Calling all non-Catholic Christians!

[Deacon110]

It wasn’t defined until then. In any case, it is the Real Presence that is the doctrine, not Transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is the philosophical explanation of the Real Presence.

The Early Fathers (including Eusebius) believed in the Real Presence; Eusebius had issues with Transubstantiation, but he didn’t believe in symbolical Eucharist; he still believed that it was really Jesus.

Yes, that’s why we have to consume it.

When the Jews did the anamnesis (remembrance) of the Passover, they had to sacrifice and eat the lambs; they couldn’t make a symbol of the lamb and eat that instead.

They had to consume the actual sacrifice of the Passover; not a substitute or symbol of it.

In the same way, we have to consume the actual sacrifice of the Cross; not a symbol of it. Jesus is the True Lamb of God, and He offers His flesh for the world for us to consume in the Eucharist.

Yes, it is, by means of Transubstantiation. The same way that the Jews ate the real sacrifice of the Passover; not a symbol or substitute of it.

According to Scott Hahn, He was referring here to the Passover. The Passover is finished, and has now been replaced by His Sacrifice on the Cross.

We now eat His body and blood in the Eucharist; not the flesh of the lamb of Passover.

Ok now this I will offer a correction I believe you are missing. Not saying you stand correctedPeople often confuse the greek word anamnesis as meaning an actual sacrifice. The Greek words used in the New Testament for sacrifice is thusia and thuo. The Greek word anamnesis does not mean sacrifice. According to The Old/New Testament Greek lexicon based on Thayer’s and Smith’s Bible Dictionary, anamnesis simply means “a remembering, recollection.”

With regard to Scott Hahn I don’t follow that at all. It is finished to me blatantly means that the sacrifice is done. Jesus work here on earth is complete. We now have the perfect sacrifice that paid for the atonement of our sins. This is how GOD redeems us.

Also remember when most of these writings were completed, the folks that read them were much less educated than you and I. Consider the average poor person who had nothing and very little education reading a Gospel or letter from Paul. Even the Apostles weren’t that educated. So I think the mistake we make is we try to apply so much 20th century theology and complicate the teachings by trying to read between the lines and making huge assumptions. Sometimes we need to just accept the text for what it is. The early churches in people’s houses certainly didn’t have the Internet, billions of Biblical scholars etc.

I think when we meet Jesus we will all find out that our behavior here was not only quite ridiculous, but that we misunderstood many of the things HE said by trying to read too much into them.

PEACE

 

[Deacon110]

If the flesh of Christ is of no avail, then nothing significant happened on the Cross.

JMCRAE Christ is the one who is stating this not me. Of course something significant with Christ’s flesh happened on the cross. But now that HIS work is finished we are left with the Holy Spirit. This was HIS promise. Why would Jesus say the flesh means nothing then?? Why would he say it is the spirit that gives life and that HIS words were spirit and life in John Chapter 6? Why does John not mention those famous words this is my body this is my blood? Connecting John 6 to the Lord’s supper is one of those jumps you make that John himself doesn’t even make.

You say that like it’s an established fact, yet up until at least 1965 and possibly even for a short time after that, not only every observant Catholic, but every human being on planet earth who claimed to believe in any sort of deity whatsoever, and had some sort of at least reasonably consistent devotion to it/him/her/them disagreed with that idea; the only people who thought divorce and remarriage were okay were Marxist Communists, anarchists, and the free-love people. (Hippies, I think they were called, at the time.)

Well scripturally I’m correct. Unfortunately many many people don’t know scripture. True we should always hold our marriages sacred. But Jesus tells us flat out that a divorce can be granted if sexual immorality exists within the marriage. For me it did and it was very emotional. So please don’t imply I’m a Marxist, communist, Hippie or whatever. I just wanted it to be over. Even the Priest agreed with me. You’re getting little personal now:shrug:

PEACE

 

[Deacon110]

When Mary said, Ecce ancilla Domini; fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum.

