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

[benedictus2]

Nope it’s the loving comments like “Sandusky is his own magisterium. Regardless of reason and evidence, he believes what he believes and that is it.” that tell the world we are “Christian”.

Peter J, the only reason I said that is because in a previous thread Sandusky disparaged the fact that we have a magisterium. But in effect, by saying that he makes the decision on what is to be belived he annoinits himself to be the magisterium. And I have said this in a reply to him as well, not just as an aside to another CAF member.

And the point about “regardless of reason” is evident in this thread. He starts reasoning from one point of view, then when that doesn’t work, tries another track and when that doesn’t work again goes back to his previous argument.

I actually like Sandusky because he puts good arguments when he can instead of just totally ignoring the subject. He has made me think about pre-destination which I never even thought about before.

 

[benedictus2]

I line up with Jesus defintions and His understanding; you don’t.

There goes the circular reasoning again.

This is why we are getting nowhere. Fallacies abound in your replies.

 

[benedictus2]

The only problem with this reasoning is this:
The only “Follower of Christ”, who remained a Follower of Christ after Jesus’ preaching as recorded in John 6, while not believing Jesus words about eating His Flesh and Drinking His Blood in Holy Eucharist is Judas and according to Jesus, in the last verse in John 6, Judas remained a “follower of Jesus” in order to attempt to destroy Christianity from within. Judas is the ultimate traitor of Christianity.

One who claims to be a Christian, even if validly baptized, who at the same time continues to reject Jesus in the Holy Eucharist is exactly like Judas…“it would have been better for him if he had not been born”.

Protestants have to think and pray long and hard…do you really want to be another Judas?

As you can clearly see, no one can accuse me of being opinionated - But I hope I am able to convey how serious a matter this is as someone stance on the Eucharist has huge consequences for that person eternally - Christ’s very words, “you have NO Life in you” - “unless you Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood”.

Faith in the Real Presence is not something that will come easily to those born and raised outside the Church.

This is why I don’t like the two extreme points: yours and Sandusky’s.

If you have been reading his posts he also has a point about salvation coming from believing in Christ because there are passages stating this.

Those who are baptised are Christians. Does the Orthodox church really teach that people are not Christians if they do not believe in the Eucharist?

As guanaphore told me off rightly: you cannot blame a person for the wrong doctrine they have been taught unless this adherence to wrong doctrine is willful and inspite of intellectual assent.

If a person does not convert to Catholicism/Orthodox because of pride when his intellect has already grasped the truth then I think that will be counted against him. But those who do not believe because they in all honesty really cannot believe is a totally different matter altogether.

In actual fact, only God knows who is truly a Christian. So this thread, the way it is phrased is really divisive.

If it had just been a question on proof of the soudness of the doctrine of the Real Presence, then that would have been different.

 

[StMarina303ad]

In actual fact, only God knows who is truly a Christian. So this thread, the way it is phrased is really divisive.

God has given us the intellect to discern and has told us how to discern who is a Christian and who isn’t.

I think you may be confusing who is a Christian and who will be saved because you are right, only God know who is saved and who isn’t. Being a Christian, a member of Christ’s Church does not guarantee that person will be saved & likewise not being a Christian, a member of Christ’s Church does not guarantee that a person will not be saved.

Please do not confuse who is being saved with who is a Christian. The two are not mutually exclusive.

May God in His Mercy save us all!

 

[Peter_J]

I am in His Church so it can’t be wrong.

Is that you Lord?

 

[Peter_J]

They are rejecting Christ’s very words. By doing so they are rejecting Christ Jesus Himself in Holy Eucharist! It is not a simple misunderstanding.

It is a conscience effort to chose to reject the overwhelming evidence by not to believing Jesus on this matter.

Not to be nitpicky but I think you mean a “conscious effort”.

We have not only Christ’s clear words in the Gospel on this issue, we also have St. Paul’s clear words in the New Testament on the issue, we also have 2000 years of consistant witness on the issue and we even have had many Eucharistic Miracles through out the 20 Centuries.

There is such overwhelming evidence that Jesus meant what He said that to reject Jesus on this issue is not a simple misunderstanding, but a conscience effort to not believe Him.

If someone doesn’t even believe in Christ; how on earth can anyone consider him a Christian - regardless of whether or not he was baptized.

I, for one, accept Protestants as Christians despite their shortcoming w.r.t. Eucharistic belief – much like I accept you as Christian despite your not accepting the “filioque”.

