–but then who did he give the keys to and for what purpose?

But Jesus does command to “follow Me,” and “believe in Me.” This I do to the best of my ability and help from the Holy Spirit who indwells me and regenerated me. I believe He is “building” His Church to this very day. And I know and rejoice that I am part of it, and at the proper time I will be taken up with it.

Certainly…all this is true…I also hope that you will be “taken up with it” and I have the same hope for myself. But why not hedge your bets and go with the Church founded by Christ Himself. Look into the history and see it without the revisionist bias. When you look searching for Truth rather than looking to find error in the Catholic Church the scales will fall from your eyes.

I don’t understand “Perhaps there is something that mitigates your culpability.” I have no guilt.

Perhaps the fact that you “don’t understand” mitigates your culpability. When the Truth stares you in the face and you insist that you see nothing–you are “guilty” of being blind to the Truth–just like those disciples who walked away. Fortunately, you still have the opportunity to open your eyes and see. As Church Militant said–as long as there is life–there is hope.

Happy Easter–Christ is Risen!!!

 

[st_felicity]

Mickey:

I think that our friend stone is on this Catholic forum because he has an inclination deep within his heart that the Eucharist is exactly as Scripture and the church fathers and the Catholic/Orthodox Church says that it is. He has not walked away yet. Why else would he attempt to filibuster this subject? To convince a devout Catholic that they are wrong about the Blessed Sacrament? I think not. God can soften a hardened heart–even a heart made of stone.

For his sake–I hope you are right!

 

[Mickey]

For his sake–I hope you are right!

Hi Felicity!

With God, all things are possible. How many times have you seen a protestant/evangelical/fundamentalist, deny everything Catholic, and then convert to the Catholic Church. How many times have you seen the most obstinate anti-Catholic attack the Eucharist and then become a believer in the Real Presence. And these converts make the best Catholic apologists! God does not want his people to walk away. Perhaps the Catholic seeds from this thread will germinate and the anti-Catholics will one day find themselves in RCIA. All we can do is pray for them.

 

[mercygate]

Stone:

I agree that thanskgiving and sacrifice are not mutually exclusive. See my post above. I still contend that early church writers (like Ignatius) are not all that clear on the eucharist. There’s really no doctrinal clarity in their writings on this subject.

Hi, Stone. I’m back after the all-engaging Triduum: Christos aneste!

I’m still catching up, but I would say that doctrinal clarity is something that emerges as the Church has lived the faith; nothing new can contradict anything previous but things do become clear. Since the Sacrifice of the Cross achieves meaning only through the Resurrection, and the Eucharist is a participation in the ENTIRE mystery, then without a sacrificial component, our understanding of the Eucharist would be incomplete. That is why the Epistle to the Hebrews has been searing a mark on my heart over the past several weeks: the priest-victim understanding only serves to intensify the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist in my mind. You mention that the idea of sacrifice in the Eucharist does not arise until late. To my mind, this Epistle seems to lay the foundation of a sacrificial theology in a way that makes any other doctrinal position incomprehensible.

I think we need to stick with divinely inspired writings when building any doctrine.

For a Catholic, of course, the word “writings” is inadequate. Catholic theology begins with creation itself, and is grounded in natural law even before a single letter of scripture was committed to papyrus. Moreover, the actual practice and understanding of the Church is part of the “deposit.” Scripture as a “cookbook” of theology leaves too many things out; too much is incomplete, unexplained. (Catholics are fond of chiding: “Protestants read the menu; we enjoy the banquet.” – sorry if that sounds crass.) So the Church looks to the ongoing guidance of the Holy Spirit – as Christ promised.

I don’t see “Eucharistic overtones” in the Heb. passages you quote. I believe the author of Hebrews is talking within the context of the cross itself, not the sacrament.

You are right that this passage IS talking about “the cross itself.” For Catholics, of course, this cannot be separated from the Eucharist. What had struck me about the passage – as I mentioned in my earlier post – was the phrase concerning condemnation for believing “the covenant blood to be ordinary” (the Greek word is “koine”), and its coming so close to the passage admonishing those who were ‘staying away from the assembly.’ I was fresh from reading the synoptic accounts of the Last Supper where, for the only time in the gospels, Jesus uses the word “covenant” and that use is in reference to “my blood of the new covenant.”

 

[mercygate]

Stone:

Because of the early date of this writing I believe the confessing of one’s trangressions before participation in the sacrament was like that of Paul’s warning of unworthiness found in 1 Cor. 11.

Hm. Interesting; doubtless part of how the penitential rite has been incorporated into the Eucharistic liturgy.

