Replies

Nevertheless, the simple and clear interpretation of this is that the Jews took him literally. Are you suggesting that the symbolic meaning, the easier meaning, drove them away? Clearly not.

No what drove them away was Jesus telling them that unless the Father draws them they can not be saved..How does a legalist Jew that believes that Law keeping will save him respond to this ? It gives all the control for their eternity into the hand of the Father.

The rejected the thought that they could not earn heaven by their merit..that in fact even with the diligent law keeping they still might not be saved.

And then there is the historical reality that, for nigh on 2,000 years, back to the very first believers who learned from the Apostles, the Catholic Church has unambiguosly believed in the Real Presence. Can you appreciate what that means for all Christians? It was not a doctrine of the church until 1215 when the doctrine of Transubstantiation promulgated by Pope Innocent III as official dogma of the church. (it had been debated since the second century)

Even then it was years before their was any way to defend it. Then in 1265 Thomas Aquinas developed an explanation for the Transubstantion doctrine.

So until the 1200's one could be a Catholic and not believe the doctrine. It was not a clear cut as you portray it.

Protestants often misunderstand the Catholic teaching on merit, thinking that Catholics believe that one must do good works to come to God and be saved. This is exactly the opposite of what the Church teaches. The Council of Trent stressed: "[N]one of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is by grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the Apostle [Paul] says, grace is no more grace" (Decree on Justification 8, citing Rom. 11:6). It is the free gift of God's grace that brings salvation.

Really ?

Trent CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

6:30 The crowd responds to Jesus’ statement about believing in the one whom God has sent by demanding a sign—especially something like the manna given in the wilderness. Probably those who had not seen the multiplication of the bread had heard about it from those who had, and wanted to see something similar.

Note again the Johannine play on the physical versus the spiritual (32-33)—the food which perishes versus the food which remains for eternal life. Compare with chapter 4 where the contrast was between the water that quenched thirst temporarily versus the living water that would satisfy thirst forever.

Note also the interplay between works and faith in Johannine thought: The crowd asks Jesus (6:28), “What must we do that we may work the works of God?” Note Jesus’ reply: “This is the work of God: that you believe in the one he sent.” By the very phrase Jesus has shifted the emphasis from a work of man to the work of God—the initiative which God took in sending the Son into the world. (Qeou' is best understood as a subjective genitive in 6:32-34.) Note that at this point the crowd still misunderstands the nature of the true bread from heaven: “Lord, give us this bread.” If they conceive of it as something that Jesus himself gives them, they have still missed it, because he himself is the ‘Bread’ from heaven. (Note in this regard Jesus’ response in verses 35-36.)

what drove them away was Jesus telling them that unless the Father draws them they can not be saved..How does a legalist Jew that believes that Law keeping will save him respond to this?

Huh? Virtually an entire chapter spent on the Bread of Life. Throughout, the Jews are explicitly troubled by his claims as the Bread from Heaven (41-2) and that they are to eat his flesh (52), even more so when he becomes more explicit (60). Jesus spends several verses not only repeating, but becoming more literal. Jesus confirms their literal understanding by asking are they offended (61) by his literalness? Yet some how this becomes an issue, not over the "hard saying", but over a legalism? I don't see how your argument can work. Those that leave are not the Pharisees. They are his disciples (6:66). His disciples have seen the excess legalisms swept away throughout his ministry. It is ONLY here that they are explicitly troubled by his teaching on "eat my flesh". It is ONLY here that they leave. Leaving over a "hard saying" makes perfect sense. Leaving over a "legalism" does not. And perhaps most importantly for those that deny the Real Presence, it is here that Judas is lost.

