Calling all non-Catholic Christians!

[Kay_Cee]

Sorry to be so late in replying-I went away for the weekend to get away from some of the snow we have here.

Hope you enjoyed it!

Yes, doctrine is important, but can one prevent someone from being “led astray” by “false doctrine” Whether one has a Pope, a presbytery, a single pastor or is just up in the mountains with a Scofield Reference Bible the fact is that words are passing back and forth, but there is no guarantee that sender and receiver have the same understanding of those words. If you say “I believe in Jesus” and I say “I do as well” does that mean we are in unity? Is our doctrine true?

Misunderstanding is always possible, since we are human. But it seems to me this is all the more reason why we should strive to be unified in doctrine: so there is less misunderstanding. A church unified in doctrine will be better able to correct someone who gets it wrong, whereas in Protestantism–the way it is now–all he has to do is join a church that agrees with his particular misunderstanding. This, I would say, tends to reinforce his misunderstanding rather than correct it. Do you agree?

I believe that we are all striving to grow in truth, and that God in His sovereignty is in charge of the process. Ultimately as Paul says “we shall see Him face to face” and things will be cleared up for us.

But in the meantime, what about souls who are lost due to doctrinal error?

I don’t know if would say okay, but I believe that is how it is. It would be redundant for Jesus to pray that believers (not sinners) be led into truth and unity if they already had that unity and truth. Having said that I believe all believers will ultimately have unity and truth, but likely only with Jesus in eternity. In the mean time, we need to work toward unity and to recognize that God is leading us into truth.

Well, it surely must be something Jesus desires, else why would he pray for it? You are right that we need to work toward unity, but how is that to be done within Protestantism, since there’s no single authority that can stand up and say, “Hey, you’re misunderstood the Bible here” or “That doctrine is false”?

Paul talks quite clearly about divisions in the church in I Cor 1:12-how do you square that with an insistence on unity?

It seems to me Paul is condemning such divisions. He asks, “Is Christ divided?” The answer should be an obvious no!

Agreed. The book of Acts has a number of examples of God going beyond the church in making sure that salvation is available to those the church hasn’t even considered: the Ethiopian eunuch, Samaritans, Cornelius, Saul are all examples that come to mind. Likewise in Acts 15 some factions in the church are certain about what it takes to get to heaven, while others have a different idea. Obviously God didn’t make it clear before that point or there would have been no divisions.

I think you need to define “church” here before we can discuss this. You seem to be saying “church” meant the members it had at the time or the earthly authorities it contained. I define “church” as the body of Christ, in which case I’d have to say God didn’t go beyond the church. I’d also have to say God used the earthly authorities he had appointed to settle the issue–which leads me to believe this is how he intended for those human misunderstandings you mentioned earlier to be handled.

I guess for me it seems to make sense, that if I can trust God to save people (including me) I can trust Him to do what is necessary to let those people know what they must do to be saved (recognizing as in the case of the thief on the cross that God can bend His own rules as He so chooses).

Then the question that arises (at least to me) is: Is creating a church with earthly authority to settle misunderstandings one of the things God did to help save us?

I agree-it just concerns me at times that we can be cut and dried on heresy. The Jews had made it clear that the Samaritans were heretics in their worship and some other religious practices and yet Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman made it clear that God had a different perspective on the issue. I believe there were corrections that needed to be made to the Samaritan faith, and that God had His own timetable to make them.

If we look at the Epistles, the Apostles seem to have put up with a lot at times and other times to have been very quick to crack down on things. I can’t say that I’ve figured out why some things received a quick rebuke and others were treated with more charity, but it may have depended on the spiritual maturity of the individual being corrected.

If what you mean is that we can get too legalistic as opposed to loving one another, I agree. Then again, we don’t want to be so unlegalistic (is that a word?) that Christians seeking true doctrine either can’t find it or are told it doesn’t matter. Surely a Christian who truly loves Christ seeks to obey him in all matters. He therefore wants to know his will concerning baptism, the Eucharist, birth control, and so forth.