And the “prayer of thanksgiving” was the “sacrifice” the author had in mind.

We would say that it is essential to the sacrifice but not that the prayer of thanksgiving is the entire sacrifice.

The Didache itself does not present any real doctrinal teaching on the sacrament; there are eucharistic prayers, but no real doctrinal treatment on it. Just because the author employed the word “sacrifice” must one necessarily conclude that he was speaking in the context of catholic doctrine on the eucharist? Is it not easy for someone to inject his own theology into an unexplicit writing?

Would it not seem important to incude that thinking in one’s doctrine?

So I am not yet convinced, and therefore must disagree with you, that the "idea of the sacrifice of the Mass was already recognized as early as 60 AD.But why would you say “eat this bread and drink this cup” (although the “cup” is withheld from the laity) AFTER the consecration? Are you saying that it is still “both” 100 percent bread AND 100 percent Deity after it is consecrated?

Since Christ is 100 percent present in the elements after the consecration, but the “accidents” of bread and wine remain unchanged to the senses, then you could illustrate the case just as you have here.

As for the cup being withheld from the laity, that is a whole different thread. Suffice it to say that Communion in only one kind was introduced late in time (15th Century) in response to a heresy which claimed that receiving under both species was *requisite *to receiving the entire Body and Blood of Christ. This contradicted the Catholic position that Christ is fully present: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, in the smallest particle or drop of either species. Today, in most U.S. parishes, the Precious Blood is commonly offered.

 

[Stone]

Church Militant:

So far as you’re concerned we can do nothing right short of joining your church and you can flat out forget that.

As for discussion…when it reaches the impass that ours has with you…then I submit it’s time to do like the unbelieving disciples…and walk away You’re under the impression that every discussion between “Prot’s” and Catholics is fueled only by the motive to “convert” the other. Now I personally know a Pastor and a Priest who get together almost weekly and discuss theological issues. Over the years they’ve become friends (close), enjoy each other’s comany, yet neither has convinced the other to jump over the theological fence. Since I’ve been on this board it seems you’re the one who has demonstrated yourself to be the most intolerant and the least patient, labeling every response an evangelical conversion tactic. You really need not be so fearful. I believe civil discussion is always healthy for both sides and you should lay your fears aside. Believe me, my motive is not for you to join my church. Relax, my friend. He’s risen!

“He who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification” (Rom. 4:25).

 

[Mickey]

Stone:

He’s risen!

Christ is risen!
Indeed He is risen!

Khristos voskrese!
Voistinu voskrese!

Christos anesti!
Alithos anesti!

 

[st_felicity]

Stone:

Since I’ve been on this board it seems you’re the one who has demonstrated yourself to be the most intolerant and the least patient, labeling every response an evangelical conversion tactic.

Stone–if you look at it objectively, your big font phobia didn’t help the two of you have a civil discussion…I think you guys just got off on the wrong foot…in his MANY posts on this board, I would not characterize CM as “intolerant”, he’s sometimes pretty assertive–but remember…this is our God, our Church, our family…if anything deserves to be defended vigorously–it is this.

Can we all be nice now? We don’t have to be sticky-sweet (I don’t think I could do it… ), but can we be nice?

 

[Ignatius]

Mickey:

I think that our friend stone is on this Catholic forum because he has an inclination deep within his heart that the Eucharist is exactly as Scripture and the church fathers and the Catholic/Orthodox Church says that it is… . . . . God can soften a hardened heart–even a heart made of stone.

Ephphatha.

 

[Jim_B]

Quote from Stone / Believe me, my motive is not for you to join my church. Relax, my friend.

Stone,
Christ said to make disciples of all nations. And we’re being upfront with you. We have every hope that you will join our Church. In fact, you’ve already been baptized into it. We desire a full union - not the incomplete one which exists now.
Do we want you to become Catholic? Absolutely.
If you are not seeking for us to join your church, that sounds like
such a church doesn’t have much to offer.
Ours does - Jesus Christ himself (Eucharist).

OREMUS
Jim B

 

[Stone]

Jim B:

Quote from Stone / Believe me, my motive is not for you to join my church. Relax, my friend.

Stone,
Christ said to make disciples of all nations. And we’re being upfront with you. We have every hope that you will join our Church. In fact, you’ve already been baptized into it. We desire a full union - not the incomplete one which exists now.
Do we want you to become Catholic? Absolutely.
If you are not seeking for us to join your church, that sounds like
such a church doesn’t have much to offer. Ours does - Jesus Christ himself (Eucharist). Jim B

Thanks for the offer. But I still have questions, even concerning the Eurcharist. See my next post to “Felicity.”

