Are those who do not receive Jesus in Holy Eucharist really Christians? Is it insanity for them to continue claiming to be Christians?

[Peter_J]

I was responding to someone’s post who was clearly confused about what Sacred Scripture meant in various passages.

Of course that person would not have any confusion at all if he or she was a Christian, a member of the Church established by the Most Holy Trinity, he or she would already know (being taught from a young age) what those passages meant by the Church because the Holy Spirit guides the Church in all Truth - including the Truth of written Tradition aka the Bible/Sacred Scripture.

That doesn’t mean that each individual person in the Church has no confusion.

 

[StMarina303ad]

Wow, that’s quite an interesting opinion. I know I, as a Catholic, wouldn’t ever say that it would be very difficult for someone who was a practicing Roman Catholic to not be saved.

Yeah I know you wouldn’t.

It is a shame that the Catholic Church removed itself from the rest of the Church around 1054. It is not God’s Will that His Church be separated.

It is difficult for a Roman Catholic to be saved in the sense that the Roman Catholic does not have the fullness of Christ’s Faith…missing parts of Sacred Scripture, missing out on the rich Christian Spiritual Life - True tried and tested Spiritual Warfare - Spiritual Fathers and Mothers who themselves have already completely overcome all of their passions are illuminated who then show us how to overcome our passions , lacking the full understanding of Salvation/Theosis, lack of the Spiritual Knowledge coming directly from the Monastic Experience of Mount Athos, etc.

Basically, a Roman Catholic is missing some of the tools which are readily available to an Orthodox Christian. If someone jumps off a burning ship in the Pacific Ocean without a life jacket, can they be saved…it’s possible, but much more likely if they were wearing a life jacket…on the other hand does wearing a life jacket guarantee you will be saved? No it doesn’t. But if I had to jump off the ship, I’d sure want to be wearing a life jacket. I would want to have everything I could to help me stay alive. Why would someone choose not to be an Orthodox Christian? Why would they not want have access to every tool available to save them, not from the Pacific Ocean but to save them for an eternity to be spent with the Most Holy Trinity, the Theotokos, the Martyrs, the Saints and the Angels.

It does not mean it is impossible for a Roman Catholic, Protestant or Non-Christian to be saved/deified, it just means that it is more difficult because we know that all things are possible with God!

May He have Mercy on us all!

 

[Gamera]

It is a shame that the Catholic Church removed itself from the rest of the Church around 1054…

Yeahhhhhh … just like it’s a shame we split away from Martin Luther and John Calvin in the 1500s …

 

[Peter_J]

StMarina303ad,

I wasn’t responding so much to the second part of your statement, when you said that “it would be very difficult for someone who is not a practicing Orthodox Christian to be saved”, but rather to the first part of your statement: “It would be very difficult for someone who was a practicing Orthodox Christian to not be saved”.

But if I had to jump off the ship, I’d sure want to be wearing a life jacket. I would want to have everything I could to help me stay alive.

Disagree with that, I do not.

Why would someone choose not to be an Orthodox Christian?

Because I don’t consider the Orthodox Church to be the One True Church.

 

[Peter_J]

Yeah I know you wouldn’t.

Do you mean you know because I just told you, or did you somehow know even before that?

 

[StMarina303ad]

Yeahhhhhh … just like it’s a shame we split away from Martin Luther and John Calvin in the 1500s …

A look at history will show you that the Catholics broke away from the Orthodox Church and that the Protestants all broke away from the Catholics or in more recent times the Protestants have broken away from other Protestants sects.

The fruit did not fall far from the tree. Catholics have always been considered the first Protestants since they first Protested against the Orthodox Church and left it. The fruit of their schism has been more and more schisms.

 

[StMarina303ad]

Do you mean you know because I just told you, or did you somehow know even before that?

You caught me. I am physic. No just kidding.

Peter J, I know that you are a good Catholic and no Catholic would think or say that about their own Church. Because if they did think or say that, they would be converting to Orthodoxy like many have already.

And although I hope you will join the Orthodox Church, I don’t expect you to at the moment anyway.

 

[Gamera]

… Catholics have always been considered the first Protestants …

!!!

 

[StMarina303ad]

StMarina303ad,

I wasn’t responding so much to the second part of your statement, when you said that “it would be very difficult for someone who is not a practicing Orthodox Christian to be saved”, but rather to the first part of your statement: “It would be very difficult for someone who was a practicing Orthodox Christian to not be saved”.

Someone who had all the necessary tools to be saved and to be practicing their faith ie using those tools on a regular basis, it would be hard not to be saved. If they were fallen away or not practicing, it may be a little easier.

Because I don’t consider the Orthodox Church to be the One True Church.

