Why did He let them walk away?

[Traditional_Ang]

Michael:

I think that Stone is just simply trying to hold on to a position. I really don’t know if hew’s willing to look at the Scriptures with the openness required to see what’s already there. The same for the ECF’s (as I said, I just went on the Ignatius Press website and found out the value of the ECF reference books I lost some 25 years ago - “And there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth!”)
Church Militant:

To Stone: Yeah! See! So there… I told ya so!

Okay enough humor
It does…as part of the scrutinies during Lent as the noobs get ready to enter the church…

Thanks TA, I knew this and that’s what I’ve sought to get accross. sigh He 'll reject “basic Platonism or basic Aristotelian Philosphy.” out of hand as nonchristian since he’ll rest assured that nothing they could say couild have any measure of truth or insight for a Christian and especially a “biblicist”.
Pax vobiscum,

The Church used to kick out the Catechumens as part of a deal with the Roman Empire to save their lives. Until the more fierce persecutions (where the Empire chucked the deal into the Tiber), only Baptised Christians and those who insisted on dying with them were killed.

In case Stone wasn’t paying attention, people aren’t being beheaded or fed to lions for the crime of being Christians today (at least not in the West), so there’s NO reason to kick the Catechumens out after the Sermon in an attempt to keep them from being killed!

The Early Church knew that we are more than spirits in bodies or just plain bodies. They knew, begininng with the Apostles that we are spirits UNITED to bodies with essences (or energeias) to make complete souls or persons.

In the same way, bread isn’t just a collection of molecules, but the essence of “breadness” united with organic molecules to make bread. and the same with wine, which is the essence of “wineness” united with those organic molecules to makle what we see as wine.

When a validly ordained priest says the words of instituion, God switches out the essences of ‘breadness" and “wineness” for the essenses of His Sons’ Body and Blood.

That’s what the ECF believed, and that’s Trent oversimplified.

As I said previously, in some cases, the change has been so profound that the molecues of bread have been replaced by the flesh of a Male, and the molecules of wine have been replaced by Type AB Neg Blood (the Shroud of Turin has Type AB Neg Blood on it). I could spend a couple of posts documenting these instances, which have happened both in the Eastern Orthodox and in the Catholic Churches.

Stone has referred to the limitations of the human body - he forgets that, once raised from the dead, Christ bi-located at will and penetrated through walls! and, He was able to have his Apostles do the same when he thought it was needed (Remember Philip and the Eunich?)! I’d like to see Stone do that!

He’s forgetting that the one who created the Laws of Physics doesn’t have to be bound by them.

As I said, once you accept and believe in the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus from the Dead, the rest is actually pretty easy.

Pease pray for Fr. Beau who lies ill with pneumonia!

Goodnight.

Blessings and Peace, Michael

 

[ncgolf]

Stone:

He doesn’t say this becomes My body, nor does He ever teach those at the table that when they repeat His words, “This is My body” that the bread miraculously and instantly transforms.How much plainer could Jesus had been. IS means it is, I would say it implies a transformation. This is a my body implies whatever you are pointing at has the properties of a the body of the one making the statement. Now if you or I were to say, “this is my body” that would be nonsense. But it would wasn’t you or I saying this is my body, it was Jesus … His divinity is screaming out loud in that statement, “This is my body”. Open your ears.

Stone:

What are you saying here? That the early writings of these men are Divinely inspired?

The beauty of the writings of the ECF’s … through Augistine and Aquinas and even up to JPII, in my mind, have the Holy Spirit’s influence. Remember after Jesus left, he gave us the Paraclete to be with us, we are not alone.
You wield words like “exegise” and “soteriological” as weapons, to impress us with your knowledge and understanding but I will tell you of some people with understanding not given by study but by faith in the Church and the Holy Spirit.
My grandmother never made it past the 6 grade and my grandfather never made it past the 3rd grade so the Bible was not the primary method of learning and understanding of faith matters. It is obvious they could not have truly read and comprehened all apsects of the Bible. But my grandparents knew what the Eucharist was and is. I remember them telling me about it when I was younger. I experienced first hand how faith matters were passed before there was a Bible and how beliefs were passed before most people could read. All the writings and doctrines merely support and explain the Catholic belief in the Eucahrist they are not the faith in Eucharist. That faith only comes from the Holy Spirit, not yourself. For you Stone, Jesus could have left a videotape and you will still not have believed. These people recognized their ignorance and smallness and what did God do … the Holy Spirit rewarded them with faith and grace and understanding. These people were faithful servants.

