I
Ignatius
Guest
You’ve just hit the key to the whole question.
“This is a hard saying, and many left Him.” as they do now.
- Status
“This is a hard saying, and many left Him.” as they do now.
M
michaelp
Guest
S
Stone
Guest
The reason they walked away is because they DID take Him literally. That caused them to stumble into unbelief. Those who take Him literally today still stumble in the fact that they fail to understand that He wasn’t talking about literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood, but His LIFE being transferred to them through faith in Him. It’s all in connection with the basic Gospel message (Jn. 3:14-18). He is the True Bread of Life and the LIFE that He gives to the believer is ETERNAL. John chapter six is very clear on this. In context it has nothing to do with what Jesus said at the Last Supper. John, in his Gospel record, doesn’t even make the connection, nor record what Jesus said to His disciples that night at the Passover meal.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.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
I have already addressed this at length in my previous post.
M
Mickey
Guest
Come on . . . Protestants could say the same thing about Catholics. If you rejected the Real Presence you would necessarily have to leave the Catholic Church, therefore you don’t. This carries no weight. But if it makes you feel better, have at it.
Yes, if a Catholic rejected this teaching, it would be incumbent on him/her to search his/her conscience to discern as to why he/she no longer believes. This carries all weight. It is not a matter of me feeling better–it is a matter of plain Scriptural and sacred Traditional Truth.
In reality, many protestants don’t have any confession for or against the belief in the real presence, we are given freedom in this area.
Relativism!
Protestants are much more free to think on their own
Relativism!
I would have no problem whatsoever accepting the “real presence” if there were any reason to do so.
Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
But, biblically speaking, as I believe I have demonstrated, there is every compelling reason to reject the Roman Catholic idea of the “real presence.”
With all due respect, you have demonstrated nothing but a circular argument which tries to justify the revisionist theology that has been seared into your mind.
Yes, if a Catholic rejected this teaching, it would be incumbent on him/her to search his/her conscience to discern as to why he/she no longer believes. This carries all weight. It is not a matter of me feeling better–it is a matter of plain Scriptural and sacred Traditional Truth.
In reality, many protestants don’t have any confession for or against the belief in the real presence, we are given freedom in this area.
Relativism!
Protestants are much more free to think on their own
Relativism!
I would have no problem whatsoever accepting the “real presence” if there were any reason to do so.
Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
But, biblically speaking, as I believe I have demonstrated, there is every compelling reason to reject the Roman Catholic idea of the “real presence.”
With all due respect, you have demonstrated nothing but a circular argument which tries to justify the revisionist theology that has been seared into your mind.
M
Mickey
Guest
Ani Ibi:
His Body is food indeed. His Blood is drink indeed.
And they walked away.
Yes Ani. How very very sad. Stone and others on this forum continue with their revisionist theology. In desperation, they talk in circles, twist Scripture, and deny the plain truths that have existed since Jesus Christ established The Catholic Church. It truly saddens me to read these relativistic banterings–the blind leading the blind. Oh how I pray for these souls.
His Body is food indeed. His Blood is drink indeed.
And they walked away.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Yes, they did not come looking for signs (symbols) but because they ate the loaves and were filled. In the end they left full of symbols (words with a small ‘w’), yet empty of the Word with a capital ‘W.’Yes Ani. How very very sad. Stone and others on this forum continue with their revisionist theology. In desperation, they talk in circles, twist Scripture, and deny the plain truths that have existed since Jesus Christ established The Catholic Church. It truly saddens me to read these relativistic banterings–the blind leading the blind. Oh how I pray for these souls.
His Body is food indeed. His Blood is drink indeed.
And they walked away.
The Word of God (being the Second Person of the Trinity) transforms the bread and the wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus and when we eat the Body and Blood of Jesus, we too are transformed.
The Truth is not about words about God. The Truth is The Word of God. Taking communion is spoken of as ‘participating in the Eucharist.’ The division between subject and object ends. We are no longer
alone.
S
st_felicity
Guest
Which verse in the John 6 discourse says that? This seems an important point. You need to identify the verse there that says His life is transferred through faith. I don’t see it–but I’ve been accused of having “Catholic” eyes before…
Why is Judas’ betrayal demonstrated in eating of the bread–he was “unworthy” John 6:71 says so–and then at the Passover meal–his betrayal is revealed in the consuming of the bread. In the Last Supper discourse (yes–there is one
…Ch. 13/14) Jesus repeatedly says “keep my commandments,” “observe my commandments” “whoever loves me keeps my word” …What commandment comes in John–EAT MY FLESH, DRINK MY BLOOD. c’mon…it’s really pretty simple…Just a passing interesting thought…When considering the Eucharist–doesn’t the verse 12:24 take on an interesting new light–“unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies…” I just thought it was a telling bit of figurative language…
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Nice catch, felicity. Hhhhmmm, but is Stone not arguing that the language is figurative?
The question then becomes what kind of figurative language? If it is symbolic then she is home free. But Jesus says that the disciples have not come looking for symbols (signs). The language used then reveals it to be metaphoric. If it is metaphoric, then it transfers one thing into another thing. If one thing is transferred into another thing then the second thing is transformed.