No worries, just give it a little time, study and prayer…

 

[Harpazo]

A look at history will show you that the Catholics broke away from the Orthodox Church and that the Protestants all broke away from the Catholics or in more recent times the Protestants have broken away from other Protestants sects.

The fruit did not fall far from the tree. Catholics have always been considered the first Protestants since they first Protested against the Orthodox Church and left it. The fruit of their schism has been more and more schisms.

Shlom lekh,

It would be correct to say that Rome and the Byzantine Churches split from each other. Both are guilty of schism and it’s such a pity. We both need to work out our differences and re-establish Communion and be One Church again as we were 600 years ago. Remember, the split was not made final until after the Council of Florence. Both communions are fully Apostolic and mutually call each other “Sister Churches.” The sooner the Catholics, Byzantine Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox work out their differences and re-establish Communion, the greater our witness to those outside of the Church will be

But let’s get back on topic, shall we?

Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[Publisher]

Shlom lekh,

It would be correct to say that Rome and the Byzantine Churches split from each other. Both are guilty of schism and it’s such a pity. We both need to work out our differences and re-establish Communion and be One Church again as we were 600 years ago. Remember, the split was not made final until after the Council of Florence. Both communions are fully Apostolic and mutually call each other “Sister Churches.” The sooner the Catholics, Byzantine Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox work out their differences and re-establish Communion, the greater our witness to those outside of the Church will be

But let’s get back on topic, shall we?

Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew

This is one of the thing which mystifies me a bit. Orthodox claim Rome split…Rome claims Orthodox split…Orthodox claims Oriental Orthodox not in communion…Copts…don’t know who they are in commuion with…and yet all “apostolic” churches expect those of us called “separated brethren” just to accept your claims of “apostolic authority” when on the outside looking in…it hasn’t really done too much good in keeping your traditions together and in communion. To us, IMO, you’re just larger groups of “Protestants” that don’t want to be “Protestants” and claim a “unity of one faith” that only exists among your own institutional churches…much like many Protestants.

In our eyes…at least in mine…your ‘unity’ serves no one but yourselves…because your ‘unity’ in only in the numbers you count as having “the fullness of truth”…and this “fullness” you exclude from others becasue they “split”…the poster who felt that the Catholic church was the first “Protestant” church since it “protested” the Orthodox church speaks the mind of many of us “separated brethren”. We wonder…how your own houses are a bit messy, yet you counsel us to get our houses in order and return…to your own messy house.

Personally, I like my own nice neat clean simple Meeting, were we meet Christ each First Day morning in hushed holy Quiet and share in His Presence…but that’s just me.

 

[sandusky]

ralphinal:

No, because the Baptism brought by Christ had not been brought

No, it wasn’t required in the OT, because it’s not what saves. The OT counterpart was circumcision, which couldn’t save either. One of the attributes of God is that He is immutable; therefore, salvation has always been by grace through faith, and not by circumcision, or baptism.

ralphinal:

What about Acts 2:37-38, Acts 8:53-36 (the Eunich asked to be baotised for a reason and then Philip was taken from him). Even Acts 16:31 includes Baptism, as does the conversion of Saul story. There is more than professing involved. Second Peter talks about Baptism washing away sins.

What about them? The remission of sins is because of belief in Christ: “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins,” (Acts 10:43), the forgiveness of sins is not because of baptism, but because of belief in Christ (Acts 2:38; cf v41). People who received Peter’s word were baptized (Acts 2:41); go back to Acts 10 and continue from v 44 to v 48.

The same is true of the Ethiopian. In response to is question of what prevented him from being baptized Philip said, “If you believe…you may,” (v 37).

I’ve gone through the 2 Peter passage if you care to search for it.

ralphinal:

Was the word used by Christ that of digesting? Or does it translate to something else?

Eating and drinking are idioms, for understanding with the mind. Earlier, the language is defined by Jesus when He puts coming and believing for eating and drinking.

ralphinal:

THen it means nothing in relation to the last supper?

No, as I pointed out in the link that I provided.

ralphinal:

And why did he let them walk away?

What would you have Him do? Tie them up?

ralphinal:

Sorry, I was giving you the Benefit of the doubt.

I have the Spirit, and the benefit of His seal of ownership placed upon me; I don’t need the benefit of your doubt.

ralphinal:

So you are saying that the Holy Spirit allowed the Church to enter heresy for 1500 years on this?

Why stop at 1500 years?

ralphinal:

As is mine, though I take into account what those taught by the Apostles said it means as well.

List all of those who were personally taught by the Apostles, and source the writings in which they themselves make that claim.