Additionally, some of the dialogues that have taken place show that in many cases the “heresy” that was trumpeted in the past turned out in many cases to have been semantic misunderstandings and interpersonal conflict.

In which case, the confusion was cleared up, right? But you would still have to have an authority to declare such, wouldn’t you?

Looking forward to your reply-I’m enjoying the discussion.

As am I!

 

[Kay_Cee]

If you are that confused you will probably need to become Catholic. Simple solution.

I am Catholic. However, for the purposes of this discussion, we’re supposed to act as if Catholicism is not an option. It’s all hypothetical.

 

[jmcrae]

I disagree and I refer you to Paul’s letter to the Corinthians again when he says it doesn’t matter who plants the seed and waters.

All of the people on St. Paul’s list were in unity with the Church. He doesn’t list anyone that was separated from the Church, nor anyone that he would have considered to be a heretic.

In modern terms, he is saying, “Some people follow the spirituality of St. Francis, or St. Benedict, or St. Teresa of Avila, or St. Faustina. But all are in unity with Jesus Christ.” The people he was referring to were sort of the first century equivalents of those people.

But he is not saying that those who follow the spirituality of the first century equivalents of people like Calvin, or Knox, or Luther, or Mennos, or Campbell, etc. are in unity, and in fact, he had very harsh words for them.

So now the Pope is a prophet?? And he is the singular prophet that exists in this world and also the only one who can promulgate, as you say, a message?? I disagree.

He’s the guy that God set up in charge of Christianity, and he is visible and recognizable to everyone.

Again you need to stop placing words in my post. That’s not what I said. I said if he finds doctrine in need of correction what will happen??

What he has found is that some doctrines are in need of clarification. And he has gone ahead and clarified them, without any consequences that I am aware of.

 

[Deacon110]

I am looking for Protestant answer to this. Wisdom is not talking about a building here.

The following is my post to wisdomseeker:

OK so show me the actual building that Jesus erected. Jesus says the spirit gives life. Show me the physical spirit. Did the people having church services in their houses constitute a building that Jesus constructed?? If yes then did he do this before he died or after??

The visible part of the church is the people. The invisible part is the Holy Spirit we all possess internally upon baptism. Unless you can show me that is visible too. Did the Ethiopian Eunich get baptized in a physical building?? Did Peter baptize the official’s family in a church building?? Let me save you the time. No, and ahh, no. Did they become part of Jesus church?? Yes. So then the church in that instance was the entire desert and the official’s house. I wonder if they had a sign outside that said Roman Catholic church. And how about the 3000 that were added at Pentecost?? Was that within a church?? Or was the outside immediate area around them blue sky and all the church??

Forgive my sarcastic remarks but your comments make no sense and the argument of visible/invisible church is just too old

Can a Protestant answer me this?

I’ll try:

From what I have read here, Protestants do not agree on any doctrine or practice except:

1. inspired-inerrancy of the Bible
2. love one another
3. Jesus died for our sins.

I think those are the very basics.

Therefore, it follows that:
Jesus died to save ALL, whether they believe in Him or not. Only God can judge our hearts.

To clarify. I believe GOD knows what’s in our hearts. There are those destined never to believe. Why? Who knows. They also are the ones who probably will never ask GOD for help. The ones who are destined to believe in their hearts? I believe GOD saves them. I’m a prime example.

Jesus did die for all mankind. But you have to believe to receive eternal life. I would never try to judge what’s in someone’s heart. Only GOD can do that. I may try to plant the seed of Jesus but they ultimately have to believe and it is GOD who will make them ultimately grow.

Therefore, all the extra fluff the CC teaches should not offend any Protestants, because we all agree on the “Essentials.”

I’m not offended by the extra fluff. I think some of it is unnecessary and irrelevant to salvation. Therefore I’m only offended if someone tells me I’m not saved because I don’t subscribe to this extra fluff. It may help to list some of the fluff to clarify.

Protestant denominations differ in their theology of Eucharist, Baptism, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, the Divinity of Jesus. So, if a JW or Mormon come to my door proseltizing, I should not correct them, because it is all irrelvant.

