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

[benedictus2]

See, this gets to my problem.

WHy is it that my interpretation, which is based on the Catholic understanding of Scriptures, automatically incorrect and yours is not?

Why are we correct on the Trinity and not on this?

Which is more clear in scripture?

Which pulls more from Tradition?

Further, why is it that different people see different doctrines in Scripture? IF you say that not all are lead by the Spirit, I would ask how you know that you are the correct one?

Peter J will tell me off again but I can’t resist this comment. Because Sandusky is the magisterium.

This whole discussion really all boils down to that. Who is the real Magisterium?

 

[sandusky]

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.

That probably wasn’t the best way for me to answer as you identify the “Church” with the monolith in Vatican City.

What I meant is, His people will never fully and finally succumb to heresy. As He left Israel in captivity for hundreds of years, He may leave some of His in heretical, even false churches for a time, but it would be purposed, and He would quicken them, and pull them out of those situations eventually.

 

[sandusky]

Peter J will tell me off again but I can’t resist this comment. Because Sandusky is the magisterium.

This whole discussion really all boils down to that. Who is the real Magisterium?

I’ve never made it a secret that, IMO, I’m not led by the same spirit leading your church.

 

[Peter_J]

Peter J will tell me off again but I can’t resist this comment. Because Sandusky is the magisterium.

Yeah I have nothing better to do.

That probably wasn’t the best way for me to answer as you identify the “Church” with the monolith in Vatican City.

The fact that we disagree on one thing doesn’t mean we don’t agree on something else.

We agree that the Christ’s Church, the Body of Christ, cannot fall into heresy.

 

[RobGentner]

Robgentner4359991:

Sandusky says that, Jesus says:
**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.

Ben, I knew thatpassage wasn’t what Sandusky said! MY POINT WAS: This one “Trumped” the passages he quoted! They are Jesus’ own words and I for one don’t believe Jesus lied when he said that!

But the whole point of it is: are they Christians? And I believe (and the magisterium teaches this too) that they are.

Actually it depends on who you mean by “They”. If you mean all 33,000 denominations, and estimated 28,000 subdenominations plus all other crackerjack churches and cults, and groups who want to use Jesus’ name, I don’t think so!:tsktsk: Someone can wake up tomorrow morning interpret the bible to say he have to pluck out our eyes and make us members of his church called Jesus Christ’s Plucked Eye church . Does that make he a minster? Us poor injured people his flock? His church a christian church? Now if they follow some of Jesus’ teachings (You said half that would be 50%) but reject EVERYTHING Jesus said you MUST BELIEVE AND YOU MUST DO AS HIS FOLLOWER and they do not do them How can they even call themselves or their churches Christians? More importantly, How could you?

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.

AMEN

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.

Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe. Saint Augustine

Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. Saint Augustine

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.” Saint Augustine

Oh, Ben, I am glad PeteJ picks on someone else besides Me! :bounce: You can’t be all bad :hug3:

 

[benedictus2]

That probably wasn’t the best way for me to answer as you identify the “Church” with the monolith in Vatican City.

What I meant is, His people will never fully and finally succumb to heresy. As He left Israel in captivity for hundreds of years, He may leave some of His in heretical, even false churches for a time, but it would be purposed, and He would quicken them, and pull them out of those situations eventually.

But 1500 years?!!

So God after sending His only Begotten Son to die on the Cross to free us from captivity, sends us right back into captivity for 1500 years.

Think about it, millions of people have been believing this diabolical doctrine of the Real Presence and Christ does nothing about it for that length of time.

So inspite of his promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against it, the gates of hell does prevail and the Church languished in error and sin. Then 1500 years later Christ remembered His promise and decides to send Luther and Calvin to pull the poor things out of their misery.

But inspite of the Church being in heresy all this time, Voila! They were actually able to pronounce the Canon of the Bible.

But how can we tell the canon is the real deal since they were heretics?

Of course we can tell. Luther and Calvin said so.

That’s right. That’s why Luther believed he had the authority to chop up the Bible and excise James.

Now I get it!:newidea:

 

[sandusky]

But 1500 years?!!

So God after sending His only Begotten Son to die on the Cross to free us from captivity, sends us right back into captivity for 1500 years.

Think about it, millions of people have been believing this diabolical doctrine of the Real Presence and Christ does nothing about it for that length of time.

So inspite of his promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against it, the gates of hell does prevail and the Church languished in error and sin. Then 1500 years later Christ remembered His promise and decides to send Luther and Calvin to pull the poor things out of their misery.

