Belief in the Real Presence Necessary?

[WorkingCatholic]

We as Catholics are no better than anyone else.

Perhaps not “better,” but there is a huge difference between having the fullness of the faith and just having a portion of the faith supplemented by heretical teachings of men invented in the past 500 years.

The reason the Reformation came to be is that our Church was selling indulgences for money. At least, this was the one thing that set Martin Luther into motion. Martin Luther anguished over his decision but it was the right thing to do.

No, it was not “the right thing to do.” What Luther did was break from the one true Church, invent new traditions of men that nullify the Word of God (Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide), and unilaterally change the written Word of God. Protestantism did not reform the Church; the Church reformed the Church.

Over the years the Catholic Church did not behave as God would want us to - the crusades, the inquisition, bad popes, selling of indulgences, child sexual abuse etc.

Yes, many individual Catholics and even large groups of Catholics have behaved poorly. But even with bad popes, the Church has been protected by the Holy Spirit and has never taught error. Since Christ founded only one Church, to leave that Church for one of the thousands of man-made churches is still unconscionable. Remember our Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints.

Yet, Jesus himself assured us that the gates of hell would never prevail against his church. His church being the christian people and all members and churches of the Christian faith.

No, actually that promise was only made to the Church Jesus established. The One, Holy, catholic, and Apostolic Church will be here until the end of time. Protestant denominations will come and go.

One post quoted St. Paul about receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Yes, this is correct but was taken way out of context. He was speaking to the Corinthians who had lavish banquets and at the end of these banquets they celebrated the Eucharist. It was basically a tag along to their banquet and did not stand out as being anything different.

Yes, Paul is admonishing the Corinthians for bad behavior, but the poster who quoted Paul certainly took nothing out of context. Paul’s point is that the bread and wine has become the actual Body and Blood of Jesus and that if you don’t believe then you shouldn’t receive.

I cannot help but think that the majority of Catholics and Protestants do discern before receiving Communion.

According to polls that I’ve heard the majority of “Catholics” either do not know what the Church teaches about the Eucharist or do not believe it. As for Protestants, most denominations do not believe in the real presence. However, they are correct to not believe, because what they receive in their churches is actually only bread and wine (or grape juice.) Protestants who do believe in the real presence in their churches are wrong, because a Protestant minister cannot create the same miracle that occurs only on the altar of a Catholic Church (I’m including the Eastern Churches here.)

The Church speaks of apostolic succession and without this there is no real Eucharist. I would be careful here. If a Christian Church offers a sacrifice to God, it is up to God and God alone if he finds the sacrifice to be pleasing.

I would be careful about being too careful. It is correct to call a spade a spade and a heresy a heresy.

I think any Christian Church founded with the correct biblical beliefs as set by Jesus has a valid Eucharist.

Let’s be clear. The Catholic Church is not a Bible-based Church. The Bible is a Catholic Church-based Book. Jesus did not establish a Bible-based Church. He established a Sacramental Church. The fact that there are now thousands of denominations that base there doctrines on misunderstanding a Catholic Book is indeed a tragedy, but there can only be one Truth, and Jesus said He is the Truth. The most sinister aspect of Protestantism is the fact that it has created so much confusion. Jesus promises that if we seak we will find. But the problem is most Protestants do not seak, because they have been fooled into believing they have found the truth. This is how the father of all lies works–mixing truth with lies to ensnare his victims.

The presence is as real in a Protestant church as it is in the Catholic Church.

You identify yourself as a Catholic. I’m not trying to offend you, but I think should learn what the Church actually teaches. If you believe that a Protestant communion service is the same as the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, you probably shouldn’t be receiving the Eucharist. I’m not trying to judge you, but I think you should talk to a priest about this.

As for the answer to this post’s question, is the “Belief in the Real Presence Necessary?” The one word answer is, “YES!” I don’t think there is another doctrine that Jesus drove home with greater repetition than He does on this one in Jn 6.

 

[Abu]

WorkingCatholic
Your post #17 is excellent – great truths.