I don’t think you should ever stop preaching what you believe in. And I would be the first to agree some things some denominations believe are a little crazy. What none of us have the power to say is, “you are not saved”. That is ultimately up to GOD. Jesus says believe in ME and receive eternal life. If you don’t believe you are subject to GOD’s judgement. So we can say we are taught specific things for salvation, but then JWs will say, well this is what we teach. They know I won’t budge and I know they won’t. But we still have excellent debates that never result in animosity. We always say it’s ultimately up to GOD.

2,000 years of theological debate, history, Scripture itself, is irrelevant, because the message is boiled down to “Jesus saves” and “love one another.”

The message is Jesus saves if you believe in HIM and yes, Jesus does tell us to love one another including our enemies. Sometimes we get so caught up in debate and Biblical interpretation that we lose sight of proclaiming Jesus. I may say I don’t believe in the real presence becuse of XYZ. You say you do because of ABC.

In the end I believe, belief in the real presence is not relevant to salvation. When Jesus and Paul say do this in anamnaysis (greek for remembrance) I think it’s more important that we honor the meal each week or everyday or whatever and let Jesus decide on how HE’s going to present HIMSELF in the Eucharist, spiritually, physically, or not at all.

What I am left with is why did the Apostles feel the need to clarify the teachings of Jesus in the Epsitles? Why did Acts stress bother to talk about circumcision, purification rituals, etc.

Great question. Clarification was important because there were literally false teachers trying to lead churches away from Jesus i.e. Galatia, Corinth. Also in the case of Corinth they were following the individuals who baptized them instead of Jesus but then partaking in the Lord’s supper. It was customary to eat a meal prior to the Lord’s supper and many were intoxicating themselves, then partaking in the Lord’s supper. Imagine a drunk person literally stumbling into church and saying “where’s the Lord’s supper??” That does need correction.

The major thing we see the Apostles doing is actually relaxing their position on things to try and reach the Gentiles. In the case of circumcision and rituals as you mention, we see the Apostles relaxing those. As Peter says “why yoke them with laws and rituals we the Jews cannot even honor?”

Why is the inspired-inerrancy of the OT necessary?

Because Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT. Is it absolutely necessary?? No. One can merely read the NT to find Jesus. Actually reading the Bible is not a pre-requisite for salvation either. The average Christian I run into, RC/Non-RC, hardly ever reads the Bible for one, let alone the OT. Most people say it’s too hard to understand.

Hope this helps. If not I’ll try again

PEACE

 

[jmcrae]

The visible part of the church is the people.

Not just randomly any people, though.

The people of the Church are the Successors of the Apostles and their followers. Jesus Himself set up the hierarchy, by reserving some things for the Disciples that were not given to the crowds.

 

[Deacon110]

Sorry you are so disappointed. I find the topic very interesting. Deacon has made some good points, and helped me better understand the Protestant perspective.

Thanks. I always try my best

Last night was the first night of our Parish Mission. The topic was the Bible. I couldn’t even quote you what the priest said, all I kept thinking was "WOW I believe everything he is saying, not because of my personal opinion, but because it is TRUTH. He is a priest, Apostolic Succession, Sacred Tradition. History. I can’t begin to describe how awestruck I was. Something I always knew and took for granted suddenly pierced my soul. And it was all due to this thread.

That’s so awesome. Now ask yourself this. Did GOD put you and I together in this thread knowing this would happen? So our souls would be enriched spiritually to bring us closer to HIM?? That’s why HE’s an AMAZING GOD.

