Why did He let them walk away?

[michaelp]

Church Militant:

Hi Mike,
Y’know, there are a number of folks here that have a feeling that you and stone are one and the same person, since you are never on at the same time and you come to his aid with posts like this.

. . . . .

My replies have not been “far fetched at best”, they have been logical and scriptural and if you disagree that’s your problem and your denial. Your comment that no one has answered him with any convincing arguments is flat out bunk Mike and I’m sort of offended that you would make such a statement. It’s nothing more than your very heavily biased opinion as is his…

. . . .

If I am wrong Prove it! Prove me wrong…Like you, I’ve read your posts and every other hotshot n-C or a-C in here and not one has a viable argument against the 2,000 year old doctrine of the Eucharist that is clearly stated in the NT.

I do feel that you and stone and many others just simply refuse to accept the Eucharistic teaching and I would say that that opinion is held by most Catholics here as well. To us it’s about as simple as anything can get and even if I was a proponent of Sola Scriptura, (which, Praise God, I am not!) I would have to accept it just on the Biblical evidence alone. The fact that the Catholic Church adheres to this most Biblically compelling doctrine is (to me) one of the best reasons for me to be Catholic.

Oh I assure you that the Holy Spirit is indeed guiding the souls who are reading these posts. That’s why we see through all the arguemnts that you and your friends lay out here. It’s not my logic…it’s His inspiration.
Since Catholics do not attempt to evangelize n-C Christians, I find it distressing that you and your friends do not show us the same courtesy.
Discussion my foot! You’re evangelists…
Pax vobiscum,

Yes, me and Stone are the same person. I do admit it. What of it???

Ha! Just kidding.

Thanks for the post. We have thus far presented our arguments and come to different conclusions. We will let people study FOR THEMSELVES and decide.

BTW: I have taught before the elders at my Church on THIS VERY SUBJECT saying that they need to consider that the Eucharist mught be more than just symbolic because it does have valid representation in Church history. The implication was that I had not come to much of a conclusion on this subject. (After studying the subject in detail and having many discussions on this forum listening to “the other side,” I am now absolutely convinced that it is symbolic). I repreat. I am not bound one way or another. You are. I can consider the arguments. You can’t.

Again, hope that you and your family are doing well. I do enjoy the serious discussions with you even though we don’t agree and even though the rhetoric becomes intense. Thanks for continuing to participate.

For those of you engaged in this: Michael and I both express our respect for each other and talk though emails. In other words, we are friends. Even if during our disagreements, we seem to be enemies.

Michael

 

[Church_Militant]

michaelp:

Yes, Catholic, not Roman Catholic which did not around, in the opinion of Evangelicals until the 11th or 12th centuries.

And I am specifically referring to Augustine’s interpretation of John 6.

“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, ye 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.” - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

Michael

Evengelicals are wrong…Roman Catholicism was there from the outset…that’s just your opinion…11th/12th centuries? Ludicrous!

As for this passage from Augustine: This is your interpretation but I don’t see any language here that says that he is speaking about the Eucharist, but about the need to share in the sufferings of Christ in penance and that is more like something that Augustine would have said…I’ve read him too Mike and that’s not the way he would’ve meant that.

 

[michaelp]

Evengelicals are wrong…Roman Catholicism was there from the outset…that’s just your opinion…11th/12th centuries? Ludicrous!

Your right. Your opinion and my opinion and a quarter will buy a coke. It is the evidence that must be ultimately persuasive, not the dictates of a late middle ages council or Magisterium today, nor the opinions of two guys like you and me.

As for this passage from Augustine: This is your interpretation but I don’t see any language here that says that he is speaking about the Eucharist, but about the need to share in the sufferings of Christ in penance and that is more like something that Augustine would have said…I’ve read him too Mike and that’s not the way he would’ve meant that.

Looks pretty clear to me. But one thing you are right on is that the opinions of Augustine are not ultimately persuasive.

Michael

 

[Jim_B]

michaelp:

Yes, me and Stone are the same person. I do admit it. What of it???

Ha! Just kidding.

Thanks for the post. We have thus far presented our arguments and come to different conclusions. We will let people study FOR THEMSELVES and decide.

BTW: I have taught before the elders at my Church on THIS VERY SUBJECT saying that they need to consider that the Eucharist mught be more than just symbolic because it does have valid representation in Church history. The implication was that I had not come to much of a conclusion on this subject. (After studying the subject in detail and having many discussions on this forum listening to “the other side,” I am now absolutely convinced that it is symbolic). I repreat. I am not bound one way or another. You are. I can consider the arguments. You can’t.

