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

[ralphinal]

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.

Then why did Jesus make it a requirement?

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.

I think this is where I should say that is your interpretation. Mine is different. You can no more prove mine wrong than I can yours. We are at an impass

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.

I want to know the exact word and what it means. The idiom in English may be different in Greek.

No, as I pointed out in the link that I provided.
What would you have Him do? Tie them up?

As pointed out, he could have said wait. Or explained it better. He did it at other times. he did not even explain it to the Apostles.

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

You can no more prove that then the man on the moon. You claim to have the Spirit, as does the Catholic Church. Why is your personal claim more likely?

Why stop at 1500 years?

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

Ah. I love this answer. It is not possible that they taught others is it. It must be writted down to have been taught by them. I am so glad Jesus wrote down everything he said.

 

[BSHoop96]

Well, that’s because catholics are very defensive because they think they got it wrong? Nooo - catholics are at the point of the spear of christianity - they are the oldest and the foundation of our faith. But the true foundation of the faith is Jesus Christ and his words - and he was very explicit yet simple and profound in his requirements for entering the kingdom of God - forget the princess analogy. The Holy sacrarments which they honor to a fault are the glue that keeps or kept the community of believers together in tough times before the scriptures were written and are to be considered truly mystical. These should be honored in the other denominations as wel. Buuuutttt…all must read and reflect on the words of christ - the “church of christ” is the body of christ and the body of christ are ALL of his believers.

For some reason, catholics are told that the rest of us are in error,** not to go their Bible studies.** No matter how many time you do the sacraments - the word of god, repentance, redemption,etc must be on your lips and in your heart… I fear that one day the anti-christ will use this to divide the christians and catholics from each other. The devil tested his technique in Northern Ireland.

What??? We’re told not to go to Bible studies??? That’s ridiculous.

In case you still haven’t figured it out…I’m not agreeing with the original poster. You keep speaking to me as if I am. Geez, I’m leaving…this is wearing me out.

 

[sandusky]

ralphinal:

Then why did Jesus make it a requirement?

Why did He make circumcision a requirement?

ralphinal:

I think this is where I should say that is your interpretation. Mine is different. You can no more prove mine wrong than I can yours. We are at an impass

A smokescreen, Ralph, because I didn’t interpret anything in the verses, but merely provided the context for what they were saying—repentance and belief in the name of Jesus, because of the forgiveness of sins, all precede baptism.

ralphinal:

I want to know the exact word and what it means. The idiom in English may be different in Greek.

What exact word, Ralph?

The idiom is a Hebrew idiom, according to Bullinger, as cited, “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.

Jesus defines, in v 35, the meaning of coming and believing for the rest of the passage when He puts them for hungering and thirsting. Follow the context.

When the unbelieving Jews left, He asked the others if they wanted to leave, and Peter responded: “You have the words of eternal life”—the feast is upon His words, which are Spirit and truth, and that’s what profits.

ralphinal:

As pointed out, he could have said wait. Or explained it better. He did it at other times. he did not even explain it to the Apostles.

He could have done a lot of things Ralph; He could have said to the apostles, “Look guys, I know you don’t completely get it now, but you will in the Spring when we celebrate our last Passover together, and I’ll change the elements of bread and wine into my body and blood,” but He didn’t. In fact, there’s no mention of “changing” the elements of bread and wine into anything, but of putting them, metaphorically, for His body and blood.

ralphinal:

You can no more prove that then the man on the moon. You claim to have the Spirit, as does the Catholic Church. Why is your personal claim more likely?

Well Ralph, I can only hope that one day you’ll come to have what I already have as an adopted son of God, sealed for eternity by His Spirit.

ralphinal:

Ah. I love this answer. It is not possible that they taught others is it. It must be writted down to have been taught by them. I am so glad Jesus wrote down everything he said.

And I love your escape from the question, rather than answering honestly, “I cannot provide what you ask for to support my assertion.”

 

[wildrumpus]

Reading all of the posts on this thread makes it very clear to me that everyone involved is more intent upon proving their own beliefs instead of concentrating on Him. Why focus on the differences between you instead of concentrating on Him and His teachings? If you tried to find your commonalities instead of your differences, maybe there would be less stress and frustration, and maybe you wouldn’t be sidetracked from what (Who) is really important. Stop the quibbling. Satan is laughing with all of this nonsense, and Jesus is crying.

