Do not be faithless, but believing. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. The Bible is written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. Everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name. This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent. John 20:27,29, 31; Acts 10:43; John 6:29 RSV2CE
During the Triduum, we meditated on the last supper and Holy Thursday During which Christ Institute of the Eucharist, and on our Lord suffering and death on the cross on Good Friday together these events constitute Christ one sacrifice.
not without reason then does the church put before us during the active and the rest of the Easter season readings concerning the beginning and growth of the church which alluded to the Eucharist.
We immediately hear about the Lord’s appearance to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, while with them still unrecognized, he does what he did at the last supper. He took bread, blessed and broke it. It was then that he was finally recognized as St. Luke’s says in the breaking of the bread this phrase is according to the ancient tradition of the church taken to signify the Eucharist. Christ certainly did not come to just tell us to have table Fellowship during meals, that was already done all throughout history. This was something infinitely greater. He wanted the apostles to recognize that he will now be present with us in a different way after his Resurrection and Ascension. He will be present in all his reality in the Eucharist. It is said that once he was recognized by them, he vanished from their site not that he left, but his visible presence disappeared. He remained with them. The church has always taught that Christ promised to remain with us always even to the end of the age. This fulfilled in several ways, of course by his omnipresence as God, and his dwelling in us by Grace, and primarily in the Eucharist, where he is as truly present to us as he was present to the apostles after his resurrection, the only difference being that he has hidden from our sight.
This is beautifully described by St. Thomas Aquinas in a hymn when he says that all our senses are deceived in the Eucharist except our hearing because we believe Christ words this is my body and that while he was on the cross, his divinity was hidden from us and in the Eucharist, even his humanity is hidden from us, but we profess faith in both.
Naturally we come to objections raised by non-catholic Christians, most of whom hold that Christ word that the last supper and in the bread of life discourse in John chapter 6, are actually symbolic in someway. They say this is my body is no different from Christ other claims that he was the light of the world, the vine, and the sheep gate, and none of these are taken literally but symbolically.
We respond, Christ makes it clear in the way in which he speaks in those instances that he is making a comparison. He is light, in the sense that he gives us the light of life. He is the vine, in the sense that without him, we are lifeless and can do nothing. He is the gate because we must enter into life through him. But in the words, “this is my body” we don’t detect any of that symbolism. In John chapter 6, he said that the heavenly bread he will give is his flesh, that his flesh is true food and his blood is true drink. Then later he holds bread and says this is my body. Never does he point to a light or a gate or a vine and say this is me. But with the Eucharist, he says both that his flesh is food and that this particular food is his flesh.
Another objection is that eating bread is just symbolic of being nourished by faith. This may be true, but Christ didn’t tell us to eat bread he told us to eat his body which he likened unto bread. A symbol or metaphor is supposed to teach us something profound by giving us an image that is familiar to us, but how does the image of eating human flesh help us to understand being nourished by faith. How is this a helpful symbol at all? That’s the big question that has to be answered by those who deny the real presence. Why would Christ use the consuming of flesh as a symbol for faith if he merely intended a symbol for spiritual nourishment by faith. Why not stick with the image of bread. Listen again to Christ’s words in the bread of life discourse and John chapter 6 and see if this serves as a useful and enlightening metaphor or symbol of merely making an act of faith.
Whoever eats of this bread will live forever and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh, very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you have no life in yo. Those who eat my flesh and drink My blood have eternal life. My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me and I am them. It has been noted by biblical scholars that the Greek words used here which are translated as eat are actually two different words the first of which merely means consumption, and the other means gnawing or chewing. John moves from the first word to the second when the Jews question Christ words, it intensifies the idea of actually consuming Christ flesh.
A further objection is made by pointing to Christ words towards the end of the discourse where he says the flesh is of no avail, It is the spirit that gives life. The words I have spoken are spirit and life. It is claimed that this shows that everything you said was symbolic. But if the flesh is of no avail, then we would conclude that Christ is saying his flesh is of no avail, which is obviously not true.
St. John all throughout his writings takes the flesh to be what is an opposition to the spirit, the worldly understanding versus the spiritual understanding. And Christ’s words about the Eucharist, are spiritual, Christ is present in a real and substantial spiritual manner. We are perfectly aware that we are not chewing on flesh in a physical way. That the earliest disciples believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist can be seen with overwhelming clarity by reading the writings of the apostolic father.