 

[mtr01]

ncgolf:

You wield words like “exegise” and “soteriological” as weapons, to impress us with your knowledge and understanding but I will tell you of some people with understanding not given by study but by faith in the Church and the Holy Spirit.

You make an excellent point here. What I find is that Sola Scriptura adherents almost universally justify that doctrine by insisting on the perspicuity of the Bible, and that anyone can read it and understand it. Yet when it come to any kind of debate on a particular aBiblical teaching in which Catholicism differs from their interpretation, the will switch gears and claim that one must understand things such as the original Greek (or Hebrew), historico-critical hermeneutics, advanced scholarship, and so on. It seems to me to be a pretty big logical inconsistency.

 

[Stone]

Traditional Ang:

I understand that you believe what you believe, but what I told you is what multiple GREEK SCHOLARS have told me, which is that the word that the Gospel writers used and the the Apostle St. Paul used doesn’t even begin to be translated by “In remeberence of”.

So are you saying that in Heb. 10:3, where the same word is used, there was a yearly “re-sinning” by the people on the day of Atonement? No, I think not. I think your Greek scholars are pouring their doctrine into their definition. Actually, in Heb. 10:3 the yearly sacrifice served two purposes, as the context teaches, (1) the shedding of the blood of animals could not once-for-all take away sins as the blood of Christ can and, (2) as the Greek word expresses, those yearly sacrifices were to bring about an awakening of the mind to their permanent sinful state. In the same way the institution of the Lord’s Supper was to bring about an awakening of the mind regarding our sins and Christ’s once-for-all Sacrifice of Himself for our once-for-all forgiveness of ALL sins. That’s why Paul say in 1 Cor. 11:26: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you *proclaim *the Lord’s death until He comes” The Day of Atonement was a yearly sacrifice by which the sinful state of the people was constantly and inwardly *awakened. *But for the believer, this side of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, the purpose of the institution is not to awaken ourselves to a “sinful-self,” but a sin-bearing Savior who died in our stead, taking upon Himself our judgment in our stead, and according to divine, sovereign GRACE, impute His righteousness to us (2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9),and we eagerly wait for His coming for us ("proclaiming His death until He comes).

It is interesting that your last sentence mentions the concept of making the historical event present to us today, because that is precisely how a couple of the scholars put it.

In mind, yes, but not a re-presentation. What happened in history belongs to that time in history. His sacrifice was accomplished in our world’s time/space continuum. That historical event certainly has eternal effects, but the event itself is limited to that time in man’s history and does not nor cannot continuously occur. That’s why the writer of Hebrews employs the phrase “once-for-all.”

It was a long time ago that I read Aquinas, but I know the difference betweeen the 2 writers. St. Thomas is a lot more systematic (and boring) because he had a lot more time, and that was his main job; whereas, St. Paul’s was planting, building, growing and maintaining Churches.

The ultimate difference between Paul and at is the Greek word theopheustos, “God-breathed.” Paul’s writings are God-breathed Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16), TA’s are not. Paul was taught directly by Christ (2 Cor. 12:1-10; Gal. 1:11-12; 2 Tim. 2:8), at was not.

What I’m saying is that part of your difficulty may be in understanding the concept of Substance or Essence. It’s how God can be in all places at all times, and how Jesus can be sitting at the Right-hand of the Father while being present when 2 or 3 oare gaqthered together in His name and changing the UNDERLYING SUBSTANCE of the bread and wine into His Body and Blood, all at the same time.

