Calling all non-Catholic Christians!

[qui_est_ce]

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.

These are abuses, and go against the TEACHINGS of the CC. Do not confuse men with the Church.

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.

No, our understanding of the
Teachings grows and develops, but not the Teaching itself.

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae;3330382:

That’s a matter of debate.

Yes but I can debate it pretty well

You think it’s heresy. Maybe the heresy is actually coming from the RCC.

Except that your belief is the new one dating back only to 1560 or so, and the RCC belief is the continuation from what the Church has always believed.

I know our teachings are Apostolic.

And yet, they contradict the beliefs of the Early Church.

Growing up she lorded it over me. Now she phrases them as you stated above. What’s your point though? My mom may have parental authority over me but does that mean she is always right and I’m always wrong?

She is always the boss, and you are always not the boss, in that relationship. Your mother does not have the charism of infallibility, but you still have to obey her, even if she is not only wrong, but completely crazy - unless she asks you to commit a sin, of course.

Yes they should propose. But the RCC does not propose. They impose emphatically. If you disagree with a teaching you are a heretic. You have to believe everything they tell you to believe or you are accused of heresy. Example. I don’t believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. According to the RCC I’m a heretic for this.

Yes, because the nature of Mary tells us about the human nature of Christ, since Christ received his human nature from Mary.

Now suppose the RCC turns out to be wrong?

It isn’t going to.

All these folks they’ve declared heretics weren’t after all. The actual heretic would end up being the RCC.

That won’t happen. It’s like saying, “What if Stephen Hawking turns out to be an idiot?” We already have too much evidence going the other way.

This gets back to having unity on doctrine that is absolutely necessary for salvation. I’m all for agreeing on what that would be and then professing to it. Anything that has no impact on matters of salvation like Mary’s virginity, should only be proposed beliefs of the church. Right now I can introduce you to about 100 people who profess to be good Roman Catholics. Not one of them believes everything that is taught by the church in Rome. So they are heretics. That means the RCC has heretics right within their own backyard.

We always have had, right from the moment Judas joined up with Jesus.

Now do you consider them in full communion with Rome?

It depends - if they are conscious of being in heresy and refusing to repent, then no; they are in the state of mortal sin.

If they are just making an honest mistake, or just not understanding something very well, and would correct it if they knew better, then yes, they are in communion with Rome.

 

[qui_est_ce]

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.

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.

This is why you must go to the source, men are fallible, they misunderstand and misinterpret. The Church is not fallible.

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.

You put that very well.

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.

Is it more important for you to be a Pastor and married than to join the Church whose teachings you profess as the fullness of Truth? Could you not become a Deacon, or a theologian, as did Scott Hahn or Tim Staples?

You are in my prayers.

 

[qui_est_ce]

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

yup! :yup:

“Our God is an AWESOME God!”

 

[qui_est_ce]

If you disagree with a teaching you are a heretic. You have to believe everything they tell you to believe or you are accused of heresy.

No you are not a heretic, only those who have known the Truth and turned their backs against it are heretics.

This gets back to having unity on doctrine that is absolutely necessary for salvation. I’m all for agreeing on what that would be and then professing to it. Anything that has no impact on matters of salvation like Mary’s virginity, should only be proposed beliefs of the church.

That’s your opinion.

Right now I can introduce you to about 100 people who profess to be good Roman Catholics. Not one of them believes everything that is taught by the church in Rome. So they are heretics. That means the RCC has heretics right within their own backyard. Now do you consider them in full communion with Rome?

Okay, well, JW’s profess to be Christians, but they’re not. Anybody can say anthing, that doesn’t make it true. I know some of these as well. They are called Cafeteria Catholics. Probably a lot of them around.

 

[Rocky]

**Originally Posted by Cathlacostal **http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
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.
*In the Archdiocese of St. Paul/Minneapolis there is a former married (I believe Lutheran) pastor who has been accepted into the Catholic faith, and also was given permission by the Holy See to become a Catholic priest. He is an Associate Pastor in a parish and can and does say Mass. *

 

[Non_Serviam]

Hope you enjoyed it!

