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

[ralphinal]

Brace yourself, I’m about to explain to you how it is that you are missing it so big on this Scripture.

You do not have the authority to interpret or explain Scripture.

Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to His Church to guide it in all Truth which is why the Church as a whole has the power and authority to interpret and explain Scripture.

Long before any Protestant Church was invented in the 1500’s and long before the Catholic Church separated itself from the rest of the Orthodox Church in the 1000’s, We’re talking all the way back in the first century, the Church by the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit interpreted and explained *and still now continues *to interpret and explain that passage to mean that Jesus meant exactly what He said - we must eat His Flesh and we must Drink His Blood to have Life within us.

But don’t take my word for it, read the Church Fathers and read the Pagan/Anti-Christian writings of the time - both sides makes it clear that true Christians eat and drank Jesus’ Body and Blood.

First, I am Catholic, not Protestant.

Second, what is in my post that is opposed to Catholic Teaching?

 

[ralphinal]

To which statement of Jesus are you specifically referring?

How about the John 3 passage for starters?

It is what Jesus is saying, in fact, those who understand what He’s saying, drink of this water continuously.

Literal water?

As He spoke figuratively concerning the water He gives, and its leading to a well of water springing up in the believer to eternal life, so He speaks in John 6. ( see here with parallel between v40 and 54.)

Ah.

There’s no dispute over what He said; the dispute is over what He meant by what He said.

Agreed. How do you know what he means? THe Holy Spirit cannot lead us to two different conclusions, can He? Should we not look at what the first Christians to speak on this taught?

IMO, that’s nothing more than a mindless mantra the Catholic falls back on when he doesn’t know what else to say.

Do you know why? Because it is TRUE!

Without a doubt.

We have been in the Gospel of Luke for the past 10 years, and are about to move to the final chapter.

I am very impressed. Seriously. Most non-Catholic Denominations do not focus that heavily on any one book of the Bible. For that you should be commended.

I asked that because I have been to non-Catholic Churches where the only time Jesus was mentioned was when Paul did it. Surely you can see how that is problematic.

 

[ralphinal]

Ralph, my mom is a school teacher, so this is really coming from her not me: “i” before “e” except after "c". Being that I’ve heard it so much from her, I couldn’t help, but to share. Marina

Spelling is not something that I have ever done well. I started at the university as a sophmore and was accepted to Medical School at the same time, and I am still not sure how to spell my middle name.

 

[StMarina303ad]

Spelling is not something that I have ever done well. I started at the university as a sophmore and was accepted to Medical School at the same time, and I am still not sure how to spell my middle name.

I’m great at spelling either. I vividly remember misspelling the word “of” in the first grade on a spelling test.

Congrats on Med. School!

Forget about spelling, won’t Med. School eventually prevent you from handwriting clearly? So much knowledge your brain has to make room to throwing out the basics. At least this is what I was told by the doctors I used to work with - couldn’t read a single note they left for me.

 

[ralphinal]

I’m great at spelling either. I vividly remember misspelling the word “of” in the first grade on a spelling test.

Congrats on Med. School!

Forget about spelling, won’t Med. School eventually prevent you from handwriting clearly? So much knowledge your brain has to make room to throwing out the basics. At least this is what I was told by the doctors I used to work with - couldn’t read a single note they left for me.

I realised as an undergrad that I was not called to that line of work. I just could not see myself as a doctor. Ironic, isn’t it?

Funny thing. I actually won a spelling test in first grade with the word “of.” It is the only time I ever won a spelling test.

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

If that were true then satan would be a Christian.

Oh, satan definitely beleives in The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. And he absolutely knows that The Son came here to free us from his bonds. And at one time satan believed and took no other over God, so he knows God intimately. Satan is the original sinner who thought he’d go it on his own and found a better way.

We are not saved by faith alone. We are not saved by simply “believing”. I used to say that too.

I’m about to attempt to say something profound rather than quoting Monty Python. I grew up in farm country, and not a day went by where there wasn’t a new squashed animal in the road. About once a week, someone would tag a deer; the deer would usually die and the car would be totaled, with the driver occasionally being seriously injured (sometimes fatally).

To me, our daily life as it relates to salvation is a lot like driving in the country at night. We follow the light so that it can illuminate the path. And once in a while, we’ll see a deer standing in the road. Now the question is: what to do? The options and attitudes are this:

1. “I’m safe; I believe there is a deer in the road. The fact that I’m bearing down on it at 60 MPH and that I believe it’s there is all the assurance I need.”
2. “I see and believe there is a deer in the road. I’m going to pray for that deer to move, but I’m not slowing down or changing course.”
3. “I see and believe there is a deer n the road. I’m going to pray for the deer to move, and I’m also going to slow way down and do everything I can to avoid hitting it.”
4. “Eat this, Bambi! I’m going to gas it up to 90!”

