Again you make many, many posts for me to respond to. And once again, you add new issues, not only are we now discussing Mary as Mediatrix, we are also discussing John 6 and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Do you always intend to jump around from subject to subject?
First off, however, I see no point in continuing to discuss Mary as Mediatrix if you continue to ignore my posts… what is the point of posting?!? You keep insisting upon Catholicism teaching Mary as a mediator between GOD and MAN, when she is Mediatrix between HER SON and MAN, as I have repeatedly continued to state over and over… and over. Mary still GOES TO JESUS with her intercession. Jesus is the ONE, ONLY mediator between GOD and MANâ€â€Jesus… ALONE. I have not denied this.
(Though, for note, it is interesting of the 6 patristics you chose, 2 of them, Tertullian and Origen were condemned as heretics at one point by the early church, and Gregory Thaumaturgus & Basil are lesser knownâ€â€and I've hardly seen them referenced. Now, Clement of Alexandria and Augustine are more popularized and well-known, I give you thatâ€â€though, we may find that both these seem to contradict themselves….)
Since you ended with Tertullian, I shall begin with him. From the very same work you quote, we get a very different picture regarding John 6…
"Now such remarks have I wished to advance in defence of the flesh, from a general view of the condition of our human nature. Let us now consider its special relation to Christianity, and see how vast a privilege before God has been conferred on this poor and worthless substance. It would suffice to say, indeed, that there is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed, in order that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed (with the cross), that the soul too may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul also maybe illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may fatten on its God. They cannot then be separated in their recompense, when they are united in their service. Those sacrifices, moreover, which are acceptable to God-I mean conflicts of the soul, fastings, and abstinences, and the humiliations which are annexed to such duty-it is the flesh which performs again and again to its own especial suffering. Virginity, likewise, and widowhood, and the modest restraint in secret on the marriage-bed, and the one only adoption of it, are fragrant offerings to God paid out of the good services of the flesh. Come, tell me what is your opinion of the flesh, when it has to contend for the name of Christ, dragged out to public view, and exposed to the hatred of all men; when it pines in prisons under the cruellest privation of light, in banishment from the world, amidst squalor, filth, and noisome food, without freedom even in sleep, for it is bound on its very pallet and mangled in its bed of straw; when at length before the public view it is racked by every kind of torture that can be devised, and when finally it is spent beneath its agonies, struggling to render its last turn for Christ by dying for Him-upon His own cross many times, not to say by still more atrocious devices of torment. Most blessed, truly, and most glorious, must be the flesh which can repay its Master Christ so vast a debt, and so completely, that the only obligation remaining due to Him is, that it should cease by death to owe Him more-all the more bound even then in gratitude, because (for ever) set free." (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, ch. 8)
Now, though you did not, I have quoted the entirety of the section (that is, ALL of chapter 8 of the work). You quoted merely part of chapter 37, let's see what ALL of chapter 37 says:
"He says, it is true, that "the flesh profiteth nothing; " but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; "and then added, "The flesh profiteth nothing,"-meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." In a like sense He had previously said: "He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life." Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be "the bread which cometh down from heaven," impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. Then, turning His subject to their reflections, because He perceived that they were going to be scattered from Him, He says: "The flesh profiteth nothing." Now what is there to destroy the resurrection of the flesh? As if there might not reasonably enough be something which, although it" profiteth nothing" itself, might yet be capable of being profited by something else. The spirit "profiteth," for it imparts life. The flesh profiteth nothing, for it is subject to death. Therefore He has rather put the two propositions in a way which favours our belief: for by showing what "profits," and what "does not profit," He has likewise thrown light on the object which receives as well as the subject which gives the "profit." Thus, in the present instance, we have the Spirit giving life to the flesh which has been subdued by death; for "the hour," says He, "is coming, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live." Now, what is "the dead" but the flesh? and what is "the voice of God" but the Word? and what is the Word but the Spirit, who shall justly raise the flesh which He had once Himself become, and that too from death, which He Himself suffered, and from the grave, which He Himself once entered? Then again, when He says, "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and shall come forth; they that have done good, to the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation," -none will after such words be able to interpret the dead "that are in the graves" as any other than the bodies of the flesh, because the graves themselves are nothing but the resting-place of corpses: for it is incontestable that even those who partake of "the old man," that is to say, sinful men-in other words, those who are dead through their ignorance of God (whom our heretics, forsooth, foolishly insist on understanding by the word "graves" )-are plainly here spoken of as having to come from their graves for judgment. But how are graves to come forth from graves?" (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, ch. 37)
You see, Gary, you left out much of the workâ€â€Tertullian is speaking of John 6 IN THE CONTEXT OF the resurrection of the body, NOT in the context of the Eucharist, which he has already mentioned in the beginning of the work as I have already pointed out.
A passage of Scripture may have more than one meaning depending on in what sense we are speaking of. The Catholic Church does not deny the spiritual meaning in John 6â€â€she simply places a greater emphasis on the physical, literal meaning of the passage as the Eucharist.
Some contradictions perhaps….
Augustine
"The bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the blood of Christ." (Sermons, 227)
"Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body." (Sermons, 234, 2)
"Christ is both the priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church." (City of God, 10, 20)
Clement of Alexandria
"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Origen
"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:56]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).
Thus, it appears that these fathers contradict themselves… what are we to make of this?