Again, hope that you and your family are doing well. I do enjoy the serious discussions with you even though we don’t agree and even though the rhetoric becomes intense. Thanks for continuing to participate.

For those of you engaged in this: Michael and I both express our respect for each other and talk though emails. In other words, we are friends. Even if during our disagreements, we seem to be enemies.

Michael

 

[mtr01]

michaelp:

Yes, Catholic, not Roman Catholic which did not around, in the opinion of Evangelicals until the 11th or 12th centuries.

This is so silly, it’s not even worth commenting on…

 

[mtr01]

michaelp:

And I am specifically referring to Augustine’s interpretation of John 6.

Michael

I love that people love to take Augustine out of context and somehow he was a Proto-Protestant. Absurd! Augustine, one could argue is the **most **Catholic of all the saints. Let’s take a look at what some doctrinal scholars have to say about Augustine’s “symbolism”:

Ludwig Ott:

"The Eucharistic doctrine expounded by St. Augustine is interpreted in a purely spiritual way by most Protestant writers on the history of dogmas. Despite his insistence on the symbolical explanation he does NOT exclude the Real Presence. In association with the words of institution he concurs with the older Church tradition in expressing belief in the Real Presence. Cf. Sermo 227 :

'The bread which you see on the altar IS, sanctified by the word of God, THE BODY OF CHRIST; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, IS, sanctified by the word of God, THE BLOOD OF CHRIST."

Some points Ott makes:

1) The early Fathers were bound by the discipline of the secret, which referred above all to the Eucharist (cf. Origen, In Lev hom 9,10);
(2) The absence of any heretical counter-proposition often resulted in a certain carelessness of expression to which must be added the lack of a developed TERMINOLOGY to distinguish the sacramental mode of existence of Christ’s body from its natural mode of existence once on earth;

(3) The Fathers were concerned to resist a grossly sensual conception of the Eucharistic Banquet and to stress the necessity of the spiritual reception in Faith and in Charity (in contradistinction to the external, merely sacramental reception); passages often refer to the symbolical character of the Eucharist as “THE SIGN OF UNITY” [St. Augustine, Sermon 272; Homilies on John 26:13]; THIS IN NO WISE EXCLUDES the Real Presence. (see Ott, page 377-8)

St. Augustine stresses the sacramental and spiritual reception of the body and blood of Christ without denying their Real Presence in the Sacrament. Schaff says much the same (volume 3, pages 498-500). This is not to say that St. Augustine necessarily contradicts the official Catholic teaching concerning the mode of Christ’s Presence. The proper terminology to be used to express it had not yet been fully worked out. Catholics also call the bread and wine “SIGNS” and refer to the Eucharist as a sacrificial “memorial”

Now about Protestant Scholar JND Kelly:

"If Ambrose’s influence helped to mediate the doctrine of a physical change to the West [we’ll cover this exhaustively later], that of Augustine was exerted in a rather different direction. His thought about the eucharist, unsystematic and many-sided as it is, is tantalizingly difficult to assess. Some, like F. Loofs, have classified him as the exponent of a purely symbolical doctrine; while A. Harnack seized upon the Christian’s incorporation into Christ’s mystical body, the Church, as the core of his sacramental teaching. Others have attributed receptionist views to him.

"There are certainly passages in his writings which give a superficial justification to all these interpretations, but a balanced verdict must agree that HE ACCEPTED THE CURRENT REALISM. Thus, preaching on ‘the sacrament of the Lord’s table’ to newly baptized persons, he remarked [Serm 227],

‘That bread which you see on the altar, sanctified by the Word of God, IS CHRIST’S BODY. That cup, or rather the contents of that cup, sanctified by the Word of God, IS CHRIST’S BLOOD. By these elements the Lord Christ willed to convey HIS BODY AND BLOOD, which He shed for us.’
​

​

"‘You know,’ he said in another sermon [Serm 9:14], ‘what you are eating and what you are drinking, or rather, WHOM you are EATING and WHOM you are DRINKING.’ Commenting on the Psalmist’s bidding that we should adore the footstool of His feet, he pointed out [Enarr in Ps 98:9] that this must be the earth. But since to adore the earth would be blasphemous, he concluded that the word must mysteriously signify the FLESH which Christ took from the earth and which He gave to us to EAT. Thus it was the EUCHARISTIC BODY WHICH DEMANDED ADORATION.

Wow, Eucharistic Adoration and Augustine? Maybe you’re barking up the wrong tree Michael. Face it, out of context quotes aren’t going to cut it (but what’s new?). Like I corrected you before, for Catholics, it’s both/and. For you, it’s either/or.

 

[michaelp]

mtr01:

This is so silly, it’s not even worth commenting on…

Well, you at least ought to engage in it since for one, in my opinion it is the truth, and for another, it is the view of over 200 million Evangelicals.

