The "Ecumenical Mass" Has Started

Bear with me...I'm just wondering...if it truly is the receiving of the body and blood of Christ that imparts eternal life, then why couldn't a non-Catholic participate? Don't Catholics desire that all people attain salvation? If the bread and wine ("properly" confected) are the literal flesh and blood of Christ, then it shouldn't matter whether or not one believes they are or represent them, should it? Where does Scripture tell us that everyone must first belong to a church in order to receive Christ? After all, it is faith IN Jesus Christ that places us into the BODY of Christ, His bride, His called-out ones.

The answer is basically the same whether one believes in the metaphysical Cath perversion or the Scriptural metaphorical understanding, which is that to take part in the Lord's supper unworthily would be to incur damnation.

But Scripturally, as seen in 1 Cor. 11:29 it was to hypocritically take part in this commemoration of the Lord's unselfish death by which He purchased the church with His own sinless shed blood, and which they believers were thus supposed to be showing.

But which they were not doing by treating others as non-members, and selfishly filling their belly, which effect was to "shame them that have not," (1 Cor. 11:21,22) and thus Paul stated, "When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper." (1 Corinthians 11:20)

Which means that is not coming together into one place to eat the Lord's supper if they are not doing so in order to show the Lord's death for them by charitable sharing of food and communion with Christ and others. To be impenitently walking contrary to fellowship with Christ in any way would also be to incur chastisement, or damnation as with a case as Judas. "We are thus to told let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup...And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. (1 Corinthians 11:28,34)

Likewise in the previous chapter to take part in the dedicatory feasts of pagans would be to have fellowship with demons, not because they were physically consuming the "real" flesh of demons but because of the union it symbolized.

For the Catholic the reason why a non-Catholic are not to participate is not only because they may be morally unfit, but because they do not believe in the Catholic (evidently this was originally a term for the Anglican understanding) "Real Presence," and thus as the article says, "Distributing Holy Communion to people who do not share the Catholic Faith and have not previously confessed their sins profanes the Holy Species, leads the participants to condemnation, and promotes superstition."

As if the metaphysical "real" Eucharistic body of the crucified christ under the appearance of nonexistent bread (while persons with celiac disease suffer adverse effects to the non-existent gluten) and wine (which one could get drunk on in sufficient quantity) until decay takes place (as with mold, digestion, etc.) is not superstition.

Dear brother Elsie, I invite you to ask a question. You know how I love to more fully explain myself... :o)

In that case was Judas saved? He participated in the Last Supper.

Good question. I guess the RC answer might be that yes, Judas WAS saved when he participated in the first "Eucharist" but then fell into "mortal sin" after that and he lost it. Of course, his suicide didn't help his case either.

So what you’re saying is that according to canon law every Catholic here on FR needs to be excommunicated because they debate about Catholicism?

Sorry for not seeing this, but the answer is basically no, since because not every Cath here debates about Catholicism, while as said, "as Rome interprets herself, what she said in the past only means what she says in the present," and what one does and effects manifest what one really believes.

Thus while at one time a lay person who engages in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith might be excommunicated, this (like so much of Catholicism) is subject to interpretation, and it is manifest that is not in force in the modern RCC.

As is,

Can. 831 §1. Except for a just and reasonable cause, the Christian faithful are not to write anything for newspapers, magazines, or periodicals which are accustomed to attack openly the Catholic religion or good morals;

clerics and members of religious institutes, however, are to do so only with the permission of the local ordinary.

No doubt those V2 RCs which attack the pope that their bishops elected would say they do so for a just and reasonable cause, while Traditional RCs who reject V2, or pick and choose from modern what they judge is valid or not (based on what ancient Cath church teaching states ) would reject this as able to censor them, and interpret anything ancient one this matter as not doing so. All the while censuring evangelicals for judging what is valid teaching based on the most ancient church teaching, that of Scripture.

The answer is basically the same whether one believes in the metaphysical Cath perversion or the Scriptural metaphorical understanding, which is that to take part in the Lord's supper unworthily would be to incur damnation.

Yet, we have RCs arguing here (and on most threads where the topic of the Eucharist is brought up) that the very ACT of partaking of the Eucharist is itself salvific. Though NOWHERE in Scripture do we see that unsaved people "must" receive it in order to be saved. The purpose of the observance of the Lord's Supper is as a memorial - a reminder ever before us of the sacrifice Christ made for our sins and by whose shed blood and broken body made propitiation for all our sins. It is for those who have ALREADY received the gift of God through faith.