It was good, my back enjoyed the respite from shoveling!

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’m less optimistic that clear written responses resolve everything. Take for example the “brief” definition of the Trinity from the CCC (I’m simply using it as an example that’s easy to verify).
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

IN BRIEF

261 The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and of Christian life. God alone can make it known to us by revealing himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

262 The Incarnation of God’s Son reveals that God is the eternal Father and that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, which means that, in the Father and with the Father the Son is one and the same God.

263 The mission of the Holy Spirit, sent by the Father in the name of the Son (Jn 14:26) and by the Son “from the Father” (Jn 15:26), reveals that, with them, the Spirit is one and the same God. “With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified” (Nicene Creed).

264 “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the first principle and, by the eternal gift of this to the Son, from the communion of both the Father and the Son” (St. Augustine, De Trin. 15, 26, 47: PL 42, 1095).

265 By the grace of Baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”, we are called to share in the life of the Blessed Trinity, here on earth in the obscurity of faith, and after death in eternal light (cf. Paul VI, CPG § 9).

266 “Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son’s is another, the Holy Spirit’s another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal” (Athanasian Creed: DS 75; ND 16).

267 Inseparable in what they are, the divine persons are also inseparable in what they do. But within the single divine operation each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, especially in the divine missions of the Son’s Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit

Now all Catholics are required to believe in the Trinity, and the Magesterium has written out a clear description of what this means. If you were to go to your local parish and ask everyone to read this and then explain what they read, do you believe you would have “unity” in their explanations?

Do you believe that doctrinal unity only means saying the same words, that it doesn’t matter what is someone’s understanding of those words?

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

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”?

I agree Jesus desires unity, but He prays for it because it doesn’t exist. The question behind the question as you touch on below is whether God expects doctrinal unity in the church (He certainly desires it).

As for possible lost souls, for me it is the same as those who ask how God could let untold numbers of people perish for generations in the Americas and the Far East without hearing the gospel until it arrived centuries after Jesus death. Or what happens to infants who die. I believe that those who truly desired to know God’s truth and did their best to discover it can be left to His mercy.

On a similar note, would you condemn those believers whose pastor was an Arian as the belief was growing if they had no other church in their region and obviously no other means of accessing teaching or church documents? They simply trusted that they were being led in truth and that their sacraments were valid, since they had no other way of knowing otherwise.

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

Agreed. But from Paul’s epistle it is clear that the church was divided. he was trying to move them to unity by holding up the example of Christ.

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.

Yes, I’ve found this to be a difficulty in talking with many Catholics-the definition of “church” morphs depending on what is being discussed. Perhaps a topic for another thread?

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?

This would seem to be the crux of our discussion. Perhaps also a topic for another thread, since this one seems to be meandering again.

(continued below)

 

[Non_Serviam]

(continued from above)

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.

I agree that God wants us to know truth and His will. Once again we are back to the question as to what provision he made for this. Did God make provision for us to learn truth and discover his will. (I agree that He did) and is this provision an infallible Magesterium? (that’s where I part company with you).

Once again I look at Israel and see that God accomplished His purpose without the type of government and the need for infallibility that Catholicism claims. I think it would be much easier if it was that way, excepting that even with clear propositions we still have epistemological issues surrounding the level of understanding of those who read/hear the propositions.

I do agree that how God means to guide His church into all truth is the key issue for our discussion-so how do we focus on that?

 

[Deacon110]

Has to be 2 posts

Real Presence:
Originally Posted by John 6:52-56
52The 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.

This has nothing to do with the last supper. Jesus is equating eating HIS flesh and blood with believing in HIM. The last supper is irrevelant at this point in time. Jesus is letting them know that he is giving his flesh to them. How? On the cross. They’re just not getting it. It’s the same as saying drown yourself in ME. Jesus doesn’t turn to water and we literally drown in HIM. If this was an allusion to the last supper then why does John NOT record those word this is my body this is my blood in his gospel? Also you stopped quoting from John chapter 6 to pick up the logical continuation of this teaching. It doesn’t stop at verse 56.

