Assurance of Salvation (Part II)

  • Thread starter Thread starter fhansen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pocohombre said:
PeaceInChrist;10556374:
Martyr is not clear, for some have said the elements are transmuted to the benefit of our body, as in digestion. He further implies the elements remain, continuing to call them “bread” and “cup”. I stated earlier he was quite Lutheran ( consubstantiation)
Click to expand...
Poco ----

Elements[bread and wine] … transmuted, for some, … and not for others ?

The Church teaches, when the bread/wine are blessed … they become the body/blood/soul/divinity… supernatural/supersubstantial Real Presence of Christ. It does not teach that transmutation/transubstantiation occurs only in those hosts received by those who perceive the Lord in way Paul taught they should. Even careless Catholics who receive the Eucharist today, with doubts, etc., not sure exactly what they are receiving ]---- are receiving the Real Presence.

In both cases … digestion occurs. But, to those who don’t receive rightly … to their potential physical and spiritual peril [per the understanding Paul received on this from Christ]. Are we to understand this was only a 1st Century phenomenon … and that in the subsequent post-apostolic age the Eucharist took on another meaning/reality ?

Have you seen the Nat. Geo, Gospel of Judas TV docu-drama ? They show Judas receiving the Bread …but not swallowing fully. Then, when he quickly leaves … he spits out/regurgitates the host… as soon as he is outside the upper room. Obviously, it is pure speculation on their part as to what happened to him outside the room. We will never know. But, clearly Judas had evil intentions that night … and the Eucharist he received did him no good… [digested or otherwise].

But, when we receive rightly … we are Supernaturally healed/forgiven … receiving amazing grace, from the Real Presence of Christ internalized within our body/blood/souls !
Click to expand...
 
brb3 said:
Code: 
Trent's words were needed, due to error being taught/believed/practiced by certain Protestants.
Click to expand...
Actually the words of Trent, as those of all the councils, are directed toward the faithful. It was Catholics who were falling into heresy that needed to have the doctrine clarified. In the course of warning and and protecting the faithful, the Church declares anathema (a condition of being outside communion with the One Faith) on doctrines that depart from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic divine deposit that has been infallibly preserved by the Holy Spirit in the Church.
brb3 said:
Code: 
  Doesn't matter what G-4 believes, with regards to taking matters a 'step or two too far' ---- beyond the Eastern Church declarations.
Click to expand...
This is quite true. Anyone’s individual opinions are of no consequence in comparison to the Teaching of the Church.
brb3 said:
Code: 
I hold to what Brant Pitre teaches.  That's the correct Western CC understanding....based on Sacred Scripture & Traditions, ---- those Apostolic understandings they received from the Lord, which the RCC has taught & protected.
Click to expand...
The Eastern conceptualizations of the Real Presence are also affirmed and accepted by the Church. The East did not have to make declarations like Trent, because the Eastern Church did not suffer the heresies of the Reformation. The Roman Pontiff does not force the Western ideas upon the Eastern Churches. It is sufficient that all have received the doctrine from the Apostles of the Real Presence.
 
I think it is a common Protestant view that the elements are “communion” if they are received as such, but are not, if one does not “discern the body and blood” with the memorial. I have heard many protestants say that it means discerning who Jesus is, or who is actually in the Church.
brb3 said:
Have you seen the Nat. Geo, Gospel of Judas TV docu-drama ? They show Judas receiving the Bread …but not swallowing fully. Then, when he quickly leaves … he spits out/regurgitates the host… as soon as he is outside the upper room. Obviously, it is pure speculation on their part as to what happened to him outside the room. We will never know. But, clearly Judas had evil intentions that night … and the Eucharist he received did him no good… [digested or otherwise].
Click to expand...
I have not seen that, and it is in an interesting speculation. I have also heard that Judas was dismissed before the Eucharist was instituted.

I think it is very possible that Judas had “good” intentions, meaning that he believed once Jesus was pushed into confronting the Jews and the Romans with his Kingly authority, that HIs kingdom would be made manifest in a temporal way immediately, and that the Apostles would be placed on the 12 thrones.

I have heard it speculated that Judas fell into despair because his plan to force Jesus into a temporal Kingdom backfired, resulting in His death.
 
