Skip to comments.Infallibility
Posted on 05/16/2012 11:39:02 AM PDT by Salvation
Christ gave to Simon Peter and his successors, the Keys to the Kingdom and the power of binding and loosing. To the Popes was given the authority to teach. To them, in this regard, was given the charism of infallibility. "Infallibility" is not "impeccability" -- the inability to sin. Catholics do not believe that Popes are sinless and never err. Infallibility is simply a gift that is expressed in very specific ways, limited by Sacred Deposit of Faith -- Tradition, Scripture, and the unanimous writings of the early Fathers. As put by Vatican I:
For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.
Or, as put even more bluntly by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Coporis Christi:
[Nor] may anyone argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in virtue of his Primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisible, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter too, its visible foundation stone.
The Pope may explain doctrines more fully, he may go more deeply into them, he can extrapolate from moral principles to shed light on new situations that arise, but he cannot contradict what has been handed down by Christ and the Apostles and still claim infallibility for that teaching.
Protestants believe the first Pope possessed the charism of infallibility.
Now, they might not believe that Peter was the first Pope (which he was), but they believe that his Epistles are infallible. They also believe that Luke, Matthew, Mark, Paul, Jude and John wrote infallibly. They believe that Moses "was infallible," too. And Hosea, Micah, Nehemiah, Isaiah, David, Solomon, Zechariah -- any Patriarch, Prophet, Apostle, or Evangelist who wrote a Bibilical Book is deemed by Protestants to be infallible.
But somehow they see things as having changed, and the idea of the gift of infallibility being given to man is laughed off as "Popish superstition" at best, and as "Romish sacrilege" at worst.
Why they believe this, when since Israel's origins God has always provided authoritative leaders, I don't know. From Abraham to Jacob to Moses to David to Solomon, et. al., throughout the thousands and thousands of years of Israel's existence, God gave Israel earthly authority. But Protestants see this authority as having abruptly ended when the Old Testament Covenant was fulfilled and Israel's King of Kings took on flesh.
For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.
The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
Did that earthly authorty pass away? If not, where did that authority pass on to?
And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The authority passed to Peter and to the priests of the New Covenant.
"But we don't believe that Moses and Jacob and David were perfect! Look at David -- he committed adultery! Just because they wrote infallible books doesn't mean they were perfect!"
Precisely. And Catholics don't believe that Popes are perfect and can't sin or that every word a Pope mutters is infallible. When David whored around, he sinned. When Solomon prayed to pagan gods, he sinned. When Peter denied Christ three times, he sinned. When Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran or failed to deal with heretic, Modernist Bishops and homosexualist priests, he sinned. Impeccability is not a part of the deal -- but all of these sinners had/have the charism of infallibility.
The Authentic (i.e. "authoritative") Magisterium of the Church -- i.e., the teaching office of the Church exercised by proper authority -- has different levels of infallibility:
Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium ("Solemn Magisterium"): this is exercised when the Pope, as supreme pastor of the entire Church, speaks ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) and solemnly defines a dogma concerning faith and morals to be held by the entire Church, or when a Dogmatic Council convened and endorsed by a Pope formally defines a matter of faith and morals to be held by the entire Church. This is a very rarely excercised assertion of authority (only a few times in the past few hundred years). When the Pope teaches using his extraordinary infallible Magisterium, or when a Council dogmatically defines something and the Pope endorses that defintion, Catholics must believe what is taught de fide, as an article of faith.
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium ("Constant Magisterium" or "Universal Magisterium"): this is exercised when the Pope, Council, Bishop, priest or any authorized teacher teaches in accordance with Tradition, the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and what has been always accepted and taught by the Church in the past
Merely Authentic Ordinary Magisterium: any teaching by Pope, Bishop, priest, or any authorized teacher, that does not fall into the above two levels of infallibility is, quite simply, fallible, even though it may be part of the Authentic Magisterium (that is, it is "authorized" teaching). Teaching at this level is owed obedience -- as long as obeying does not harm the Faith, lead to sin or the loss of souls, does not contradict the Faith, etc. If what is being taught contradicts the Faith, it not only can be resisted, it must be resisted.
In addition to Magisterium, the Pope can, of course, simply act as a private person and offer his personal opinions on anything from current events to sports to food to movies. These may be of interest to us Catholics, who tend to sensibly love -- or at least respect the office of -- the Holy Father, but they are not "Church teaching" in any way. In the same way, a Council may be called that is pastoral and not dogmatic in nature (such as Vatican II).