 

[benedictus2]

Reading all of the posts on this thread makes it very clear to me that everyone involved is more intent upon proving their own beliefs instead of concentrating on Him. Why focus on the differences between you instead of concentrating on Him and His teachings? If you tried to find your commonalities instead of your differences, maybe there would be less stress and frustration, and maybe you wouldn’t be sidetracked from what (Who) is really important. Stop the quibbling. Satan is laughing with all of this nonsense, and Jesus is crying.

Satan may be laughing but the lie he sowed into Luthers and Calvins heads and everyone there after, is still there.

You are missing something here. We are actually focusing on Christ because we are trying to establish what it is exactly that He said. Essentialy this thread is about whether the Eucharist is an integral part of being Christian without which one cannot even call ones self a Christian.

One cannot pretend that the divide is there and that that divide has grown wider as each denomination continues to create their own little doctrines which are sometimes even in opposition to the origianl propositions of either Luther or Calvin.

What is to be hoped is that outside of this forum we would all treat each other brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of our beliefs.

 

[benedictus2]

No, it wasn’t required in the OT, because it’s not what saves. The OT counterpart was circumcision, which couldn’t save either.

Circumsion was a sign of God’s **covenant **with Israel. It could not save because that is not what it’s purpose was. But it does foreshadows Baptism which is a salvific event in the Christian’s life.

 

[benedictus2]

**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?

**You did not answer the question. **

The question was: Did the Holy Spriit allow Christ’s Church to enter into heresy from it’s beginng till around 1500 when Luther et all came to rescue it from it’s heresy.

 

[benedictus2]

***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.

I think the word used here in Greek was “trogon” which is to nibble or to chew.

I am not sure about this but “eating and drinking” are not idioms for “understanding with the mind” in Greek. This may be so in the English language but in the language that Christ would have spoken which was Aramaic and in the written gospel which is Greek I don’t think such an idiom exists.

And Christ did not bother to say " Oh I meant it only figuratively".

And when his hearers interpreted this precisely in the way He meant which is obviously offensive to them, they left.

So when Christ said “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” he was very emphatic about that. He re-iterates this in the entire passage.

And Christ did not bother to say " Oh I meant it only figuratively".

 

[Peter_J]

For some reason, catholics are told that the rest of us are in error,

Interesting. So then are you (Protestants) not told that Catholics are in error?

not to go their Bible studies.

Please be reasonable. If you teach against Apostolic Succession, Real Presence and Perpetual Virginity you are teaching against the Catholic Church. Sensiblity dictates that Catholics, especially those who are still young in the faith, shouldn’t go to to this Bible study. It only confuse them.

To that I would just add: brownjt, would you attend an RCIA class, or encourage other Protestants to do so? If not, then I’d say you’re using a none-too-subtle double standard.

 

[Mickey]

Eating and drinking are idioms, for understanding with the mind.

Ah yes. The classic protestant explanation of “understanding with the mind” in an attempt to deny the holy Eucharist.

 

[ralphinal]

I think the word used here in Greek was “trogon” which is to nibble or to chew.

I am not sure about this but “eating and drinking” are not idioms for “understanding with the mind” in Greek. This may be so in the English language but in the language that Christ would have spoken which was Aramaic and in the written gospel which is Greek I don’t think such an idiom exists.

And Christ did not bother to say " Oh I meant it only figuratively".

And when his hearers interpreted this precisely in the way He meant which is obviously offensive to them, they left.

So when Christ said “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” he was very emphatic about that. He re-iterates this in the entire passage.

And Christ did not bother to say " Oh I meant it only figuratively".

Here we go with the often overlooked word use issue.

This website has a good passage about it, and it is very relevent

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

And about the word used

The Greek verb used in these four verses for “eat” is much stronger than the verb used earlier in this discourse; in this case it literally means “chew, gnaw”; hardly a word to be taken symbolically.

In other words, Jesus is either saying that we must slander him and degrade him (idiom usage) or he is saying that we must gnaw on his flesh (ever eaten unleavened bread?).

