Posted on 08/23/2009 2:05:23 PM PDT by NYer
.- Before Sunday’s Angelus prayer with pilgrims in the courtyard of Castel Gandolfo, Pope Benedict XVI spoke about today’s Gospel, in which Jesus' teaching about his presence in the Eucharist is met with resistance from the Jews and his own disciples. Followers of Christ must respond to his challenging teachings with lifelong commitment instead of trying to adapt his teachings to the fashions of the times, the Pope said.
"The fourth Evangelist,” Pope Benedict explained, “relates the reaction of the people and disciples, shocked by the words of the Lord to the point that many, after having followed him until then, exclaim, ‘This saying is hard, who can accept it?'”
Benedict XVI continued reading, reciting, “And from that moment on ‘many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.'”
The Pope then noted, “Jesus, however, does not lessen his claim. Indeed, he directly addresses the twelve saying, 'Will you also go away?’”
"This provocative question,” the Pope taught, “is not only addressed to listeners of the time, but to believers and men of every age. Even today, many are shocked by the paradox of the Christian faith.”
Because “Jesus’ teaching seems too hard, too difficult to accept and put into practice,” Pope Benedict observed that, “As a result there are those who reject and abandon Christ, those who attempt to adapt his teachings to the fashions of the times distorting its meaning and value.”
“Will you also go away?' This unsettling provocation resounds in our hearts and awaits a response from each one of us. Jesus in fact is not contented by a merely superficial or formal belonging, an initial and enthusiastic adhesion is not enough for Him. On the contrary, we must take part in 'his thinking and his will' throughout our entire life,” the Holy Father said.
Drawing his words to a close, the Pope said, “Faith is God's gift to man and is, at the same time, man’s free and total trusting of himself to God.” “Docile faith, listening to the word of the Lord, that lamp for our feet, light for our path…We ask the Virgin Mary to keep alive in us this faith steeped in love, which has made her, a humble maiden of Nazareth, Mother of God and mother and model for all believers,” he prayed.
After the Marian prayer, the Pope greeted participants of the lay movement Communion and Liberation, who are gathering for their 30th annual Friendship Among Peoples meeting, which opened today in Rimini, Italy. Commenting on this year's theme, “Knowledge Is Always An Event,” he referred to his recent encyclical “Caritas in Veritate”: “'Learning is not only a material act, because…In all knowledge and in every act of love the human soul experiences something ‘over and above,’ which seems very much like a gift that we receive, or a height to which we are raised.”
The greatest gift He left us ... His presence in the Eucharist!
bump
*********************
bump!
Possibly, if one is not filled with the Holy Spirit and Jesus actually did take up residence in a baked wafer...
How could one be more in communion with God that to have the Spirit of God reside within ones own body as born again Christians do???
How can putting Jesus into your stomach provide any spiritual benefit???
When we are born again, we experience that Spiritual Circumcision whereby our soul is separated from our body...When we die, it is accurately said that we go to heaven when in fact, it is our separated soul that goes to heaven while our flesh goes into the ground...
The sould does not separate at death, it separates at the 'new birth'...
Jesus wants nothing to do with our flesh...It is corrupted...We will only be in the presence of God, bodily, when our bodies become incorruptable...
There is no biblical reason for Jesus to be put into someone's corrupted body...
IF?
Let’s see what Paul says about the Real Presence. Let’s take a familiar phrase that is too often misunderstood. Paul repeats the words of Jesus, "Do this in remembrance of me." These words were repeated by Luke in his version of the Last Supper in Luke 22:19–20.
John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?
On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.
In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
It's no different today, Iscool. There are folks like you who walk away because "this is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"
>>How can putting Jesus into your stomach provide any spiritual benefit???<<
.
Jesus is TRUE GOD and TRUE MAN and will always remain TRUE MAN (as well as true God). As TRUE MAN He still has and always will have a glorified human body (flesh, blood and soul). In His love for us He wants to be with us humans (flesh,blood and soul) and the only way for Him to do so is to co-mingle His Glorified Body with our earthly human body thru reception of the Eucharist.
Catholics live with the hope that they too will receive a glorified body at the Last Judgment — not a similar body as Christ has (because He is divine) but still a glorified body.