The thing that is being transferred is the Word of God (Jesus).
The thing into which the first thing is being transferred is
a) the words which Jesus spoke to the disciples (then)
b) the bread which Jesus asked us to take in memory of Him(later)
Thus the Word is made (transformed into) Flesh (later).
Later, by the way, for the disciples is NOW for us.
M
Mickey
Guest
In our freedom to obey, we receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and we become one with Him. But if we choose the freedom to protest and reject this Holy Gift, we are deceived.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
M
michaelp
Guest
Doesn’t sound like much freedom to me. But, hey, whatever makes you tick.
But I don’t think that this encourages much intellectual honesty. What is great is when you have the freedom to disagree and you all come to simular conclusions on so many agreed upon main points:sola fide
sola gratia
sola Scriptura
solus Christus
soli Deo gloria
What a unity it makes. And we are not even compelled to do so by some outside “force.” This is true freedom and true unity to me.
BTW:
Relativism!
Protestants are much more free to think on their own
Relativism!
Aren’t you free to disagree about certian things like the days of creation? If so, why is this not relativism? Maybe a double standard??
Another BTW: “Relativism” is the belief that truth is relative to a group of individuals. Having freedom to disagree is an epistomological norm, and speaks nothing about the ontology of truth. You seem to be confusing the two and thereby making uninformed accusations.
Michael
Michael
D
Desert_Dweller
Guest
Yet somehow St. Ignatius and Irenaeus both came up with the idea that John was speaking literally. I think Ignatius actually heard John preach. Likewise Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp who was a student of John. I mean it would be one thing if the Catholic Church came up with this idea later, but it has been taught faithfully from the very beginning. It’s almost like Jesus actually meant what he said.
S
st_felicity
Guest
Feeling like your choices are narrowing? Well–that’s Grace. God draws all to Himself.Doesn’t sound like much freedom to me. But, hey, whatever makes you tick.
Freedom is not–no rules–that’s anarchy. A person can know that murder is wrong, but still choose to murder–however, he must suffer the consequences of his choice. Freedom is not without boundary. True freedom is the opportunity to see the Truth and still be allowed to choose–even choose wrongly.
You say this fairly frequently, what exactly does it mean?
You must be arguing–at least concerning “fide” and “Scriptura” that the agreement is that they are wrong–otherwise it becomes Sola-Nada. How can it be faith alone and Scripture alone–aren’t they mutually exclusive.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/15/15_12_9.gifRH You know it’s not the same thing.
No…relativism is the belief that there is no absolute. So, yes, Mickey’s is an ontologically sound statement. People have the freedom to disagree in search of that absolute Truth–but the goal is to come ever closer to it–it’s not about what feels right–it’s what IS right…the Nature of that Truth is God–the Absolute Absolute.
Man, Michael…what do you teach?–this is basic.
S
Stone
Guest
Desert Dweller:
The problem with reading Ignatius is that you really don’t know to what extent he is taking it. When discussing his writings Catholics pour their fully developed doctrines like the Eucharist and the exclusive authority of the Roman Episcopate into them. In many parts of his writing you would really need to talk to Ignatius personally to know exactly what he’s stating. Remember, his writings are not Holy Spirit inspired - they’re not Scripture. Therefore even his writings need to be tested BY SCRIPTURE. Would you not agree?
S
st_felicity
Guest
:yawn: Sola-Nada
Since Scripture is so important to you will you please address:
Which verse in the John 6 discourse says that? This seems an important point. You need to identify the verse there that says His life is transferred through faith. I don’t see it–but I’ve been accused of having “Catholic” eyes before…
D
Desert_Dweller
Guest
My point was that because of his proximity to John (both geographically and chronologically) Ignatius would have asked enough questions in order to get wrid of any misunderstandings.
And yet he understood it after hearing John preach that Jesus was speaking literally.
Likewise you find this teaching in sources likely unrelated to John including the Didache and St Justin Martyr. This is the teaching that spread throughout the early church. I understand completely however that their writings are not scripture. But when I read John 6 and Paul in 1Corinthians and then go on to read how this was received in the early church, it is much more compelling than someone in 2005 telling me I have it wrong.
As for testing The Early Fathers’ writings by scripture… ok. You can if you want. But you are still imposing your belief of what scripture says on what they actually heard first hand. It’s just not a good argument any way you look at it.
S
st_felicity
Guest
**
Ignatius of Antioch said:
**, and I am being ground by the teeth of wild beasts in order that I may be found [to be] pure bread for Christ. My love has been crucified, and there is in me no fire of material love, but rather a living water, speaking in me and saying within me, ‘Come to the Father.’ I take no pleasure in corruptible food or in the delights of this life. I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who is the seed of David; and for drink I want his Blood which is incorruptible love.
**
Ignatius of Antioch said:
**
Who doesn’t get to what extent he’s taking it? How could he be MORE CLEAR?
M
michaelp
Guest
Desert Dweller:
And do you also believe what the early church fathers believed about the millennium since they were so close in geographically and chronologically? They believed in a literal future millennium.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
As do most Catholics… :irish1:
- Status