Let me put this passage in here

The first place to look is John 6:25-71 where Jesus promises the Eucharist. This account, which occupies 2/3 of the chapter, describes Jesus’ exchange with a crowd of disciples; probably numbering several thousand as this event follows the feeding of the 5,000 (most of the preceding 1/3 of the chapter) and these disciples have followed Him seeking more of this miraculous bread. After all, Moses provided bread for those who followed him during their wanderings in the desert. Jesus tells them that He is the bread of life that came down from heaven and those who come to Him will never be hungry. The disciples do not understand and grumble because Jesus has said that He comes down from heaven, but they know that He is a man; they know His parents. Jesus again tells them that He is the living bread which came down from heaven and anyone who eats this bread will have eternal life. The disciples understand Him literally and begin to dispute among themselves because they don’t understand how He can give them His flesh to eat. Jesus then underscores this literal interpretation by stating four times [in four successive verses (53-56)] that they must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood or they will not have everlasting life. The Greek verb used in these four verses for “eat” is much stronger than the verb used earlier in this discourse; in this case it literally means “chew, gnaw”; hardly a word to be taken symbolically.

He used two different verbs for “eat” He used phago at first, then went to the harsher trogo

 

[Publisher]

What your comments to me; are seen more as political not faith or Apostolic Traditional faith. We can go on for days explaining the differences between Catholic culturals and languages that seperate us, but it does not change our fundamental belief’s.

I believe you are mistaken to compare Catholic cultural or “Rites” differences to Protestant, fundamentalism, Evangelicals and non catholic christian belief’s. The latter have distinct belief’s in who Jesus is, and neither agree with each other about what constitutes faith. This is a huge fundamental difference than a Catholic “Rite” difference. Those not in communion with the holy see, still have the apostolic belief system other than authority that seperates us next to geography and language, but still the same Catholic church.

So you’re saying that the real differences between the Catholic church and the Orthodox church and the Coptic church and so on and so forth are simply “cultural differences”? That each of your claims to being the “one true church” has brought unity among those who believe they are of “apostolic descent”? Are you saying that the only difference is “rite” between EO and CC? That there really is “unity” between those “apostolic churches”…just not realized?

As an “outsider” this “unity” is much like those of Protestant traditions hold with one another…a Baptist may attend and “commune” with a Methodist…an Assembl’y of God member may commune with a Mennonite group…the “essentials” defined as faith in Christ are what is important…in “non-essentials” liberty.

But back to the point…even though “apostolic authority” is claimed as essential…it hasn’t been “essential enough” to keep the “one true church” from fragmenting. Yes, it’s “pride”…but pride from whom? The Magisterium of the CC or the Patriarchs of the EO? If each of these “apostolic sucessors” are led by the Holy Spirit ONE OF THEM is wrong…hmmmmm, I’ve heard that applied to Protestants before with some “condemnation” from memebers of both EO and CC…“how can the Holy Spirit lead two people to make different choices on a matter.” All of the “apostolic successor” groups claim the “one true church” status…from the apostles…yet there is no unity among them…as I said…we on the outside see little differenc from your claims and ours in such matters.

You wrote “Those not in communion with the holy see, still have the apostolic belief system other than authority that seperates us next to geography and language, but still the same Catholic church.” But an “authority” no one can agree on…is no "authority…Protestants claim an authority as well…EO and CC simply don’t acknowledge it…not acknowledging an “authority” doesn’t make it go away…the CC, EO and others claim it…but you’re still at odds with each other…maybe we Protestants would rather be on the outside and “take our chances”…I personally am confident in my own experience with God in Christ…there is no “confusion” to Whom I belong in my mind…I guess “invincible ignorance” has it’s high points.

 

[Publisher]

Your comparison seems to me to be a little bit of a stretch. Catholics – by which I mean those in full communion with the Pope, not counting the Eastern Orthodox or anyone else that we aren’t in full communion with – number over 1 billion world-wide.

The Anglican Communion (for example – we could just as well consider the Lutheran World Federation, or the World Methodist Council, etc.) numbers about 77 million.

But more important than the numbers is the fact the “unity” in the two cases is completely different. The “unity” (if you can even call it that ) that Anglicans have is a much more liberal sort of “unity”. (I’ll assume that I don’t need to elaborate on that claim.)

Yes of course to you it is “a stretch”…in our beliefs “unity” is only found in Christ…not in an “authoritive body”…in reality…it hasn’t worked too well for those who claim “apostolic authority and succession” to keep unity…so a difference that makes no difference is no difference.