See my post #507 to “ncgolf” regarding the hypostatic union. You are presenting the same error. In His divine nature Christ can be wherever 2 or 3 are gathered together in His name, but not in bodily form. Yes, His resurrected body transcended some earthly limitations, but Scripture NEVER shows Him showing up bodily in two places at one time (much less millions).

 

[Church_Militant]

Stone states:

What happened in history belongs to that time in history. His sacrifice was accomplished in our world’s time/space continuum. That historical event certainly has eternal effects, but the event itself is limited to that time in man’s history and does not nor cannot continuously occur

.

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of** the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world.**

Really Stone? St. John would appear to disagree with you.

 

[Genesis315]

Church Militant:

Stone states:

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of** the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world.**

Really Stone? St. John would appear to disagree with you.

Malachi 1:10-11 would also agree that Christ’s sacrifice is continually offered up.

Oh, that one among you would shut the temple gates to keep you from kindling fire on my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts; neither will I accept any sacrifice from your hands, For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

 

[Mickey]

Stone:

The problem is you read back into the quotes the much later fully developed doctrine of transubstantiation.

Actually the early church fathers are teaching the real presence .
The Church of Rome was forced to define it because of heretics attacking the truth.

You must be extremely concerned that you might be incorrect about your understanding of the Eucharist–or you would not have invested so much time trying to refute it.

 

[ncgolf]

Stone:

… but Scripture NEVER shows Him showing up bodily in two places at one time (much less millions).

Why do worry about what is NOT there (literal presence in more than 1 location) when you cannot trust WHAT is there (Jesus saying “… my body true food and my blood true drink”.
You cannot use non-existant scripture to back up your claim … that is really a can of worms and won’t work … stick to what is written. Since you are one for definitives … please show me a definite, non-arguable passage using Christ’s own words that refute the Catholic claim of the True Presence.

 

[st_felicity]

Mickey:

Actually the early church fathers are teaching the real presence .
The Church of Rome was forced to define it because of heretics attacking the truth.

UmmmHmmm!:yup:

St. Ireneus of Lyons (195AD) “He (Jesus) has declared the cup, a part of his creation, to be His own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” (Against Heresies 5,2,2)

St. Justin Martyr (150AD) “…not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but …as we have been taught, the food that has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic Prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the Flesh and Blood of that incarnated Jesus.” (First Apology 66, 20)

 

[st_felicity]

Stone:

See my post #507 to “ncgolf” regarding the hypostatic union. You are presenting the same error. In His divine nature Christ can be wherever 2 or 3 are gathered together in His name, but not in bodily form. Yes, His resurrected body transcended some earthly limitations, but Scripture NEVER shows Him showing up bodily in two places at one time (much less millions).

Stone…God is timeless…Jesus is God (In the beginning was the Word…)…Therefore Jesus is timeless…When His physical body was here on earth, he did not cease to be the timeless God. That is why Jesus (when He was physically here on earth) could call upon His sacrificed self at the feast in the upper room. Though he was physically present upon the earth, His Godhood remained timeless. The Bible supports this point of view–He was not in two places at one time in his physical human body while he walked here on the earth–but He is also fully God and could call upon Himself at the last supper and be present both in the bread and wine and in the flesh.

Remember: at His baptism and at His Transfiguration the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were ALL present at once and experienced by the senses of those present. (there’s a word for this that escapes me at the moment…??)

 

[st_felicity]

st_felicity:

Remember: at His baptism and at His Transfiguration the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were ALL present at once and experienced by the senses of those present. (there’s a word for this that escapes me at the moment…??)

Theophany?

 

[Mickey]

I will briefly go off subject. I apologize in advance.

Stone attacked my signature, so I will give a brief explanation. “Lord Jesus Christ Son of God have mercy on me, a sinner” is a centuries old prayer with it’s roots in the east, referred to as “The Jesus Prayer”. This prayer helps us to recognize our own sinfulness and our essential estrangement from God and the people arround us. It is a prayer in which we acknowledge our desparate need of a savior. “if we say we have no sin in us, we are deceiving ourselves and refusing to admit the truth”. (1 John 1:8).

