N
Nine_Two
Guest
The Apostles Creed isn’t a creed which came out of a council, nor is it used at all in the East. Are you saying those of us who follow Eastern Christianity aren’t real Christians then?
Being Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox, is not essential to being Christian.
- Status
O
One_in_Christ_1
Guest
Quite the opposite, I would love to fellowship with Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and various Protestant Christians within orthodox beliefs. I did not know Orthodox Christians do not embrace the Apostles Creed. What part of it do you disagree with? It so much easier to divide than to unite for many reasons.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
We don’t disagree with it, we just don’t accept it as a creed. The biggest complaint with it would be that it is far too broad.
O
One_in_Christ_1
Guest
LOL out of respect… okay, I accept your view and position on it. I bet if we continued to discuss things over the next few days, we would understand and believe that we are in the same family of God through Christ… without compromising our theological distinctives unique to our traditions. Most of the threads on this section on Catholic answers are fuel for division and disunity.
J
jen_fla
Guest
Amen! :harp:
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
If it isn’t essential to be a member of a Church, then why did Jesus bother to create a Church especially since there are TWO (Catholic Church and Eastern Ortodox Church) ancient Christian Churches that trace back their history the Apostles.
O
One_in_Christ_1
Guest
I think we all believe that the originals books in the Bible are infallible and inerrant. However, we all believe that are particular translations are trustworthy. Otherwise, we would be Mormons.One in Christ,
I suggest there are many other relevant delineations as evidenced by a multitude of different versions of the Bible that do not necessarily agree with each other thereby adding to the contradiction and cacophony that prevails inside Non–Catholic Western Christendom. In Post #68 you quoted from the English Standard Version. Would you be prepared to endorse without qualification this version of the Bible and affirm that it correctly and infallibly represents to its readers the biblical historic Jesus Christ?
Cordially,
Mick
O
One_in_Christ_1
Guest
I believe our hope is found in God and not the Eucharist. Does that make me your enemy in Christ?
O
One_in_Christ_1
Guest
Do you believe that non-Catholics and non-Orthodox Christians are not members of the church in which Christ is the head? Did Christ only die for the Catholic and Orthodox believer?
S
SSTeacher
Guest
For whom are you speaking? Which faith community or body of Christians did you have in mind when you wrote “we”?
Yes, they are.
What kind of “unity” are you talking about? If you have in mind doctrinal unity then it can be achieved only if some people give up their “theological distinctives” and admit that they had in fact been embracing false doctrines.
I’ve heard of the meek inheriting the earth and he who brings trouble on his family inheriting the wind but it’s not often I’ve heard of somebody inheriting a church. How curious. Did your pastor’s father pass it on down to him, like Joel Osteen’s dad did?
Changing what into what?
Absolutely. Hasn’t such an application been quite common inside Non–Catholic Western Christendom since Father Luther set the precedent?
Fair enough. But doesn’t that prompt you to reflect upon the difference between how you view the disagreement and how the Catholic Church views it? It is the case that the Catholic Church excludes you from its fold because you don’t believe what the Catholic Church teaches and you refuse to give up your theological disctinctives. But you seem to be suggesting that you are one with the Catholic Church because you are a “Christian.”
Well, this is the main point. Differing beliefs constitute an obstacle to doctrinal unity and pretending that there aren’t really any disagreements by exploiting the word “Christian” doesn’t seem to me to be particularly helpful.
I daresay an objective observer would probably dismiss the idea of enmity as a red herring and want to focus upon what being ”in Christ” actually means.
There you go with that “we” thing again. It seems to me that you’re proposing something like this:
Us are Christians
Them are Christians
Therefore us are them and them are us (and we are all Christians).
I think you mean well but your logic is letting you down because of the undistributed middle:
All Englishmen are British
All Welshmen are British
Therefore all Englishmen are Welshmen
Jolly good show and yaki dah
Helpfully,
Mick
S
SSTeacher
Guest
For whom are you speaking? Which faith community or body of Christians did you have in mind when you wrote “we”?SSTeacher;6378781:
I think we all believe that the originals books in the Bible are infallible and inerrant. However, we all believe that are particular translations are trustworthy. Otherwise, we would be Mormons.One in Christ,
I suggest there are many other relevant delineations as evidenced by a multitude of different versions of the Bible that do not necessarily agree with each other thereby adding to the contradiction and cacophony that prevails inside Non–Catholic Western Christendom. In Post #68 you quoted from the English Standard Version. Would you be prepared to endorse without qualification this version of the Bible and affirm that it correctly and infallibly represents to its readers the biblical historic Jesus Christ?
Cordially,
Mick
And a B+ for neatly evading my question, by the way.