If I have a passenger with me and choose the first option, they’ll say, “Hey, there’s a deer in the road.” If I say, “I know, I see it” and then fail to slow down, the inevitable question will be, “So why don’t you act like you see it and avoid it?”

This is why it’s written that “Not all who call on me will be saved.” Believing all the right things and not acting like it is insane.

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

Threads are funny that way, aren’t they?

BTW: My 3rd job is at a Catholic bookstore and we are always out of that statue - even people who are not Catholic come in to buy his statue to bury it upside down so they can sell their house. We keep telling it, it shouldn’t be buried but set in a place of honor in their home and for them to pray for his intercession. Who came up with the idea of burying his upside down anyway?

You’d think that someone would take a statue of Peter and bury it upside down, or at least display it upside down.

 

[ralphinal]

I’m about to attempt to say something profound rather than quoting Monty Python. I grew up in farm country, and not a day went by where there wasn’t a new squashed animal in the road. About once a week, someone would tag a deer; the deer would usually die and the car would be totaled, with the driver occasionally being seriously injured (sometimes fatally).

To me, our daily life as it relates to salvation is a lot like driving in the country at night. We follow the light so that it can illuminate the path. And once in a while, we’ll see a deer standing in the road. Now the question is: what to do? The options and attitudes are this:

1. “I’m safe; I believe there is a deer in the road. The fact that I’m bearing down on it at 60 MPH and that I believe it’s there is all the assurance I need.”
2. “I see and believe there is a deer in the road. I’m going to pray for that deer to move, but I’m not slowing down or changing course.”
3. “I see and believe there is a deer n the road. I’m going to pray for the deer to move, and I’m also going to slow way down and do everything I can to avoid hitting it.”
4. “Eat this, Bambi! I’m going to gas it up to 90!”

If I have a passenger with me and choose the first option, they’ll say, “Hey, there’s a deer in the road.” If I say, “I know, I see it” and then fail to slow down, the inevitable question will be, “So why don’t you act like you see it and avoid it?”

This is why it’s written that “Not all who call on me will be saved.” Believing all the right things and not acting like it is insane.

I chose option 4.

I like this post. Very good point.

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

Brace yourself, I’m about to explain to you how it is that you are missing it so big on this Scripture.

You do not have the authority to interpret or explain Scripture.

Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to His Church to guide it in all Truth which is why the Church as a whole has the power and authority to interpret and explain Scripture.

What types of beings make up the church? Centaurs? Harpies? Muppets?

Let’s say that I write something down and proclaim it to be inspired by the Spirit. I, a man, have written something. It gets passed on to a priest, who is a man. Then it gets passed on to a bishop, who is a man. Then, however that whole process works of getting something declared to be inspired, it goes up and up and up and is reviewed by individuals and committees who are made up of men.

Does the Holy Spirit show up at some point and say, “Hey, this is a good writing. I told him to write it”? These aren’t angels or some other celestial beings who are reviewing everything, they’re men.

You might as well say, “The individual man does not have the authority to interpret the Constitution of the United States. That is reserved for the states and for the federal government.” Well, who makes up the states and federal government? The individual man does; there may be 10 of them or 100,000 of them, but at the basic level, they’re individual men.

 

[ralphinal]

What types of beings make up the church? Centaurs? Harpies? Muppets?

Let’s say that I write something down and proclaim it to be inspired by the Spirit. I, a man, have written something. It gets passed on to a priest, who is a man. Then it gets passed on to a bishop, who is a man. Then, however that whole process works of getting something declared to be inspired, it goes up and up and up and is reviewed by individuals and committees who are made up of men.

Does the Holy Spirit show up at some point and say, “Hey, this is a good writing. I told him to write it”? These aren’t angels or some other celestial beings who are reviewing everything, they’re men.

You might as well say, “The individual man does not have the authority to interpret the Constitution of the United States. That is reserved for the states and for the federal government.” Well, who makes up the states and federal government? The individual man does; there may be 10 of them or 100,000 of them, but at the basic level, they’re individual men.

THe last paragraph actually explains it all. In the end, anyone can interpret the Constitution. However, only a small number of men can do so with Authority to make others accept what they say.