 

[Stone]

Felicity:

You are very hard-headed. I said I believe the Scriptures. The Scriptures say they walked with him “no longer.” That means the inerrant Scriptures say they never walked with Him again. THAT is what sealed their doom–Never walking with Christ again–they died without Christ–thus, sealed their doom. Do you get it now?

Yes, but you failed to respond to my whole reply, and I think you’re reading into Scripture something that is not there. Verse sixty-six says, “As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew, and were not walking with Him anymore.” In other words, they stopped following Him on His teaching circuit and listening to His public addresses. As I said in my reply to you, no one was ever saved simply by following Christ around during His earthly ministry. The message of salvation and reconciliation with God is in the context of His sacrificial death on the cross (because of our transgressions) and subsequent bodily resurrection (because of our justification). The fact that they physically stopped “walking with Him” at that time certainly would not automatically exclude them from having the chance to “believe in Him” unto salvation through the message of the Apostles AFTER His death and bodily resurrection, would it? “Walking with Him” as a disciple and “believing in Him” unto salvation are two very different things. Judas was called His disciple but never believed in Him. Hey, not even the twelve believed in Him in that saving capacity until He revealed Himself to them after He rose from the dead – and then He graciously opened their minds to the Scriptures which testified that this glorious event must take place (see Lk. 24, especially vss. 19, 21, 25, 27, 45).

That’s why I began prodding you on what you believe regarding the Eucharist and salvation; since you interpret Jn. 6 literally and in direct connection to the Catholic Mass. Intimating that belief in transubstantiation is equivalent to salvation faith. In other words, no Mass, no salvation.

“Mtr01” equivocated by stating in his reply: “So yes, I believe that you find “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you” is a hard saying, and would have left our Lord with the other faithless disciples.” So what is he actually saying here? That unless I partake in the Catholic Mass (encompassed is belief in the doctrine of transubstantiation) I have no faith and Chritst’s life is not in me? That I am spiritually dead and that my only hope for life and salvation is converting to Catholicism (preferably under the direction of the Roman See) and accept, by faith, the doctrine of transubstantiation, partaking in Mass; and then, and only then will I have hope for “eternal life” (6:40, 47, 51, 54, 56, 58)?

Yet, what I don’t understand is that ALL Catholics I’ve ever spoken to on this subject (bar none) have said they don’t know if they have eternal life. I’ve even heard Karl Keating say this on the radio. That no one can know, for sure, in this life if they have NOW eternal life (in strict contradiction to the verses I reference above).

How is this??? Does Jesus not unequivocally state in verse fifty-four, *“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood HAS eternal life; and I WILL raise Him up on the last day?” *And since you interpret “eating” and “drinking” as literal, being accomplished in your Eucharistic Mass, how is it that those who literally eat His body and drink His blood don’t believe they have eternal life - now? “Eternal” means just that. You can’t lose what by nature is eternal (rendered: “everlasting”).

See Next Post…

 

[Stone]

Continued from previous post:

Now, personally, I do not believe Jesus was speaking literally, Nor do I believe He was referring to the future institution of the sacrament of Lord’s Supper. But that “eating” and “drinking” is figurative, emblematic for “coming to” and “believing in” Him (see vss. 35-40; cf. Jn. 3:14-18). And upon personal belief His resurrected *life *(eternal, everlasting) is transferred to me, just as He illustrates with the “manna” and its life transferred to those who ate it in the wilderness. So I believe Him when He says I HAVE (now) eternal life through faith in Him. His life having been transferred to me upon belief in Him.

Yet you who interpret Him literally do not believe you HAVE (now) eternal life. Question is, ultimately, who then is really walking away in unbelief? The other question being, of what benefit or value then would it be for me to abandon my faith (by this I don’t mean church affiliation, but what I believe concerning Christ’s words in Jn. six and eternal life) and convert to your faith (or in this particular case, lack of it)? Now this is a serious theological/soteriological question based on your interpretation of John six - so I hope someone will tackle it.

 

[Stone]

st_felicity:

Stone–if you look at it objectively, your big font phobia didn’t help the two of you have a civil discussion…I think you guys just got off on the wrong foot…in his MANY posts on this board, I would not characterize CM as “intolerant”, he’s sometimes pretty assertive–but remember…this is our God, our Church, our family…if anything deserves to be defended vigorously–it is this.

Absolutely!! But I don’t think a thread should be shut down because he’s tired of the discussion. Maybe there’s more to be vigorously defended.