This prayer is practiced by Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, and Roman Catholics. It is very Biblically based.

see: Luke 18:38–Luke 17:13–Luke 18:14

You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[stargazer257]

It appears that some here are not listening. Post after post, the early church fathers are quoted OVERWHEMLINGLY as to their belief in the real presence; that is, Christ’s words in John chapter 6 taken literally.

Now the term “transubstantiation” may not have been used or “defined” back in the first centuries of the church founded by Jesus, and therefore not used by those early church fathers in their writings. But that doesn’t mean the belief didn’t exist from the beginning. It just didn’t have a one-word name…yet.

 

[mercygate]

I am always perplexed when a person who believes that God made the entire universe out of nothing in six days has trouble believing that Jesus can be present in the Blessed Sacrament on every altar in the world. Maybe Newman is right:

A revelation is religious doctrine viewed on its illuminated side; a mystery is the selfsame doctrine viewed on the unilluminated.

Mysteries in religion are measured by the proud according to their own capacity; by the humble, according to the power of God. The humble glorify God for them, the proud exalt themselves against them.

Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman

 

[FdeS2]

Excellent mercygate and stargazer257! Some people choose to ignore blatantly obvious truths because it could mean that they are wrong 9which is understandable, because being mistaken is frightening). I’ve learned that the best thing to do when I’m wrong is to accept it and work towards what I know is the truth. I’m glad that I’ve been raised in the truth of the Catholic faith. In studying it I’ve found that every single belief is biblical and supported by so many people (Church fathers, saints, popes, and Jesus). Please, everyone that has read these posts, open your mind and consider the words spoken here. These fine people have shown you the truth given to us by our Lord Himself. Embrace it and come into full communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…Even the disciples that were left were asked by Christ if they too wanted to leave … and they were the chosen by Christ himself. Their response was … To whom shall we go. Christ would have asked them only if the look of doubts were written on their faces, they too must have been scandalized by Christ’s words. I am sure Christ could read their hearts also. The 12 remained with Jesus even not truly understanding fully the words Jesus had just spoken…

Felicity and I believe mtr01 have already demonstrated that the disciples would have to have understood Christ’s words before they walked away. Otherwise they would not have had a true choice.

What we have touched on but not discussed at length yet is what is not said but what is there: the Real Presence.

It is the Real Presence which makes the Bible comprehensible and true as opposed to endlessly relative, individualist, and murky. The disciples left because they valued something other than the Real Presence of Jesus.

Jesus is the Word. The Word is Jesus. Metaphor is not at all what Stone has singlemindedly insisted it is. (I note that he totally ignored any information I posted on metaphor earlier and substituted his own inaccurate interpretation.)

The Real Presence is transferred into what is said and what is said is transferred into the Bread. That is the operation of metaphor. Metaphor does not mean ‘symbol’; it does not mean something that is not real. Metaphor is real.

There are many passages in the NT which are difficult to understand without factoring in the Real Presence of Jesus. And there you have it.

Church Militant is still around. I haven’t heard from St Felicity for an age. mtr01 was discerning the priesthood shortly after JP2 died.

 

[mtr01]

Sorry to bring up a 2 year old thread, but I was just reviewing it, and saw something I missed way back then, and just had to bring it up…

Great response Stone. Well thought out and articulated. I appreciate your thinking, but most of all I appreciate that you do not outsource your theology to another. What a strong rock it is to stand on such thinking.

Michael

But then…

michaelp:

Sorry that I have passed over this. It seems that your argument carries little weight. Read here:

members.aol.com/epologist/John6reviling.htm

Michael

Ouch. What is this if not outsourcing one’s theology?