Magnanimously,
Mick
S
SonofMonica
Guest
Your statement reveals the truth, but not in the way you intended. You see, the Eucharist IS God. If you do not believe that, you are either a Protestant or a non-Christian. However, you are not an enemy of Christ if you are attempting to know him and love him and serve him. That is why we were put on this earth, and you are to be commended for your attempts to do so, brother in Christ.
C
CatholicGuy22
Guest
Jesus left a church and even scripture tells us that sola scriptura is not the way. Christ died for all of humanity but he left a visible church here on earth to guide us. Without a church we would be spreading heresies like wildfire. That is why Jesus told Peter that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Which means that Satan no matter how much he tries can not lead the church astray. When you ignore the guidence of the true church you are vulnerable to heresies, no matter what you think. We must humble ourselves and be obiedent to the people our Lord left in charge. Why else has the church not fallen and still stayed strong after all these years? Nations and Religions have fallen but the Church has stayed. What are other organized institutions have stood the test of time? When you decide what scripture means for yourself it can lead to heresies. I put my trust on Jesus and his church he left. Christ instituted the Eucharist in the last supper and no he wasn’t just using symbolism he was dead serious. Why else would most of his disciples leave him after that? They thought he was crazy. Our sola scriptura brothers cherry pick what they want from the bible and use it to prove their belief. For example Martin luther, He took out books from the bilble becuase it did not fit his beliefs. Why on earth would people follow such a heritic? People think we are being guided by a guy with a white hat(pope) but we are not. It is the Holy Spirit that works thru him and Guides the faithful to the light. The Catholic Church and Eastern Churches have valid holy orders due to Apostolic succession which prostants ignore. Im sorry for this long message but it had to be said.
God bless brothers and sisters
God bless brothers and sisters
O
One_in_Christ_1
Guest
I think your response is very good. As a Catholic Christian, you are able to hold to your important theological distinctive that the elements change to the literal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, yet receive other Christians who believe differently. We can only believe in what we personally believe to be true in faith. One day, all Christians that will be dwelling in the presence of God for eternity will know which Christians were right in regards to the sacrament of communion. My point is not to beat each other up who hold different views of communion in good conscience before God.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
One in Christ:
The Eucharist comes from the Greek eucharista meaning “Give thanks.”
“Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.’” (Mt. 26:26-28)
The New Testament accounts describe the Holy Eucharist as Jesus gave it to us. The term “bread from heaven” becomes fully clear only when we reach the Revelation to John. The Gospels Christ said at Capernaum. Jn 6:51 “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is My Flesh.”
Jewish life is rich in symbolism. The Seder table is filled with symbolic foods. Jesus said, Mt 26:23 “He who has dipped his hand in the dish with Me, will betray Me.” He referred to the urhatz, the first washing; slaves eat quickly without stopping to wash their hands, but now Jews wash their hands in a bowl of warm water as a symbol of their freedom. The moror, bitter herbs which remind Jews that the Egyptians made their ancestors’ lives bitter with hard labor, are dipped in charoset, a sweet mixture of chopped apples, nuts, and wine, to recall that even hard lives have their sweet moments. The matzo is the bread of haste that the Hebrews ate as they fled from Egypt. The karpas, green vegetables, represent the coming of Spring with its renewal of life, symbolizing the journey from slavery to the promised land; Jews dip them in salt water before eating to recall the tears shed along the way. If Jesus had said the Holy Eucharist was a symbol the Jews at Capernaum would instantly have accepted it.
The Jews knew that He was speaking literally. Jn 6:52 “How can this man give us his Flesh to eat?” On other occasions when our Lord spoke of Himself as a Jn 10:9 “door” or a Jn 15:1 “vine,” nobody said, “How can this man be made of wood?” or “How can this man be a plant?” They recognized these as metaphors. But when Jesus insisted, Jn 6:53 “Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.” The Jews who heard this said, Jn 6:60 “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” They remembered God’s command to Noah and all mankind, Gn 9:4 “Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” God spoke more forcefully to His chosen people. Lv 17:10 “I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.” It was only after Christ’s redemptive sacrifice and the Holy Spirit’s enlightenment that the Apostles saw the full meaning of our Father’s next words. Lv 17:11 “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.” In the Old Covenant our Father in heaven had commanded His children not to eat the blood of animals because we are not to participate in the life of animals. Animals, having no immortal souls, are lower than man in the order of created nature. However, in the New and Everlasting Covenant we consume the Blood of Christ to participate in Christ’s eternal life.