It was not a doctrine of the church until 1215 when the doctrine of Transubstantiation promulgated by Pope Innocent III as official dogma of the church

You misunderstand how Councils work. Councils define things formally because a confusion arises (generally a heresy) about an established belief. Generally, councils do not create dogma per se, they strip away false teachings. As pointed out above in comment 65, the early church fathers universally taught the Real Presence. There was no need to formally define otherwise because the Church was of one mind. The last thing a church father wants to do is make new doctrine. It was only with the novel teachings of the "Reformation" that a more formal definition was needed. Trent was so important because of the confusions wrought by the Reformation.

The historical reality, the fact that you cannot escape, is that those who were directly taught by the Apostles believed as the Catholic Church believes.

It was not a doctrine of the church until 1215 when the doctrine of Transubstantiation promulgated by Pope Innocent III as official dogma of the church. (it had been debated since the second century)

Even then it was years before their was any way to defend it. Then in 1265 Thomas Aquinas developed an explanation for the Transubstantion doctrine.

What? In your fantasy world, the Church can "define" a doctrine without having an argument for it until 50 years later. You are quite simply in over your head.

It's like you believe that the Church said "you must believe in transubstantiation" and the people said "what does that mean?" and the Church said "we don't know, but Aquinis is working on it. We'll have a draft soon. but just shut up and believe it anyway."

You're quite literally hysterical.

So until the 1200's one could be a Catholic and not believe the doctrine.

Over and above your confusion about reality, you fail to understand that defining transubstantiation is not the same thing as believing in the Real Presence. One is a declaration, the other an explanation.

Using your logic, you would have us believe that nothing ever fell to the ground until Newton described how gravity worked.

It was not a doctrine of the church until 1215 when the doctrine of Transubstantiation promulgated by Pope Innocent III as official dogma of the church.

Sure it was. It was explicitly stated in the Liturgy and and the Bible, and was the teaching of all the Fathers of the Church.

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which 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 nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

"It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered." (St. John Chrysostom, prod. Jud. 1:6:PG 49,380)

"Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. ... Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature." (St. Ambrose of Milan, The Mysteries 9:50 [A.D. 390])

"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought ... not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).

(it had been debated since the second century)

Yes, by ignorant heretics such as yourself.

Even then it was years before their was any way to defend it. Then in 1265 Thomas Aquinas developed an explanation for the Transubstantion doctrine.

Not so. All St. Thomas did was use philosophical terms to explain what had always been believed and explained. See above and note the use of the words "transformed" and "changed".

So until the 1200's one could be a Catholic and not believe the doctrine. It was not a clear cut as you portray it.

Umm ... the Pope only defined abortion was murder in 1994. Could you be a good Catholic and not believe that doctrine until then?

You have a very attenuated and childish view of Catholic dogmatics. Every post you have made on Catholicism positively revels in ignorance and stupidities concerning what you think Catholics believe. Its no wonder you have gone out from among us to join the heretics in their abominations.

So free will plays no role in cooperating with grace in your view? We are just automatons?

I wonder why you never ask how a legalist Jew viewed he had the power and ability to keep the Law? Did he think he just did it on his own? Clearly not. The parable of the Pharisee and Publican would tend to lead us to believe that they credited it to God, since the Pharisee gave thanks to God He was not like other men, who are sinners. So in the Pharisee's view, God made the Pharisee a keeper of the Law.

The spiritual emptiness of the Pharisee was his view that he was already saved, because God had graced him so he was no longer troubled by sins and could rightly (or so he thought) look upon himself as superior to the sinful rabble, represented by the Publican. God was good and merciful to him, but as to that Pharisee, well, you could clearly see he was just a sinful reprobate - just look at the fruits of his life! Honestly, it sounds rather like the Calvinism (or is it a pseudo-Calvinism?) you and others have been expressing here. The world divided perceptibly into the saved and the damned, and nothing we do will change any of it (looked at from our view, not God's all-seeing view).

The rejected the thought that they could not earn heaven by their merit..that in fact even with the diligent law keeping they still might not be saved.

Well, certainly no one is going to be saved who does not keep the Commandments. Christ has solemenly assured us of that a number of times, and so has St. John and St. Paul.