 

[LumenGentium]

The disciples were angry. Jesus had fed them with the miracle of the loves and they wanted more—more bread—more miracles. Jesus said he was the TRUE bread from Heaven and that HE gives life to the world. Confused, they murmured isn’t he Joseph’s son? How can he say he came down from heaven when we know his mother and father? But Jesus said more…

He said…

I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

52

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”

53

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

54

Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

55

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

56

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

57

Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

58

This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."

59

These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

60

20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”

66

**As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. **

---

***So the Questions are: ***

---

1. What was the “saying” that was hard to accept?
2. Why did the disciples ***leave ***Jesus?
3. Why did Jesus let them go?

1. he said they had to eat him and drink his blood and in order to do that you have to kill him first or maybe you bite in while he is still alive…how would you do this logistically speaking?
2. they thought he was off his rocker or kidnapped by aliens and they didn’t want to kill him to eat him…dead or alive. or they suddenly lost their appetite.
3. cause you can take a horse to water but you can’t make him drink…its not nice to ask/demand that your friends kill you.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

1. he said they had to eat him and drink his blood and in order to do that you have to kill him first or maybe you bite in while he is still alive…how would you do this logistically speaking?
2. they thought he was off his rocker or kidnapped by aliens and they didn’t want to kill him to eat him…dead or alive. or they suddenly lost their appetite.
3. cause you can take a horse to water but you can’t make him drink…its not nice to ask/demand that your friends kill you.

Or…

1. they were in the Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ and they either did not trust that transformative experience or they did not value that transformative experience.

In any case, they chose having full knowledge of what they were rejecting. Without full knowledge they could not have chosen and Jesus would not have let them walk away because he is a Just God who seeks out the 99th sheep.

How is this instructive to us? It is in instructive in many ways, but anyone who has been rejected by folks whose company they dearly crave will understand the heartbreak which Jesus must have felt at that time.

Not pleasant, is it? But we, like Jesus, must respect their freedom to choose another course of history.

Or maybe not. Maybe without experiencing the Real Presence of Jesus these folks should always expect to see us on the horizon…

…waiting for them to come home.

For those of you who have come home, like Francis Beckwith, you will know exactly how rich and deep this experience is. How do I know? Oh, I’ve been here and there.

:extrahappy:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Here is some insight from David MacDonald, whose testimony is absolutely wondrous. Talk about folks on the horizon waiting from him to come home! Thank you God!

This is from his website called Catholic Bridges which he devotes to ministering to evangelicals by witnessing to the fullness of the truth from his vantage point on this side of the Tiber:

In jokingly trying to belittle the Eucharist, an Evangelical friend said to me “if it is really the body of Christ, what happens if a bit falls on the floor and a mouse comes along and eats it?” An image appeared in my mind of Jesus on the Cross. Jesus’ blood fell to the ground for the rats to eat. What a tragedy. I hope we never waste a crumb of his precious body or a drop of his precious blood. In the Mel Gibson Movie, “The Passion,” Mary mopped up the blood of Jesus. His body and blood are very precious.

There is another way to respond to this joke about a piece of the Eucharist falling to the ground. Consider that Jesus’ body is the Word of God made flesh (Jn 1). In places like Capernaum Jesus’ words often fell on “deaf” ears and hard hearts. It was a tragedy but it does not make his words any less real. Sometimes the Eucharist is wasted on people with hard hearts but devout Catholics don’t think that makes this miracle any less real. In 1 Sam 3:19 we read “As Samuel grew up, the Lord was with him and let none of his words fall to the ground.” I pray the word of God made flesh in the Eucharist never falls to the ground.

Here is a further discussion on why Catholics believe the desciples fully understood “I am the bread” to be Jesus’ actual body before they abandoned him.

Keep in mind that David uses the term ‘metaphor’ in a way which is not strictly accurate, but he wasn’t an English major like I was. And he gets everything else right. What he means by ‘metaphor’ is ‘figurative language.’

What I mean by ‘metaphor’ harkens back to the Greek root and means reality transferred from one thing to another which, when you think about it, is what we are talking about here. (I explain this in detail earlier on in the thread, for those of you who like clicking on pages.)