So one is left with a decision to make, either Catholics are blasphemers and idolaters who worship bread or they are obeying Christ’s words in the gospel. And that those who deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist are like those of his disciples who left him because they found this to be a hard saying. Christ said that such people have no life in them. If Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, which we believe, then obviously this is the very heart of the church’s life. And this is why the church puts these particular readings before us as we follow the birth and growth of the church Christ is made known to us in the breaking of the bread.
Eli’s sons
If a man sins against a man, God will mediate for him; but if a man sins against the Lord, who can intercede for him?” But they would not listen to the voice of their father; for it was the will of the Lord to slay them. (1 Samuel 2:25, RSV2CE)
In that verse (1 Sam 2:25), the phrase “it was the will of the Lord to kill them” is describing **God’s just judgment** on persistent, grave sin—not God’s delight in death or God’s “absence” of mercy. Catholic teaching holds together two truths at once: **(1) God is rich in mercy and wills salvation**, and **(2) God is also perfectly just, and when people definitively refuse conversion, judgment is real**.
## 1) 1 Samuel 2:25: “the will of the Lord” = just judgment after refusal
The context of Eli’s sons is that they **“sins against the Lord”** and “would not listen” (1 Sam 2:25). The “will” spoken of there means that **their punishment comes from God’s just governance**, not that God “wants them to be destroyed” for its own sake.
Catholic Scripture and doctrine also insist that:
> “God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living.”
So the line about God’s will to “kill” must be read as **God’s judicial action against sin**, consistent with God’s refusal to be the author of death as such.
## 2) “Mercy is not all the time”: mercy isn’t denied, but it’s refused and resisted
You’re right to say mercy isn’t “automatic.” The Church teaches that human freedom is genuinely respected: people can **open themselves to God or close themselves** to God by their moral choices. The International Theological Commission states that people can choose against grace, and God continues to offer saving grace even to those turned away—yet **salvation and damnation begin on earth in that people open or close themselves to God**.
So you can say it like this:
- **Mercy is genuinely offered**.
- But **mercy can be resisted**.
- And if resistance becomes hardened, **justice follows** (not because mercy was powerless, but because mercy was not accepted).
## 3) Mercy “penetrates” the heart only when we forgive—otherwise hardness closes the door
The Catechism links receiving mercy to a basic openness of heart: if you refuse to forgive, your heart is closed to the Father’s merciful love. This shows a key principle: **God’s mercy operates inwardly through a heart that cooperates**.
That doesn’t mean mercy is “not available”; it means mercy’s fruit depends on **repentant cooperation**.
## 4) God can “harden” through justice without becoming the author of evil
Aquinas helps clarify the logic behind “God hardens” language: God does not directly cause malice; rather, he “hardens” **indirectly** by **not affording grace**, in a situation where the person has already made sin an occasion for refusing God. This preserves both:
- God’s universal desire for salvation,
- and the reality of real judgment.
## 5) So what should you take away from 1 Samuel 2:25?
A Catholic synthesis would be:
- **God’s will to “kill” here is the will of justice** responding to culpable rejection of God.
- **God does not delight in death**, and death is not God’s pleasure but the consequence of sin introduced into human life.
- **Mercy is offered**, but it can be resisted; and judgment is a real possibility, not a foregone conclusion.
If you want the most compact way to phrase it: **God’s mercy is real, universal in intention, and offered over time—but final refusal of conversion has consequences, and God’s justice is not cruel.**
~~~~~~~
We do not know when the last straw will be and mercy is removed? Because it was not given till death, because death came for them.
You’re asking a very serious (and very common) question: **whether we can know when “the last straw” happens—i.e., when mercy is no longer given—and whether death itself is what “removes” it.** In Catholic teaching, we **cannot** know the precise moment when someone becomes unable to repent; but we *can* say clearly that **conversion is possible while we are alive**, and that **a hardened, finally impenitent choice can have an irreversible outcome at death**.
## 1) Can you know the “last straw”?
No. The Church does not give believers a way to calculate or predict a point at which “mercy will definitely be removed.” The International Theological Commission stresses that salvation and damnation are not “quasi-automatic,” and that **hell has its origin in a free rejection carried “to the very end” of God’s love and mercy**, but we are warned not to try to grasp the concrete mechanics “in concrete detail.”
So you may think of it this way: what’s knowable is not the *calendar moment* of the “last straw,” but the spiritual reality that **human freedom can repeatedly refuse grace**, until it becomes **hardness of heart**—and we are truly responsible for cooperating or resisting.