PEACE

 

[Cathlacostal]

With many, there is such a hang-up with the word “Catholic”. As you can see from my posting name, I have no issue with that word as I know it’s meaning. If we believe Christ is God and is the saviour of the world, and gather in His name accepting all believers we truly are catholic.
I am not recognised as a Roman Catholic. I believe the Roman Church, through St. Peter, is the Early Church as well as the modern Church. As protectors, we attempted to divorce ourselves from the church and attempted to begin a New Church. But as only the Church has authority to grant divorce, we are only separated.
This topic is always upon my heart as it’s important as Christ is returning for His Church and not for individuals. I asked a very wise Roman bishop about the Roman Churches view on non-catholics, and specifically, if they were of the Church. His answer surprised me as it didn’t mesh with the view of many Roman Catholics. “Those who believe in their heart are of the Church. Those outside the Roman Church simply do not worship in the fullness of Christ”. I was so surprised by that I checked with other Roman priests and bishops and found the position was firm.
But I need to clarify some things. The very word “Church” is something viewed quite differently between those of catholic teaching and those taught of evangelicals. The evangelical believes people are the Church. The mistakes and bad decisions of the leaders are labeled as mistakes of the Church. The evangelical claims power and authority that was never given to men but given to offices. The office of a priest is without fault. The office of bishop is without fault. The office cannot fail. But the man holding that office can indeed fail. When he fails, he does not defile his office but defiles himself. In short, the Church is perfect and without fault.
The same holds true for the Eucharist. The blessing of the elements cannot be defiled. The linage of apostolic succession (the laying on of hands), determines whether it’s the Eucharist or simply drinking wine and bread. The Eucharist also is perfection and cannot be defiled.
Those of us not Roman Catholic are not in communion with the original Church but that does not mean we are not of the Church. Christ looks at the intent of the heart not our outward expressions. St. Paul explains what we must do to escape eternal damnation in his letter to the Romans. Belief is the key.
So what Church has this all down pat? None separately. There is but one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
I said I wasn’t recognised as a Roman Catholic but admit I believe they’re in perfection and indeed the early Church. Some rules and issues within the men of the Roman Church are indeed wrong but their authority and power is perfection. As a pastor of a non-Roman catholic believing Church, nothing would fulfill my heart more than being ordained and having that accepted by Rome. But currently, that’s not possible. Being married excludes me from ordination in America. But it’s not hopeless.

 

[jmcrae]

Last night was the first night of our Parish Mission. The topic was the Bible. I couldn’t even quote you what the priest said, all I kept thinking was "WOW I believe everything he is saying, not because of my personal opinion, but because it is TRUTH. He is a priest, Apostolic Succession, Sacred Tradition. History. I can’t begin to describe how awestruck I was. Something I always knew and took for granted suddenly pierced my soul. And it was all due to this thread.

I have the same experience with regard to my boss, who is a priest. We have the sort of working relationship where I leave him alone, for the most part, and he leaves me alone, for the most part.

Part of my job is to go out to the parish schools and give talks. One time, after one of my talks, the teacher came up to me and said, “Wow, you must have such a close relationship with Father X; you sound exactly like him! I wish I could get that close to him!” I had to tell her, “No, no - he and I just read the same books.”

 

[Deacon110]

All of the people on St. Paul’s list were in unity with the Church. He doesn’t list anyone that was separated from the Church, nor anyone that he would have considered to be a heretic.

In modern terms, he is saying, “Some people follow the spirituality of St. Francis, or St. Benedict, or St. Teresa of Avila, or St. Faustina. But all are in unity with Jesus Christ.” The people he was referring to were sort of the first century equivalents of those people.

No that is not what he is saying. They were not in unity. That was the problem and I quote:

1 Corinthians 1:12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Paul is saying they were literally not following Christ. So how could they be part of Christ’s church if they didn’t follow HIM. That was the problem.

It then follows that he makes the following statement regarding the Lord’s supper:

1 Corinthians 11:17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, [4] 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat.

So obviously Paul is saying they are not in unity as a church. There was dis-unity yet they were still partaking in the Eucharist, in drunken states I might add to which Paul writes:

1 Corinthians 11: 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.

So if you are receiving the Eucharist as a follower of someone other than Christ, or getting drunk before receiving, or have unconfessed sins you are just as guilty of the blood of Christ as those who committed the act.

But he is not saying that those who follow the spirituality of the first century equivalents of people like Calvin, or Knox, or Luther, or Mennos, or Campbell, etc. are in unity, and in fact, he had very harsh words for them.