How does Mary’s magnificat imply this? This is another one of those jumps you are making.

 

[jmcrae]

Well scripturally I’m correct. Unfortunately many many people don’t know scripture. True we should always hold our marriages sacred. But Jesus tells us flat out that a divorce can be granted if sexual immorality exists within the marriage.

No, He did not. He said, “except for the cause of impurity,” which the Church has always understood to mean, if it was not a valid Sacrament, to begin with. The behaviour of the spouses after the wedding has no effect on the Sacrament.

Some situations do require a divorce, but a divorce does not mean that the marriage has ended; it only means that the parties are not legally responsible for each other any more; for example, the wife is no longer legally required to pay her husband’s debts, etc.

If they attempt to remarry to other people, they are living in the state of adultery; Jesus was absolutely clear about that.

 

[jmcrae]

How does Mary’s magnificat imply this? This is another one of those jumps you are making.

This is not the Magnificat; this is the Fiat.

 

[wisdomseeker]

SIZE=“4”]Originally Posted by Deacon110
GOD not only allowed the reformers to survive, HE’s moved Roman Catholics over to their churches

Please dont tell us that God gave you guys the idea of chick tracks to allude innocent catholics away.

 

[qui_est_ce]

This is a question I could find no reasonable answer for. That’s one reason why my heart is becoming Catholic!

We sing that in choir! I love it. So haunting, so mysterious, just like our faith!

 

[qui_est_ce]

Day two of the Mission: Subject; The Crucifix Jesus on the Cross. Who can understand it? Father Dave said, and again, this pierced my heart, “Do not presume to understand God.” He is beyond our human understanding.

WOW, again, I am consumed by reverence for the Holy Catholic Church and her mystical understanding of the Body of Christ.

I brought my Crucifix, one that has been in the family for over 50 years. I asked that God be the father of my children, 17 and 20. I have been divorced from their father for ten years now. Their father has been a poor moral leader in their lives, and their faith is slipping, if not non-existant, in spite of Catholic schooling for elementary and high school years. It’s never too late to have a strong Chrsitian father! A Father is so important in the faith development of his children!

What healing. My hopes and prayers are SEALED. Tomorrow we will vist Easter. We have been asked to bring our Baptismal candles. Kids are coming for this with me. PTL!

 

[Kay_Cee]

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).

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?

Since I’m not supposed to get into Catholicism, I’m not going to get into this. Let’s please stick to the topic, as hard as that is to do (and yes, it is hard!)

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?

I think doctrinal unity means Christianity *teaches *the same thing consistently. Having been a high school teacher, I can tell you that yes, misunderstandings arise. A good teacher, however, is one students can approach to answer questions and clear up these misunderstandings.

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).

You are right that it didn’t exist in the example from Corinthians, but look what happened. There was a way for the misunderstanding to be cleared up. Paul stepped in and cleared it up.

I think God understands human nature better than anybody and therefore knew misunderstandings would arise. Since he desires unity, wouldn’t he have provided a way for that to happen? It looks to me like that’s exactly what he did. He had Paul communicate with the Corinthians, teaching them the correct understanding.

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.

I agree, but this is getting off topic. Let’s stick to how one determines correct doctrine within Protestantism.

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.

I don’t condemn anyone. You seem to have the impression that I think something happens along the lines of God giving a quiz to see if we know and understand the correct doctrine before he lets us into heaven. That’s not what I believe (that would be gnosticim, wouldn’t it?)

I do believe God desires that his children have the truth and would therefore provide a way for them to know it.

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.

Exactly! God had someone send a letter to correct their misunderstanding!

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?

You are correct that we should stay on topic. This, in fact, sounds like an example of a misunderstanding that can arise: what is the church?

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)

Let’s not let that happen!

 

[Kay_Cee]

(continued from above)
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).