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”

If the words are spirit and life and the flesh is of no help, then why eat the flesh??

Authority of Peter and visible Church on Earth, infallible in faith and morals
Quote:Originally Posted by 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."

Peter was no doubt giving teaching authority but so were all the Apostles. The power of binding and loosing also is extended to the whole church not just to the Apostles. I call your attention to a specific teaching that Jesus gave NOT just to the Apostles but to all the disciples who were following HIM.

Matthew 18:15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed [6] in heaven.

Now Jesus wasn’t addressing this just to the Apostles. He was calling it to the attention of the person(s) who were sinned against. So basically this is how you and I are to treat sinners against us.

1. Try to reconcile with them personally
2. If that fails get witnesses and try to reconcile
3. If that fails take it to the church
4. If that fails treat them like a pagan or corrupt tax collector

Whatever we bind and loose on earth is bound and loosed in Heaven.

Contd below

 

[Deacon110]

Contd from above

“It” Rock=Church.
Apostles having Authority to Teach (even Judas)

Rock = Jesus and or GOD. Same thing. Every scriptural reference to rock in the Bible refers to either Jesus or GOD. Look it up.

Originally Posted by Matthew 10:1-4
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.

Yes no disagreement from me here. But remember the Apostles weren’t the only ones Jesus sent out with this same power. Jesus also sent out the 72 (Luke 10:1) who did the same things.

Knowledge given only to the Apostles
Quote:Originally Posted by Matthew13:10-11, 34-36 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.

OK so where does Jesus tell them to pass it on??

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.”

OK so Jesus spoke in parables to the crowds and clarified things for the Apostles in private. That’s the same today. We still have those same teachings in parables and no one has the intimate knowledge of the Kingdom of Heaven including the pope.

Apostolic Succession

Originally Posted by Acts 1:20-22
]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.”

Yes but look at the qualifications to be an Apostle. Verses 21-22. They were only able to find 2 people to fit the bill. This does not foreshadow Apostolic succession because no one else existed that had these qualifications. No one today can be considered an Apostle because of verse 21-22. Justin Martyr coined the phrase Apostolic succession because the early chuches had presbyters that were leading people away from Christ or who were unfit to lead period. He stated placing people “like us” (true followers of Christ). This made a lot of sense given the infancy of the Christian church and the persecution it faced. I believe all churches today should be based on Apostolic teachings. In fact both creeds state this. Universal and Apostolic. Apostolic does not mean apostolic succession but Apostolic teachings.

PEACE

 

[jmcrae]

I’m less optimistic that clear written responses resolve everything. Take for example the “brief” definition of the Trinity from the CCC (I’m simply using it as an example that’s easy to verify).

In the Catholic Church, wanting to believe what the Church teaches is sufficient for unity.

If I misunderstand the teachings about the Trinity because I lack the educational background or the mental ability to comprehend it, I can still be in union with the Church.

Where I depart from unity with the Church is when I insist that my understanding is infallible, and therefore, (I decide) the Church is wrong. If I take that attitude, then I’m out of communion with the Church.

But if I take the attitude that the Church is right, and I discover that my understanding is incorrect, then I try to improve my understanding, and bring it as much as possible into line with the teaching of the Church, as best I can understand it.

Now all Catholics are required to believe in the Trinity, and the Magesterium has written out a clear description of what this means. If you were to go to your local parish and ask everyone to read this and then explain what they read, do you believe you would have “unity” in their explanations?

Probably not - but as long as they’re trying their best to conform to the teachings of the Church, then they’re okay.

As for possible lost souls, for me it is the same as those who ask how God could let untold numbers of people perish for generations in the Americas and the Far East without hearing the gospel until it arrived centuries after Jesus death. Or what happens to infants who die. I believe that those who truly desired to know God’s truth and did their best to discover it can be left to His mercy.

