Why did He let them walk away?

  • Thread starter Thread starter st_felicity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I appreciate that you at least acknowledge that I may have a little point (I guess) however wrong it may be in your eyes…😉 😛 😃
Quote:Felicity
Remember–the Sacrifice of the Mass was already in practice in the infant Church–the Eucharist was an obvious tenet as shown in the writings of Ignatius. It was a given–John’s focus is on the WORD, and he reminds the Church that the Eucharist is indeed Christ’s flesh and blood and TRUE food—most ESPECIALLY in John 6.

Quote: michaelp
It was already in practice when the other Gospels were written in the 60s since Paul wrote about its usage in Corinth in 55. This is not a good arguement. Plus, belief in Christ for eternal life was already “in practice” in the church at the time when John wrote his Gospel, but it did not stop him from emphasizing it.
Click to expand...
Is this an admission that the Sacrifice of the Eucharist was practiced in the early Church???

Be still my heart!❤️
 
but if, as I am contending here, that John’s focus was on the WORD and His words…
Click to expand...
Is this the official position of the Catholic church or just your interpretation concerning John’s focus??

Michael
 
40.png
st_felicity:
I appreciate that you at least acknowledge that I may have a little point (I guess) however wrong it may be in your eyes…😉 😛 😃

Is this an admission that the Sacrifice of the Eucharist was practiced in the early Church???

Be still my heart!❤️
Click to expand...
:eek: :eek: :eek:
 
40.png
st_felicity:
I appreciate that you at least acknowledge that I may have a little point (I guess) however wrong it may be in your eyes…😉 😛 😃

Is this an admission that the Sacrifice of the Eucharist was practiced in the early Church???

Be still my heart!❤️
Click to expand...
No, merely a concession to your phraseology that is the indirect subject of this thread.😉
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
Hello,Michael,go and read and respond to my thread you will enjoy it:) Go here
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=43867
Now he let them walk away because they wouldn’t except what he said and they knew what he was saying;) God Bless
Click to expand...
I would love to Lisa, but as you know, I can barely hang with one thread at a time. This is it and I am only here and there involved in this one. Very busy at work.

Michael
 
40.png
michaelp:
Is this the official position of the Catholic church or just your interpretation concerning John’s focus??

Michael
Click to expand...
These are the simple musings of a humble mother of 5…the Church encourages contemplative meditation on Scripture–we are not automotons in service to Rome…to be honest, I don’t know if any more qualified have proposed these ideas.

If your next step is to defend your own “private interpretation”, please first point out where anything I have said contradicts Church teaching. That is the measuring stick.
 
OH…:clapping: It’s worth posting again!!!
Quote: Felicity
…and he reminds the Church that the Eucharist is indeed Christ’s flesh and blood and TRUE food—most ESPECIALLY in John 6.

Quote: michaelp
It was already in practice when the other Gospels were written in the 60s since Paul wrote about its usage in Corinth in 55.
Click to expand...
Now all that remains is submission to the authority of the Church!:bigyikes:
 
Stone tries to allege that the apostle Paul was not speaking literally in these passages:

1st Corinthians 10:16-17

“16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.”

1st Corinthians 11:23-30

"23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. "
I firmly disagree and here’s why:
Cont’d
 
If there is no real presence in the Eucharist, then how can St.Paul warn us not to take it unworthily lest we become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? That “spiritualization” makes complete nonsense not only of the 6th chapter of John, but of 1st Corinthians 10:16-17

“16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.”

and 11: 23-30

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE? Now if I make a symbol of Karl Keating like this symbol here: 🙂 and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol symbol…like say this: http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/blowup1.gifI may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol of the goodman Karl Keating, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question…of course not! Why? BECAUSE KARL KEATING IS NOT REALLY PRESENT IN THAT SYMBOL is he?
There is the the whole case for why the Eucharist really is the presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ…body and blood, soul and divinity.

Catholics! You have the greatest miracle of all at every Mass that you participate in. BE THERE!
Pax vobiscum,
 
If there is no real presence in the Eucharist, then how can St.Paul warn us not to take it unworthily lest we become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? That “spiritualization” makes complete nonsense not only of the 6th chapter of John, but of 1st Corinthians 10:16-17

“16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.”

and 11: 23-30

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE? Now if I make a symbol of Karl Keating like this symbol here: 🙂 and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol symbol…like say this: http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/blowup1.gifI may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol of the goodman Karl Keating, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question…of course not! Why? BECAUSE KARL KEATING IS NOT REALLY PRESENT IN THAT SYMBOL is he?
There is the the whole case for why the Eucharist really is the presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ…body and blood, soul and divinity.

Catholics! You have the greatest miracle of all at every Mass that you participate in. BE THERE!
Pax vobiscum,
 
40.png
michaelp:
Jesus is always being misunderstood. John rarely recordes Jesus’ correcting the misunderstanding of people.

