Saved by grace in the Sacraments - 9

 De Maria

1 day ago

 JB,

Oh, yea, I forgot to say, yes, it is trusting in Jesus Christ and His Sacrifice on the Cross which saves us. This is exactly why the Catholic Church Teaches us to "join the feast". See the Scripture: 1 Corinthians 5:7..... For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the feast,....

Jesus was speaking plainly, John 6

JQ said,
That's completely irrelevant, since it was God who provided Ezekiel with all the details concerning what he should do and what he should say.

And it is God who explained the metaphor:
Ezekiel 5:1 And thou, son of man, take thee a sharp knife, take thee a barber's razor, and cause it to pass upon thine head and upon thy beard: then take thee balances to weigh, and divide the hair.  2 Thou shalt burn with fire a third part in the midst of the city, when the days of the siege are fulfilled: and thou shalt take a third part, and smite about it with a knife: and a third part thou shalt scatter in the wind; and I will draw out a sword after them.  3 Thou shalt also take thereof a few in number, and bind them in thy skirts.  4 Then take of them again, and cast them into the midst of the fire, and burn them in the fire; for thereof shall a fire come forth into all the house of Israel.


5 Thus saith the Lord God; This is Jerusalem: I have set it in the midst of the nations and countries that are round about her.  6 And she hath changed my judgments into wickedness more than the nations, and my statutes more than the countries that are round about her: for they have refused my judgments and my statutes, they have not walked in them.  7 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Because ye multiplied more than the nations that are round about you, and have not walked in my statutes, neither have kept my judgments, neither have done according to the judgments of the nations that are round about you;


8 Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I, even I, am against thee, and will execute judgments in the midst of thee in the sight of the nations.

That's begging the question. Why should He have called "those guys" back?

Because an honest person would not allow people to make a decision based upon misunderstanding. And Jesus was nothing if not absolutely honest.

In fact, John 6:65 clearly indicates that those who went away in disbelief were not enabled by God to come to Him.

That is correct. They could not believe.

Elsewhere we read that Jesus spoke in parables so that the non-elect would not understand His message.

Elsewhere it says that Jesus spoke in parables to the unbelieving Jews, but He would explain them to the Apostles.

Mark 4:10-12
10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

That's an argument from silence.

You are confused. You are the one claiming that Jesus was speaking symbolically. But there is no evidence that He was doing any such thing. The evidence points to the fact that He was speaking plainly:

John 6

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world….

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Therefore, you are the one arguing from silence. I am arguing from what He said. You are arguing from what He didn't say.

There is no indication in that passage that His true disciples were offended by His words or that they took His words literally.

You are wrong. Amongst those who left were many true disciples. So says Scripture.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

One can use figurative language and still mean what one says, as in e.g. John 10:1ff and John 15:1ff.

And one can use explicit language as well. Its not a matter of what one can do, but of what Jesus actually did. He was speaking plainly.

Jesus meant what He said, John 6

JQ said,
Likewise, Ezekiel was commanded to take one third of his hair and beard and burn it in fire, take one third and strike it with the sword, and take the remaining third and let the wind scatter it. The interpretation of this symbolic act was to be presented as "This is Jerusalem". (Ezekiel 5:1ff)

Ezekiel is not God, is he? Jesus is God, isn't He?

If Jesus were speaking symbolically, He would have called these guys back and said, "Hey, guys, come on, I was speaking symbolically." 

John 6:60-66

King James Version (KJV)
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
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.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.


But He didn't. And He didn't take the Apostles aside and say to them, "This is a symbol." No, He didn't. He said:

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

He said exactly what He meant.

THE Divine Sacrifice

On his own blog, Jesse claimed that the Eucharist is a re-sacrificing of Christ because it is offered repeatedly.

You said, The Eucharist is called a divine sacrifice (CCC, 1068),

Get it right.  It's called THE Divine Sacrifice.

1068 It is this mystery of Christ that the Church proclaims and celebrates in her liturgy so that the faithful may live from it and bear witness to it in the world:
For it is in the liturgy, especially in THE divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, that "the work of our redemption is accomplished," and it is through the liturgy especially that the faithful are enabled to express in their lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church.

 and is done repeatedly.

It's offered repeatedly.  But Jesus Christ did His part only once.  What was His part?  He sacrificed Himself upon the Cross.