Same with Scriptures. We can all say it means anything we want. Only the Church can make someone else accept it.

 

[happilycatholic]

Oh good grief that’s not what I’m saying. The original question was **“can a person who does not receive the Eucharist call themselves a Christian”. **My answer is yes.

If it will make it simpler, let me put it this way.

There is a practicing Catholic living a well-formed Catholic life in accordance to the Church. They are a Christian.

There is a practicing *(HERE insert person of any faith you wish that believes in the Trinity and Jesus, etc. but not the real presence, just symbolism) *and they are leading a good and moral life. They are Christian.…but they don’t have the fullness of the Catholic faith.

Falling away or rejecting your faith, whatever it is, is another whole thread.

I realize what the thread is about and I’m sorry if I offended you but what you said was clear.

We as catholics believe it takes a little more than that. Like in marriage, it takes more than just a belief in marriage and a promise. It takes practicing what you’ve promised for the rest of your life. Catholics believe that means receiving the Eucharist and other Holy Sacraments.

Essentially I’m in agreement with you.

That’s all I meant. Again, sorry.

 

[sandusky]

ralphinal:

How about the John 3 passage for starters?

Gamera says he believes that’s been infallibly defined, if so, I’d like to read that infallible definition/explanation.

But Nicodemus, more than likely, would have understood what was said, not literally, but in light of Eze 36:25-27, that re-birth would have necessitated some sort of “Spiritual experience,” and probably not baptism; if baptism were necessary for regeneration, then, logically, those of the OT perished.

Moreover, it’s the consistent message of the NT writers that salvation is by grace, through faith, with no mention of baptism made in those statements of what one must do to be saved (Eph 2:8ff; Acts 16:31; Rom 10:11, 13; Mk 16:16).

ralphinal:

Literal water?

No, not literal water, but drinking in the words, and believing them, and eating the words and believing them (cf Jer 15:6; Eze 3:1; Jn 6:63: the words spoken are eternal life, 68; 1 Cor 12:13).“To eat or drink.”—As the Hebrews used the nouns meat and drink of knowledge (by Metonymy), so they naturally used the verbs eating and drinking to denote the operation of the mind in receiving, understanding, and applying doctrine or instruction of any kind, as we speak of “digesting” what is said, or of “inwardly digesting” it.

It thus marks a very intimate and real partaking of the benefits of that which we receive through our minds.

(Bullinger, E. W. (1898). Figures of speech used in the Bible (Page 826). London; New York: Eyre & Spottiswoode; E. & J. B. Young & Co.)

ralphinal:

Agreed. How do you know what he means?

I can read—the entire passage from v26 to the end, puts coming and believing for *** eating and drinking.***

ralphinal:

THe Holy Spirit cannot lead us to two different conclusions, can He?

Assumes the HS is leading both of us.

ralphinal:

Should we not look at what the first Christians to speak on this taught?

My understanding is from the entire testimony, including the Gospel of John.

 

[ralphinal]

Gamera says he believes that’s been infallibly defined, if so, I’d like to read that infallible definition/explanation.

He said that he knows where it is. I’ll leave it to him.

But Nicodemus, more than likely, would have understood what was said, not literally, but in light of Eze 36:25-27, that re-birth would have necessitated some sort of “Spiritual experience,” and probably not baptism; if baptism were necessary for regeneration, then, logically, those of the OT perished.

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

Moreover, it’s the consistent message of the NT writers that salvation is by grace, through faith, with no mention of baptism made in those statements of what one must do to be saved (Eph 2:8ff; Acts 16:31; Rom 10:11, 13; Mk 16:16).

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.

No, not literal water, but drinking in the words, and believing them, and eating the words and believing them (cf Jer 15:6; Eze 3:1; Jn 6:63: the words spoken are eternal life, 68; 1 Cor 12:13).“To eat or drink.”—As the Hebrews used the nouns meat and drink of knowledge (by Metonymy), so they naturally used the verbs eating and drinking to denote the operation of the mind in receiving, understanding, and applying doctrine or instruction of any kind, as we speak of “digesting” what is said, or of “inwardly digesting” it.

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

It thus marks a very intimate and real partaking of the benefits of that which we receive through our minds.

(Bullinger, E. W. (1898). Figures of speech used in the Bible (Page 826). London; New York: Eyre & Spottiswoode; E. & J. B. Young & Co.)

I can read—the entire passage from v26 to the end, puts coming and believing for *** eating and drinking.***

THen it means nothing in relation to the last supper? And why did he let them walk away?