The Jews then said, ‘It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days?’” (John 2:20). He was not being literal here and Jesus did not correct the misunderstanding of a statement that eventually leads to His conviction.

“Nicodemus said to him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?’” (John 3:4). Jesus does not correct Nicodemus (although, like in John 6, it is obvious to the reader that this is not to be taken literally). Nor does John.
Click to expand...
Nice try…but those weren’t his disciples. Those were not followers of Jesus.

The ones that he let leave were his disciples.
 
I know these conclusions I’m about to draw may not really be fair, since it appears only two protestant posters are willing to speak up…but I suppose–a failure to say something is itself a tacit voice…perhaps one that speaks louder than those who brave the tumult…Maybe the conclusions do have some validity…

***So the Questions are: ******

***1) What was the “saying” that was hard to accept?

Catholic: The statement that Jesus made saying His followers must eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man to have life. To Catholics, this was Jesus explaining to His followers the sign by which they would “accomplish the work of God” was actually consuming–physically eating–the “Bread that came down from Heaven” and drinking His blood.

Protestant: The statement that Jesus made saying His followers must eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man to have life. Protestants are in agreement with Catholics on the “saying” in question, however, they believe that the Bread and the Blood He speaks of is not relevant to the Last Supper (where Catholics point to as the Institution of the Eucharist). John doesn’t specifically have the “this is my body” portion of the discourse, thus, John 6 does not refer to communion or the Eucharist. Jesus was speaking “symbolically” in John 6.
  1. Why did the disciples ***leave ***Jesus?
Catholic: The ones that left did so because they could not accept something that was repulsive to them even if it was spoken clearly and directly from the mouth of the person they had hitherto for believed was the Messiah. The disciples who left made a conscious decision to NOT believe the words spoken to them from “The Holy One of God.” They chose their own “comfort” rather than abandoning themselves to God.

Protestant: Some left because they were angry Jesus wouldn’t give them more bread from Heaven like that they had consumed the night before. Some left because Jesus didn’t do another “sign”. Some left because they thought Jesus was suggesting they mimic the pagans by drinking and eating flesh and blood. Some left because they thought he was suggesting cannibalism. Some left believing Jesus was saying that they had to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, but some also left because they were disappointed that Jesus wouldn’t perform on command.* (I don’t think any of this is opposed to Catholic teaching)*
  1. Why did Jesus let them go?
Catholic: Jesus let them go because God gave us free will to decide our own destiny and those that left chose their own wisdom over that of the Word of God**.** Jesus cannot force someone to believe His words–he merely offers the Truth, and that individual must chose himself or God–if he chooses himself–he walks away from the Sacrifice of His Flesh.

Protestant: Though some misunderstood Jesus and were in fact, leaving Him on a misconception, Jesus knew the hearts of those disciples. Christ corrects misunderstandings of his words, and sometimes he does not. It was irresponsible for the disciples who left to take him literally. Therefore, Jesus knew they would leave Him–they were not disciples who would remain true to God anyway. This suggests an undue pressure on interpreting very difficult metaphor–that one could lose his soul because he was not smart enough to “get” the linguistic gymnastics of Jesus’ message. It also suggests predestination and a lack of free-will on the part of those that Jesus let leave on a misunderstanding.

Is this a fair summary?
 
We must keep in mind that for many protestants/evangelicals/fundamentalists, if they were to accept the Real Presence, would mean they would have to abandon a large piece of their theology. Hence, they would have to leave their church–and in some situations–their livlihood. And so they will deny the Real Presence at all costs.

The teaching was hard. The disciples walked away. Jesus let them go. The teaching is still hard today and many continue to walk away. How very sad. 😦
 
Some people abandon the teachings of the Church and fail to understand how a simple and devout person can have more worth than a philosopher who blasphemes without restaint. Heretics are like that.

Heretics are always wanting to find something more true than truth. They are always choosing new and unreliable ways. But like the blind led by the blind, they will fall into the abyss of ignorance by their own fault.

The Church is like paradise on earth. “You may eat freely of the fruit of every tree in the garden,” says the Spirit of God. In our case he means: Feed on the whole of Scripture, but do not do it with intellectual pride, and do not swallow the opinions of the heretics. They pretend to possess the knowledge of good and evil, but they are impiously elevating their own intelligence above the Creator.

Beware! By devouring the ideas of the heretics we banish ourselves from the paradise of life.

Irenaeus (Against Heresies)
 
40.png
Mickey:
We must keep in mind that for many protestants/evangelicals/fundamentalists, if they were to accept the Real Presence, would mean they would have to abandon a large piece of their theology. Hence, they would have to leave their church–and in some situations–their livlihood. And so they will deny the Real Presence at all costs.