Now, some Catholics forget the second level of the Magisterium, the "Ordinary Infallible Magisterium." They forget the Sacred Deposit of Faith, the unanimous agreement of the early Christian Fathers, and Sacred Tradition. These "Catholics" are the "liberal Catholics" or "modernist Catholics" you hear so much from in the media. They are the ones who root for the ordination of women, the eradication of the Christian view of homosexuality, etc. These are the well-organized, well-funded loudmouth "Catholics" who eat away at the Church's teachings and have become well-entrenched in various dioceses.
Another type of Catholic forgets about that third level of teaching that is not infallible at all. Any time the Pope teaches, he must be heard, his authority given respect, and the teaching given the benefit of the doubt because it comes from the Vicar of Christ. But if it contradicts prior infallible Magisterium, it is not infallible -- and it must not be obeyed if it proves harmful to the faith. Catholics who forget this level of Magisterium try very hard to be "orthodox" by being obedient, but they often have a false sense of obedience -- an obedience that sometimes borders on a pre-conscious papolatry ("pope worship"), though, of course, they know better and know that "worshipping the Pope" would be a terrible sin. They usually have a very healthy sensus catholicus, a desire for traditional Catholicism, and a virtuous patience, but they simply attribute to the Pope authority he does not have and they truly need to come to a better understanding of what the Magisterium is. These Catholics are often called "neo-conservatives," "conservatives," or "neo-Catholics" (they often think of and refer to themselves as "traditional Catholics" though they are not). You will see these otherwise wonderful Catholics tying themselves into knots trying to defend some of the novelties that followed Vatican II, or sweating bullets making excuses for some of the Holy Father's more scandalous actions (e.g., "ecumenical" services that include praying with Animists, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Protestants; allowing altar girls and "Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers", etc.), failures to act (e.g., lack of discipline given to Bishops), and opinions (e.g., support for the anti-subsidiarity, anti-life, anti-Christ United Nations).
Their desire to protect the Holy Father is understandable -- and laudable! -- especially since the papacy has been attacked so unfairly since the Protestant Rebellion and the ensuing secular revolution, most often with outrageous lies. But these Catholics have to wake up, study a bit, and defend true Catholic teaching as it has been known for 2,000 years.
If it has always been taught by the Church as a matter of faith or morals, it is infallible. If it is a solemn definition, it is infallible.
Ex., you are reading two Encyclicals. The first Encyclical reads:
Venerable Brethren, the red dogs runs at night. The cow jumped over the Moon. Jesus Christ is God. Little Jack Horner sat in a corner. Women may not be ordained to the priesthood.
In this document, the only parts which would be infallible would be the lines "Jesus Christ is God" and "women may not be ordained to the priesthood" because these have always been taught. This is teaching at the level of the Universal Magisterium, which is infallible.
The second Encyclical reads:
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that X, Y, Z. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith. And, by the way, the red dog runs at night.
Notice the explicit "we define" here? Notice that it is addressed to "anyone," not just to members of the Latin Church or of the Eastern Churches, etc.? Notice the penalty in place for non-acceptance of what is being said (if you don't believe this, you have fallen away from the Catholic Faith)? By these marks, you can know that infallible teaching is being expressed.
In this document, X, Y, and Z are infallible, but not "the red dog runs at night." This is teaching at the level of the Extraordinary (or Solemn) Magisterium, which is also infallible and is to be accepted "de fide." (Note: Protestants and uneducated Catholics who ask blankly, "Is Enclyclical X infallible?" need to recognize that a 100-page Encyclical may be written that is not infallible in any way, or has 10 paragraphs that are infallible, or 1 sentence that is infallible, etc.). This sort of exercise of the Solemn Magisterium is very rare, but very necessary when clarity is needed over a teaching that has always been taught, but whose details haven't been strictly defined.
All other teachings are owed obedience as long as they do not lead to a loss of Faith, harm the Church, impede the salvation of souls, lead to an evil, etc.
Always been taught and believed: infallible
Solemnly defined by Pope or Council: infallible
Other teachings: fallible, but owed religious assent unless they prove harmful, lead to sin, etc.
In addition to the above authoritative excercises of the Magisterium is "ecclesiastical tradition." Ecclesiastical tradition is the body of disciplines and practices which Christ's Church has ordained to be the manner in which our Faith is lived out and expressed. To quote Brother Alexis Bugnolo, writing in Seattle Catholic:
Ecclesiastical Tradition is the term used by the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, in 787 A.D., to speak of those pious customs of the Churches founded by the Apostles, which in some manner correctly apply the Catholic Religion to concrete practice over many generations. It does this most importantly in its 4th Anathema:"If anyone despises or rejects any written or unwritten ecclesiastical tradition, anathema sit."