Not intending to offend anyone here, but it seems to me that Catholicism has too much superstition behind their adamant insistence that the bread and wine of the remembrance are literally transubstantiated into Jesus' body, blood, soul and divinity and that these elements retain their change even after the Communion service is over so that they can be placed in a monstrance for "adoration" as if Christ were truly present in his glorified state. There is outrage at the very thought that someone might have stolen the "consecrated" hosts in order to do any number of evil things to it - as if Jesus is held prisoner within the material! I just don't buy it.

What it must boil down to is that it is by FAITH that someone receives the elements of the communal observance and by doing so they are not only making a public testimony of that faith but also to be reminded of what Christ has done for us and the obligation we have to each other to remember our common bond.

Someone asked earlier if a person who is not a member of a certain church can join with the congregation in their Lord's Supper observance. I have never had a problem with doing so in churches I have visited when that happens because I DO believe in Jesus Christ. If I take my Mom to her Catholic Mass and stayed, I do not however take their communion. It is because I disavow their whole ritual of it and am not in agreement with what Catholicism says it stands for. It would be wrong of me, personally, to do that.

(Eucharistic realism)

Your argument steers towards making place for what I've seen referred to as immoderate realism -- in other words, there necessarily is included an "actual" [physical] realism along with and among whatever other (cough-cough) metaphysical considerations there are. Or else, the phrase "realism" should not be used in modern-day parlance due to it being inherently misleading.

What becomes displaced in the way you seem to be arguing for realism are realms of more moderate understanding, a type of conceptualization and way of explaining what the meaning of "is" is, that accepts the bread and the wine are still in their own actual, and "real", materially physical & earthly nature unchanged from being what they were in those senses prior to consecration.

For whatever reasons Protestants have been in the past been roundly condemned by Roman Catholics for holding such views, despite Pope Gelasius having shared that viewpoint. The bread and wine in their natural substance remain bread and wine.

At the following link; http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.lxvi.html under footnote 1911 (at the page click on the number to open the footnote) there is;

...he expresses himself naturally as one who believes it is bread, but yet not “common bread.” So Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (a.d. 490),
“By the sacraments we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be in them,”

Did Bishop Gelasius (that would be "Pope" Gelasius, would it not?) subscribe to concept of Eucharistic realism according to the way you conceptualize/internalize such term as "realism" in this context?

I'm willing to accept that he did hold view there was type of realism, yet clearly not inclusive of Thomistic treatments of Aristotelian philosophical usage of the word "substance", for Gelasius apparently was using the term more naturally, as in directly stipulating the material reality of the consecrated bread and wine remained unchanged.

So much for Medieval Scholasticism, eh? Those guys convoluted most everything they touched upon. And so much for the claim of consistency for what you termed Eucharistic realism -- unless -- portions of Tridentine descriptive for transubstantiation can go under the bus-wheels where some particular, specific portions of it bloody well belongs.

In light of what Gelasius had to say (and others too, speaking similarly of the bread remaining bread, etc) leaves also those who reject transubstantiation -- in good standing -- it needing be understood here that those who reject the dogma do so for reason they understand transubstantiation to include the assertion the so-called "substance" (which term 'substance' absolutely must include consideration of the bread's purely physical reality & existence, or else the words lose all meaning) of the bread and wine are said to be annihilated standing right alongside Gelasius, and Augustine, and Tertullian (all of whom would have objected to this annihilation postulate) although with Tertullian one needs to read in-between-the-lines when he bent his writing quills towards critics who accused Christians of drinking actual (there's that word 'actual' again!) blood, referencing the accusers must be the ones who have a taste for (and preferred) human blood -- in order to see that he was speaking of Christians NOT partaking of actual corporeal flesh and blood when they partook of the Lord's Supper (Eucharist).

When it comes to inclusion of receptionism, the condemnation from Council of Trent was anathemization of those who held such viewpoint. I'll have to be staying anathematized, thank you guys very much (don't want to sit next to you folks all that much anyhow)...

How many times on FR threads have we seen Romanists point to John 6:66, where many turned away from Jesus -- those who turned away obviously having literalist interpretation in mind for Christ's own words pertaining to eating his flesh and "drinking blood" (of Christ)--- in order to justify literalist (immoderate realism) interpretations as being the only possible correct interpretation when attempting to justify doctrine of transubstantiation?

I doubt you can show me that anybody made your kind of arguments to "refute" or "deny" Eucharistic realism, for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

You mean "realism" like this;

What if one were to hold the view that the bread and wine after consecration remained in their own particular physical (material) realities -- still bread and wine? Would that be precluded under what you refer to as 'Eucharistic realism'?

I had asked you in previous comment to better define what you meant by 'Eucharist realism', and as usual you deflected questioning back upon the inquirer. You do not appear to me to subscribe an immoderate view regarding Eucharist, anyway.