The teaching was hard. The disciples walked away. Jesus let them go. The teaching is still hard today and many continue to walk away. How very sad. 😦
Click to expand...
Very well said Mickey!
 
Church Militant:
Stone tries to allege that the apostle Paul was not speaking literally in these passages.

To answer the question 'Why did the disciples leave Jesus?'

Can we clarify what ‘non-literal’ and ‘literal’ are? I have often seen posters on this board say that the opposite of ‘literal’ is ‘symbolic.’ No, the opposite of ‘literal’ is ‘figurative.’ And there are many literary devices which fall under ‘figurative.’

Consider, for example, the metaphor:

From home.cfl.rr.com/eghsap/apterms.html :

Metaphor. A comparison which imaginatively identifies one thing with another dissimilar thing, and transfers or ascribes to the first thing (the tenor or idea) some of the qualities of the second (the vehicle or image). Unlike a simile or analogy, metaphor asserts that one thing is another thing, not just that one is like another. Very frequently [but not always] a metaphor is invoked by the to be verb.

From etymonline.com/ :

1533, from M.Fr. metaphore, from L. metaphora, from Gk. metaphora “a transfer,” especially of the sense of one word to a different word, lit. “a carrying over,” from metapherein “transfer, carry over,” from meta- “over, across” (see meta-) + pherein “to carry, bear” (etamonline.com).

The reason the disciples left is the same reason the apostles stayed. Why do I say that? Parallelism. Jesus sets up the parallelism by noting that some left and some stayed.

The apostles stayed because:

68 Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

69 We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.

The disciples left because:

(parallell to 68) They had other people they would rather hang out with; other people who had other words, such words referring to things other than eternal life.

(parallel to 69) While they did come to believe and were convinced that Jesus was the Holy One of God, they placed no value on this experience.

When Simon Peter says “You have the words of eternal life” he probably means that not only does Jesus have the words but also that it is important that these words come from Jesus because He is the Holy One of God." Let us keep in mind that the Word of God (logos) had a long history of referring to the Second Person of God which is Jesus.

Continued…
 
…Continued

From forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=506897 :

“The Logos has not for [John] the Stoic meaning that it so often had for Philo: it is not the impersonal power that sustains the world, nor the law that regulates it; neither do we find in St. John the Platonistic concept of the Logos as the ideal model of the world; the Word is for him the Word of God, and thereby he holds with Jewish tradition, the theology of the Book of Wisdom, of the Psalms, of the Prophetical Books, and of Genesis; he perfects the idea and transforms it by showing that this creative Word which from all eternity was in God and was God, took flesh and dwelt among men.”

So there was information to be had. But there was also personal presence to be had and transformation to be had. While, yes, the apostles may have benefitted from the information to be had, they also benefitted from the presence of Jesus which transformed their understanding of the information. How did the presence of Jesus transform their understanding of the information?

This passage deploys metaphor (as opposed to symbol or simile which is seen elsewhere). What do I mean? Metaphor is not a symbol or sign or simile. It is a transfer of one thing to another thing.

So Jesus, being the Word of God, transfers what he is to:
  1. what he is talking about now: his words with a small ‘w’;
  2. bread and wine at a later date.
Did the disciples understand this? Yes, because:

a) Jesus says when he first sees them coming toward him that they are not looking for signs (symbols). Having received physical bread and fish the day before, it is reasonable to assume that they wanted more physical bread and fish or, failing that, more physical gifts. What Jesus gave them was a physical experience of his presence in his words.

b) Their physical experience of His Presence in his words transformed their understanding of the word ‘bread’ and of the actual bread which they had received the day beforef. So, yes, they understood.

c) If they did not understand, then they could not have exercised free will and Jesus could not have allowed them to walk away.

The disciples left because they understood yet placed no value on the encounter: they valued neither the words transformed by the presence of Jesus then nor the promise of bread to be transformed by the presence of Jesus at a later date.

To answer the question: Why did Jesus let them go?

Jesus let them go because He had told them and showed them and given them direct physical experience of what they needed to know in order to make an informed choice. They made that informed choice. They exercised their free will.
 
40.png
michaelp:
I would love to Lisa, but as you know, I can barely hang with one thread at a time. This is it and I am only here and there involved in this one. Very busy at work.

Michael
Click to expand...
:crying: :crying: :crying:
 
40.png
michaelp:
Is this the official position of the Catholic church or just your interpretation concerning John’s focus??
Click to expand...
This is the position of Scripture. **John 6:68 **"Simon Peter answered him, ‘Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.’"

Of course the position of His Church, as guided by the Holy Spirit, must always coincide with His way. As He says “Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heave, whatever you lose on earth shall have been losed in heaven”.

May the love of God the Father, the peace of His Son Jesus Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top