Michael

 

[mtr01]

michaelp:

Well, you at least ought to engage in it since for one, in my opinion it is the truth, and for another, it is the view of over 200 million Evangelicals.

Michael

Really? All 200 million? Wow :whacky:

Here’s my challenge: Prove it. You make the accusation, you prove it.

 

[Jim_B]

To Stone and alias-stone,

Have you ever honestly considered the possiblity you could be wrong?
Because if you reject the Eucharist, you are rejecting Jesus Christ Himself.
I offer you an option for discernment. Enter a Catholic Church and find the Tabernacle, wherein dwells the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Kneel before Him and ask him for the faith to believe in His Real Presence if that is His desire. If you are afraid to do this - then does not that expose one’s own fear of being wrong?

Praying for you,
JIm

 

[michaelp]

mtr01:

I love that people love to take Augustine out of context and somehow he was a Proto-Protestant. Absurd! Augustine, one could argue is the **most **Catholic of all the saints. Let’s take a look at what some doctrinal scholars have to say about Augustine’s “symbolism”:

Ludwig Ott:

Now about Protestant Scholar JND Kelly:

Wow, Eucharistic Adoration and Augustine? Maybe you’re barking up the wrong tree Michael. Face it, out of context quotes aren’t going to cut it (but what’s new?)

[/indent]

Back on subject. We are talking about the specific interpretation of John 6. It does not seem from this quotation from Augustine, who was dealing with sybolism vs. literalism of John 6. did not agree with you. John 6 is the subject. Was Jesus being literal in John 6? Augustin: No.

‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye 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."

Michael/Stone

 

[michaelp]

Opps . . . I meant just Michael.

 

[michaelp]

Jim B:

To Stone and alias-stone,

Have you ever honestly considered the possiblity you could be wrong?
Because if you reject the Eucharist, you are rejecting Jesus Christ Himself.
I offer you an option for discernment. Enter a Catholic Church and find the Tabernacle, wherein dwells the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Kneel before Him and ask him for the faith to believe in His Real Presence if that is His desire. If you are afraid to do this - then does not that expose one’s own fear of being wrong?

Praying for you,
JIm

Thanks Jim. The answer is always YES! I do think that I am wrong about a lot of things. I hold to much folk theology (that which I beleive simply because I have always believed it). That is the reason I am here: to listen to those with whom I disagree. It is such an important thing.

Let me ask you the same: Do you ever consider that you might be wrong?

We will all have many surprizes when we get to glory.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

mtr01:

Really? All 200 million? Wow :whacky:

Here’s my challenge: Prove it. You make the accusation, you prove it.

Wow! This is where you are going, huh? Should I give you all their phone numbers? Or should you just believe that Evangelicals generally speaking do not think that Jesus was literally telling us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Do you honest doubt that? I don’t doubt that most committed Catholics (how ever many there are) do believe that it is literal.

Michael

 

[mtr01]

michaelp:

Back on subject. We are talking about the specific interpretation of John 6. It does not seem from this quotation from Augustine, who was dealing with sybolism vs. literalism of John 6. did not agree with you. John 6 is the subject. Was Jesus being literal in John 6? Augustin: No.

‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye 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."

Michael/Stone

Ok, try this on for size, from Tractate 27 on John 6:60-72:

1. All this that the Lord spoke concerning His flesh and blood;–and in the grace of that distribution He promised us eternal life, and that He meant those that eat His flesh and drink His blood to be understood, from the fact of their abiding in Him and He in them; and that they understood not who believed not; and that they were offended through their understanding spiritual things in a carnal sense; and that, while these were offended and perished, the Lord was present for the consolation of the disciples who remained, for proving whom He asked, “Will ye also go away?” that the reply of their steadfastness might be known to us, for He knew that they remained with Him;–**let all this, then, avail us to this end, most beloved, that we eat not the flesh and blood of Christ merely in the sacrament, as many evil men do, but that we eat and drink to the participation of the Spirit, that we abide as members in the Lord’s body, to be quickened by His Spirit, and that we be not offended, even if many do now with us eat and drink the sacraments in a temporal manner, who shall in the end have eternal torments. **[emphasis mine]
   ccel.org/fathers/NPNF1-07/augustine/john/t27.htm

Here’s the perfect example of how you take one quote of Augustine and think you understand his whole doctrine. Like I said before, with the Fathers, it’s both/and, not either/or like it is for you. Here in reference to John 6, St. Augustine talks specifically about eating Christ’s flesh and blood sacramentally (hmm, where have I heard that before?), but also as participation in the spirit (earlier in the tractate he discusses my point concerning spiritual vs. carnal and the Ascension. He also stresses the eternal torments for those who eat and drink the sacraments unworthily. Face it Michael, you’re wrong on Augustine. You’re wrong about John 6. You’re wrong about Augustine on John 6.