Yes, some speculate Judas didn’t receive Eucharist. But, scripture is clear on it …he did.

John 13:18 …" it is that scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ "
 
brb3 said:
John 6 Flesh …yes ! Avails us much. It’s the Real Presence. Not our flesh, or flesh of sacrificed animals … but, the flesh of Christ, the Supernatural Flesh, the Resurrected Flesh !!!

The flesh of sacrificed animals, the Passover Lamb of Jews, pointed to CHRIST of Calvary Sacrifice. The ‘once for all time’ sacrifice, that “comes down from heaven” … at each Mass, to restore us to NEWNESS of LIFE.

it is all discussed in full detail [manna to Hebrews, Shewbread, the Lord’s Supper, etc] in this 70 minute MP4 Video …or MP3 Audio, by Jewish Christian, Brian Pitre… NotreDame grad.

www.theholyeucharist.com/

view it today, and let us know by Easter if you find error therein. 🙂
Click to expand...
Did see first twenty minutes so far. Some good universal stuff and some good catholic stuff. He at least takes everything literally, that you must eat the lamb if not you die, or at least your first born would die. Interesting that the first passover every Israelite was a priest-every family slew their own lamb and drew the blood and administered the elements. They were to be a nation of priests until their sin in the desert and God instituted a "formal’ priesthood - the Levites I think . I believe the NT we are back to the first pure state as intended, and every man is a priest again, and the priesthood absolved as far as sacrifices ( we still have elders, presbyters/bishops). The first passover the blood was a token (ex 12:13,) and after that done in memorial. The elements were a foreshadow of things to come, but the elements were just that - elements - they were not the future flesh and blood of Christ, nor were they they the original lamb and blood of the first passover. Their elements foreshadowed forward as ours look backwards in the memorial. The elements are first and foremost “tokens” in memorial. I know this is what we dispute, and I will have to see the rest of video. …I also know we are His temple today, we are His monstrance, His shewbread, His “wheat” here upon the Earth till his return.
 
PRmerger said:
Eternal life is the life of the Spirit within us.

The verse says nothing about whether Jesus will tell us, “Depart from me.”

Again, that is above our pay grade, and anyone who tells you that Jesus will tell you that someone is in hell is lying to you, poco.
Click to expand...
The depart from me is not part of john 6 directly. It had to do with your analogy of One Flesh Union as intimacy in marriage vs non RPers as a couple who have not been intimate, do not “know” each other. It is like they are not part of the Bride, or the wedding party as in the five foolish virgins and Jesus says depart form me I don’t know you"…As far as John 6 , the proper interpretation of “eating” lends to consistency and freedom in unequivocally stating as per the Words of the Lord, that if you don’t eat, you don’t have spiritual life. It is more than feeling a special intimacy, or an infilling .
If you don’t eat you aren’t reborn.
 
pocohombre said:
The depart from me is not part of john 6 directly. It had to do with your analogy of One Flesh Union as intimacy in marriage vs non RPers as a couple who have not been intimate, do not “know” each other.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand the analogy.

Jesus is the boyfriend to non RPers. You are the girlfriend. You know Jesus as a romantic relationship, but have never had the opportunity to enjoy the sublime union of the marital embrace.

That’s fine.

And I don’t know if Jesus would tell the girlfriend to depart from him when she dies.

I will say that it’s a shame that all of her life, for the duration of their relationship, she could have married Him and enjoyed the One Flesh Union, but she said, “I don’t really want it. I’m just fine talking to my boyfriend on the phone and reading his letters to me.”

What a great loss for her, no?
 