Well guess what? Neither do Anglicans, and Methodists, and Lutherans, and Calvinists too, provided that latter understand and accept something along lines of Calvin's pneumatic presence view, rather than the apparently strict memorialism of Zwingli whom Calvin strongly opposed on this point.

As for that latter being strictly and entirely "memorialists" only, that was long ago corrected by a successor to Zwingli in what's called the Consensus Tigurinus.

None of those I listed above subscribe to transubstantiation. So what now? Will transubstantiation be re-described in order to preclude the RCC so-called 'Magesterium' from ever having to admit they were wrong?

"Oh, but you just did not understand us!"

seems to be what you may be including among your usual efforts on these pages...

Yet, there is plentiful dialogue from centuries preceding this century and the century previous (that would be the 20th century) establishing that among Roman Catholics there had long been consideration there was corporeality -- by which I mean actual (and it could be even said "physical") presence of the flesh and blood of Christ within consecrated eucharist wafer, and wine -- right were the bread and wine used to be, but which bread and wine had been "annihilated", ceasing to be bread and wine, at all.

That particular portion of overall view and understanding of Eucharist was NOT universally shared among earlier centuries Christian Church, including among the Latin church as the one example from Gelasius establishes. I haven't even gotten to Augustine yet, but I see that he was included in the listing you characterized as supporters of "Eucharistic realism".

Augustine was not a supporter of what came to be known as transubstantiation -- not if that includes annihilation of the species of the bread.

And yeah, I know, guys like Taylor Marshall try to represent Aristotelian philosophy as equating "definition" with the word "species" once the original philosophical Greek terminology was translated and employed by Latins. Where would that leave Council of Trent descriptives? The "actual" body (flesh and blood, no less) of Christ under the appearances of the definition (conceptual understanding) of what the bread is?

That's surely not how a great many Roman Catholics apparently enough understood the dogma of transubstantiation for many centuries preceding the 20th century. I smell a rat. It's as if there's been among Roman Catholicism slow and steady work to bring about change in perceptions of just what transubstantiation is, in order to better incorporate (or should it be said more accurately appropriate?) non-Roman Catholic theological considerations from both East (Orthodox) and West (Protestants) without ever having to say they're sorry? (sorry for Council of Trent, and the like).

Dear brother Elsie, I invite you to ask a question.

Is the following still being taught??

"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours."

--Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)

How it is written: Can. 831 §1. Except for a just and reasonable cause, the Christian faithful are not to write anything for newspapers, magazines, or periodicals which are accustomed to attack openly the Catholic religion or good morals; clerics and members of religious institutes, however, are to do so only with the permission of the local ordinary.

How it is practiced: Unless they are FReepers.

Can. 831 §1. Except for a just and reasonable cause, the Christian faithful are not to write anything for newspapers, magazines, or periodicals which are accustomed to attack openly the Catholic religion or good morals; clerics and members of religious institutes, however, are to do so only with the permission of the local ordinary.

I can see where MormonISM gets it's...

"Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the 'prophets, seers, and revelators' of the Church is cultivating the spirit of apostacy..."

(Improvement Era, June 1945, p. 354)

Reinforced here......

MP3 File

This is the audio clip of Dallin H. Oaks, current Mormon Apostle leader, from the PBS documentary, "The Mormons", declaring unequivocally:

"IT'S WRONG TO CRITICIZE LEADERS OF THE (MORMON) CHURCH, EVEN IF THE CRITICISM IS TRUE."

Don't criticize?

Dallin H. Oaks, Mormon Apostle

And here:

Temple Recommend Questions:

1 Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?

2 Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?

3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

5 Do you live the law of chastity?

6 Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

8 Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?

9 Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?

10 Are you a full-tithe payer?

11 Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?

12 Do you have financial or other oblgations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?

13 If you have previously received your temple endowment:

     Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?

     Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?

14 Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?

15 Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?

Oh, they can say that their leaders were NOT speaking for GOD when they said    WHATEVER   but that's NOT the same as criticizing!

( Remember fellow Christians: the Mormon's criticize US because they've been taught that they CAN'T criticize ANY of their leaders; so they HAVE to vent somehow! )

When it comes to inclusion of receptionism, the condemnation from Council of Trent was anathemization of those who held such viewpoint.

There seems to be a LOT of this going on; amid the proliferance of multi-syllabic mumbo-jumbo wording here.

(Saint) Bishop Macarius swore in a letter to Saint Helena that the Virgin Mary was assumed into heaven, in reply to Helena's request for the remains. He said he was sending the Virgin Mary's grave clothes and coffin, but could not send the body because of her Assumption into heaven. This letter would have been dated approximately 326-328 AD, when Helena went to Jerusalem to recover as many relics of Christ's life and passion as possible. There are quite a few historical accounts about Helena's efforts from that time and later.
Even Ratzinger didn't trust his teachers as incapable of error, since some of them even doubted Jesus ever lived!

we have RCs arguing here (and on most threads where the topic of the Eucharist is brought up) that the very ACT of partaking of the Eucharist is itself salvific.