Some examples cited by this council of ecclesiastical tradition are the veneration of the symbol of the Cross, icons, and statues. As an unwritten practice, kneeling for Communion is an ecclesiastical tradition.
The details of ecclesiastical tradition (small "T") are not a matter of dogma per se, but they are the inerrant manner in which dogma and doctrine are taught, learned, expressed, and lived. The details of ecclesiastical tradition may develop; they are not written in stone. But they may develop only slowly, "organically," in terms of quantity or quality (not substance), and in such a manner that is consistent with Natural Law and which better expresses the Faith (or at least doesn't harm the Faith, such as the novel practices since Vatican II do). Many of the problems in the Church since the Second Vatican Council stem from the almost complete eradication or revolutionizing of ecclesiastical tradition, in spite of the Second Council of Nicaea's anathema against such things and in spite of the fact that they have proven dangerous to the Faith.
Exactly — swamp, why don’t you read the article before shooting off? And why not read the Bible?
Lol...! A catholic telling someone to read the Bible. Why don’t you believe it in first before telling someone to read it.
i’ve given you enough of the written word in post 82 showing that Jesus didn’t speak in a metaphor for that. Now, please do believe in Jesus Christ — He said to eat of His body, not a metaphor as the disbelievers in His time and now say
Why should I beleve someone who doesn’t believe in God’s word? BTW we do eat bread, just as Jesus did and we do drink fruit of the vine just as Jesus did. Just as he commanded us to do. Nothing more and nothing less. Just as Jesus instructed.
who is the "we"? As your earlier posts said, it's all individual. isn't "we" really "I"?
So why do you subtract from God's word?
remember Apocalypse 22:1919 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
go and talk to yer fellows who say that the NIV means that Lucifer AND Jesus are ONE in the NIV!
And, while you are at it, busy trying to disprove Christ’s teachings imparted to God’s One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church, why not tell us if you really believe that the Father is 100% God, the Son is 100% God, the Holy Spirit is 100% God, yet all are God, co-equal, co-existing.
tsk, tsk, worshipping a collection of books -- we Christians worship Jesus Christ who IS the Word of God. Why don't you?
tsk, tsk, worshipping a collection of books -- we Christians worship Jesus Christ who IS the Word of God. Why don't you?
if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we read
They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.
30 So they asked him, What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32 Jesus 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.
33 For 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.
35 Then 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.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.
And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:512
53 Jesus said to them, Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.
5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
6 Be careful, Jesus said to them. Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, It is because we didnt bring any bread.
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Dont you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you dont understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?...
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).
Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that
Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to youthey are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.
Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.
John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.
and also 1 Cor 11:27-29
6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
So, if a person like in your post wants to disbelief Christ, go ahead...
oh and again, you haven’t noted the blatant falsehoods in your post. But then, if someone doesn’t read the Bible or even this article, what else can we expect. Just like the Demoncrats...
“So, swamp — why do you doubt Jesus Christ?”
Me? Doubt Jesus? I’m not the one that disparges his word, thats you and the Catolic Church.
Anyway, Heres something by James Burton Coffman if you care to read it.
They said therefore unto him, What then dost thou for a sign, that we may see, and believe thee? What workest thou?
The marvelous wonder of the day before was lost on that carnal multitude. Instead of being convinced, they demanded sign upon sign, even suggesting a moment later that Jesus’ miracle was inferior to Moses’ miracle (it was not Moses’ miracle, but God’s) of the manna. The manna had been provided for a period of forty years and was held to be superior to the barley loaves Jesus created. However, God’s purpose was different in the two cases. In the wilderness, the survival of the chosen people was the objective; but in the ministry of Christ, it was the identification of Jesus as the Messiah and divine Son of God which was the objective; and, for the latter purpose, creation of barley loaves for five thousand people was just as effective (or should have been) as feeding a million people for a whole generation.
What then ... for a sign ...
This demand of a sign was characteristic of that people. The Pharisees demanded a “sign from heaven”, no doubt meaning some spectacular wonder of their own choosing; but Jesus rejected such vain and carnal demands, resting the final proof of his Godhead upon “the sign of the prophet Jonah,” that is, the death, burial and resurrection from the dead. Mark stated of another occasion that Jesus “marveled at their unbelief” (Mark 6:6). Surely Jesus must have marveled here also.