Have you never wondered why Scripture calls Jesus, the Lamb of God?  By the way, Protestants claim to wash themselves in the Blood of Christ.  Where do they get that Precious Blood?  They can't and don't.  But Catholics are washed in the Precious Blood of Christ every time we partake of the Eucharist.

A refutation of Sola Scriptura

Bob says:
If the Real Presence is true it leads to the conclusion that Jesus has another nature i.e. bread and wine. 

That is a misunderstanding of the Catholic Doctrine. Transubstantiation means that the bread and wine are no longer there. Only the appearance. Jesus is there present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. 

I repeat, NO BREAD AND WINE. The bread and wine are gone. 

The other problem is that the bread and wine have no characteristics of deity.

No one claims that bread and wine are deities. It is a straw man argument which you are making up.

Oh, you asked me a question which I had no opportunity to answer. You also asked:

You brought up this passage as a refutation of Sola Scriptura–”Let’s compare. You preach the Bible alone, which is the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura”. What does Scripture truly say?

2 Thessalonians 2:15King James Version (KJV)15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

Let me ask you: What traditions is Paul referring to here? 

All the Traditions. Including the ones that Protestants refuse to believe.

Surely he is not referring to

Yes, he is.

the Marian dogmas, 

The Queenship of Mary-Rev 12:1

a celibate leaderships

1 Cor 7:32-33

or purgatory

1 Cor 3:15

because these things were unknown in the NT and for centuries. 

They were taught by the Apostles. The reason you don’t recognize them in the NT is because you discarded many of the Traditions of Jesus Christ.

So what “traditions” is Paul referring to?

All of them. Including the ones that Protestants disregarded and cast aside.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Jesus said, “I am the sheep gate"

Fello said:

….Realize that if Jesus’ words, “this is my body” don’t mean (to borrow from Luther) that this is His body, we are all in big trouble. If His words, “my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink,” mean that His flesh and blood are not true food and drink, then the Bible is dang hard to understand, saying the exact opposite of what it seems to mean….

De Maria responds:

Jesus also says that He is the sheep gate. What are we to say?

Here’s what I say. There is no Tradition that Jesus is literally the sheep gate. When Jesus said, “I am the sheep gate.” You didn’t see the disciples grumbling, “this is a hard saying.” They understood that He was speaking metaphorically. And that is the Tradition that has been passed down through the centuries.

Whereas, when Jesus said, “I am the bread of life, my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” The disciples all left. Only the Apostles remained. And even they were dumbfounded. But although they could not understand it, they accepted it because, as St. Peter said, “To whom would we run, we have come to BELIEVE that you are the Messiah of God.” And that is the Tradition that has been passed down. Believe it! It doesn’t say, “understand it.” The Tradition says “Believe it!”

Therefore, an understanding of the Traditions of Jesus Christ is absolutely necessary for a correct interpretation of Scripture.

Can I get an, “Amen!”

Eternal life and the Blood of Christ

Anti-Catholic said:

de Maria -
Your polemic is so fatuous and blasphemous that I trust any reasonable fence-sitter who compares it with the scriptures will be repulsed. 

Big words. No meaning. Let us compare our respective arguments to the Scriptures. I guarantee, yours are found wanting.

If you think your soul got eternal life when you ate Christ's "blood" (i.e., sacramental wine according to the allegorical interpretation of your non-literal religious traditions) then don't be a hypocrite and claim you don't know if you are saved or not until the day of judgment - either Christ says you have eternal life, or Christ lied. So make up your mind what you believe, you fickle religious nut. 

I'll let the reader decide who is the religious nut between you and I. As for having eternal life, learn the meaning of the these words:
Matthew 24:13
King James Version (KJV)
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

I stand by what I wrote,

And God is your judge just as He is ours. You will be judged by every word you speak and every deed you have done, just as we will. You claim to save yourself by your faith alone. You have your reward. We, rely upon God to save us.

Revelation 22:14
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God

After many well thought out discussions about the events on Holy Week, a Protestant objects:

There is no Biblical basis for two separate killings of two different lives (of the lamb and of Jesus) being one sacrifice.

Seriously?

Do you have any evidence from the early Church Fathers of this non-Biblical notion?