 

[derbychamp]

I think and hope my post showed love and grace to all. But some of the comments to my post just cannot be correct. “The Catholic Church is not a Bible based church” is the immediate one that comes to mind. The Bible is God’s Holy word to us. The comments received from my post could make one feel as if Catholics are the only ones with the truth and therefore are most likely the only ones saved. The Church used to teach this in the 60’s but is no longer the teaching of the Church. Christ died for all - the ones who accept him and the ones who reject him. Let us never lose sight of this.

I am a cradle Catholic and found the responses to be somewhat out of bounds. Today, Christianity is under attack from almost every segment of society. While this concerns me greatly, its the attack of Christians on Christians that bothers me more. We should all strive to help and support one another. I think this is what God would want us to do. Love one another as I have loved you.

 

[WorkingCatholic]

Part 1

Some of the comments to my post just cannot be correct. “The Catholic Church is not a Bible based church” is the immediate one that comes to mind. The Bible is God’s Holy word to us.

I don’t mean to hi-jack the original intent of this thread, but I feel I need to respond. It’s kind of ironic, but I prefaced that specific remark by saying, “Let’s be clear,” but obviously I wasn’t. I was trying to correct your notion that “any Christian Church founded with the correct biblical beliefs as set by Jesus has a valid Eucharist.” The only Churches with “a valid Eucharist” are the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. These Churches are not Bible-based, as they trace their roots back before there was a NT. Just as Eve, the bride of Adam, was born from Adam’s side; the Catholic Church, the Bride of Christ, was born from the bleeding side of Jesus as He hung dead on the cross long before there was a NT. As I wrote before, “The Catholic Church is not a Bible-based Church. The Bible is a Catholic Church-based Book. Jesus did not establish a Bible-based Church. He established a Sacramental Church.” Any church that claims to be “Bible-based” necessarily cannot be the one true Church since it was the Catholic Church that gave us the NT. It seems like common sense to me that the Church is older than the NT, but I’ll offer some biblical proof. If “three thousand persons were added that day [at the first Pentecost]” in Acts 2:41, to what were they added if not to the Church? In the very next verse we see that these earliest Christians were already “devoting themselves to the breaking of the bread [the Eucharist].” This is long before any NT writings existed, so there were no Bible-based churches, but the Sacramental Church established by Jesus was growing and celebrating the Eucharist. Also, see Acts 8:3 “Saul, meanwhile, was trying to destroy THE CHURCH.” This is the same Saul (later Paul) who much later wrote a large portion of the NT. How could this be unless the Church existed long before the NT? You are correct that " The Bible is God’s Holy word to us." However, how do we know the Bible is the inspired word of God? Only because the Catholic Church told us. How do we know that the correct books were chosen for inclusion in the NT (and OT for that matter)? Only because the Catholic Church told us. How do we know that the included books are still accurate today since no original transcripts exist? Only because the Catholic Church vigilantly and carefully copied and re-copied the books and vouched for their accuracy.

The comments received from my post could make one feel as if Catholics are the only ones with the truth and therefore are most likely the only ones saved.

Yes, that is correct. Catholics are the only ones with the fullness of the Truth. Jesus said He is the Truth. He also said the Truth will set you free. Obviously this truth is quite a valuable commodity. Now, wouldn’t you agree that there can only be one truth? Can real truth be subjective? Can Christian teachings that were accepted as truths for 1500 years cease to be true because Luther didn’t accept them and replaced them with his own theology? Jesus only established one Church (Mt 16:18), and He wants all of us to be members of that one Church which was consecrated in Truth (Jn 17:17-19). Jesus chose a group of Apostles (Jn 15:16). Jesus told them things like “He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me” (Lk 10:16). When members of the fallen away Christian churches reject the one true Church established by Jesus (whether they know it or not, whether they believe it or not), they are rejecting Jesus—“He who rejects you [the representatives of Christ’s Church] rejects me [Jesus]).” Another passage that supports the unity that exists with Christ and His Church is in Acts 9:4-5. When Paul was persecuting the Church, Jesus didn’t ask, “Why do you persecute the Church?” He asked, “Why do you persecute ME?” Jesus does not distinguish between Himself and His Bride, the Church. The Church is one Body in Christ. (Rom 12:5)

The Church used to teach this in the 60’s but is no longer the teaching of the Church.