THE MARVEL OF UNBELIEF
Unbelief is such a wonder that Christ himself marveled at it!
Unbelief is a state in which man consciously accepts for himself the status and destiny of a mere animal. Contrary to the deepest instinct of the soul and the prompting of his own ego, the unbeliever rejects the status available to him as a child of God, claims descent from simian ancestors, and ascribes to himself a destiny identical with that of a rat or a worm.
Unbelief is contrary to man’s nature. Man’s very nature is to believe, an inveterate trait locked into the deepest instincts of human life. Evil men know that trait is in men and take full advantage of it, all of the schemes ever devised for defrauding men having as their dominant characteristic a reliance on man’s willingness to believe almost anything. As P. T. Barnum indelicately stated it, “There’s a sucker born every minute!” What an incredible marvel it is, therefore, that in the contemplation of the mountains of evidence attesting the authenticity of Christ and his message, the behavior of mankind should be atypical. What a wonder that people will not believe in God, but will believe in witchcraft! No wonder Jesus marveled at unbelief.
Unbelief is a denial of man’s highest hopes. The unbeliever forsakes the hope of heaven, forfeits all cosmic value for himself, and flaunts his conviction that he shall descend to the rottenness of a grave and remain there forever. Such a spiritual renunciation is soul suicide; and even Christ marveled at such a thing.
Unbelief is a denial of the senses and a closing of the windows of the mind. It is a refusal to see, to hear, and to understand the mountainous evidence calling men to believe in the Lord Jesus. It is like a man staring at the Grand Canyon or the Matterhorn and saying, “I do not believe it!” The Holy Bible, the history of Israel, the great commemorative festivals of Judaism and Christianity, the sweep of the religion of Christ through history and the collateral enlightenment and civilization which invariably attended it, and the lives of faith in all ages these the unbeliever will not see. The thundering voice of history, the testimony of the calendar, and the witness of all that is highest and best in art, literature, music, architecture, government, and psychology - all are rejected by the unbeliever in the manner of Southey’s owl hooting at the noon sun, and saying, “Where is it? Where is it?”
Unbelief is reverse logic. In Mark 6:6, where it is stated that Jesus marveled because of their unbelief, the reference is to the citizens of Nazareth who rejected Jesus because he lived in their village! This was their logic (?): We are unworthy and ignoble; Christ came from one of our families; therefore he is unworthy and ignoble! That is exactly like saying: I hear this great and wonderful music; but since a person like I am is hearing it, it cannot possibly be true! This is the logic (?) that supports unbelief.
Then what a marvel indeed is unbelief! It is a display of human ignorance, perversity, and conceit turned wrongside out, that staggers the imagination and is no easier to understand than the death march of the lemmings. That the highest of creatures should consciously reject for himself any higher eternal status than that of a dog makes no sense at all, being an unqualified wonder.
Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.
It is best to be on guard when Satan quotes Scripture. Their quotation of Neh. 9:15 was a misquote because they made Moses the antecedent of “he” rather than God, an error Jesus corrected. This was actually, on their part, a disparagement of Jesus’ sign of the day before. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus had claimed to be greater than Moses; but that carnal multitude, still intent on using Jesus in their schemes against the Romans, contrasted his miracle unfavorably with what they improperly called Moses’ miracle, the manna, of course, having been provided for many years. What they were really trying to do here was to intimidate Christ into feeding everybody for years on end; but of course they would have liked a better diet than those barley loaves. The carnality of those men and the vulgar boldness of their daring suggestion constitute a remarkable proof of the fourth sign, for it is perfectly clear that they recognized in Jesus Christ the power to do what they wished him to do. Their logic was excellent, recognizing the fact that one who has the power to feed five thousand from five loaves and two little fishes also has the power to feed all men indefinitely. How easily could Jesus have fed an army to be used against the Romans that was their view and their motivation for what was said here.
Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, It was not Moses that gave you the bread out of heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread out of heaven.
See under preceding verse. They were wrong in their inference that Moses was greater than Christ, for God, not Moses, fed them in the wilderness. Moses was God’s “servant” (Nehemiah 9:14), and thus he stood in the comparison of the two wonders on a parity with the apostles, through whose hands Jesus fed them; and Christ was on a parity with God the provider. In the second clause, Christ again tried to lift their eyes to the far more wonderful thing that God was at that very moment doing for them in his providing the “true bread out of heaven,” namely, Christ the Saviour. The tragedy was complete in this, that they could not see the true bread before their eyes, being utterly blinded by the barley loaves which absolutely dominated their thoughts.