We understand your claims…we don’t accept them…as I said previously…“invincible ignorance” has it’s perks!

 

[sandusky]

ralphinal:

Here we go with the often overlooked word use issue.

This website has a good passage about it, and it is very relevant

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

The dismissal of O’Brien’s argument is easy: it is not O’Brien as the reader who determines the context of the passage, but the apostle John, who wrote the passage in its context, and it’s not O’Brien, as the reader who defines the meaning of the words in the passage, but the Lord Himself, and He defines coming and believing as eating and drinking.

I realize that for you, O’Brien is “another Christ,” however, I think you’re taking that a bit too far.

Again, Jesus uses Jewish idiomatic language, which are also called “Hebraisms.”

ralphinal:

And about the word used

The Greek verb used in these four verses for “eat” is much stronger than the verb used earlier in this discourse; in this case it literally means “chew, gnaw”; hardly a word to be taken symbolically.

In other words, Jesus is either saying that we must slander him and degrade him (idiom usage) or he is saying that we must gnaw on his flesh (ever eaten unleavened bread?).

Trōgō paints a picture of eating with “vigor.”

As I clearly recall, the “hosts” of my day weren’t difficult to “chew,” but did “melt in your mouth.”

ralphinal:

Let me put this passage in here

The first place to look is John 6:25-71 where Jesus promises the Eucharist. This account, which occupies 2/3 of the chapter, describes Jesus’ exchange with a crowd of disciples; probably numbering several thousand as this event follows the feeding of the 5,000 (most of the preceding 1/3 of the chapter) and these disciples have followed Him seeking more of this miraculous bread. After all, Moses provided bread for those who followed him during their wanderings in the desert. Jesus tells them that He is the bread of life that came down from heaven and those who come to Him will never be hungry. The disciples do not understand and grumble because Jesus has said that He comes down from heaven, but they know that He is a man; they know His parents. Jesus again tells them that He is the living bread which came down from heaven and anyone who eats this bread will have eternal life. The disciples understand Him literally and begin to dispute among themselves because they don’t understand how He can give them His flesh to eat. Jesus then underscores this literal interpretation by stating four times [in four successive verses (53-56)] that they must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood or they will not have everlasting life. The Greek verb used in these four verses for “eat” is much stronger than the verb used earlier in this discourse; in this case it literally means “chew, gnaw”; hardly a word to be taken symbolically.

He used two different verbs for “eat” He used phago at first, then went to the harsher trogo

Jesus explains Himself in v63, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”**John 6:35
35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”**Jesus also said, : “If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.”

That’s very "harsh" language, and according your "harsh language hermeneutic," Ralph, it should be taken literally. How many of you have done that? Those who have done so, please, raise your right stump.

 

[ralphinal]

The dismissal of O’Brien’s argument is easy: it is not O’Brien as the reader who determines the context of the passage, but the apostle John, who wrote the passage in its context, and it’s not O’Brien, as the reader who defines the meaning of the words in the passage, but the Lord Himself, and He defines coming and believing as eating and drinking.

Then why should Sandusky the reader have any more valid point?

I realize that for you, O’Brien is “another Christ,” however, I think you’re taking that a bit too far.

The “another Christ” comment would be insulting if I did not know you as little as I do. The in persona Christi does not mean that a priest has the perfection of Christ, and you know that.

Again, Jesus uses Jewish idiomatic language, which are also called “Hebraisms.”

Can you show me another time this phrase was used to mean understanding?

Trōgō paints a picture of eating with “vigor.”

As I clearly recall, the “hosts” of my day weren’t difficult to “chew,” but did “melt in your mouth.”

The hosts used are the same as you recall. They are used for ease of production and made by nuns for the Church. However, the historical form in the West is unleavened bread as would have been used in Isreal of the day. That is NOT melt in your mouth.

Jesus explains Himself in v63, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”John 6:35
35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”Jesus also said, : “If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.”

That’s very "harsh" language, and according your "harsh language hermeneutic," Ralph, it should be taken literally. How many of you have done that? Those who have done so, please, raise your right stump.

SO Jesus’s flesh prophets nothing? Besides, he never explained ANY of it to any of his followers. He left them confused about it all. Why did he do that? At other times, he explained things so that they would sort of understand.

 

[sandusky]

ralphinal:

Then why should Sandusky the reader have any more valid point?