Yes he had harsh words for people not following Christ. But the people you state here follow Christ plain and simple. They disagreed with some of the RC’s doctrine and wanted to effect change. The RC then declared them as heretics. Almsgiving was a great example of the abuse Luther was referencing.

He’s the guy that God set up in charge of Christianity, and he is visible and recognizable to everyone.

I disagree as do the Orthodox as does Christ. Christ said there would be no authority or no lordship very very clearly. The Apostles wanted this type of status but Jesus refuted.

What he has found is that some doctrines are in need of clarification. And he has gone ahead and clarified them, without any consequences that I am aware of.

OK great but what are they?? And suppose he finds some doctrines to be in complete error?? Then what? Will he be declared a heretic for trying to change them and will the RC admit error? Remains to be seen.

PEACE

 

[Deacon110]

Not just randomly any people, though.

No not randomly any people. But all followers of Christ for sure.

The people of the Church are the Successors of the Apostles and their followers. Jesus Himself set up the hierarchy, by reserving some things for the Disciples that were not given to the crowds.

Justin Martyr was the first to coin the phrase Apostolic succession I believe. The reason he pushed for this was because churches were becoming infested with false leaders turning good Christians away from Jesus. Justin wanted to place people as he says that were “just like us”. Followers of the Apostles and their teachings. And he was absolutely right. It should be Apostolic teachings. But neither creed, the Apostles which is the oldest, nor the Nicene, contain the words Apostolic succession. It’s Apostolic meaning based on the Apostles teaching.

Jesus did not set up a hierarchy. He preached against this. Whoever wants to be first is last, whoever is last is exhalted, whoever wants to be the greatest shall be your servant. No hierarchy. Everyone serving everyone equally.

I’d like to ask you to tell me one thing you know of that Jesus told only the Aposltes and only the RC possesses this knowledge. Please tell me one thing the RC has knowledge-wise that’s not scriptural.

PEACE

 

[jmcrae]

No that is not what he is saying. They were not in unity. That was the problem and I quote:

1 Corinthians 1:12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

This is like when people quarrel about which is better: Benedictine spirituality, or Franciscan spirituality, or Jesuit spirituality. They are focusing on externals; not on Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, [4] 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat.

True; those in schism do not have the Lord’s Supper.

1 Corinthians 11: 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.

Right, because the Eucharist is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

So if you are receiving the Eucharist as a follower of someone other than Christ, or getting drunk before receiving, or have unconfessed sins you are just as guilty of the blood of Christ as those who committed the act.

Exactly.

Yes he had harsh words for people not following Christ. But the people you state here follow Christ plain and simple. They disagreed with some of the RC’s doctrine and wanted to effect change. The RC then declared them as heretics. Almsgiving was a great example of the abuse Luther was referencing.

Which was agreed to be wrong, and the abuses were corrected at the Council of Trent, just a few years later. There was no need for Protestantism to have existed past the ending of the Council of Trent, because it addressed all of their legitimate issues, in detail.

I disagree as do the Orthodox as does Christ. Christ said there would be no authority or no lordship very very clearly. The Apostles wanted this type of status but Jesus refused.

He said that the shepherds of the Church would not lord it over others; not that there would be no shepherds at all, or that they would have no authority at all.

OK great but what are they??

Read his books and find out.

 

[jmcrae]

Please tell me one thing the RC has knowledge-wise that’s not scriptural.

I bet you could make your own list.

Just list off everything that the Catholic Church teaches that you would say, “Hey! That’s not in Scripture!!” And there ya go - a list of the teachings of the Apostles that we don’t find explicitly in Scripture.

 

[Deacon110]

This is like when people quarrel about which is better: Benedictine spirituality, or Franciscan spirituality, or Jesuit spirituality. They are focusing on externals; not on Christ.

Agreed.

True; those in schism do not have the Lord’s Supper.

Well don’t say schisms because then you are implying Orthodox and Protestants do not have the Lord’s Supper. That’s not the case here. All followers of Christ have the Lord’s Supper.