In many of God’s wonders, there are primary and secondary manifestations of them, as in the rainbow, the primary bow always appearing brighter and on the lower level, and with the colors reversed in the secondary. Thus, there are two miracles in view in sign four. The primary wonder was the barley loaves, the higher marvel being Christ himself, the true bread of heaven. In this remarkable analogy, a change of status appears in the function of Christ, who in the physical miracle was the provider, but who in the spiritual counterpart of it appeared as the bread provided, recalling the reversal of the rainbow colors mentioned above. Jesus never succeeded in lifting the eyes of his audience to that higher level of seeing the true bread of life. The barley loaves, the barley loaves, the barley loaves!
For the bread of God is that which cometh down out of heaven and giveth life unto the world.
Unto the world ...
Not for Israel alone was the true bread, but for all the world. The true bread was far greater than the manna in these particulars: (1) it gives and sustains spiritual life, a far greater thing than merely sustaining physical life; (2) it is for all the world, not merely for Israel alone; (3) it creates spiritual life leading to eternal life, which no manna could have done.
They said therefore unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
Strongly suggestive of the woman’s words at the well (John 4:15), this was as close as they came to believing; but here there was no following on to know the Lord. Moreover, they did not know what they were asking, and there is the strong possibility they were still thinking of supplies for an army.
Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
I am the bread of life ...
is one of the seven great “I am’s” of John. This is an apt metaphor of God’s providing in Christ the means of human redemption. In that age, bread was essential to every meal, the staff of life, a fit emblem of Christ the soul’s food.
He that believeth on me shall never thirst ...
This is parallel to the previous clause and means the same, the living water and the bread of life being separate metaphors for one thing only, Jesus Christ. “Believeth on me ...” should not be understood as an affirmation of the popular superstition regarding salvation by “faith only.” See John 12:42.
But I said unto you, that ye have seen me, and yet believe not.
The thought of this verse is in John 6:26; but it is a mention of a part of the conversation reported here for the first time, but having taken place a little earlier.
“oh and again, you havent noted the blatant falsehoods in your post.”
That’s ur opinion.
Wow -- you quote James Burton to counter my quotes from the Bible?
As I said befire --> Do read the article before making such bounding errors. Your post is utterly false in this part You folks adore and treat the pope, a sinful man, as if he is God himself. You laugh at, mock and despise Gods word but the the words of the pope you treat as infallible. -- The Pope is a sinful man, and if you did read the aticle you'd see that the word of the Pope are not all infallible. The Pope is a fallible, sinful man just as is you or me, yet God has prevented the many sinful men who have followed Peter's position as leader, from leading the flock astray. That is why now the Church is the bastion of Christianity, just as it was when there were persecutions by the Romans, just as when in 450 it seemed that Christianity would end under barbarian and Arian Germanic invaders. Just as in the 700s it seemed that Christianity would end under the Moslem invaders and the same in the 1600s. Just as it seemed in the 1920s that Christianity would end under the Bolsheviks
Each time, The Church has survived and mostly inspite of itself, because God protects and God inaugurated the Church, his bride Eph 5: 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior
As Christ said in MAtt 5:14 You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. and as +Paul reminds us Rom 12:5 5 so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. handed down one from the other 2 tim 2:2 And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.
For us God's Word, i.e. Jesus Christ is the One High Priest who we follow that is why we believe in what He taught -- and He taught that we must repent, believe, eat of His body and endure to the end.
LOL, A person who doesn’t trust God’s word says I doubt. ha ha
I believe God’s word is all the Church should use, nothing more nothig less.
No..., my friend, its you that doubts God and His word. Not me.
Reject your false teachings and come to Christ, to the community that Christ inaugurated — the One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church
“For us God’s Word, i.e. Jesus Christ is the One High Priest who we follow that is why we believe in what He taught — and He taught that we must repent, believe, eat of His body and endure to the end.”
How can u believe in someone if you don’t believe in His word?
Good definition of your posts which say that Christ's words are just metphors...
Good definition of your posts which say that Christ's words are just metphors...
of your posts which indicate that Gods word corrupts?, which repeat a lie over and over again despite being shown it to be false, which show an utter disbelief in God's written word
Why don't you give up your false teachings and come to the true Word of God: Jesus Christ?
to all of the words of scripture you have no answer but a quote from some dude. Wow... and your posts have an issue with Christs teachings...
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.