I’m not explaining the passage in “hind sight,” while attempting to make it fit a presupposition; rather, I’m reading the passage in the context of the author, and allowing the speaker to define His terms, in His way.

ralphinal:

Can you show me another time this phrase was used to mean understanding?

I’ve cited passages for you:Jer. 15:16.—“Thy words were found, and I did eat them.” The rest of the verse explains the figure.

Ezek. 3:1.—“Son of man … eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel”: i.e., consider it, and get the contents of this roll by heart, and then go and speak it to the house of Israel, as is clear from verse 4: “Speak with my words unto them.”

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”: i.e., just as the body lives temporally by eating bread, so the new life is nourished by feeding upon Christ in our hearts by faith.

So, verse 53: “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you”: i.e., except you feed on Christ in your hearts and partake of His life (for the blood is the life), ye have no life in you. That this cannot refer to the Lord’s supper is clear from the fact that it was not then instituted, and the words could not have been understood (as they were); and, further, that it would shut out all who, from age and infirmity or other cause, had not partaken of that supper.

By comparing verses 47 and 40 with verses 53 and 54, it will be seen that believing on Christ is exactly the same thing as eating and drinking of His flesh and blood.

1 Cor. 12:13.—“And have been all made to drink into one spirit”: i.e., receive. Compare Luke 13:15.

“Not to be” is a Hebraism for to be abject and vile, to be nothing (1 Cor. 1:28); while on the other hand,

“To be” means to be in high esteem, or of great value (1 Cor. 1:28). God hath chosen “things which are not, to bring to nought things that are.” So also

2 Sam. 19:6 (9).—“Thou regardest neither princes nor servants.” Here, the figure is translated; for the Heb. is (as in the margin: “that princes and servants are not to thee.”) R.V.: “Are nought unto thee.”

**“To permit.” **Heb. 6:3: “This will we do, if God permit”: i.e., if God so orders it, and gives the needed grace and strength.

“To seek.” Matt. 6:32: “After all these things do the Gentiles seek”: i.e., they put them in the first place, and are over-anxious, with excessive solicitude. So Luke 12:30.

“To salute.” Acts 18:22: “And when he had … gone up, and saluted the church”: i.e., and had held familiar intercourse with them. Compare 20:1. See also 21:7, 19; 25:13. This is shown from the opposite; 2 Kings 4:29: “Salute him not”: i.e., do not stop to talk with him. So Luke 10:4.

“To touch” for to hurt or to do any harm to. Gen. 26:29. Ruth 2:9. Job 1:11; 2:5; 19:21. Ps. 105:15. Jer. 12:14. Ezek. 17:10. Zech. 2:8. Heb. 11:28. 1 John 5:18.

Also, “to touch” is used for cohabitation. Gen. 20:6. Prov. 6:29. 1 Cor. 7:1.

Also, for detention, or for diverting from any purpose. John 20:17.

“To come”: where the simple verb is used for all that pertains to Christ’s advent. Matt. 11:3. 1 John 4:2, 3; 5:6.

“To see another” is used for making war with him, or of meeting him in battle. 2 Kings 14:8, 11; 23:29, etc.

“To build” is used for restore anything to all its former glory. Ezek. 26:14.

“To walk” is used for proceeding happily and prosperously. Hos. 14:9.

“To hear” is used of understanding and obeying. John 8:47. Luke 8:15.

“To confess” is used of abiding in the faith, and walking according to truth. 1 John 4:15. Rom. 10:9, 10. So also Matt. 10:32.

“Able to say” is used of being able really and truly to affirm from the heart. Prov. 20:9.

I Cor. 12:3.—“No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” Any one can utter the words; but no one can truly, with the whole heart, own Jesus as his Lord, and take Him for his Master, but by the Holy Ghost.

“To eat and drink” is a Hebraism used not merely for chewing food or swallowing any liquid, but for good living and drinking wine; Matt. 11:18, 19 with Luke 7:33, 34 and Prov. 31:4.

And so on…

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

ralphinal:

SO Jesus’s flesh prophets nothing? Besides, he never explained ANY of it to any of his followers. He left them confused about it all. Why did he do that? At other times, he explained things so that they would sort of understand.

God withheld the understanding of the Gospel from heart-hardened Jews (cf Is 6:8-13
< Jn 12:38-43; Mt 13:10ff).