Since within this thread I’m supposed to stick to Protestantism, I won’t get into the Magesterium.

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?

Could we please stay off Catholicism in this thread? Pretty please?

As for your question, let’s look at the example you gave from Corinthians. What did God do in that case? He sent a person to provide the answer.

God often works through human beings. He worked through Moses to free the Hebrew slaves. He worked through the prophets to deliver messages to the people. He worked through the early Christians to write the New Testament.

If there is a misunderstanding, doesn’t it take some sort of evaluative process to even realize a misunderstanding has occurred? And, unless God is speaking directly to the individual with the misunderstanding, doesn’t it take some sort of human participation to clear up that misunderstanding?

To give an example: I mentioned I used to teach high school. Let’s say one day I was teaching a certain concept, one included in the textbook. A student raises his hand and says, “I don’t get it.”

I don’t think the textbook can evaluate that this student doesn’t understand, nor can it take steps to correct him. However, I, as his teacher, would then explain it again, this time in different words and perhaps in more detail.

Now suppose this student says, “Oh, I see.” and then proceeds to tell me his understanding. If he’s right, I tell him so. If he’s wrong, I can still take steps to correct him. It might take quite a bit of communication back and forth before he comes to the correct understanding.

My point with all this is that it takes a human being who can do some sort of evaluation to determine if an understanding is correct or not. Now, in any subject (including theology) you’d have to be certain the teacher understood the concept correctly or he might teach it wrong. Paul, in the example you used, understood correctly and taught correctly. That is, there must be some sort of “getting it right” in order to pass it on right.

So the question that arises for me is: can we find a teacher within Protestantism whom we are certain “gets it right”?

If not, how does God choose to lead us into all truth?

 

[Deacon110]

No, He did not. He said, “except for the cause of impurity,” which the Church has always understood to mean, if it was not a valid Sacrament, to begin with. The behaviour of the spouses after the wedding has no effect on the Sacrament.

Some situations do require a divorce, but a divorce does not mean that the marriage has ended; it only means that the parties are not legally responsible for each other any more; for example, the wife is no longer legally required to pay her husband’s debts, etc.

If they attempt to remarry to other people, they are living in the state of adultery; Jesus was absolutely clear about that.

Let’s be clear on what Jesus said:

Matthew 5:31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

And in speaking to the Pharisees:

Matthew 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Looks like sexual immorality is an exception.

 

[Deacon110]

This is not the Magnificat; this is the Fiat.

Again what does that have to do with the house of David becoming the kingom of heaven.

 

[jmcrae]

Again what does that have to do with the house of David becoming the kingom of heaven.

God was born into the House of David.

 

[jmcrae]

Let’s be clear on what Jesus said:

Matthew 5:31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

And in speaking to the Pharisees:

Matthew 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Looks like sexual immorality is an exception.

I’m taking this to a new thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=220004

 

[qui_est_ce]

Not all church Fathers. Incorrect statement. Now when you say misunderstood please explain that.

Could you tell me when the Catholic Church went into heresy and began the new teaching of the Real Presence. (Transubstantiation is not the same thing as Real Presence). It must have been before 800, because of the Eucharistic Miracle at Lanciano, the monk in involved questioned the Real Presence.

No look again please at Matthew 18:15. He’s addressing a bunch of HIS disciples at this point speaking if your brother sins against you. Jesus prescribes 4 courses of action:

we were discussing Matthew 16:18, where Jesus said Peter you are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. BTW Caesarea Philippi was a place of huge rocks with out croppings where sacrifices to the Roman god Pan could be made.bibleplaces.com/banias.htm

address your brother - verse 15
take witnesses - verse 16
take it to the church - verse 17
Which church?

Re-marriage is not a sin. If infidelity is involved then Biblilcally Jesus tells us we can divorce. The others, who knows.

I was using this as an example. Different churches teach different sins, which one is right? Can I commit infidelity, divorce my husband and get remarried. Is that lawful?