 

[Jim_B]

Dear Michael,

Yes, being less than perfect, I am always aware of the possibility of being wrong. Which is why I take comfort and direction from the authority Jesus Christ put in place before His Ascension.
But in something as profound a mystery as the Eucharist, one can go beyond Peter and look to what St. Paul said in
1 Cor 10:15-16
(St. Paul understood Jesus literally - as one can read for themself)
“I address you as one addresses sensible people. You may judge for yourselves what I am saying. Is not the cup of blessing we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread we break a sharing in the body of Christ?”
St. Paul uses blood & body in the same literal phrase as Christ used. If it were only a symbol, then the Last Supper would be meaningless.

I would believe that St. Paul obeyed the words of Christ,
‘Say yes when you mean yes, and no when you mean no. Everything else is from the evil one.’

Dear Michael, your argument is not against my words, but against St. Paul’s and Christ’s Himself. Their words stand on their own and need no further defense from me, a poor sinner.
‘Be not afraid’ Michael - once you free yourself from the battle against the Eucharist, you will discover the greatest gift God has given us on this earth, for the Giver and the Gift are one in the
same.

I wish you well my friend,
Jim from Lincoln

 

[mtr01]

michaelp:

Wow! This is where you are going, huh? Should I give you all their phone numbers? Or should you just believe that Evangelicals generally speaking do not think that Jesus was literally telling us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Do you honest doubt that? I don’t doubt that most committed Catholics (how ever many there are) do believe that it is literal.

Michael

My reply was to your claim that 200 million evangelicals believe the “Roman” Catholic Church was founded in the 11th or 12th Century.

My challenge was to prove that the Church did not exist before then.

 

[michaelp]

mtr01:

My reply was to your claim that 200 million evangelicals believe the “Roman” Catholic Church was founded in the 11th or 12th Century.

My challenge was to prove that the Church did not exist before then.

Here are your option:

1. Evangelicals believe that they represent a new movement and the Roman Catholic Church represents the historic church, yet they are evangelicals nonetheless. (silly)
2. Evangelicals believe that they represent the true Church and that Roman Catholicism is a recent movement. (true)

Which one? Or do you have another option.

Granted, some evangelicals believe that the curruption started in the early middle ages, some believe that it was the late middle ages. I believe that it was the late middle ages, but full departure did not occur until Trent. This was the view of the reformers.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Yes, being less than perfect, I am always aware of the possibility of being wrong. Which is why I take comfort and direction from the authority Jesus Christ put in place before His Ascension.

But the question is: Have you ever considered that you might be wrong about this???
But in something as profound a mystery as the Eucharist, one can go beyond Peter and look to what St. Paul said in

St. Paul uses blood & body in the same literal phrase as Christ used. If it were only a symbol, then the Last Supper would be meaningless.

Christ also said that He would literally tear down the temple, right? Christ also said that he WAS the gate. Is he literally a gate or figuratively a gate. Christ also said AFTER the Lord’s supper that I will not eat AGAIN of the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom.

**Matthew 26:27-29 **27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave *it *to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

Now was this literally the fruit of the vine or the Body and Blood? It seems that if you take Christ literally in one, you have to take Him literally in another. Which is it? The fruit of the vine, or the body and blood???

Dear Michael, your argument is not against my words, but against St. Paul’s and Christ’s Himself.

That is easy to say. But in reality, it is against Rome’s interpretation of Paul, not yours. You just follow Rome.

Their words stand on their own and need no further defense from me, a poor sinner.

‘Be not afraid’ Michael - once you free yourself from the battle against the Eucharist, you will discover the greatest gift God has given us on this earth, for the Giver and the Gift are one in the
same.

My friend, I do thank you, but I could say the same thing about you. Experience Christ in Spirit and in truth for the flesh profits nothing (I am not really saying that, since that would be begging the question and we need to let the evidence decide, not a subjective experience.

May God bless you too Jim,

Michael

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

Here are your option:

1. Evangelicals believe that they represent a new movement and the Roman Catholic Church represents the historic church, yet they are evangelicals nonetheless. (silly)
2. Evangelicals believe that they represent the true Church and that Roman Catholicism is a recent movement. (true)

If TRUTH be told…you’re feeling pretty “silly” aren’t you?

 

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

If TRUTH be told…you’re feeling pretty “silly” aren’t you?

Good one. I guess I will now rethink my position based on the new evidence presented in this case.

Michael