But inspite of the Church being in heresy all this time, Voila! They were actually able to pronounce the Canon of the Bible.

But how can we tell the canon is the real deal since they were heretics?

Of course we can tell. Luther and Calvin said so.

What else can I say?

You think you’re eating the flesh of Christ, and drinking His blood.

Carry on.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You don’t understand—anything, IMO.

Gabriel
Amen sandusky, true I dont understand anything, I only believe and trust in Jesus “Word” that gives me my faith unchanged 2000 years. The Catholic church can prove her belief in the true presence of Jesus since Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the last supper.

Tell me sandusky, do you have any saints, martyrs, or eyewitness accounts to your “understanding” of John 6 “eat my flesh, drink my blood” from antiquity. The only people I find believing the way you do today, were labeled “heretics” and excommunicated from the early Christian church.

That is all I have been trying to say to you, from 2000 years of Christian living.

Praying for you, Peace be with you

 

[benedictus2]

Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe. Saint Augustine

Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. Saint Augustine

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.” Saint Augustine

EXCELLENT!

 

[RobGentner]

What else can I say?

You think you’re eating the flesh of Christ, and drinking His blood.

Carry on.

hi sand, :tiphat:
Actually we know it! Jesus told us so! And why we have to do it!

Now your often used IMO did you know it has many meaning? To communicate effectively you must ensure people understand what you are saying without a doubt. Like when Jesus said " unless you eat my body and drink my blood…" Anyway, in your case I prefer the Japaneese meaning!

The three-letter abbreviation IMO may have several meanings, depending on context:

Idiopathic Massive Osteolysis (Gorham’s Disease)
In Memory Of
Independent Market Operator of Ontario, Canada (now the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO))
Instituto de la Mujer Oaxaqueña
Intermediate Mathematical Olympiad, a challenge for students aged 11-16 organized by the United Kingdom Mathematics Trust
International Maritime Organization
International Mathematical Olympiad
International Meteor Organization
International Meteorological Organization
International money order
International Muslims Organization
In My Opinion – Internet slang
Internet Mail Only
Irish Medical Organisation (a labor union)
IMO A Japanese language slur equivalent to “country bumpkin” (Lit. Potato)
IMO a State in Nigeria
IMO The World War I-era Belgian-Relief ship involved in a collision with the French munitions ship Mont Blanc in Halifax Harbour, Nova Scotia, Canada, the result of which caused the Halifax Explosion.

 

[RobGentner]

I’ve never made it a secret that, IMO, I’m not led by the same spirit leading your church.

I also don’t think you are, I pray for your soul. I explained previously who leads the other churches. Jesus, founded only one religion, 2, 000 years ago. He is its head. We are the Body of Christ! Actually Christ , himself ,said we are actually eating His body and Drinking His blood in the CC. He promised to give us a new food to eat, one that would give us eternal life! That food is none other than His “true” Flesh and Blood, to be really eaten and drunk in Holy Communion.
This is why Christ was so ready to use the realistic expression “to chew” ~ John 6:54, 56, 58 : “trogein” , when speaking of His Bread of Life, in addition to the phrase, “to eat” John 6:51, 53: “phagein”.

Sand, think about it! Open your eyes! The Eucharist must be something more than merely blessed bread. The impossibility of a “figurative interpretation” of what Jesus was talking about can be explained more forcibly by an analysis of the following text:

** “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed”** (John 6:54-56).

Sand, Jesus said** Indeed**! Read it in your Bible, don’t take my word on it! It means: His body is our meat to eat, His blood our drink to drink, in order to obtain eternal life, PERIOD!

Yes, it is true that even among the Semites, and even in the Scripture themselves, the phrase: “to eat some one’s flesh”, does have a figurative meaning, namely, “to persecute, to bitterly hate someone”. However, If the words of Jesus are to be taken figuratively, that would mean that Christ had promised to His enemies eternal life and a glorious resurrection in recompense for the injuries and persecutions directed against Him. I am pretty sure he wouldn’t have done that! :nope:

The other phrase, “to drink some one’s blood”, in Scripture, especially, has no other figurative meaning than that of dire chastisement (cf. Isaiah 49:26; Apocalypse 16:6); but, in John 6:54-56, this interpretation is just as impossible here as in the phrase, “to eat some one’s flesh”.
Consequently, the eating and drinking must to be understood as the actual partaking of Christ’s actually body, hence literally.