I wish you would have explained what “this” is. Are you referring to the Church’s teaching that there is “no salvation outside the Church?” I don’t think that has changed. In fact, I don’t think that can be changed. The Church has softened its presentation of this teaching probably for the same reason you found my post “out of bounds,” but the truth cannot change. A non-Catholic can certainly get into heaven if it is God’s will since “with God all things are possible.” (Mt 19:26) But in heaven, there certainly will not be debates about doctrine. A person in heaven will not be “outside the Church.” They will be a member of the Church Triumphant.

Here is a link to an article about “this:” catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means

 

[WorkingCatholic]

Part 2

Christ died for all - the ones who accept him and the ones who reject him. Let us never lose sight of this.

Yes, all have been redeemed. But redemption is not salvation. Let us never lose sight of this.

I am a cradle Catholic and found the responses to be somewhat out of bounds.

I apologize for my aggressive tone. My arrogance is indeed a sin. However, would you rather be killed with kindness or saved by seemingly harsh words? People didn’t like to hear what Christ had to say either. Different people need to have a message delivered differently in order to be receptive. It took this direct approach to get through to me, and it is the approach that comes most naturally to me. I understand that “you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar,” but I’m all out of honey.

We should all strive to help and support one another. I think this is what God would want us to do. Love one another as I have loved you.

Yes, absolutely, God wants us to help one another and love one another. So is it more helpful and a greater act of love to pretend that all religions are the same even when you know the truth, or is it more helpful and a greater act of love to spread Christ’s truth even if it ruffles some feathers? Or maybe a better question is, “What would Jesus do?” On the night before His crucifixion, Jesus says, “I pray not only for them [the Apostles], but also for those who will believe in me through their word [in other words, all Christians of all ages], so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one.” (Jn 17:20-23)

Jesus prayed that all Christians be one even as he and the father are one—brought to perfection as one! True ecumenism isn’t “I’m okay, you’re okay.” True ecumenism is spreading the Truth of Jesus Christ. Jesus wanted one Church—His Church. This was what He prayed for. Do you think it pleases Jesus that there are thousands of denominations with conflicting doctrine? Do the Father and the Son disagree on doctrine? Of course not, because they are perfectly one. This is what Jesus wants for His Church.

 

[Abu]

Derbychamp #19
The comments received from my post could make one feel as if Catholics are the only ones with the truth and therefore are most likely the only ones saved. The Church used to teach this in the 60’s but is no longer the teaching of the Church.

The Catholic Church has never taught that Catholics are the only ones saved. She does not contradict Her dogma or doctrine.

Christ’s Church knew from the beginning that non-Catholics could be saved:
Pope St Clement knew that non-Catholics could be saved from the beginning, for he wrote in about 95 A.D. to the Church in Corinth: “Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God.” Catholic Apologetics Today, 1986, Fr William G Most, p 145].

Since Christ’s Church has consistently declared, from Pope St Clement I to Vatican II and after, that non-Catholics may be saved, it is up to Catholics to listen and learn. Seeking to put Sacred Scripture against the Magisterium or to highlight seeming contradictions, is playing a dissenting game – played by Luther and his followers. The answer is to get and study the Catholic articles, books, CD’s etc., which explain and defend faith and morals.

The key is to understand that we cannot be saved without (extra) the Church. It is through the Church, which carries on and makes present the salvific work of Jesus Christ in the world, that all who are saved reach heaven (even if it is perhaps only there that they realize it). So membership of the Church is required yet some can be saved who seem not to have that membership. St Paul gives the clue: “Is He then God of the Jews only? Is He not also of the Gentiles?” (Rom 3:29). The same applies to the millions who know nothing of Christ. “God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim 2:4). So, “For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their consciences bear witness to them, and their thoughts in turn will be either accusing or even defending them, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.” (Rom 2:14-16).

 

[Telstar]

The Catholic Church has never taught that Catholics are the only ones saved. She does not contradict Her dogma or doctrine.