After all those well thought out postings of the Holy Week timeline, I can hardly believe that you say such a thing. But, ....

Ok. Let's go back to the Old Testament.

On Mt. Moriah, which would later be known as Golgotha, a father sacrificed his son in accordance with God's will.  

Genesis 22
And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him. ...

The son carried the wood for his execution, up the hill.

6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; ....

The son asked a question which was given a prophetic answer:

7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? 8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

Just when Fr. Abraham was about to give up his son's life:

11 And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

And the lamb of God was provided for the sacrifice:

13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

This was the first foreshadowing of the Lamb of God's sacrifice on Golgotha.

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Fast forward to the Passover where God said:

Exodus 12:3 Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:

4 And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb.

5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:....43 And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof:

44 But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.

45 A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof.

46 In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof.

Scripture ties this back to:

John 19:33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

The confirmation that the Apostles understood that Jesus is the Lamb of God who was sacrificed for our Christian Passover are in these words:

1 Corinthians 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

That also links the sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb of God, to the unleavened bread of the Eucharist. As well as these words:

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

But that's another lesson. Suffice to say, Jesus is the Lamb of God who offered His life for the salvation of the world. Since Jesus is God, only His life would suffice:

Hebrews 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Does that help?

Do we kill Jesus over and over again, in the Mass?

Protestant anti-Catholics like to accuse the Church of killing Jesus over and over again in the Mass. This is due to their lack of knowledge about Old Testament practices. In this case, they don’t understand Old Testament “sacrifice”. 
Read More...

What does it mean, to believe on Jesus Christ? A study on John 6:40

Are claims of belief alone enough for salvation? Let’s think about this. Let’s start with an illustration. 
Read More...

Jesus did not command cannibalism

LG:  God's word does not contradict itself. Mans twisting it does. Once again:  When Jesus said these words, He was in the synagogue in Capernaum (John 6 verse 59), and He had neither bread nor wine.

Once again, there is no indication in Scripture that He had any.  But it is very possible that He did since the Todah sacrifice was already instituted and very common amongst the Jews.

Therefore Jesus was either commanding cannibalism or He was speaking figuratively.

I don't see where He commanded cannibalism..

Neither do I.

.in fact I see many scriptures where drinking blood is a no no.......

I don't see any Scriptures where drinking blood in the appearance of wine is forbidden. And I see one explicit command to do so.

Therefore I have to conclude the RCC interpretation is in error.

Its not about you. The Catholic interpretation is right, whether you believe it or not.

Sincerely,

De Maria

REBLOG: 6 Interesting Catholic Thanksgiving Facts You Need to Know

6 Interesting Catholic Thanksgiving Facts You Need to Know

by Dr Taylor Marshall

When you’re sitting down for that wonderful feast on Thursday, here are 6 interesting Catholic Thanksgiving Facts you can share with your family. Print them out and read them aloud over some pumpkin (or pecan) pie!  READ MORE.

The Mass, St. John chapter 6 and the test of faith

When I first started learning Catholic apologetics, between 15 and 20 years ago, I ran across an article on the web that spoke of the Test of Faith. I can’t find it anymore, but for many years, it was one of my favorite bookmarks. Several pc’s have died on me in that time and I lost the link. Anyway, the article was about the Bread of Life discourse in chapter 6 of St. John’s Gospel. 
Read More...

The Eucharist, the Fruit of the Tree of Life

The Early Church Fathers taught that the New Testament is hidden in the Old and the Old is revealed in the New. This happens to be one of the most exciting and effective ways to study the Bible and the Catechism. 

Read More...

That is a blasphemous way to speak of the Body of Our Lord, have you no conscience?

DS:Great book. Don't expect Catholics to listen, though.

He is correct. We listen to Scripture. Not to those who twist Scripture:
2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Their wafer jesus is the center of their religion.

That is a blasphemous way to speak of the Body of Our Lord:

1 Corinthians 11:23-30
King James Version (KJV)
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:


24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.


25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.


26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.


27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.


28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.


29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.


30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Sadly, they miss knowing the real Jesus.

Sadly, you miss the real Jesus:
Hebrews 10:25-31
King James Version (KJV)
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.


26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,


27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.


28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:


29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.


31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Now, lets go over the OP and highlight the contradictions of Scripture.