 

[With_Questions]

This is one of the thing which mystifies me a bit. Orthodox claim Rome split…Rome claims Orthodox split…Orthodox claims Oriental Orthodox not in communion…Copts…don’t know who they are in commuion with…and yet all “apostolic” churches expect those of us called “separated brethren” just to accept your claims of “apostolic authority” when on the outside looking in…it hasn’t really done too much good in keeping your traditions together and in communion. To us, IMO, you’re just larger groups of “Protestants” that don’t want to be “Protestants” and claim a “unity of one faith” that only exists among your own institutional churches…much like many Protestants.

In our eyes…at least in mine…your ‘unity’ serves no one but yourselves…because your ‘unity’ in only in the numbers you count as having “the fullness of truth”…and this “fullness” you exclude from others becasue they “split”…the poster who felt that the Catholic church was the first “Protestant” church since it “protested” the Orthodox church speaks the mind of many of us “separated brethren”. We wonder…how your own houses are a bit messy, yet you counsel us to get our houses in order and return…to your own messy house.

I don’t understand either.

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

And that is why we educate our priests and bishops. They know stuff first, then are lead by the Holy Spirit.

(Somehow I missed this earlier)

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit doesn’t lead anyone until they’re ordained into the clergy?

 

[Peter_J]

Wow, that’s quite an interesting opinion. I know I, as a Catholic, wouldn’t ever say that it would be very difficult for someone who was a practicing Roman Catholic to not be saved.

Yeah I know you wouldn’t.

Peter J, I know that you are a good Catholic and no Catholic would think or say that about their own Church. Because if they did think or say that, they would be converting to Orthodoxy like many have already.

I think now you’re just trying to confuse me.

:tsktsk:

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The whole point about the bread of life discourse that Jesus teaches his church from John 6, deals with those who believe in his true presence in his Eucharist (thanksgiving, sacrifice for our sins) are promised eternal life. Those who refused his teaching fell into apostacy and walked away.

In summary the OP is correct, only the Christian is Christian who partakes of the body,blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Those baptised Christians who refuse his Eucharist are like Jesus first century **disciples **who refused to believe this hard teaching and fell into apostacy.

The dog, or anyone not discerning the body of Jesus Christ in his Holy Eucharist are subject to Judgement for not discerning the body and blood of our savior Jesus Christ. It makes no sense for a non believer to recieve this heavenly food for the soul, for it is not for the unbeliever but for the believer who remain true to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

 

[Peter_J]

And why did he let them walk away?

I believe what raphinal means is, when they started to walk away, why didn’t Jesus just say “Hold on, you’re taking what I said too literally.”?

 

[sandusky]

I believe what raphinal means is, when they started to walk away, why didn’t Jesus just say “Hold on, you’re taking what I said too literally.”?

The truth was being kept from heart-hardened Israel.

 

[Peter_J]

!!!

I know what you mean. The idea that Catholics are really “Protestants” always sounds strange to me – even after having heard it many times from many different Orthodox.

Of course then, there are also some Catholics who consider the Orthodox to be “Protestants”, so …

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

This is one of the thing which mystifies me a bit. Orthodox claim Rome split…Rome claims Orthodox split…Orthodox claims Oriental Orthodox not in communion…Copts…don’t know who they are in commuion with…and yet all “apostolic” churches expect those of us called “separated brethren” just to accept your claims of “apostolic authority” when on the outside looking in…it hasn’t really done too much good in keeping your traditions together and in communion. To us, IMO, you’re just larger groups of “Protestants” that don’t want to be “Protestants” and claim a “unity of one faith” that only exists among your own institutional churches…much like many Protestants.

In our eyes…at least in mine…your ‘unity’ serves no one but yourselves…because your ‘unity’ in only in the numbers you count as having “the fullness of truth”…and this “fullness” you exclude from others becasue they “split”…the poster who felt that the Catholic church was the first “Protestant” church since it “protested” the Orthodox church speaks the mind of many of us “separated brethren”. We wonder…how your own houses are a bit messy, yet you counsel us to get our houses in order and return…to your own messy house.

Personally, I like my own nice neat clean simple Meeting, were we meet Christ each First Day morning in hushed holy Quiet and share in His Presence…but that’s just me.

You raise a good point here, but what you are failing to understand the difference between what men do and what the Catholic church believes as one body in Jesus Christ. Our unity is complete in Jesus Christ through the sacraments, especially his Eucharist this makes us one Holy Catholic church. What you find trouble with is the ancient old argument of Pride of men. Please dont confuse the apostolic teachings and faith these past 2000 years unchanged with cultural and language pride of men. This is the difference next to authority you see on the outside looking in.

As far as the One Holy Catholic Apostolic church is still here today for 2000 years unchanged founded by Jesus Christ himself upon Peter and the apostles.