(By the way, when Christ appeared to his disciples after His Ressurection, He asked for something to eat so that He could show them that He still had a Body, and because Christ is changeless, even now He still has a Body.)
“Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life.”
(translation)
“Aw, FReep. What’s my other choice? I could go to Hell, but how would that help?” I love St. Peter - he’s me! Anoreth took “Peter” for her Confirmation name; he’s her, too.
I love this chapter of John. It opens with Jesus performing a miracle with bread (feeding the multitudes). Jesus then performs a miracle with his body (walking on water). Jesus then gives a discourse on bread tying in God saving his people with Manna in the desert with his own status as the bread of life.
It’s hard to imagine Christians who will not accept this teaching.
***There is no biblical reason for Jesus to be put into someone’s corrupted body...***
You mean other than the words of Jesus? Your church is astonishingly unbiblical, Iscool. I know that these words are hard to accept. That is why the Church of Jesus Christ will be here if and when all individuals will choose to accept them. We accept the word of Jesus, not the words of individual men sitting in their LaZBoys.
Outward signs are more biblical than you think. All through the Old Testament, God communicated with the Chosen People through outward tangible signs. The life sustaining manna in the desert was a physical food meant to sustain them. It is a foreshadowing of the Eucharist, a physical food meant to sustain our souls.
You are also forgetting that our physical bodies are separated from our souls until the Final Judgment. Then our bodies will be reunited, in perfect form, with our souls to live in heaven with Christ forever.
Christ also saved us by taking on our “corrupted” flesh. Why would He join Himself to corruption? Obviously, because God loves the human form He created, gave physical miracles to sustain the physical bodies and souls of His people, returned from the dead in very physical form, and intends to return us to our physical bodies when He comes in glory.
Why, in addition, did Jesus perform all the physical signs and traditions of the Jews? He does not take up residence in the baked wafer. He joins Himself in a mysterious way with the physical wafer and it becomes His body. He told us so in the Bible (Jn 6:53, 55) when He said, “My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink.”
Christ repeated that He is the bread of life 12 times! He said, “Drink my blood, eat my flesh” 4 times! Why was He so repetitive? He meant it literally and the Jews who heard and saw Him say it took him literally. He let those who took Him literally and began to doubt walk away. Why didn’t He clarify if they misunderstood Him? Their souls were at stake; why didn’t He explain to them He just meant that “symbolically?”
Our pastor this morning tied it all together using the second reading and marriage as an example. And after Mass I talked to a young lady who had been in the choir. It seems she's entering a convent of a semi-cloisterd order in the next couple weeks. A life-long commitment. Doesn't seem to matter what our vocation is, it's always a life-long commitment.
The way we live our lives today - moving all the time, easy divorce, switching jobs constantly - life-long commitments are not exactly the norm.
You could partake of the sanctified, glorified, resurrected human nature of Jesus, and have the Holy Spirit dwelling in your soul.
How can putting Jesus into your stomach provide any spiritual benefit???
Jesus evidently thought that it did. Why are you second-guessing him? He's the one who said, "Take ... eat ... this is my body". We didn't make it up.
Moreover, you seem to forget that God set up the Passover meal (What was he thinking? What spiritual benefit could come from eating a roasted lamb and smearing its blood on the doorpost?) and Scripture is completely clear that Christ is the new Passover.
Jesus wants nothing to do with our flesh...It is corrupted...We will only be in the presence of God, bodily, when our bodies become incorruptable
If Jesus wants "nothing to do with our flesh," how and why is he going to make it incorruptible? And if your flesh is so corrupted that Jesus wants nothing do with it, what is the "Spirit of God" doing "residing in it"?
Are Jesus and the "Spirit of God" not in agreement about your flesh? One thinks it's so corrupted that he wants nothing to do with it, and the other thinks it's okay to live there?
You contradict yourself, and I know why.
Your fundamentalist Christianity, being as anti-sacramental as it is, naturally tends toward Platonism (matter bad, spirit good).
But you know at some level that Platonism contradicts Scripture (the world is saved through the matter of Christ's incarnate body; God intends to redeem all of creation, including material creation, including our bodies), so you're left with a contradiction.