Jesus knew we would need a lot of help to become accustomed to the Holy Eucharist. He performed the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes in the dim light of the original Passover sacrifice Ex 12:6 and of His Crucifixion. Mt 27:45 He performed the four great Eucharistic actions: He took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to His apostles to feed the people: Mt 14:15 “When it was evening, the disciples came to him and said, ‘This is a lonely place, and the day is now over; send the crowds away to go into the villages and buy food for themselves.’ Jesus said, ‘They need not go away; you give them something to eat.’ They said to him, ‘We have only five loaves here and two fish.’ And he said, ‘Bring them here to me.’ Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass; and taking the five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. And they all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full of the broken pieces left over.”
The three Gospel narratives of the Last Supper are absolutely consistent. Matthew: 26:26 “This is My Body.” 26:27 “This is My Blood…” Mark: 14:22 “This is My Body.” 14:24 “This is My Blood…” Luke: 22:19 “This is My Body.” 22:20 “This … is the New Covenant in My Blood.” Jesus’ next words instituted the Catholic priesthood: Lk 22:19 “Do this in remembrance of Me.”
Jesus assured the Apostles that the Holy Eucharist is a reflection of the heavenly banquet. Mt 26:29 “I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
After His resurrection, Jesus walked with two disciples to Emmaus. When they arrived, He celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for them; Lk 24:30 “While He was at table with them, He took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them.”
In other words, the Eucharist when it is consecrated at Mass, the unleaven bread becomes the Body of Christ. The wine the blood of Christ. You ask how this is so? Just as Jesus Christ became Man through the Holy Spirit, so it is the same with the Eucharist.
The Eucharist is Jesus Christ HIMSELF
That is a partially true. The true statement is our hope is found in God. What is not true in your statement is “…and not the Eucharist.”
The Eucharist comes from the Greek eucharista meaning “Give thanks.”
“Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.’” (Mt. 26:26-28)
The New Testament accounts describe the Holy Eucharist as Jesus gave it to us. The term “bread from heaven” becomes fully clear only when we reach the Revelation to John. The Gospels Christ said at Capernaum. Jn 6:51 “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is My Flesh.”
Jewish life is rich in symbolism. The Seder table is filled with symbolic foods. Jesus said, Mt 26:23 “He who has dipped his hand in the dish with Me, will betray Me.” He referred to the urhatz, the first washing; slaves eat quickly without stopping to wash their hands, but now Jews wash their hands in a bowl of warm water as a symbol of their freedom. The moror, bitter herbs which remind Jews that the Egyptians made their ancestors’ lives bitter with hard labor, are dipped in charoset, a sweet mixture of chopped apples, nuts, and wine, to recall that even hard lives have their sweet moments. The matzo is the bread of haste that the Hebrews ate as they fled from Egypt. The karpas, green vegetables, represent the coming of Spring with its renewal of life, symbolizing the journey from slavery to the promised land; Jews dip them in salt water before eating to recall the tears shed along the way. If Jesus had said the Holy Eucharist was a symbol the Jews at Capernaum would instantly have accepted it.
The Jews knew that He was speaking literally. Jn 6:52 “How can this man give us his Flesh to eat?” On other occasions when our Lord spoke of Himself as a Jn 10:9 “door” or a Jn 15:1 “vine,” nobody said, “How can this man be made of wood?” or “How can this man be a plant?” They recognized these as metaphors. But when Jesus insisted, Jn 6:53 “Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.” The Jews who heard this said, Jn 6:60 “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” They remembered God’s command to Noah and all mankind, Gn 9:4 “Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” God spoke more forcefully to His chosen people. Lv 17:10 “I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.” It was only after Christ’s redemptive sacrifice and the Holy Spirit’s enlightenment that the Apostles saw the full meaning of our Father’s next words. Lv 17:11 “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.” In the Old Covenant our Father in heaven had commanded His children not to eat the blood of animals because we are not to participate in the life of animals. Animals, having no immortal souls, are lower than man in the order of created nature. However, in the New and Everlasting Covenant we consume the Blood of Christ to participate in Christ’s eternal life.
Jesus knew we would need a lot of help to become accustomed to the Holy Eucharist. He performed the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes in the dim light of the original Passover sacrifice Ex 12:6 and of His Crucifixion. Mt 27:45 He performed the four great Eucharistic actions: He took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to His apostles to feed the people: Mt 14:15 “When it was evening, the disciples came to him and said, ‘This is a lonely place, and the day is now over; send the crowds away to go into the villages and buy food for themselves.’ Jesus said, ‘They need not go away; you give them something to eat.’ They said to him, ‘We have only five loaves here and two fish.’ And he said, ‘Bring them here to me.’ Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass; and taking the five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. And they all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full of the broken pieces left over.”
The three Gospel narratives of the Last Supper are absolutely consistent. Matthew: 26:26 “This is My Body.” 26:27 “This is My Blood…” Mark: 14:22 “This is My Body.” 14:24 “This is My Blood…” Luke: 22:19 “This is My Body.” 22:20 “This … is the New Covenant in My Blood.” Jesus’ next words instituted the Catholic priesthood: Lk 22:19 “Do this in remembrance of Me.”