 

[StMarina303ad]

One thing that annoys me though is how someone starts a thread and then exits and let’s everyone else “fight it out”. There is I think something devilish in that.

I started this thread and I haven’t exited. Sure I’m not on CA 24/7. I don’t have a computer at home and I work 3 jobs and am a single mom - so there’s not a lot of time for me to post, but I do and I have. Please do not accuse me of being a devil - that is very offensive to say the least!

 

[brownjt]

Interesting. So then are you (Protestants) not told that Catholics are in error?

To that I would just add: brownjt, would you attend an RCIA class, or encourage other Protestants to do so? If not, then I’d say you’re using a none-too-subtle double standard.

Actually, I was baptised and raised and confirmed an episcopalian. As i grew into a teenager, I did not attend the church because it was all pomp and circumstance during the services and no substanted christian education. Of course, I took the eucharist then. Then I attended a small small baptist church ( one small biulding) in northfield vermont and heard weekend preaching from an ordained minister for a number of months. It was then I got a literal baptism in spirit and discernment about what christ meant, who he was, his journey, the definition of salvation, etc. I was bapties again becuase the bible says born of the water and the spirit…We all may disagree, but whether it is water first and spirit second - it still takes spirit and/or water

Nothing was ever said ever against any faith - these folks are focusing edcuating and saving by grace through their preaching, I never knew of the real presence in the eucharsist. Why? looking at it in context, these denominations are not focusing on the sacred traditions, but the sacred scriptures and their message.

I think they should. Once the gospel is preached the traditions are very important. But realistically, the protestants have not taught that - they (should) focus on the message of our saviour. Sacred traditions are not emphasized like the catholic church does. I guess this split is the reason.

But to all christians - are catholics saved according to their faith anf traditions - yes - are all protestants? I am not sure - the episcopal church has swung way left. The message of christ never changes and should not be re-interpreted.

Also, because non-catholic denominations do not emphasize this or believe in a different (but plausible ) interpretation of the sacraments, your church should seek to educate as well. We should not be viewed as apostates or heretics in accordance with church traditions because our view of eucharist is different,

Listen to charles stanley and billy graham and some other tv preachers. I watch ewtn all the time. Fr Corapis messages is extremely strong and inspirational.

I am actually in a RCIA. I am also sweeping the horizon and examining the methodist, lutheran, presbyterian, and episcopal websites for their view on the eurcharist and baptism before I make a decision. I have three children from a former wife wwho were dedicated and blessed as baptists - now they are older and can make their own decisions. I encourage them to seek a faith and receive adult baptism. Currently, i am married again to a secular Muslim who is very affectionate for jesus and mary. I found that your catechism accepts the muslim faith i guess and recognizes that their lobe for jesus and his teachings and mary may eventually lead them to Christ. I have a new born who will be baptised in a church of my choosing and it may be yours.

I do not know why there is all this misunderstanding and resent among the different faiths. The devil will exploit this in the end - look at Northern Ireland.

Thanks for your acknowledgment. Christ is risen!

 

[brownjt]

Ah yes. The classic protestant explanation of “understanding with the mind” in an attempt to deny the holy Eucharist.

*Look at the United Methodist website all and all see what they say about communion and baptism. They acknowledge and clarify the different denominational beliefs and really express respect for the differences. They even detail why the methodists fell away from this - not enough ordained ministers in the frontier. They even say they need to and are getting back to weekly administering the sacrements - not all seven.

Look, for us protestants raised in the american versions of the churches (without 2000 years of limeage - and I keep hearing that all the time) this was and is the new world, not old world europe. Please understand that partaking of the eurcharist is becoming more important to our traditions, but it does not and never will replace spiritually and vocally adhering to the sacred scripture (yes I know there are different bibles ).

In the Eucharist, I believe that the body and blood of christ are manifested in the ceremony spritiually and supernaturally present. I believe most protestants believe that as well.*

 

[Mickey]

Please understand that partaking of the eurcharist is becoming more important to our traditions, but it does not and never will replace spiritually and vocally adhering to the sacred scripture (yes I know there are different bibles )…

It is not an either/or situation.

In the Eucharist, I believe that the body and blood of christ are manifested in the ceremony spritiually and supernaturally present.

And physically.

It is the “Real Presence”. Jesus Christ is completely Divine (Spirit) AND completely human (physical).