 Originally Posted by lovesgirl01 

If one studies all of John chapter 6, they will discover that it completely REFUTES the RCC version of communion:

Nope. What it does is contradict the Word of God in Scripture.

Jesus could not be clearer—by coming to Him and trusting in Him we will receive eternal life.

Absolutely. And He said:
1 Corinthians 11:24
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Therefore come to Him and trust in Him and you shall be blest.

At this point in the narrative, the Jews complained about Him because He said: “I am the bread which came down from heaven” (verse 41). Jesus responds to their murmuring in verses 42 through 58, where He states that He is indeed the “living bread” and that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood to obtain eternal life.

This is absolutely true and in line with the Catholic doctrine.

However, let’s remember the context of this statement.

First, Jesus contrasts Himself with the manna that rained down on their fathers and sustained them for their journey. But their fathers have since died. But Jesus now offers Himself as the living bread, causing those who eat of Him to live forever.

Excellent context. 

Jesus compares and contrasts Himself with the manna. He compares Himself with the manna because they are both heavenly bread which must be eaten in order to sustain life. He contrasts Himself because He is the bread of eternal life. Those who ate the manna died. But those who eat Him in the form of bread will live forever.

Jesus is not the perishable manna that their ancestors ate in the wilderness, He is the eternal bread of life that lives forever.

Very good. Still in line with Catholic Teaching.

Only by partaking in His everlasting life can we hope to live with Him forever.

Awesome! At this point you are strongly arguing in favor of the Catholic doctrine.

This contrast strengthens His main message, which is recorded in verse 47 where Jesus says, “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.”

Awesome! Unfortunately, you get the wrong understanding.

How can you deny His words and claim to believe in Him? He said:
Mark 14:22
And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

He said:
John 6:54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

If you deny those words, you reject Him and do not believe in Him.

Notice, Jesus said that as soon as we believe in Him we have—present tense— eternal life.

Because, it follows that if you believe in Him, you will believe His words and eat His Flesh unto eternal life. That is why.

It is not something we aim at or hope we might attain in the future, but rather, something we receive immediately upon believing.

Read John 6:54 again. When we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood we have eternal life. Right then. And we walk upon Mount Sion with the Saints:
Hebrews 12:22-23
King James Version (KJV)
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,


23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

When Jesus said these words, He was in the synagogue in Capernaum (verse 59), and He had neither bread nor wine.

Since sacrifices of bread and wine (i.e. the Toda or Thanksgiving sacrifice) were frequently given by the Jews, that is a non-sequitur. The best you can say is that the Scripture does not mention whether Jesus had any bread and wine on that occasion.

Therefore Jesus was either commanding cannibalism or He was speaking figuratively.

Jesus was speaking prophetically. Since He was talking about what He would do in the future. He said:

John 6:51
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

If He was speaking literally, then He would be directly contradicting God the Father: “You shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood” (Genesis 9:4).

That is why He separated the Bread which is His Flesh and the Wine which is His Blood. To signify His death.

Therefore, because Jesus Himself said, “The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), He must be speaking metaphorically.

It is because the Scripture can not be broken that He is speaking literally. Read the rest of John 6. The disciples understood Him literally and LEFT. He didn't say, "hey, guys, I was just speaking in metaphors. Come back." No. He let them go and even challenged the Apostles to leave.

And that is exactly how He explains His own words in the subsequent verses.

On the contrary. But I'll show you your error.

After this, in verse 60, we find that many of His disciples said—“This is a hard saying; who can understand it?” Jesus was aware of their complaints and He responded in verses 61 through 64 saying—“Does this offend you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

Listen to Him. But don't miss the details.

Jesus said, "THE flesh" profits nothing. The flesh is sinful. That is why it profits nothing. Are you insinuating that Jesus is sinful? Jesus' flesh died on the Cross. Jesus flesh avails to our eternal life. Therefore understand that His words are Spirit and life because they are true. Obey Him and eat of His Flesh and drink of His Blood and be saved.

(ch 4 Another Jesus, Roger Oakland)

Herein lies the problem of cherry picking a few verses without studying the whole chapter.

Yea. Roger Oakland has a major problem in that area. And so do you if you believe him.

Sincerely,

De Maria