Jesus assured the Apostles that the Holy Eucharist is a reflection of the heavenly banquet. Mt 26:29 “I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
After His resurrection, Jesus walked with two disciples to Emmaus. When they arrived, He celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for them; Lk 24:30 “While He was at table with them, He took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them.”
In other words, the Eucharist when it is consecrated at Mass, the unleaven bread becomes the Body of Christ. The wine the blood of Christ. You ask how this is so? Just as Jesus Christ became Man through the Holy Spirit, so it is the same with the Eucharist.
The Eucharist is Jesus Christ HIMSELF
O
One_in_Christ_1
Guest
Hi Mick,For whom are you speaking? Which faith community or body of Christians did you have in mind when you wrote “we”?
Yes, they are.
What kind of “unity” are you talking about? If you have in mind doctrinal unity then it can be achieved only if some people give up their “theological distinctives” and admit that they had in fact been embracing false doctrines.
I’ve heard of the meek inheriting the earth and he who brings trouble on his family inheriting the wind but it’s not often I’ve heard of somebody inheriting a church. How curious. Did your pastor’s father pass it on down to him, like Joel Osteen’s dad did?
Changing what into what?
Absolutely. Hasn’t such an application been quite common inside Non–Catholic Western Christendom since Father Luther set the precedent?
Fair enough. But doesn’t that prompt you to reflect upon the difference between how you view the disagreement and how the Catholic Church views it? It is the case that the Catholic Church excludes you from its fold because you don’t believe what the Catholic Church teaches and you refuse to give up your theological disctinctives. But you seem to be suggesting that you are one with the Catholic Church because you are a “Christian.”
Well, this is the main point. Differing beliefs constitute an obstacle to doctrinal unity and pretending that there aren’t really any disagreements by exploiting the word “Christian” doesn’t seem to me to be particularly helpful.
I daresay an objective observer would probably dismiss the idea of enmity as a red herring and want to focus upon what being ”in Christ” actually means.
There you go with that “we” thing again. It seems to me that you’re proposing something like this:
Us are Christians
Them are Christians
Therefore us are them and them are us (and we are all Christians).
I think you mean well but your logic is letting you down because of the undistributed middle:
All Englishmen are British
All Welshmen are British
Therefore all Englishmen are Welshmen
Jolly good show and yaki dah
Helpfully,
Mick
I can’t appeal to the Catholic Catechism, the Pope, or Vatican II in regards to ecumenism within Christendom with you since you are Orthodox. I believe both the Orthodox and Catholic churches claim to be the One True Church, right? Sometimes, ex-evangelicals are the toughest ones to encourage unity between others from different traditions. All traditions consist of a mix of both sheep and goats, and only the sheep from the various Christian communities will dwell with God forever as His adopted children. Our earthly membership to a particular church will not save us from God’s wrath.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
This is what I believe
I believe in God the Father Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and earth;
I believe in Jesus Christ,
His only Son, our Lord,
He was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day He rose again.
He ascended into Heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of Saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.
I believe in God the Father Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and earth;
I believe in Jesus Christ,
His only Son, our Lord,
He was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day He rose again.
He ascended into Heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of Saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.
O
One_in_Christ_1
Guest
As long as you consider Protestants and other non-Catholic Christians who have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit your seperated brothers and sisters… I’m okay with your posting. I can debate the finer points of your belief system, but that will probable cause a war on this site. How can we non-Catholic Christians be your separated brothers and sisters and follow heretics at the same time?
O
One_in_Christ_1
Guest
I believe this too!
S
SonofMonica
Guest
The Catholic Church does so consider you.
I respectfully disagree. The likelihood that you will come up with something new is outweighed by the Catholic Church’s 2000 years of experience in apologetics. I’m afraid the knowledgeable Catholics here wouldn’t consider it much of a debate. But if you are genuinely looking for Catholic answers to your questions, this is the place to come.
I don’t see the conflict. It is possible for anyone to follow a heretic, and thereby separate themselves from the Church. But note that following a heretic doesn’t mean you ARE a heretic. Only a Catholic can be a heretic. A non-Catholic Christian who follows a heretic is not a heretic. He is simply wrong or misguided, from a Catholic perspective. So to be clear, if a Catholic formally follows a heretic, he is a heretic. If a non-Catholic formally follows a heretic, he is not a heretic, by definition, because he was never Catholic to begin with. So Luther was a heretic, and so were those who left the Catholic Church to follow him. But cradle Lutherans today are not, according to the Catholic Church. Make sense?
- Status