Christ’s Church knew from the beginning that non-Catholics could be saved:
Pope St Clement knew that non-Catholics could be saved from the beginning, for he wrote in about 95 A.D. to the Church in Corinth: “Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God.” Catholic Apologetics Today, 1986, Fr William G Most, p 145].

Since Christ’s Church has consistently declared, from Pope St Clement I to Vatican II and after, that non-Catholics may be saved, it is up to Catholics to listen and learn. Seeking to put Sacred Scripture against the Magisterium or to highlight seeming contradictions, is playing a dissenting game – played by Luther and his followers. The answer is to get and study the Catholic articles, books, CD’s etc., which explain and defend faith and morals.

The key is to understand that we cannot be saved without (extra) the Church. It is through the Church, which carries on and makes present the salvific work of Jesus Christ in the world, that all who are saved reach heaven (even if it is perhaps only there that they realize it). So membership of the Church is required yet some can be saved who seem not to have that membership. St Paul gives the clue: “Is He then God of the Jews only? Is He not also of the Gentiles?” (Rom 3:29). The same applies to the millions who know nothing of Christ. “God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim 2:4). So, “For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their consciences bear witness to them, and their thoughts in turn will be either accusing or even defending them, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.” (Rom 2:14-16).

^^ This is the correct answer. “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.” does not necessarily mean that nonmembers cannot be saved, but, that it can only be done through the actions of the Catholic Church (prayers of the faithful, Masses, Sacraments, etc.). The merits earned though all of those actions can be applied to people who follow the “law” written in their hearts, even if they do not belong to the Catholic Church. The final Judge of who these merits will apply to is God, alone.

Does that mean that we don’t really need to go to Mass (if we’re Catholic), or that we don’t have to bother to convert to Catholicism, even if we think it might be the true Church? No, not really. If we are aware that the Catholic Church is the true Church, then we have an obligation to act on that knowledge. Otherwise, we run the risk of losing our soul through our own negligence. The best chance we have for salvation will always be through faithfully following the teachings of the Catholic Church, as full participating members. There is also nothing more sanctifying for our souls than to receive the Holy Eucharist. It is the best means for us to become a full member of the Body of Christ, and receive a true share in His Divinity for all eternity. There is no other source that can do that. So, being Catholic is definitely the surest path to follow.

 

[derbychamp]

So, basically from the last two posts I read, the prayers from the Catholic Church are the ones that really count, the Church have never erred in its teachings because its guided by the Holy Spirit.

I do believe the Holy Spirit is guiding the Catholic Church but we do have fallible men and women in the Church. Therefore, the Church’s message can sometimes be incorrect as none of us are perfect including myself. As I stated earlier, I am a cradle Catholic of 52 years.

Before Vatican II, the Church consistently taught that only Roman Catholics had a chance to be saved and attain Heaven. Followers of other Christian denominations and of other religions would be automatically routed to Hell for all eternity. religioustolerance.org/rcc_salv.htm

The inquisition was a Catholic Church sponsored event. Not just because some people behaved badly. When a suspect was convicted of unrepentant heresy, the inquisitorial tribunal was required by law to hand the person over to the secular authorities for final sentencing, at which point the penalty would be determined by a magistrate, usually burning at the stake although the penalty varied based on local law. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

(Edited as off topic)

I believe in the Catholic Church. I also believe that Protestants are Christians as well. My objective here was to speak the truth and show love and grace to all. (Edited)

 

[Abu]

derbychamp #24
Before Vatican II, the Church consistently taught that only Roman Catholics had a chance to be saved and attain Heaven. Followers of other Christian denominations and of other religions would be automatically routed to Hell for all eternity.

(Edited)

Now, here are more real truths:
“By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood. Nevertheless, equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, land, native talents, and so many other factors"
(Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, 1863 A.D.). [My emphasis].

There is no change of dogma or doctrine.

Salvation is only possible through the Catholic Church. How? This is not to say that the maxim is false. Properly understood, it is quite true. The Latin word extra can mean either “without” or “outside.” The correct interpretation and sense of the maxim is that we cannot be saved without the Church. It is through the Church, which carries on and makes present the salvific work of Jesus Christ in the world, that all who are saved reach heaven (even if it is perhaps only there that they realize it). Those who, through no fault of their own, have never known Christ or his Church can still be saved. But their salvation, too, is the effect of Jesus working through his Church. In a positive sense, this theological principle “means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846).
Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, OSV].