Right, because the Eucharist is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Not to start a debate but I’ve always believed in a spiritual presence of Jesus in the Eucharist not physical. This after growing up RC. It’s not the actions of the Priest that cause this. It’s our willingness to partake in communion with Jesus in our hearts that he nourishes us spiritually. As Jesus states the flesh means nothing, it’s the Spirit that gives life. HIS spirit gave me life which for about 20 years was pretty much dead.

Exactly.

Finally one to agree on

Which was agreed to be wrong, and the abuses were corrected at the Council of Trent, just a few years later. There was no need for Protestantism to have existed past the ending of the Council of Trent, because it addressed all of their legitimate issues, in detail.

OK so why did it continue and why is there still debate today??

He said that the shepherds of the Church would not lord it over others; not that there would be no shepherds at all, or that they would have no authority at all.

Ahh an excellent point. But you contradict yourself. You said they wouldn’t Lord it over, but would have authority. What’s the difference? Yes there are shepherds but who is the chief shepherd? Peter tells us it’s Christ and not himself or the current pope. Let’s read what Peter writes to his fellow shepherds:

1 Peter 5: 1 And now, a word to you who are elders in the churches. I, too, am an elder and a witness to the sufferings of Christ. And I, too, will share in his glory when he is revealed to the whole world. As a fellow elder, I appeal to you: 2 Care for the flock that God has entrusted to you. Watch over it willingly, not grudgingly—not for what you will get out of it, but because you are eager to serve God. 3 **Don’t lord **it over the people assigned to your care, but lead them by your own good example. 4 And when the Great Shepherd appears, you will receive a crown of never-ending glory and honor.

Wow what great words of encouragement. He identifies himself as a fellow elder as opposed to an authority figure. Then appeals to them instead of ordering them. Then asks them not to Lord over their flock but to lead by example. I think the biggest reason I respect our Pastors so much at our church is the example they set for their devotion and dedication to serving GOD.

Read his books and find out.

Are they under his name?? I’ll have to do that.

PEACE

 

[jmcrae]

Agreed.

Well don’t say schisms because then you are implying Orthodox and Protestants do not have the Lord’s Supper. That’s not the case here. All followers of Christ have the Lord’s Supper.

That’s a matter of debate.

Not to start a debate but I’ve always believed in a spiritual presence of Jesus in the Eucharist not physical.

This heresy is why you had to become a Protestant instead of remaining in the Catholic Church.

OK so why did it continue and why is there still debate today??

Because they had already smashed the statues of the Apostles and declared that they would follow no Successor of the Apostles; it was a matter of pride for them, by that time.

Ahh an excellent point. But you contradict yourself. You said they wouldn’t Lord it over, but would have authority. What’s the difference?

Your mother has authority over you; does she lord it over you? Or does she phrase her commandments as “Honey, would you please …?”

It’s the same with the leaders of the Church - they propose; they do not impose.

 

[jmcrae]

Are they under his name?? I’ll have to do that.

Yes, and they are all readily available through Amazon.com

 

[Deacon110]

I bet you could make your own list.

Just list off everything that the Catholic Church teaches that you would say, “Hey! That’s not in Scripture!!” And there ya go - a list of the teachings of the Apostles that we don’t find explicitly in Scripture.

Well that’s not really a fair statement. But for this debate let’s say the real presence in the Eucharist. Show me where the Apostles taught this. Because scripture does not imply the real presence. It’s an interpretation and as a matter of fact if you read the catechism on this it states, “We take the word of the Lord literally when he said this is my body this is my blood.?” The words of Jesus and Paul in scripture imply something completely different. Our church doesn’t believe this is how the Apostles taught it. Notice the RCC is taking Jesus literally in the catechism. They are not stating in the catechism they do it because the Apostles taught it that way. So then this brings us back to scriptural interpretation.

I would then ask if we were to take Jesus literally here, then why are we not chopping off our hands and gouging our eyes out to expel that component of our body to hell in an effort to save the remaining majority? Why is Jesus figurative here and not lilteral. The didache, which is believed to be written by early Christians taught by the Apostles, never states anything close to this. So how and where did the teaching get corrupt then??