Think sand, this interpretation agrees perfectly with the conduct of the hearers and the attitude of Christ regarding their doubts and objections. Again, the murmuring of the Jews as stated in the scriptures, is the clearest evidence that they had understood the preceding words of Jesus literally (John 6:53). Yet far from repudiating this as a gross misunderstanding, Christ repeated them in a most solemn manner, in John (6:54 sqq.)
Consequency, many of His Disciples were scandalized and said: “This saying is hard, and who can hear it?” (John 6:61).
But instead of retracting what He had said, Christ rather reproached them for their want of faith, by alluding to His sublimer origin and His future Ascension into heaven.

And without further ado, He allowed these Disciples to go their way (John 6:62 sqq.). This is why Protestants that do not believe they are eating the body of Christ CAN NOT call themselves followers of Christ. he himself let them go their own lost way over 2,000 years ago. How can we do less?

What did He do next? He turned to His twelve Apostles (The founders of the CC) and asked them: "Will you also go away? Peter stepped forth and with humble faith replied: “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God” (John 6:68 sqq.)

The entire scene of the discourse and murmurings against it proves that the Zwinglian and Anglican interpretation of the passage, “It is the spirit that quickeneth”, etc., in the sense of a glossing over or retractation, is completely inadmissible. For inspite of these words the other socalled disciples severed their connection with Jesus, while the Twelve accepted with simple faith a mystery which as yet they did not understand. Nor did Christ say: “My flesh is spirit”, i.e. to be understood in a figurative sense, He said “My words are spirit and life”. There are two views regarding the sense in which this text is to be interpreted.

Many of the Church Fathers declare that the true Flesh of Jesus (“sarx”) is not to be understood as separated from His Divinity (“spiritus”), and hence it is not eatten in a cannibalistic sense, but rather it belongs entirely to the supernatural. It was Jesus’ intention to give prominence to the fact that the sublime mystery of the Eucharist can only be grasped in the light of supernatural faith. We know what he said of people with litttle faith! Matthew 16:8-12

 

[benedictus2]

IMany of the Church Fathers declare that the true Flesh of Jesus (“sarx”) **is not to be understood as separated from His Divinity **(“spiritus”), and hence it is not eatten in a cannibalistic sense, but rather it belongs entirely to the supernatural. It was Jesus’ intention to give prominence to the fact that the sublime mystery of the Eucharist can only be grasped in the light of supernatural faith. We know what he said of people with litttle faith! Matthew 16:8-12

And there in lies the problem. The Protestant/fundamentalistic belief is almost devoid of the mystical/supernatural aspect of faith.

The words in the Tantum Ergo says it all: What our senses fail to fathom, let us grasp through faith’s consent.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What else can I say?

You think you’re eating the flesh of Christ, and drinking His blood.

Carry on.

Speaking as a Roman Catholic we dont think we are eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus Christi in his Eucharist proclaiming his death until he returns, we believe we are!, there is a big difference here in your choice of words.

Secondly the world laughed and scorned Noah for building an Ark on land near no water, yet he believed what God told him, and was saved on that one great day.

 

[RobGentner]

And there in lies the problem. The Protestant/fundamentalistic belief is almost devoid of the mystical/supernatural aspect of faith.

The words in the Tantum Ergo says it all: What our senses fail to fathom, let us grasp through faith’s consent.

Ben, that is SO TRUE! Without faith we are nothing!

Jesus told them, "Because of your lack of faith. I tell you with certainty, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you. Matthew 17:20.

Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd.

“I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn’t, than to live my life as if there isn’t, and die to find out there is.” —Unknown

Amazing Grace, I thank God every day for God!

 

[ncgolf]

I have prayed the rosary, many times, and I was an altar boy for years.

How do you know it was His mom?

Too bad it was so long ago as the Luminous mysteries were not part of the Rosary yet … it is the wedding feast at Cana … that is the mystery needing meditation. The keys are the words … “Do as He tells you” in John 2.

I am not talking about strictly reading and coming up with a single meaning of those words but seeing those words in everday life. I see those servants doing what Jesus asks even though it makes absolutely no sense … why fill jars with water when wine is needed?

 

[Peter_J]

How do you know it was His mom?

Interesting question. Perhaps we should start a new thread about apparitions of Mary and other private revelations.

 

[benedictus2]

Interesting question. Perhaps we should start a new thread about apparitions of Mary and other private revelations.

That won’t do for Sandusky. The apparitions are not in the Bible.

But kidding asides, I think you ought to. Perhaps they’ll come to realize that these extra Biblical signs are not hocus pocus of the RC.