 

[StMarina303ad]

Not to be nitpicky but I think you mean a “conscious effort”.

Thank you! I knew it looked funny. That’s exactly what I meant. I may be passionate, but I am a terrible speller.

I, for one, accept Protestants as Christians despite their shortcoming w.r.t. Eucharistic belief – **much like I accept you as Christian despite your not accepting the “filioque”. **

Are you sure you want to go there?

To really accept the “filioque” one would have to decide that the Holy Spirit, who lead the Councils defining the relationship of the Most Holy Trinity, was wrong.

There is no way in good conscience oops! I mean consious believe that the Holy Spirit given to the Church to lead it in all Truth (fullness of Truth) would have gotten it wrong.

I’ve got to get home. So this is all for tonight for me. No computer at home.

 

[FollowTheWay]

rinnie - actually the word “catholic” didnt come out until 114AD by Ignatious of Antioch. The first believers were called followers of the way.

contarini - my sources are the same sources you could find if you only did the research, when the followers had the Lord’s feast is not whats important the part that is important is that it was a feast, why do you think Yeshua celebrated the passover feast? why do you think all the holidays are feasts? The Lord did it that way to celebrate community. The passover feast was to celebrate a community that was freed from Egypt, and the Lord’s feast is to celebrate everyones salvation not just yours.

 

[RobGentner]

Is that you Lord?

Pete, You do have a sense of humor. Be it small, but it is there!

 

[benedictus2]

Why then doesn’t he specifically refer to John’s instruction concerning his position?

ISTM, Ignatius is giving his “private interpretation,” rather than an explanation of the apostle’s teaching. In fact, none of the early guys articulated any apostolic teaching concerning the last supper, but make individual attempts at definitions of something simply stated in the Gospel—do this in remembrance of me, as often as you do this.

Between Calvin’s (and presumably your) private interpretation 1500 years later and that of Ignatius’s 70 years later, which one do you think is closer to the truth.

And please don’t say Christ again because it is His words we are trying to determine here.

 

[RobGentner]

Hi Ben :tiphat:

…If you have been reading his posts he also has a point about salvation coming from believing in Christ because there are passages stating this.

Sandusky says that, Jesus says:

:bible1: Jesus says to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink" (John 6:51-55).

Yea, It might be an extreme point, but I will put my money on Jesus! Others can follow Sanduski. Why he may even start his own church. Who knows?

Those who are baptised are Christians. Does the Orthodox church really teach that people are not Christians if they do not believe in the Eucharist?

Sure they are called Christians. That doesn’t really mean they follow Jesus or his true teachings.
If you called them ducks could they fly? :takeoffI had to say that to use this smiley! Sorry!)

Many may be following the Devil. What about cults, who use Jesus’ name?? They say they follow Jesus, do you think they do? :frighten:

Jesus made one church. It is the Body of Christ, He is its Head! 1500 years later, many false churches arose up. If Jesus is the Head of “one” church. and there are 33,000 or more Christian denominations who leads the rest of these churches? Who would want to steal souls from God? Hmmm, I wonder! Yea, I might be extreme also, but I will still put my money on Jesus and his real church. Anything made laterthat an original to look like it or taste like it is called imitation or counterfeit isn’t it? What can we call the other churches that would be realistic and true?

God Bless

 

[sandusky]

Between Calvin’s (and presumably your) private interpretation 1500 years later and that of Ignatius’s 70 years later, which one do you think is closer to the truth.

And please don’t say Christ again because it is His words we are trying to determine here.

That should be obvious to you.

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t understand, Is this not a Catholic Church. Are we not pretty much on the same track with our faith? Just because someone isn’t Catholic does not mean they do not believe in God. Isn’t that what Christian is to be Christ like. I agree that that I do not agree with the Protestant faith, but I would still call them Christians. As long as you believe in Jesus Christ and believe that he is our Lord and Savior means you are Christian. At least that is what our Church teaches. Just because they may not have the fullness of the truth. Does not mean they do not have some truth.

Exactly what I said before. But StMarina just doesn’t get that. Hers is a rather extreme position and I am not even sure if that is exactly the position of the Orthodox Church.

 

[benedictus2]

That should be obvious to you.

From where I stand you think those who come 1500 years later with no reference to history at all got it right.

Which brings us back to Ralphinals question which you still have not answered.

Did Christ allow his Church to fall into heresy for 1500 years until Luther et all came to save it from ruin?

 

[Peter_J]

Are you sure you want to go there?