And again, we are talking here about people who are doing the best they can; not people who are deliberately promulgating or believing in heresy.

On a similar note, would you condemn those believers whose pastor was an Arian as the belief was growing if they had no other church in their region and obviously no other means of accessing teaching or church documents? They simply trusted that they were being led in truth and that their sacraments were valid, since they had no other way of knowing otherwise.

And again, these people are doing the best they can.

Their pastor is not doing the best that he can, though, and he will be held accountable for that in the Judgment, to the degree that he is culpable for that.

 

[fbl9]

hi deacon 110 how do you fit post 267 in with the Lord’s prayer “forgive one another…” ?

 

[jmcrae]

If the words are spirit and life and the flesh is of no help, then why eat the flesh??

Are you saying that Christ’s flesh is of no help?

If this is what He was saying, then why did He become Incarnate in the first place?

And how would His death on the cross for our sins been of any effect, then?

 

[Non_Serviam]

I’ve been thinking furiously since I read this post of yours:

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.

As we can see from the second verse of the Epistle, it was written to the church in Corinth, those who Paul felt were believers.

So in looking at 11:17, he wasn’t speaking to schismatics, but the church as he saw it, and telling them that as a result of their divisions, there was currently no Lord’s Supper in their assembly.

To me that is simply mind blowing. Imagine if the teaching that Jesus would withhold His presence from all until they settled their personal and corporate faults had caught on in the church. Think of the potential difference in history it might have occasioned.

(aside to Kay Cee-I know this touches on what I’ve written previously with regard to unity, and it has me wondering what impact this verse has on worship today.)

 

[jmcrae]

As we can see from the second verse of the Epistle, it was written to the church in Corinth, those who Paul felt were believers.

The Church in Corinth was (still is) a Diocese, with several different parishes. They weren’t all in the same building.

 

[Deacon110]

The Early Fathers all take it literally.

No. Untrue. They were not unanimous on this. Eusebius for one was not. The doctrine of transubstantiation was not made official until 1215. Why did it take so long? They weren’t unanimous there either.

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

The bread of life has no relevance here. John Chapter 6 is referencing something completely different. Jesus equates eating HIS flesh and blood with believing. Jesus later clarifies this by stating that the flesh means nothing, it is the spirit that gives life. If it’s the spirit then why eat the flesh?? Jesus states the cup is the new covenant in HIS blood. Not a cup of HIS blood. The covenant is in HIS blood that HE shed at the cross for us. The cup represents the covenant. The cup is not the blood the covenant is .Also why does John NOT include the words this is my body this is my blood in his gospel? Probably not to create confusion.

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

Paul does not say that. He says they are guilty concerning the body and blood of Christ. Meaning they are just as guilty as those who crucified HIM. Not that physically harming the Eucharist harms Christ.

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

Neither was yours unless you’re living in Jerusalem or Antioch. touche Actually no american church was around then. JMCRAE that’s a ridiculous statement and you know it.

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. Which is based on how the Early Church interpreted it. Because the Early Church didn’t take that part literally.

Are you referencing the hands and eyes? Need to re-check my post. Why didn’t they take Jesus literally? Because they knew how ridiculous that sounded. They knew Jesus was expressing HIS extreme hatred for sin. Just like eating HIS physical flesh which is cannabilism. That’s even more ridiculous. Jesus would not ask Jews to do this and mean it literally. That’s asking them to go against GOD’s law in Leviticus 17. So he must have meant figuratively.

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.

OK thanks

PEACE

 

[jmcrae]

No. Untrue. They were not unanimous on this. Eusebius for one was not. The doctrine of transubstantiation was not made official until 1215. Why did it take so long? They weren’t unanimous there either.

If this was blatant heresy, why did it take until 1560 (nearly half a century after the Reformation, even) to come up with a definition of the doctrine of the symbolic Eucharist - and why was it promulgated only in Switzerland and Scotland?