 

[benedictus2]

RobGentner:

Oh, Ben, I am glad PeteJ picks on someone else besides Me! :bounce: You can’t be all bad :hug3:

I don’t mind being told off. I am usually at fault anyway. Too many sarcastic remarks. But it’s all good fun I think. All part and parcel of being in this forum.

And it is weird being called Ben when I am female but I think it’s cute .

 

[andrew_kayser]

I was thinking about this very issue while I was at work today, how Christianity must be the easiest club to join, all you have to do is say you are Christian, and everyone is supposed to be impressed.

But Jesus was pretty clear about what it took to follow him, and it was way more than lip service.

Even Catholics, going on about how they have the real presence and the real sacraments and the fullness of grace, most of them, you couldn’t tell that they have any of that stuff based on how they live and act.

It all seems pretty pathetic, say the right words, brag that you belong to the right church, but so very few actually seem to care a lick about LIVING as Jesus instructed, they want all those other things to save them, the prayers, the church they belong to, the fact that they keep saying repeatedly they are Christian, while using every loophole they can find to act like they are anything but a follower of Christ.

If people believed what they say they do, their lives would show it. If they can’t fool one another here on earth, I’m sure they are not fooling God or Christ either.

Christ said he is the way, follow him, if you love him keep his word.

He didn’t promise any loopholes for all the various practices that have since been cooked up in his name.

I don’t care how many novenas a person does or how many first Saturdays they can brag about, if they don’t live their faith day to day, if they don’t BE Christ to the people around them, they are kidding themselves.

If people really believed Christ is the way, they’d live it. They keep hoping someone will come up with an easier alternative way, a way that doesn’t involve them sacrificing pride, comfort, or bragging rights.

Calliope

In John 6 Jesus tells us “unless you eat my body and drink my blood you will not have life in you”- combine this with His request at the Last Supper, it is clear He wants us to eat the consecrated bread and wine.
Because of His teachings and example, I trust, love and have faith in Him and so do as He asked-- only God can judge whether that makes me any better a Christian than one who does not do everything Jesus asks of us–but one interesting statistic grabbed me recently, and that is that Catholics who follow the Churchs’ teachings have only a 3% divorce rate.
We have to understand that there are many “nominal” Christians in every denomination, and shouldn’t judge the real Christians by the “nominals”.
All the best—Andrew

 

[benedictus2]

StMarina303ad:

benedictus2:

Papal Supremacy if you can call it that is nothing more than saying that the Pope is first among bishops in the same way that Peter was singled out by the Lord.

• Okay, then you would agree than that both the Patriarch of Antioch and the Patriarch of Rome would both be Supreme on that definition because both were founded by St. Peter - Antioch being the first Church he started.*

I am not going to argue about this on this thread since it is outside of the scope of this thread.

To be quite honest I have not really read up on the schism until now.

However, here is a good timeline of the East - West Schism.

****Timeline of the East-West Schism
of the Catholic and Orthodox Church

StMarina303ad:

Benedictus2:

*Papal Infallability is not quite how those outside (and even those inside the Church) understand it. *

You’re right it doesn’t make sense since the Early Church never believed or taught that the Church was infallible in the person of one man. The head (and only head) of the Church is Christ and it is His Holy Spirit which guides it in all Truth as Jesus promised and as the New Testament in Acts shows this is not in one person (or two people if you take St. Peter’s actual successorship seriously), but it is in the Councils of the Church.

StMarina303ad:

Benedictus2:

All it means is

that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is guaranteed not to teach error as regards faith or moral when speaking ex-cathedra). This does not include however any statement he makes as a private person or a private scholar. Infallibility also applies to the body of bishops as a whole when in moral unity, they teach a doctrine as true. Okay, but you have two true successors of St. Peter - one in Antioch and one in Rome. Neither agree on the Faith clearly illustrated in the Nicean Constantinoplian Creed: Antioch accepts the original Creed as determined by those two Church Councils; however, Rome accepts an addition which has been proven repeatly to be against the Theology of the Most Holy Trinity as revealed in Sacred Scripture and in the Church Councils. Infallibility is in the Church through the Councils, not in one person - one of two who are legitimate successors of the Apostle St. Peter.

StMarina303ad:

Benedictus2:

Think about it, if the Pope and the college of bishops is not infallible, how do we know that the Bible is truly the word of God since they were the ones who decreed it to be so?

You error when you say Infallibility in is the person of the Pope (of Rome) - it is and always has been historically proven to be in the Church through the Councils.

The link above touches on these topics as well