Assumes the HS is leading both of us.

Sorry, I was giving you the Benefit of the doubt. So you are saying that the Holy Spirit allowed the Church to enter heresy for 1500 years on this?

My understanding is from the entire testimony, including the Gospel of John.

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

 

[happilycatholic]

I’m about to attempt to say something profound rather than quoting Monty Python. I grew up in farm country, and not a day went by where there wasn’t a new squashed animal in the road. About once a week, someone would tag a deer; the deer would usually die and the car would be totaled, with the driver occasionally being seriously injured (sometimes fatally).

To me, our daily life as it relates to salvation is a lot like driving in the country at night. We follow the light so that it can illuminate the path. And once in a while, we’ll see a deer standing in the road. Now the question is: what to do? The options and attitudes are this:

1. “I’m safe; I believe there is a deer in the road. The fact that I’m bearing down on it at 60 MPH and that I believe it’s there is all the assurance I need.”
2. “I see and believe there is a deer in the road. I’m going to pray for that deer to move, but I’m not slowing down or changing course.”
3. “I see and believe there is a deer n the road. I’m going to pray for the deer to move, and I’m also going to slow way down and do everything I can to avoid hitting it.”
4. “Eat this, Bambi! I’m going to gas it up to 90!”

If I have a passenger with me and choose the first option, they’ll say, “Hey, there’s a deer in the road.” If I say, “I know, I see it” and then fail to slow down, the inevitable question will be, “So why don’t you act like you see it and avoid it?”

This is why it’s written that “Not all who call on me will be saved.” Believing all the right things and not acting like it is insane.

Gosh, I just put on my trusty brushguard and trust it to protect me while I continue to enjoy the view! Otherwise I’m looking for a dear on every road I drive. My Brushguard is with me everywhere I go.

 

[Peter_J]

It would be very difficult for someone who was a practicing Orthodox Christian to not be saved, but it is possible & likewise, it would be very difficult for someone who is not a practicing Orthodox Christian to be saved, but it is possible.

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.

 

[Peter_J]

You speak of John 3, what of John 4? Whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never thirst, but the water will become a well of water springing up to eternal life.”

On that, why doesn’t the church require that you drink a bunch of water???

I quite agree, sandusky. It’s not enough to just read the bible; one also needs to understand other things like which verses are to be taken literally. (Someone else pointed out that Jesus’ words in another place – if taken literally – would imply that anyone who swallows the Eucharist is automatically saved, regardless of anything else.)

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

THe last paragraph actually explains it all. In the end, anyone can interpret the Constitution. However, only a small number of men can do so with Authority to make others accept what they say.

Same with Scriptures. We can all say it means anything we want. Only the Church can make someone else accept it.

Right, but those men don’t suddenly become endowed with some type of new knowledge only after being elected to office. They may learn more, and the title in front of the name may change, but it doesn’t become a case of “I knew nothing of what the Constitution meant until I was elected to office.” That was usually a staple of the monarchies…“Until you’re a royal or a noble, you know nothing of law and justice.”

Neither would a cardinal go from an ordinary bishop to someone oozing with knowledge and the ability to discern the Spirit from his own voice.

 

[ralphinal]

Right, but those men don’t suddenly become endowed with some type of new knowledge only after being elected to office. They may learn more, and the title in front of the name may change, but it doesn’t become a case of “I knew nothing of what the Constitution meant until I was elected to office.” That was usually a staple of the monarchies…“Until you’re a royal or a noble, you know nothing of law and justice.”

Neither would a cardinal go from an ordinary bishop to someone oozing with knowledge and the ability to discern the Spirit from his own voice.

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

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

Gosh, I just put on my trusty brushguard and trust it to protect me while I continue to enjoy the view! Otherwise I’m looking for a dear on every road I drive. My Brushguard is with me everywhere I go.

The best bet would be forward-mounted rockets. I found out that asking about their availability is a quick way to get an FBI file.

Of course, with my luck, I’d use it on a deer, then drive over one of the bones, blow a tire, and crash into a tree.

 

[Peter_J]

Notice I used the words “Roman Catholic” not Eastern Catholic. And yes those who are married Roman Catholic men are not eligible for Holy Orders.

You are more-or-less correct. In the Latin Catholic Church (or Roman-Rite, if you prefer that term) married men are usually not eligible of Holy Orders, but exceptions are sometimes made for married men who, prior to becoming Catholic, served as Anglican or Lutheran ministers.