## 2) Is mercy removed only at death?
Not exactly “only at death,” but **death ends the time for conversion in this life**.
- The Catechism teaches that **conversion and repentance** involve a real turning of the heart—sorrow for sin and a firm purpose of amendment—“nourished by hope in God’s mercy.” That presupposes the ongoing possibility of repentance during earthly life.
- In the material on final impenitence, the teaching drawn from Aquinas is that **as long as people live here below, they can be converted**; but **after quitting this life**, people are “confirmed” in good or evil.
So: while you are alive, the Church presents repentance as genuinely possible and grace as genuinely offered. After death, the Church does not present “second chances” in the same way; judgment follows a definitive end.
## 3) “Mercy removed” can mean something more precise: grace can’t penetrate a closed heart
A key detail from the Catechism is that mercy isn’t merely “wiped out” mechanically; rather, it **cannot penetrate our hearts while we remain unforgiving**. The Catechism explicitly connects the refusal to forgive with hardness that makes one “impervious to the Father’s merciful love.”
And in the next line:
- “in confessing our sins, our hearts are opened to his grace.”
Likewise, the Catechism links asking for mercy to forgiveness: mercy “can penetrate our hearts only if we have learned to forgive our enemies.”
So it’s not that mercy is unreal; it’s that **mercy’s fruit depends on openness**—and persistent refusal (including refusal to forgive) can harden the heart.
## 4) How does this fit with the idea that God “continues offering grace”?
The International Theological Commission makes this point carefully: even when people turn away, **God continues to offer saving grace** and **respects human liberty**, so that people truly can accept or reject that grace.
Then it also says:
- “Eternal damnation has its origin in the free rejection to the very end of God’s Love and Mercy.”
That’s why Catholics can hold both truths without contradiction:
1) **God truly desires salvation and offers grace**.
2) **A person can freely reject grace repeatedly**, and if that rejection becomes final (especially at death), the outcome is irreversible.
## 5) What about your phrase: “death came for them”?
Death is absolutely connected to sin and the end of earthly life. The Catechism teaches plainly: **“Death is a consequence of sin.”** And since the present time is “the only lifetime” in which the gift is offered gratuitously to freedom, the seriousness of decisions here is real.
But “death came for them” is not a reason to conclude “mercy was never offered” or “God stopped caring.” Rather, it highlights that **death ends the stage in which repentance can still occur**. That’s why warnings about being ready matter: not because God is capricious, but because the spiritual opportunity is genuinely limited by mortality.
## Practical takeaway
If you’re wondering about “the last straw,” the safest Catholic response is **not speculation**, but **urgent openness right now**:
- **Confess your sins** (since that opens the heart to grace).
- **Forgive those who trespassed against you**, because unforgiveness makes the heart resistant to mercy.
- **Keep turning back to God in repentance**, because conversion in this life is real.
## Conclusion
You cannot know the exact moment when mercy is removed. Catholic teaching says repentance is possible **while you live**, and that at death a person’s choice becomes final in a way that cannot be changed afterward. Mercy is not unreal—but it may fail to penetrate a **hard, unforgiving, persistently rejecting** heart.
~~~~~~
We do not know or understand why God allows some to not repent, he is the cause if the repentant since it is a gift. All theology is speculation. God will their death for their disobedience. Mercy was removed.
You’re touching on several different questions, and the Catholic answer is **partly certain truths revealed by God**, and partly **mystery** (we can’t see the full “why”). Also, Catholics must be careful not to say God “wants destruction,” because the Church teaches the opposite: **God predestines no one to hell**.
## 1) Is God “the cause of repentance”? Yes—grace comes first
Catholic doctrine is clear that **initial grace is a gift** and cannot be merited. So, when someone repents, that repentance is possible because God gives grace and continues to offer it.
## 2) Why doesn’t God give repentance to everyone? We are not allowed to “solve the mechanics”
We know two truths at once:
- **God’s will is salvific toward all** and he keeps offering saving grace.
- **Human freedom can genuinely accept or refuse grace**, and hell is not “quasi-automatic.”
The International Theological Commission explicitly warns that, while we accept both divine goodness and human liberty, we should **avoid attempts to grasp in concrete detail how to reconcile them**. So yes: there is real mystery here—but it is not empty “speculation.” The Church is teaching what we can know: **the reality of God’s universal salvific will + the reality of real freedom and final refusal.**
## 3) “God will their death for their disobedience” — better phrasing: God does not will their damnation
The Catechism states that **God predestines no one to go to hell**; rather, **a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) persisting until the end** is necessary.