And there are only two ways out. You reject the unscriptural Platonism of your own tradition and become a Catholic, or you reject Christianity altogether.
Until then, your theology is internally at war with itself.
Excellent observations. You are most blessed with a pastor whose catechesis has touched hearts and souls.
That's what we've been saying all along...
"It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
You guys claim Jesus' blood is human blood...Type AB...You claim Jesus flesh that you eat is a human heart...
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
You're not going to get much from human flesh and blood...Except disease...
1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Human flesh and blood is corrupt...Why would Jesus have human blood???
As you can see, there will be no human flesh and blood in the Kingdom of God...
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
The bread-is my flesh...
If you eat the bread (flesh), you will never again hunger...You can't separate the two...They are tied together...The flesh is the bread...If you eat the flesh you will have eternal life...At the same time, you will never again hunger...
So the flesh that was born at Bethlehem and nailed to the cross on Calvary wasn't human flesh, and the blood that flowed from Christ's hands, feet, and sides wasn't human blood?
It seems we are now being told that Jesus Christ WAS NOT Man at all and I am not aware of ANY Christian who would not consider this to be heresy.
Jesus answers your questions better than I...
Joh 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
Mat 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
You guys invented a name for everything...If matter is so good, why's God going to burn it all up???
But you know at some level that Platonism contradicts Scripture (the world is saved through the matter of Christ's incarnate body; God intends to redeem all of creation, including material creation, including our bodies), so you're left with a contradiction.
'Christians' are saved by the death of Jesus' incarnate body as the one and only sacrifice
How about John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Read further:
Immediately after Christ said the followers came because He had fed them through the miracle of the loaves and fishes, He says, “Labor not for the meat with perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of Man will give you.” He didn’t say “spirit” or “faith” or symbolic bread; He said MEAT which endures forever. ((John 6:27)
When Christ spoke in parables, He gave a small summary at the end to explain His point. He did not do that in John 6. He’s just done several tremendous miracles for the people and fed them. They are primed to believe in Him. Then the people asked for a sign, like manna in the desert, that would help them believe in Him— and they ask Him to give them this faith-giving nourishment ALWAYS. At this moment, He decides it is time to tell them about the miraculous nourishment that He will give them until the end of time. He tells them 12 times that HE is the bread of life. He tells them 4 times to eat His flesh and drink His blood. He uses the word “trogon” not the normal word for eating (phagon). Trogon means “gnaw or crunch with your teeth” because He is stressing REAL eating. The tense of the word “trogon” also implies CONTINUOUS eating.
As all those followers turned away because they just couldn’t accept this teaching, He turned to the apostles and said, “Will you walk away also?” He didn’t clarify a thing for them, because there was nothing to clarify on this teaching. He was not speaking symbolically that day. All the people listening that day knew this. That is clear from the Gospel.
Peter, the spokesman of great faith, said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of ETERNAL life? And we have believed and have known that you are the Christ, the Son of God.” Peter shows at this moment that he has just accepted Christ’s bewildering words on faith. It is at this moment he becomes the leader of the Church Christ is founding. Remember later, their eyes are opened and they understand after they celebrate the Eucharist on their own.
Finally, I believe Matt 13:15 is YOUR answer. Catholics take Scripture more literally than any other faith, even this strange, divinely inspired scripture about the Eucharist. The people who heard Christ that day, and many people today, have dull ears and closed eyes. Christ said what He meant and meant what He said. He knew it took a leap of faith. That’s why He started talking about the Father’s gift of faith at the end of this passage. It’s a leap He asked His followers to make. He was disappointed and discouraged when his followers couldn’t make that leap of faith, but He let them distance themselves from Him over it. See, hear, understand, be converted, and be healed.
Iscool, I am sorry about the places I did all caps, I don’t know how to bold or underline words on this forum. Read John 6 as a continuous story, as it happened, as it was inspired to be written, and I think it will make more sense to you.
Additionally, Biblical scholars (both Catholic and Protestant) have ALWAYS agreed that the Gospel of John DOES NOT contain any parables.