 

[derbychamp]

I do not know why you you accuse me of making false statements when what I have written is quite true. I even backed it up with links from other resources. I am aware of Lumen Gentium 14 and 16 as written by the Catholic Church. So, based on your comments if someone was in the Catholic Church and left the Church because of abuse by a priest(s) or other teachers of the Catholic faith, they cannot be saved. Sorry, you knew the real truth and because you left you are under condemnation. Never mind why you had to leave, you cannot be saved because you have rejected the one true religion. I hope and pray this is not true. To see the emotional scars left and having to deal with them for a son through therapy and medication is absolutely horrible on a parent. And just when the parent needs help the most from the Catholic Church, they are seen as radioactive and left alone to their own devices. Is this really love and grace as Jesus preached?

I hope and pray you nor anyone else experience emotional, physical or sexual abuse of your son or daughter at the hands of Church leaders. It has been my experience that these forums show a lot of law and rules and very little love and grace to one another.

 

[derbychamp]

(Edited)

The fate of non-Catholics, as stated prior to Vatican II:

Before Vatican II, the Church consistently taught that only Roman Catholics had a chance to be saved and attain Heaven. Followers of other Christian denominations and of other religions would be automatically routed to Hell for all eternity:

Pope Innocent III (circa 1160 - 1216 CE) is considered “one of the greatest popes of the Middle Ages…” 1 At the Fourth Lateran Council (a.k.a. the General Council of Lateran, and the Great Council) he wrote:
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved.”

Pope Boniface VIII (1235-1303 CE) promulgated a Papal Bull in 1302 CE titled Unam Sanctam (One Holy). He wrote, in part:
“Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins…In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Ephesians 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed…Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” 2

The last sentence in the original Latin reads: “Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis.” 3

Pope Eugene IV, (1388-1447 CE) wrote a Papal bull in 1441 CE titled Cantate Domino. One paragraph reads:
“It [the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” 4

 

[Abu]

(Edited)

As Dr Warren Carroll in *A History of Christendom *Vol. 3, The Glory Of Christendom, Christendom Press, 1993, writes (p 340): Pope Boniface in *Unam Sanctam *“was addressing those in almost universally Catholic western, central, and northern Europe who, might willfully refuse obedience to the Pope despite fully understanding the nature of the office he held and his supreme authority in the spiritual realm.” In a footnote Dr Carroll writes: “The entire population in these regions was Catholic except for a relatively small number of Jews. In the Byzantine empire and Russia there were many practicing Christians who did not acknowledge papal authority, but Boniface VIII had nothing to say about their spiritual status in this document or any others he issued.”

After hearing the full gospel, they have rejected it. They are thus condemned unless they become members of the Church. This is fully consistent with Christ taught and what the Church teaches now.

Pope Innocent III in the Lateran Council of AD 1215, Unam Sanctam, the Papal Bull of Pope Boniface VIII, 1302, and Pope Eugene IV’s Bull Cantate Domino, 1441, all refer to those who have rejected the true gospel, Pope Eugene IV makes the statement about the pagans, Jews, etc… so this classifies them like the Arians, Monophysites, Ebionites, who heard the message of Christ’s gospel. It is not talking about those who have not heard the gospel. The ones that these decrees are considering are those that have heard the message. If they had heard the message and obstinately stay outside the Church, they cannot be saved.

None of the decrees say: “Well, if those pagans and Jews, etc. have never heard of the gospel, they cannot be saved.”

Those who continue to distort facts and vilify Christ and His Church are to be pitied.

 

[bmonk]

I do not know why you you accuse me of making false statements when what I have written is quite true. I even backed it up with links from other resources. I am aware of Lumen Gentium 14 and 16 as written by the Catholic Church. So, based on your comments if someone was in the Catholic Church and left the Church because of abuse by a priest(s) or other teachers of the Catholic faith, they cannot be saved. Sorry, you knew the real truth and because you left you are under condemnation. Never mind why you had to leave, you cannot be saved because you have rejected the one true religion. I hope and pray this is not true. To see the emotional scars left and having to deal with them for a son through therapy and medication is absolutely horrible on a parent. And just when the parent needs help the most from the Catholic Church, they are seen as radioactive and left alone to their own devices. Is this really love and grace as Jesus preached?