To really accept the “filioque” one would have to decide that the Holy Spirit, who lead the Councils defining the relationship of the Most Holy Trinity, was wrong.

There is no way in good conscience oops! I mean consious believe that the Holy Spirit given to the Church to lead it in all Truth (fullness of Truth) would have gotten it wrong.

I’ve got to get home. So this is all for tonight for me. No computer at home.

Accepting the truth of the “filioque” does not mean believing that the First Council of Constantinople (and hence the Holy Spirit) made a mistake when they wrote the Creed. The filioque is rather an additional teaching which the First Council of Constantinople saw no reason to include in the Creed. (Nor did they include anything about icons; but does that mean that the Second Council of Nicea was wrong?)

To quote from “The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?” (An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, October 25, 2003):

While Leo III affirmed the orthodoxy of the term Filioque, and approved its use in catechesis and personal professions of faith, he explicitly disapproved its inclusion in the text of the Creed of 381, since the Fathers of that Council - who were, he observes, no less inspired by the Holy Spirit than the bishops who had gathered at Aachen - had chosen not to include it.

 

[sandusky]

From where I stand you think those who come 1500 years later with no reference to history at all got it right.

Which brings us back to Ralphinals question which you still have not answered.

They had plenty of “reference to history,” and referred to it in their writings; after all, they were Catholics.

benedictus2:

Did Christ allow his Church to fall into heresy for 1500 years until Luther et all came to save it from ruin?

It’s impossible for Christ’s body, His church, to fall into heresy.

 

[Peter_J]

It’s impossible for Christ’s body, His church, to fall into heresy.

 

[benedictus2]

RobGentner:

Hi Ben :tiphat:

benedictus2:

…If you have been reading his posts he also has a point about salvation coming from believing in Christ because there are passages stating this.

Sandusky says that, Jesus says:

:bible1: Jesus says to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink" (John 6:51-55).

Yea, It might be an extreme point, but I will put my money on Jesus! Others can follow Sanduski. Why he may even start his own church. Who knows?

The passage which Sandusky quoted that I am reffering to is not the above. It was something else but it just doesn’t come to mind at the moment.

RobGentner:

benedictus2:

Those who are baptised are Christians. Does the Orthodox church really teach that people are not Christians if they do not believe in the Eucharist?

Sure they are called Christians. That doesn’t really mean they follow Jesus or his true teachings.
If you called them ducks could they fly? :takeoffI had to say that to use this smiley! Sorry!)

Many may be following the Devil. What about cults, who use Jesus’ name?? They say they follow Jesus, do you think they do? :frighten:

Jesus made one church. It is the Body of Christ, He is its Head! 1500 years later, many false churches arose up. If Jesus is the Head of “one” church. and there are 33,000 or more Christian denominations who leads the rest of these churches? Who would want to steal souls from God? Hmmm, I wonder! Yea, I might be extreme also, but I will still put my money on Jesus and his real church. Anything made laterthat an original to look like it or taste like it is called imitation or counterfeit isn’t it? What can we call the other churches that would be realistic and true?

But the whole point of it is: are they Christians? And I believe (and the magisterium teaches this too) that they are.
That they have half the truth is not their fault. Those who started their denomination can be blamed for that. And I think that is why you and I are in this forum: to try to give them the entire picture. If, with an open heart and mind, they still cannot accept our point then there is not much to do. There are however, those whose intellect will see the truth of what we are preaching, but through pride will refuse to say that we are indeed right.

G K Chesterton was so right about this. Once the truth has been grasped by the intellect, only pride will stop someone from crossing the Tiber so to speak. But only God knows in which particular situation this truly applies.

 

[benedictus2]

They had plenty of “reference to history,” and referred to it in their writings; after all, they were Catholics.
It’s impossible for Christ’s body, His church, to fall into heresy.

Then your arguments really do not make sense.

• If Christ established only one Church (which we agreed upon on another thread)
• And if Christ did not allow his Church to fall into heresy.
• And if that Church believed since birth in the Real Presence.
• And if there is a Church that still believed in the Real Presence to this day.
• And if 1500 years later another church sprang not believing in the Real Presence.
• Then it stands to reason that the one who came with a different belief in the 1500 is the one not in accord with the Church that Christ established.

 

[benedictus2]

Not to be nitpicky but I think you mean a “conscious effort”.

I, for one, accept Protestants as Christians despite their shortcoming w.r.t. Eucharistic belief – much like I accept you as Christian despite your not accepting the “filioque”.