Your observation is also a perfect illustration of why the final portion of Matthew 25 (the sheep and the goats) IS NOT a parable.
I had an interesting experience on Sunday. Our Pastor, who is around 70 and a former professor in the seminary, said that Pope Benedict is only giving communion to those who kneel and receive on the tongue. Then he said that he doesn’t like it when people receive on the tongue. This was after he gave a very moving homily on the eucharist. He is wonderful prist! But then he mention that we had about 2 dozen Sisters of Life visiting. And when then went up to communion they almost all recieved our Blessed Lord on the tongue.
“Additionally, Biblical scholars (both Catholic and Protestant) have ALWAYS agreed that the Gospel of John DOES NOT contain any parables.”
I did not know that, wagglebee! Thank you. It makes it all even more obvious, doesn’t it?
As I noted earlier, Protestants prefer to label Matthew 25:31-46 a parable because it CLEARLY demonstrates that “sola fide” is invalid.
That is indeed interesting ... an orthodox Catholic priest, who preaches well, served as a professor in the seminary but dislikes communion on the tongue. I would be curious to know why; do you plan on pursuing this question with him? I would be most interested in a followup freepmail. In my parish, we only have communion on the tongue (and by intinction). My pastor has described some deplorable conduct that has resulted from distributing communion in the hand.
Was that body composed of human flesh, or not?
And Jesus' sacrifice and Jesus' death aren't one and the same thing. The killing of the victim begins the sacrificial liturgy; it doesn't end it. No OT sacrifice was completed by the killing of the victim. See Leviticus 16 for a good example (one which Hebrews directly applies to Christ).
Actually, he's ticked off enough people with actions rather than words, that we have financial issues. It's not the preaching, but so many other things. Actions need to match words even for priests.
We are not living under the Old Testament...And yes, they had many rituals and many sacrifices...
Jesus said He became the sacrifice to replace those many sacrifices...ONCE...FOR ALL...Then He said 'It is finished'...
There is no sacrificial liturgy...
I don't get where you're coming from...We are not to continue with those OT sacrifices...The veil of the temple is ripped in two...We don't even have that temple nor do we need it...
You obviously don't have a clue what Matt. 13 is talking about...
Catholics take Scripture more literally than any other faith
Who are you trying to kid??? Your great leader, Origen is the one who put into practice that most of the scripture means something other than what it says...But he didn't have a clue either what it meant...
Your religion rejects most of the miracles in the OT...Jonah and the wale...Creation in six days, etc...You guys don't believe any of Revelation is literal...You don't believe what Paul said about salvation is by grace thru faith without works of any kind...
I could go on for days writing about what you guys have claimed you do not take literally in the scriptures...
I have read Matt 13:15 very carefully. From the Protestant perspective, I believe my interpretation is just as valid as yours, isn’t it?
Catholics do take scripture more literally than any other Christian faith, especially the words of Christ.
We believe everything in the Old Testament could have happened, since all things are possible with God; but we don’t spend a huge amount of time worrying about it. We believe the primary purpose of the Old Testament is to educate us about God, begin to understand what He wants from us, and to help us recognize the Messiah.
Origen is not our great leader. He is just an early convert to Christianity. He was a writer who commented on early Church practices. In fact, most Catholics don’t even know who he is. He’s simply an important corroborating voice who helped document the earliest Christian practices and history.
Revelation is inspired but mysterious and no one knows for sure what much of it means. Catholics don’t spend a huge amount of time worrying about Revelation either. Christ said no one will know when the time of final judgment is at hand; our job is to be ready and in the state of grace whenever it occurs. We should be ready for it every minute of every day. We take that literally. All we really worry about is what Jesus said.
We could argue over that one line from St. Paul and I could definitely present a very solid case for why actions are also critical to salvation; but why argue?
You obviously love God very much; I’m just asking you to understand that Catholics do too and that we have a lot of very good reasons for believing as we do. We think our reasons make the most sense, but we also know faith is a gift from the Father. It is our job to point out untruths and clarify misconceptions about Catholicism. We can’t just let a misrepresentation stand unchallenged; if we did, we wouldn’t be evangelizing the way Christ asked us to.