The bread of life has no relevance here. John Chapter 6 is referencing something completely different. Jesus equates eating HIS flesh and blood with believing.

When establishing the Eucharist, Jesus held up the bread and said “THIS is My Body.” Then held up the wine and said “THIS is My blood.”

The Disciples, who had been earlier wondering, “How do we eat Christ’s body and blood?” now had their answer.

Jesus later clarifies this by stating that the flesh means nothing, it is the spirit that gives life. If it’s the spirit then why eat the flesh?? Jesus states the cup is the new covenant in HIS blood.

Yes, not a covenant in animal sacrifices. So, just as before they had to eat the animals when it was a covenant in animal sacrifices, so now, we have to consume His Blood.

How do we do that? Jesus Himself answers this question in the Eucharist, by saying “THIS is My Blood.” The blood in the Chalice that He is holding up is the same blood that poured out for our sins on the Cross.

This is the Sacrifice; this is what we must consume.

 

[Deacon110]

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?

No you stand corrected. Jesus made the correction while everyone was still there. I see people try to argue this in this fashion all the time. You’re getting the events out of sequence. It wasn’t until verse 66 that some of the disciples turned away from HIM. Then in verse 67 Jesus turns to the 12. In verses 60-65 while everyone is still there Jesus clarifies this hard teaching.

Also show me where cutting off your hands and gouging out your eyes is against GOD’s law. Drinking the blood of any living thing is expressly forbidden in Leviticus 17. It is for this reason that the Jews left HIM. They thought he was asking them to break the law and perform cannabilism. They didn’t realize that HE would never ask them to do that so it must mean something else. They just weren’t getting it. Jesus wanted them to believe. HE even asked what if I ascend to where I came. Like saying how about if I ascended to Heaven? Would you believe then?? They still weren’t getting it. So then he clarifies that the flesh means nothing it is the spirit that gives life. The words I spoke were spirit and life but some of you don’t believe. Notice Jesus didn’t say all. Just some. The ones that left turned out to be the same ones who later yelled crucified HIM.

Let me ask you a point blank question. Why would Jesus ask a group of GOD-fearing, GOD-loving, Law-abiding Jews to do something that was expressly forbidden by GOD? Do you believe HE really wanted them to think that they had to eat HIS physical flesh?? Even after he clarifies that the flesh means nothing?? Jesus plainly clarifies further that no one can come to HIM unless the FATHER sends them. What does that mean? It means GOD will not send false believers to Jesus. Some of the Jews were false believers. All they wanted was for Jesus to continue to give them miraculous signs like free bread. He just got done feeding the 5000.

PEACE

 

[jmcrae]

No you stand corrected.

Just fyi, this is really annoying, because it assumes that you are the authority who makes corrections.

Drinking the blood of any living thing is expressly forbidden in Leviticus 17.

Because it is the life of the body. Taking on the life of an animal lowers our human nature. Taking on the life of God, by contrast, raises it.

The OT prohibition against blood teaches us what the blood is, and prepares us to understand what it means to us when we are commanded to drink God’s blood.

 

[Deacon110]

These are abuses, and go against the TEACHINGS of the CC. Do not confuse men with the Church.

But your confusing the truth with teachings. The truth is infallible but teaching it is not. Someone can corrupt the teaching. Not on purpose maybe but it happens. The church in Corinth is the best example of this. Paul taught to them orally. Obviously they misunderstood because it required him generating 2 letters to them. 1 very nasty. I don’t believe that oral teachings can successfully be handed down for 2000 years perfectly. That’s why GOD gave us the Bible and why 2 Timothy 3 is so relevant.

No, our understanding of the
Teachings grows and develops, but not the Teaching itself.

Again it’s quite possible to misunderstand the teachings. Like John chapter 6. The Jews misunderstood what Jesus was saying. Even when he clarified it they still didn’t understand.

You’re assuming that man is infallible. We are very much fallible.

PEACE