I hope and pray you nor anyone else experience emotional, physical or sexual abuse of your son or daughter at the hands of Church leaders. It has been my experience that these forums show a lot of law and rules and very little love and grace to one another.

(1) If they left the Church because of the sins of others, that is a sorry state of affairs.

(2) If they were personally injured, to the extent that they could no longer accept the ministry of clergy, and this were something they were unable to change about themselves, then they are not free, and so God will look on them with mercy. I cannot judge what God will do–but I do not think that, were they truly suffering so deeply, that God would condemn them for events beyond their ability to choose. This is a case where the principles say one thing, but mercy and compassion say something else. It is also, I hope and pray, a relatively rare situation.

 

[derbychamp]

Abu:

Whoever you are you have a lot of nerve stating that I am a pretend Catholic, trying to vilify Christ and distort truths. You don’t even know me. Moreover, there is no love and grace in your responses. I encourage you to change your style and tone if you want to make a positive impact in these forums.

Wasn’t there a better way for you to respond? Just think about it.

 

[Abu]

(Edited)This site is for Catholic Answers. Truth and error are exposed on this website and posters making statements identified as asking questions or for truth or in error. (Edited)
Listen to Christ Himself.

That outstanding apologist Frank Sheed from Australia has taught on soapboxes in Hyde Park, London, and founded the publishing House of Sheed and Ward with his wife, Maisie Ward; has written outstanding books including *Theology and Sanity *and Society and Sanity, but the one I shall quote from here is Christ in Eclipse – A Clinical Study of the Good Christian, 1978, for there is a great need to listen to Christ through this great work.

That very same loving Christ to His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 8:17-18) (Frank Sheed, Christ In Eclipse, Sheed & Ward 1978, p 42). "With individuals He was very much the doctor with a duty not only to tell them what was wrong with them, but to make sure they realized it.” (Ibid. p 40-41).

On the multitude however “he had compassion, for they were helpless and harassed like sheep without a shepherd.” (Mt 9:36). So, beware of the wolves in sheep’s clothing.
[See *Christ In Eclipse, Frank Sheed, Sheed & Ward, 1978, p 40-41].

Continuing in error after the reality is known is not consistent (Edited).

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

***Several posts have been edited and 2 deleted.

Please remain on topic and discuss the teachings of the church regarding the Eucharist and not each other.

So far, there has been no lack of charity displayed in posts, just off topic and snarky personal exchanges.
Any more of that after this warning will be cited.***

 

[Church_Militant]

I found the responses to this topic a bit disturbing. We as Catholics are no better than anyone else. We should remember this always.

I don’r see where any of us have even inferred such a thing. Perhaps you are biased in your perception?

Sometimes I feel that we are acting much like the Pharisees.

Irrelevant. If the church teaches something then that’s the reality That’s what we are discussing.

The reason the Reformation came to be is that our Church was selling indulgences for money.

Again…irrelevant to this topic, and you need to check your facts. It was one priest in particular named Tetzel and a few others. The Council of Trent dealt with that and even prior to it the Pope quashed it.

At least, this was the one thing that set Martin Luther into motion. Martin Luther anguished over his decision but it was the right thing to do.

Again…irrelevant. Luther was a priest who developed gross doctrinal errors and then propagated them and misled others. The current myriad of n-C doctrinal errors are all pretty much evolutions and cascading descendants of his errors.

Protestants did not want a God to fit into their lifestyle, they wanted to serve God as best as they knew how.

Sincerity doesn’t count doctrinally because (As a Baptist preacher once told me) it is possible to still be sincerely wrong.

Clearly, the selling of indulgences needed to change.

irrelevant and already dealt with…

I do not think he wanted to splinter Christianity into so many religions but sin does have consequences. I am not referring to Martin Luther either. Yet God can write straight with crooked lines. Over the years the Catholic Church did not behave as God would want us to - the crusades, the inquisition, bad popes, selling of indulgences, child sexual abuse etc

Again…irrelevant.