guanophore said:
Actually to impose either upon the writings of the Early Fathers would be improper. They are both modern attempts to conceptualize what was taught by the Apostles as the Real Presence.
The Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox also have this same Apostolic understanding, but don 't use these terms, coined and debated only in the West.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
pocohombre said:
Did see first twenty minutes so far. Some good universal stuff and some good catholic stuff. He at least takes everything literally, that you must eat the lamb if not you die, or at least your first born would die. Interesting that the first passover every Israelite was a priest-every family slew their own lamb and drew the blood and administered the elements. They were to be a nation of priests until their sin in the desert and God instituted a "formal’ priesthood - the Levites I think . I believe the NT we are back to the first pure state as intended, and every man is a priest again, and the priesthood absolved as far as sacrifices ( we still have elders, presbyters/bishops). The first passover the blood was a token (ex 12:13,) and after that done in memorial. The elements were a foreshadow of things to come, but the elements were just that - elements - they were not the future flesh and blood of Christ, nor were they they the original lamb and blood of the first passover. Their elements foreshadowed forward as ours look backwards in the memorial. The elements are first and foremost “tokens” in memorial. I know this is what we dispute, and I will have to see the rest of video. …I also know we are His temple today, we are His monstrance, His shewbread, His “wheat” here upon the Earth till his return.
Click to expand...
It really gets interesting @ about the 35 minute mark …and continues to discuss all the key questions of yours to the 72 mark.

Once u have seen it completely … u will have the necessary Jewish historical background & OT understandings …to make sense of Eucharist…from the Jewish, Apostolic standpoint.

yes, Protestants are big on everyman a priest …“priesthood of believers” strongly taught. But, we ( the laity) can’t confer the Eucharist blessing, or Absolve another of sins. Those are clearly Apostolic gifts …which they were taught to retain by Christ.

Once u finish viewing the video … u will see from Scripture where Protestants got off base, and took too many liberties…that neither scripture nor tradition of Apostles support.
 
PRmerger said:
What is it about “anathema” that makes you think the Church declares that Jesus has said, “depart from me”?
Click to expand...
Have clarified depart form me as separate though related issue. So what about Trent an non-RPers ? Is it consistent with literal eating and consequence of john 6 ?
 
pocohombre said:
Have clarified depart form me as separate though related issue. So what about Trent an non-RPers ? Is it consistent with literal eating and consequence of john 6 ?
Click to expand...
What specifically are you referring to with “Trent and non-RPers”?
 
pocohombre said:
Yes, understand that dogma is always apostolic per most traditions/denominations. And just because something is “clarified”, does not mean that clarification is correct a thousand years later, or in some cases even almost two thousand years later.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the “clarification” needs to be updated, but the doctrine of the faith is the same. Everything is included in the once for all divine deposit of faith, and the public revelation was closed with the death of the last Apostle. Nothing can be added or omitted.

Either Jesus committed the concept of the Real Presence to the Apostles, or He didn’t. It isn’t a matter of changing.
 
PRmerger said:
This is an interesting comment, poco.

Are you saying that there were those from the earliest days of Christianity who held the position that the bread and wine were the Body and Blood of Christ?
Click to expand...
Thread # 672 asked why was the doctrine of trans was dogmatized in 1215 AD council ? I said because it was being disputed . What was being disputed ? Just what RP means . When ? 13th century. Is that smooth or slippery as butter to recompose the statement ?
 
pocohombre said:
Thread # 672 asked why was the doctrine of trans was dogmatized in 1215 AD council ? I said because it was being disputed . What was being disputed ? Just what RP means . When ? 13th century. Is that smooth or slippery as butter to recompose the statement ?
Click to expand...
Are you related to David Ruiz, a former member of the CAFs? He, also, used to drive me batty by putting spaces before his “question marks”. A space goes AFTER your “question mark.”

Anyway, regarding the doctrine being dogmagized at Trent, what does that have to do with non-RPers? What’s your question with that?
 
pocohombre said:
Reborn, life of God in you same thing and more than sad not to have it.
Click to expand...
Well, you can only be re-born once, through baptism.

We receive the life of God in us each time we receive the Sacraments.

Those who don’t receive the Sacraments? Well, we can hope in God’s mercy.

But I don’t know why anyone would turn away from the life of God in us, being offered every day to us in the Catholic Church.
 
pocohombre said:
Thread # 672 asked why was the doctrine of trans was dogmatized in 1215 AD council ? I said because it was being disputed . What was being disputed ? Just what RP means . When ? 13th century. Is that smooth or slippery as butter to recompose the statement ?
Click to expand...
So Poco…when a doctrine is dogmatized and clarified…what should those who disputed the teaching do after the Church clarified the teaching?

Should they continue disputing it or stop disputing it?

And if they continued to dispute it…what should happen to those who continue to dispute it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top