And it also says that those who **deliberately refuse to accept God’s mercy by repenting** reject forgiveness and salvation offered by the Holy Spirit, and this hardness can lead to **final impenitence and eternal loss**.
So the Church’s grammar is more like:
- God **permits** people to reach the outcome of final hardness if they persist,
- but God is **not** said to “take delight” in their destruction or to “cause” their sin.
## 4) “Mercy was removed” — not capricious removal; rather, refusal of grace can lead to final impenitence
You may be aiming at the idea of “last straw.” The Church does not teach that we can predict when that happens, but it does teach the spiritual structure:
- By rejecting grace in this life, a person can **condemn oneself for all eternity** by rejecting the Spirit of love.
- The International Theological Commission says salvation and damnation begin on earth in the sense that people, by their moral actions, **open or close themselves to God**, while God continues to offer grace even to those turned away.
Aquinas helps explain how God relates to this without making God the author of sin:
- God **does not induce anyone to sin**.
- Scriptural “hardening” is understood as God **withdrawing** the helps that He gives to avoid sin, “when their conduct deserves that he should” (i.e., in accord with justice), and this is described as a withdrawal of aid rather than God producing evil.
Steven Long (a theological analysis, not a magisterial definition) similarly describes “permission of final impenitence,” emphasizing that **actual defect is permitted, not caused by God**.
## Bottom line (Catholic way to state it)
- **God gives grace** and repentance is possible because grace is a gift.
- **God does not will anyone’s damnation** and **predestines no one to hell**; final loss comes from **a willful refusal that persists until the end**.
- When people “do not repent,” God can be understood (with theological caution) as **permitting** and **not withholding** justice—yet God is **not the cause of sin**.
- We cannot know the precise “last straw” in advance; we can only take seriously that a final, free refusal is genuinely possible and that God’s mercy is not a guarantee regardless of response.
If you want, you can restate your view in this Church-safe phrasing: **“God’s mercy is offered and grace is genuinely given; if someone deliberately refuses repenting and persists in that refusal, God does not force conversion, and final impenitence can result.”**
33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well.
34 “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let the day’s own trouble be sufficient for the day. (Matthew 6:33–34, RSV2CE)
His Kingdom is his reign. His reign gives us a healthy balanced view of life. God intended life for us to be good and holy. If I seek that first all the things I need will be added. If I seek things first I will lose my view of holiness and goodness to get more stuff. God wants us to have the best way. I must let go of trying to get stuff and seek to live in His presence. The needs will be met. Do not be anxious, live with Him - He provides.
I have to believe and Trust. When I am unbelieving I am grasping. I must pray to receive. This is God’s way. I am a receiver. Help me stop trying to control and let you be the giver. I love you my God. Help me!!
“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. (Matthew 6:24, RSV2CE)
I cannot love myself and my way more than God. This will make me the one on the throne, which will lead to disorder. By loving God, I will love myself in a healthy way and I will see His good will for me. If I love myself over God, I will become disordered and I will start to despise God thinking He is not for me. I have to serve one. I cannot serve both. And the best way is love God and then I can see His love for me.
This is our first sin, believing I have the right to disobey and think I know best. It brought us all down. Help me love you above all so I can see clearly.
but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (Matthew 6:15, RSV2CE)
Forgiveness is mandatory and even done for self life. I cannot be forgiven if I do not let God be God and let him judge his own creation. If I am judging I am trying to be God. If I cannot see all I need to be forgiven of (humility before God who is the standard not man) then I am standing in pride and am judged. Forgiveness does not mean steps are not taken for safety and correction, but it means leave soul judgment to God and stand before him seeing my own radical need of mercy compared to God’s standard not comparing my evil to the evil man standing with me. To God, we both are evil.
Help me my God let go of what I think should be the right way. You know all things and know the best way. I must pray for us all to receive your mercy. We are all sinners. Help me forgive and let go of everyone and everything knowing you will judge justly.
so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matthew 6:4, RSV2CE)
But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matthew 6:6, RSV2CE)
that your fasting may not be seen by men but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matthew 6:18, RSV2CE)
Live unto the Father not unto man! Give pray and fast in secret so God alone sees. If you do these things for man you lost all reward.
I love you my God, help me live my life for you and unto you and no man. I am yours and live for you. Amen.