Can we all be nice now? We don’t have to be sticky-sweet (I don’t think I could do it… ), but can we be nice?

Ahhhh, come on “sweetie.”

 

[Church_Militant]

Stone:

You’re under the impression that every discussion between “Prot’s” and Catholics is fueled only by the motive to “convert” the other. Now I personally know a Pastor and a Priest who get together almost weekly and discuss theological issues. Over the years they’ve become friends (close), enjoy each other’s comany, yet neither has convinced the other to jump over the theological fence. Since I’ve been on this board it seems you’re the one who has demonstrated yourself to be the most intolerant and the least patient, labeling every response an evangelical conversion tactic. You really need not be so fearful. I believe civil discussion is always healthy for both sides and you should lay your fears aside. Believe me, my motive is not for you to join my church. Relax, my friend. He’s risen!

“He who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification” (Rom. 4:25).

Do me a favor and lay off trying to analyze me …you have no clue. I’m not the one who cries and whines when someone uses a larger than basic font and such silliness. Call me anything…but n-C. You couch your presentation as if we are too stupid to understand what we believe and that you “know something”. What do you know? No man, I’m the one walkin’ away.

 

[st_felicity]

Stone:

Yes, but you failed

Again??? I FAILED again???

and I think you’re reading into Scripture something that is not there. Verse sixty-six says, “As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew, and were not walking with Him anymore.” In other words, they stopped following Him on His teaching circuit and listening to His public addresses.

That’s a semantic distinction I’ve not heard before…as I said–the Scriptures I kbow–say “no longer” which I believe means never again.

As I said in my reply to you, no one was ever saved simply by following Christ around during His earthly ministry.

But Jesus told them face to face–they were told by the Messiah what to do and they turned their backs and walked away…is it POSSIBLE that at some point they changed their minds and regretted what they did?–sure…they could have been among the 3000 converted at Pentecost…I’m taking “no longer” literally–has there been OFFICIAL Catholic Dogma layed down concerning the state of the souls of those who “walked with Him no longer” in John 6? Not that I’m aware of.

The message of salvation and reconciliation with God is in the context of His sacrificial death on the cross (because of our transgressions) and subsequent bodily resurrection (because of our justification). The fact that they physically stopped “walking with Him” at that time certainly would not automatically exclude them from having the chance to “believe in Him” unto salvation through the message of the Apostles AFTER His death and bodily resurrection, would it?

See above…Is this really your only sticking point? Believe what you want concerning the state of their souls…Really…You do know your question implies that one can be a disciple of Christ–then turn from God–and then possibly return to God, or not? You are not a proponant of "once saved, always saved? Or is it that they never “really” believed? Don’t you think some of them thought that they truly believed until they heard this “hard teaching?” How does one “know” they “really” believe? Many people go through life never being tested–what if they die and never “really” believed–though they thought they were saved? Ooops!

“Walking with Him” as a disciple and “believing in Him” unto salvation are two very different things. Judas was called His disciple but never believed in Him. Hey, not even the twelve believed in Him in that saving capacity until He revealed Himself to them after He rose from the dead – and then He graciously opened their minds to the Scriptures which testified that this glorious event must take place (see Lk. 24, especially vss. 19, 21, 25, 27, 45).

ah…Faith…? “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe…” (paraphrased) God has graced me with faith–but I sure as heck haven’t had my “mind opened”.

That’s why I began prodding you on what you believe regarding the Eucharist and salvation; since you interpret Jn. 6 literally and in direct connection to the Catholic Mass. Intimating that belief in transubstantiation is equivalent to salvation faith. In other words, no Mass, no salvation.

If you understand WITHOUT MITIGATING CULPABILITY–which ONLY God judges–YES this is true. Catholics believe that all of Christendom IS part of the Catholic Church–thus the statement–there is no Salvation outside of the Church. Protestant denominations have received ALL the basics of their religions from the Catholic Church–since ours is the one FOUNDED by Christ himself–thus, you are technically part of the Catholic Church–though not in full communion and thus cannot partake of the Body of Christ at Mass–you do not believe “This is my body” as we do.

So to the question–No Mass–no salvation…I too must qualify the statement. You ARE part of the Catholic Church (even though I’m sure you probably don’t recognize that to be true) and you have much of the True faith in your church’s teaching–though you do not have the FULLNESS of Truth. If you did and turned from the Mass, you would be rejecting Christ, which is rejecting salvation.

I’ll get to the rest in a while–we have one computer and my daughter needs to go to Noggin.com to play…

See you later…