Many of the things you write about Catholics are not true. I have to tell you so. I invite you to get a good Catholic Bible, based on the earliest Greek translation of the Gospels. It will clarify for you why we do some of the things we do and believe what we believe. You will see passages you’ve never seen in your “reformed” Bible. Don’t you want to see what the original New Testament really said? I would be dying to know.
I also suggest you read books by Madrid, Kreeft, or Hahn. They address your concerns and issues with far more ability than I do. See what they say. Don’t be afraid to look. At the very least, it may help you discuss things with us without all the errors; then we can really focus on the true issues dividing us. I’m sure there will still be plenty to argue about!
When Christ spoke in parables, He gave a small summary at the end to explain His point.
Actually, He only did this in the case of a few (one or two) of the parables.
Actually, I can only think of one .... the parable of the Sower.
“Many of the things you write about Catholics are not true. I have to tell you so. I invite you to get a good Catholic Bible, based on the earliest Greek translation of the Gospels. It will clarify for you why we do some of the things we do and believe what we believe. You will see passages you’ve never seen in your “reformed” Bible. Don’t you want to see what the original New Testament really said? I would be dying to know.”
Stunning claim. Any proof?
The Roman Catholic Church recognizes the following books as inspired by God. These books are known as the the Deuterocanonical books to Catholics & the Apocrypha to Protestants.
* Tobit
* Judith
* 1 Maccabees
* 2 Maccabees
* Wisdom of Solomon
* Ecclesiasticus
* Baruch
* Greek Additions to Esther
* Greek Additions to Daniel
I believe Martin Luther also wanted to delete James, Hebrews, 2 Peter, and Revelation.
There are several instances in the New Testament where words were actually added later to the original sacred text. An example of adding is Romans 3:28: “right through faith [alone]” The word “alone” was added by Luther. Actually, the only time “alone” is paired with the word “faith” in the original Greek text is in James 2:24 where it says we are “not saved by faith alone.”
That’s the most important example.
Thank you for your question. I have to go back to work this week so I won’t be posting as much. If you have further questions, Salvation or NYer are excellent, informed, and kind sources of Catholic teaching. You could direct further questions to them.
I was originally going to reply with the line “apart from the Apocrypha”. I read your post such that I thought you meant that the NT was “different” in the Catholic Bible.
The Apocrypha are not considered divinely inspired by Protestants. The Old Testament was entrusted to the Jews (Romans 3:2) and these works are not part of their Canon.
The RCC didn’t officially accept the Apocrypha as Scripture until the Council of Trent, correct?
“As I noted earlier, Protestants prefer to label Matthew 25:31-46 a parable because it CLEARLY demonstrates that “sola fide” is invalid. “
No it doesn’t. We are saved by grace through faith, resulting in a new creation with a spirit that desires to do God’s will.
You can do any number of good works, but if you do them to manipulate God, or to boast of your flesh, it won’t do any good. The flip side of the coin is that someone who claims to have faith, but whose life doesn’t change, is a liar.
Please don’t use terms like sola fide without learning what they mean. I suggest reading Martin Luther’s introduction to Romans:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/prefacetoromans.iii.html
So, Matthew 25:31-46 is simply “filler material”?
Here is some more reading for you...
Luther Added The Word “Alone” to Romans 3:28?
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html
Luther’s View of the Canon of Scripture:
http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm
He also said of John the Baptist, “35 He was a burning and shining lamp”...so we should believe John was literally a lamp?
In chapter 6, we read, “35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.”
So, we literally will never hunger or thirst? No wonder the woman at the well, in chapter 4, says, “Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water.”
And did you notice how he never explains it to her as having a spiritual interpretation? That PROVES he meant it literally!
And did you notice John 9, where we learn anyone who is blind is saved? “41Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.” Literally!
In chapter 10, we learn Jesus is a door. “7So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.” We know he meant it literally, for a few verses later, the Jews respond, “19 There was again a division among the Jews because of these words. 20Many of them said, “He has a demon, and is insane; why listen to him?” Jesus would NEVER have allowed them to remain confused!
“When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them. 37Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, 38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:
“Lord, who has believed what he heard from us,
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
39Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
40 “He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes,
and understand with their heart, and turn,
and I would heal them.” — John 12
No more so than James. It helps to use all of scripture.