Deuteronomy 32: 4 & 15
2 Samuel 22:2
Isaiah 30:29
1 Corinthians 10:4
1 Peter 2:8
Romans 9:33

So because the above might be interpreted as Rock=God we should interpret Peter you are Rock as God=Rock?

 

[Nick_Jones]

If the Catholic Church is so wrong, why do you trust it enough to trust the Bible that she gave us? Despite the lack of books in a Protestant Bible, the rest was compiled by the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church is so wrong how did it compile the New Testament correctly but pervert the rest of the religion in the meantime?

Some of you have actually denied that this thread is about the Catholic Church! Just to bring you back to reality, it is claimed here that she (the RCC) gave us the bible! If this claim is part of the OP argument, then I’d like to challenge you to prove:

1. The bible was ever written by, or belonged to, the RCC exclusively…thus making the bible something that could only be given by the RCC.
2. That no other Christian “way” or Christian church existed during the time of the inscripturation of the NT books.
3. That the bible mentions a papacy, a doctrine of papal infallibility, or the RCC.

 

[fbl9]

hi deacon 110 conveinent time to take Jeus’s words literally now when defending one’s postion on divorce.may ask what sin would a brother have to do that it needs two or three witness’s testimony and the churh to solve it?Jesus also said we are to forgive our brother 70x7 times.if the brother is forgiven how can that brother be won? there is something here.the church excommunicates those who teach error and refuse to repent.those who are in sin are allowed to go to the mass but may not partake of the Eucharist.

 

[fbl9]

hi Nick Jones who would you want to tell your daughter about the benifits of a chaste life till marriage or not. a nun or a leading adult movie starlet? who would you want to tell which books belong in the bible the ones who rejected the word when He was made flesh and taught among them or the ones who not seeing Him, but yet believe in Him?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Some of you have actually denied that this thread is about the Catholic Church! Just to bring you back to reality, it is claimed here that she (the RCC) gave us the bible! If this claim is part of the OP argument, then I’d like to challenge you to prove:

1. The bible was ever written by, or belonged to, the RCC exclusively…thus making the bible something that could only be given by the RCC.

CC only claims that under the guidance of the HS, she wrote the table of contents. Can you tell me otherwise?

1. That no other Christian “way” or Christian church existed during the time of the inscripturation of the NT books.

There were other heretical sects yes. JW’s have resurrected Arian heresy.

1. That the bible mentions a papacy, a doctrine of papal infallibility, or the RCC.

Papacy can be inferred by Matthew 16:18 and other passages, the same as the Trinity can be inferred, but is not specifically mentioned in the Bible. No one is claiming that the Bible mentions CC. All we are claiming is we are the Apostolic Church which Christ instituted on Earth.

 

[jmcrae]

Some of you have actually denied that this thread is about the Catholic Church! Just to bring you back to reality, it is claimed here that she (the RCC) gave us the bible! If this claim is part of the OP argument, then I’d like to challenge you to prove:

1. The bible was ever written by, or belonged to, the RCC exclusively…thus making the bible something that could only be given by the RCC.
2. That no other Christian “way” or Christian church existed during the time of the inscripturation of the NT books.
3. That the bible mentions a papacy, a doctrine of papal infallibility, or the RCC.

That person was going off topic, and so are you.

(It’s very easy to do, in this thread.)

What we are asking is, Assuming that the Catholic Church is not the Church that Christ founded, which one is? By what marks (signs) does it reveal itself? (ie: historical evidence, Biblical evidence, etc.)

We know that Christ established a Church because we read it in Matthew 16:18-19, we see Him praying for it in John 17, and we find that a Church has, in fact, been established, when we read the Book of the Acts of the Apostles.

Assume that this Church is not the Catholic Church.

Which one is it? And how can the average person, or someone who is not gifted with locutions (voices in their heads) from the Holy Spirit, identify it with accuracy and certainty?