. Yet, Jesus himself assured us that the gates of hell would never prevail against his church. His church being the christian people and all members and churches of the Christian faith.

Only half right. The first half anyway. Nowhere does Our Lord even infer that there will ever be more than one Christian church and the early church understood that because they called themselves the Catholic Church. Note here what St. Ignatius of Antioch (who was a friend and disciple of the Apostle John) wrote in the early years of the 2nd century. “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

One post quoted St. Paul about receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Yes, this is correct but was taken way out of context. He was speaking to the Corinthians who had lavish banquets and at the end of these banquets they celebrated the Eucharist. It was basically a tag along to their banquet and did not stand out as being anything different. This is what he is talking about. I cannot help but think

that the majority of Catholics and Protestants do discern before receiving Communion.The problem here is that you are not thinking with the church in this matter. Most n-Cs that you encounter will never say that their communion is anything but a symbolic memorial and not the body and blood of the Lord, even though St. Paul straight up tells us that it is. Since their is not a Eucharistic sacrament (ask 'em they’ll tell you it’s not.) then they cannot be guilty of much of anything. They may do an examination of conscience before taking communion, and perhaps ask forgiveness for their sins, but none of that is sacramental and again…if you ask them, they tell you that with a dynamic assertion. That’s why we do not do intercommunion. It would be a scandalous false witness because we would be implying that we share a common belief on communion when nothing could be further from the truth.

The Church speaks of apostolic succession and without this there is no real Eucharist.

Which is spot on accurate. We even recognize that Orthodox have valid sacraments, but they do not share the same beliefs as Protestants and so do not share communion with them.

I would be careful here. If a Christian Church offers a sacrifice to God, it is up to God and God alone if he finds the sacrifice to be pleasing.

can you show me this anywhere in the New Testament? I don’t think so because I happen to know for a fact that no such passage exists. It’s not scriptural and neither has the church ever taught such a thing.

We should always die to self and show love and grace to everyone on a daily basis. Sometimes hard to do but Jesus requires this of all.

True but still irrelevant to this discussion.

I think

any Christian Church founded with the correct biblical beliefs as set by Jesus has a valid Eucharist. The presence is as real in a Protestant church as it is in the Catholic Church.Again, this is your thinking, but not the authentic teaching of the church, nor is it based on anything in the New Testament. If you actually read your Bible and actually read the Catechism you will pretty quickly see that your thinking is in error.

In my next post I’ll show you exactly what it says, so you’ll know.

 

[Church_Militant]

**Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

** 836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."320

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’"321

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

Also relevant is

**“Outside the Church there is no salvation” **

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

So you see where your thinking is different from that of the church.

Is the Real Presence necessary? I say just look into the New Testament and answer your own question. I lay it all out in The Eucharist IS Scriptural

 

[steve_b]

I’m having a discussion with a friend that I hope someone can help me with.

He was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools through college. About the Eucharist he says that he can’t wrap his mind around Jesus being more with Catholics than with Protestants who don’t believe in the Real Presence. Why do we need to believe that the Eucharist is really Jesus? Why are Catholics special?

I mentioned the miracle of Lanciano and he said that if the monk believed in the Real Presence and needed his faith bolstered, then it was cool of Jesus to do that for him.

How can I explain to my friend that the Reformation was people leaving the Church and deciding to make their own way and believe their own thing…and that doesn’t mean they were completely right? He has family who are converts and some who are still Protestant, so the idea that Jesus is less with them in their worship is what’s bothering him, I think.

And do I have an obligation to get him to change his mind? I don’t want to push too hard and lose his friendship. He has a theology degree from a Catholic university, and I’m just a convert…he already knows all the reasons…or I’d like to think so.

Just because he went to Catholic schools does it necessarily mean he takes his faith seriously.

 

[Holly3278]

Catholics have apostolic succession which no other sect/denomination has except for Eastern Orthodox Christians. That is one major reason why we have the Real Presence and Protestants don’t.