Unfortunately, most adherents of YOPIOS think that the words of our Lord should be used to validate Paul and not the other way around.
If you qualify the doctrine of salvation by faith alone by saying that it is by well-formed faith that is manifested by a lifetime of good works that we are saved, then that would be the Catholic teaching also. That would also agree with the Bible,— Matthew 25, James 2, and the Letter to Romans.
I had to do a web search to figure out what YOPIOS stood for - Your Own Personal Interpretation Of Scripture. I haven’t found conflict between Jesus and Paul.
Kind of a pity not to be able to interpret scripture. You might want to read Augustine’s books on how to form YOPIOS...
Like John Calvin, he says it requires the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/doctrine.toc.html
“That is why faith alone makes someone just and fulfills the law; faith it is that brings the Holy Spirit through the merits of Christ. The Spirit, in turn, renders the heart glad and free, as the law demands. Then good works proceed from faith itself.” - Martin Luther, from the link I posted earlier.
Faith “alone” doesn’t. Faith formed and sustained by good works does. Let’s not invent the Bible, we already have the texts. We are judged by our works (Matthew 25), and faith alone is “dead” without them (James 2).
As I said, Jesus didn’t speak in parables in John 6.
He made it very clear that He was speaking literally in His teaching on the Eucharist.
I’m not disputing that He spoke symbolically or metaphorically elsewhere in John 6, so I’m not sure what your point is there in listing them.
I will say this about that: saying someone is a door or a lamp is an easily understood metaphor. Saying people need to eat your flesh is not. It is taboo. He would have explained that one if He was speaking symbolically.
I will let you have the last word on this thread, Mr. Rogers. I have to get ready for the school year. And you summed up my feelings exactly:
“He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes,
and understand with their heart, and turn,
and I would heal them.”
That’s it? You found one blog that says Luther didn’t add “alone” to the original Greek translation?
That is not persuasive. He added “alone.”
You obviously didn’t READ the article...
Technique only, but don’t comment on what you haven’t read.
“I will say this about that: saying someone is a door or a lamp is an easily understood metaphor. Saying people need to eat your flesh is not.”
Saying someone is a door or lamp is OBVIOUSLY a metaphor. Saying someone needs to eat your flesh is ALSO obviously a metaphor. And what does it mean? Jesus DID explain it:
“35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” Eating and drinking IS explained in verse 35 as COMING and BELIEVING.
He contrasts it with the opposite in verse 36: “36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out...40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
Notice belief has the same effect as eating the bread of life...and eating his flesh.
He then explains it again: “41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.”...43 Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him... 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.”
Again - explaining that eating is coming and believing.
And AGAIN Jesus explains it: “54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink...58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
This compares eating his flesh to the bread he explained in verses 35 - eating means coming and believing.
“He made it very clear that He was speaking literally in His teaching on the Eucharist.”
An assertion is not a conclusion. How did he make it very clear? If the Jews had attacked him with forks and knives, would they have received eternal life? If Jesus was speaking literally, the answer would be yes. But Jesus repeatedly explained what he meant, and it was NOT literally that Jesus was a loaf of bread.
You think of this because of the Last Supper, but there had been no Last Supper when Jesus taught this. This teaching is not about the Last Supper, but about Jesus being living water, and the bread of life - and he DOES explain what that means. Catholics choose to ignore what he says again and again in this chapter.
27 Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” 28Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”...
31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” 32Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”...35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out...40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.”...44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day...Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— 46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”...54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him...58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
I do not invent anything.
John 3 “8 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
Ephesians “4But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— 6and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
Notice the verb tenses...NOT future, but past.
Colossians “11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.”
Let me repeat, “having forgiven us all our trespasses”.
John 10 “27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
1 Peter: “3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”
Hebrews: “14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
15And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,”
17then he adds,
“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”
18Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.”
Anyone claiming that works are added to faith to make one acceptable to God is preaching a false Gospel. Good deeds are the FRUIT of the Holy Spirit - the RESULT of God already in our lives.
This is taught on practically every page of Scripture.
“21I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.