Or at least posting John 6:53 which would require physically consuming Christ if it is taken literally, but when challenged I have only seen silence or retreat from this being the absolute requirement as much as other verily verily statements are for accountable souls.

Not intending to offend anyone here, but it seems to me that Catholicism has too much superstition behind their adamant insistence that the bread and wine of the remembrance are literally transubstantiated into Jesus' body, blood, soul and divinity and that these elements retain their change even after the Communion service is over so that they can be placed in a monstrance for "adoration" as if Christ were truly present in his glorified state. There is outrage at the very thought that someone might have stolen the "consecrated" hosts in order to do any number of evil things to it - as if Jesus is held prisoner within the material! I just don't buy it.

That description would not be entirely accurate in Eucharistic theology if "literally transubstantiated" means into His actual literal manifest physical flesh and blood of the incarnated Christ, versus a metaphysical contrivance by which the literal reading of the words of Christ dies the death of qualifications. But which enables Christ to be bodily in Heaven yet "really present" in His body as manifest (non-existent) bread and wine (down to subatomic particles). Which is a problem for persons with celiac disease who suffer adverse effects to the non-existent gluten in the Eucharistic host.

However, if Christ no longer exists as such when the bread and wine decay, then He can not be present for long in the monstrance or after being locked in a tabernacle .

And since decay of the begins immediately (I presume) after confection and which process is ongoing then the question is just how long is Christ "really present" in body and blood. Longer in air conditioned building than in hot tropic ones? And if even the smallest particles contain the entire Christ, body and blood, souls and divinity, then the Eucharistic christ could end up in the carper or air conditioner etc. since some would become airborne during the time from consecration (which event theology requires to be outside time) to reception.

parts is parts

Yes.

This is how it is phrased in the Catechism:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/846.htm

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door.
Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

As I teach my RCIA students, if you love Christ you want to do His will. He established His Church as the ordinary means of salvation for the whole human race.

If you didn't know that, then you would not be personally guilty of disobedience to Christ by not entering His Church. And He has ways to save we don't even know about.

"As high as the heavens are above the earth, so far are his ways above our ways, and His thoughts above our thoughts."

"It is impossible for men, but for God all things are possible."

But if you know it is Christ's will, then --- it's like Noah's Ark! You really need to get your pea-pickin' self into the Catholic Church!

If you are looking for understanding, that Catechism link is worth 3-4 minutes of your time, by the way. The context is pretty important, and I think you will be interested.

Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

It's strange that Christ never mentioned it when He was asked DIRECTLY what GOD required.

Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

It's strange that Christ never mentioned it when He was asked DIRECTLY what GOD required.

John 6:25-40

²⁵When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”

²⁶Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. ²⁷Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

²⁸Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

²⁹Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

³⁰So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? ³¹Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’^[c]”

³²Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. ³³For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

³⁴“Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”

³⁵Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. ³⁶But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. ³⁷All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. ³⁸For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. ³⁹And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. ⁴⁰For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

It's also strange that the Early Church Fathers never mentioned it; either.

Acts 15

The Council at Jerusalem
¹ Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." ² This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. ³ The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. ⁴ When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
⁵ Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses."
⁶ The apostles and elders met to consider this question. ⁷ After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. ⁸ God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. ⁹ He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. ¹⁰ Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? ¹¹ No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
¹² The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. ¹³ When they finished, James spoke up. "Brothers," he said, "listen to me. ¹⁴ Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. ¹⁵ The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
¹⁶ "'After this I will return
   and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
   and I will restore it,
¹⁷ that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
   even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'
¹⁸ things known from long ago.
¹⁹ "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. ²⁰ Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. ²¹ For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
The Council's Letter to Gentile Believers
²² Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. ²³ With them they sent the following letter:

   The apostles and elders, your brothers,
   To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
   Greetings.
²⁴ We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. ²⁵ So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— ²⁶ men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁷ Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. ²⁸ It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: ²⁹ You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
   Farewell.

³⁰ So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. ³¹ The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. ³² Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. ³³ After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. ^[34] ³⁵ But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.
Disagreement Between Paul and Barnabas
³⁶ Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing." ³⁷ Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, ³⁸ but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. ³⁹ They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, ⁴⁰ but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. ⁴¹ He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

"It's also strange that the Early Church Fathers never mentioned it; either."

You cited the above as quote from he (presumably) replying to #254. However I don't see that at #254, so I don't know where or if I said it, or what it is all about.

Can you find here I said it, so I can get some context? (This is getting confusing.) Thanks, brother Elsie.

No need for you to be confused.

Just pray to Mary for more clarity of thinking.