PEACE

 

[qui_est_ce]

I’d like to ask you to tell me one thing you know of that Jesus told only the Aposltes and only the RC possesses this knowledge. Please tell me one thing the RC has knowledge-wise that’s not scriptural.

PEACE

Real Presence:
John 6:52-56:

52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Authority of Peter and visible Church on Earth, infallible in faith and morals
Matthew 16:18+19:

18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against** it.**
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

“It” Rock=Church.
Apostles having Authority to Teach (even Judas)
Matthew 10:1-4:

1
1 Then he summoned his twelve disciples 2 and gave them authority over unclean spirits to drive them out and to cure every disease and every illness.
2
The names of the twelve apostles 3 are these: first, Simon called Peter, and his brother Andrew; James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John;
3
Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James, the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddeus;
4
Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot who betrayed him.

Knowledge given only to the Apostles
Matthew13:10-11:

The disciples approached him and said, “Why do you speak to them in parables?”
11
He said to them in reply, "Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted.

34
15 All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables. He spoke to them only in parables,
35
to fulfill what had been said through the prophet: 16 “I will open my mouth in parables, I will announce what has lain hidden from the foundation (of the world).”
36
Then, dismissing the crowds, he went into the house. His disciples approached him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”

Apostolic Succession

]
20"For," said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms,
" ‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’[d] and,
" ‘May another take his place of leadership.’[e] 21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

 

[jmcrae]

Well that’s not really a fair statement. But for this debate let’s say the real presence in the Eucharist. Show me where the Apostles taught this.

The Early Fathers all take it literally.

Because scripture does not imply the real presence.

Actually, it does, if you read the Last Supper accounts with the Bread of Life Discourse in the front of your mind.

It’s an interpretation and as a matter of fact if you read the catechism on this it states, “We take the word of the Lord literally when he said this is my body this is my blood.?” The words of Jesus and Paul in scripture imply something completely different.

Not at all; St. Paul states plainly that to defile the Eucharist is to injure Christ Himself.

Our church doesn’t believe this is how the Apostles taught it.

Your church wasn’t around during Apostolic times, either.

Notice the RCC is taking Jesus literally in the catechism. They are not stating in the catechism they do it because the Apostles taught it that way.

Check the footnotes; they bring you back to the writings of the Early Fathers. Find the references on newadvent.com in their section on the Early Fathers.

So then this brings us back to scriptural interpretation.

Which is based on how the Early Church interpreted it.

I would then ask if we were to take Jesus literally here, then why are we not chopping off our hands and gouging our eyes out to expel that component of our body to hell in an effort to save the remaining majority?

Because the Early Church didn’t take that part literally.

So how and where did the teaching get corrupt then??

You’re asking me? During the Reformation, at the earliest; I think it was John Calvin who was the first to come up with the “symbolic Eucharist” idea and require it as an article of the faith to belong to his church. There were heretics before him who held to that idea personally (most notably Peter Waldo and Jan Hus), but never required it of their followers.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I would then ask if we were to take Jesus literally here, then why are we not chopping off our hands and gouging our eyes out to expel that component of our body to hell in an effort to save the remaining majority? Why is Jesus figurative here and not lilteral. The didache, which is believed to be written by early Christians taught by the Apostles, never states anything close to this. So how and where did the teaching get corrupt then??

PEACE

We should get rid of anything that separates us from Christ.

Notice everybody understood what Jesus was saying in both instances. Nobody questioned the teaching on the cutting off body members. Nobody left him as a result of this teaching. But they did regarding teaching in body and blood

But in John 6:60-61
60Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61 "Does this shock you?
64 “But there are some of you who do not believe.”
66
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
67
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”

Jesus did not run after them saying “No wait, that’s not what I really meant.” No Jesus repeated himself several times in John 6. WHY?

 

[Deacon110]

That’s a matter of debate.

Yes but I can debate it pretty well

This heresy is why you had to become a Protestant instead of remaining in the Catholic Church.