Can a person get to heaven without "swimming the Tiber"?

[Grace_Seeker]

If this is what you believe, then you need to study Catholic teaching. In John 6:53, when Jesus said, “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”, He meant exactly what He said, and for the past 2,000 years, the Church has always understood what He meant.

Study the writings of the Church fathers, along with what every Church council has proclaimed over the centuries, and you will have no doubt. The only place you can receive His body and blood to eat and drink is in the Catholic Church. You cannot have eternal life without the Catholic Church.

You make far too many assumptions without facts.

First, you assumed that I have not studied the material you indicate. Perhaps not all of it, but much of it.

Second, you assume that even if I hadn’t that I have a need to. I suggest to you that to be an erroneous conclusion.

Third, you assume you properly understand what Jesus was speaking of in this passage. However, as I already said, your hermeneutic has lead you to read it in a particular way so that you arrive at a particular understanding even before you begin the process of interpretation. Your shakiness is not in your interpretative work, it is in the intial hearing of the text itself. I don’t believe that the reference is to the future receiving of the Eucharist at all.

Fourth, it appears you assume that you are subscribing to a literal interpretation of those words, but I suggest to you that even you are not. You have made modifications in your own understanding that I suggest you are not even aware of.

Your final comment that one cannot have eternal life without the Catholic Church doesn’t come from this passage at all, but it a wonderfully audacious and arrogant statement founded only in one’s personal biases, not in the reality of God’s Word or even any tradition existing at the time of the apostles.

 

[Publisher]

Of course…but none of the choices reflect how I would respond.

 

[NDfan]

Well, this isn’t quite true. The Church has said that “there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church”

Saying there is no salvation outside the Catholic church was used when the Catholic church existed as one universal church and was the only Christian church. Everyone else outside this universal church didn’t accept Jesus. So obviously it would be natural to say outside the Catholic church you are not saved. But that does not apply today and is a gross mis-use of this statement.

However, to use the “tiber” analogy - there are two ways of swimming the tiber.

The first is the normal way - the formal way joining the visible Church and having sacraments of baptism, Eucharist, confession etc

The second, in cases of invincible ignorance is where people can be joined to the Church without formally swimming the tiber by obeying the precepts of natural law and, by the grace of God, making an act of perfect contrition to obtain the gift of sanctifying grace (This is the grace that gets you into heaven)

We are under GOD’s grace from the moment we are born. It is by HIS grace that we have Jesus as our savior. Upon acceptance of Jesus and becoming baptized we are born again into spiritual life with Jesus dying of our old sinful flesh. This makes you a part of HIS church.

We cannot say who specifically is going to hell. However, we are not to presume that God will save Non-Catholic Christians (Even though there’s no such thing) through the “second way”. This is why we must always evangelise.

We are not to presume that GOD will save all Roman Catholics for that matter. GOD will look at our hearts not our Christian denominational affiliation.

One serious sin is enough to turn away from God and condemn our souls to hell. Non-Catholics have no way for their sins to be forgiven outside of confession except by perfect contrition, given by the grace of God.

Yes Jesus in fact gave us a way to get forgiveness from GOD. It’s called the Lord’s prayer. Does that ring a bell??

Also, they have no Eucharist to strengthen them in the fight.

Communion strengthens me every single week.

The Catholic Church hopes that all men are saved but knows that all will perish in the deluge if they are not joined to the Ark of Salvation.

JD

The ark of salvation is Jesus HIMSELF. All joined to that ark are saved as stated in John 3:16.

PEACE

 

[NDfan]

While the Catholic Church understands itself to be the mystical Body of Christ and therefore the only source of salvation in this world, it claims no exclusivity when it comes to salvation.

Read Romans 2:14-16.

Subrosa

Excellent point. It’s what’s in the heart that gets judged.

 

[NDfan]

All I want to know is: does the passage in Romans 2:12-16 give us (Catholic Church) the basis for invincible ignorance or does this passage refer to something else with regard to the early church and gentile converts?

Also, a convert I once heard made a great point: many Protestants want to ask others “Are you born again?” though Jesus said that phrase but once to Nicodemus. This convert asks, " Why aren’t Protestants asking, ‘Have you eaten the flesh of Christ and drunk his blood?’ when Jesus has reiterated that 4 times in John 6."

To non-Catholics who say, “I believe in Christ and follow Him, what else is required?” I would say this: “Jesus says, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life within you. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Does it get any more clear than that???

No because Jesus clears this up in verse 63 when he says it is the spirit that gives life, the flesh means nothing, and the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. What words would that be that he was speaking?? Also John 3:16 makes it pretty clear to me.

 

[MotherNoRest]

To Grace Seeker and the other person who spoke of verse 63:

Believe it or not, Catholics have read down to Verse 63. We don’t believe in the Eucharist because we think it’s magical and we just can’t let go and to safeguard our pet doctrines, we purposely overlook verses of scripture. We believe in the Eucharist because it’s the only thing that works here and happens to dovetail with lots of other scripture and 2000 years of tradition.

If verse 63 clears it all up, then why in verse 66, does scripture say, “because of this many drew back and no longer went about with Him.” If Jesus just made it clear that he was speaking figuratively, why did they leave 3 verses later? What was it that they could not handle? In fact, as Scott Hahn says, it would have been morally responsible for Jesus to stop them if they misunderstood and say “hey, I was only speaking figuratively.” But Jesus did NOT stop them. He turned to his disciples and said, “Do you also want to go?” They did not reply, “no, Lord, we understand your words…” They said, “To whom shall we go; you alone have the words of Life.” Nowhere here is an understanding of a simple figurative analogy conveyed to the Bible reader. Did people take off when Jesus said, “I am the vine and you are the branches?” Did they bolt then? No, because he was speaking figuratively.

Jesus is not saying that His flesh profits nothing!!! His flesh, crucified, wrought eternal life for us! He is speaking about thinking “in the flesh” which is what those who were murmuring were doing. Jesus is telling his followers to think in the Spirit!

You can use fancy words like hermeneutics and exegesis and so on. But I can’t figure any meaning to this except what Jesus plainly says, and I’ll go with that and 2000 years of tradition.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

You can use fancy words like hermeneutics and exegesis and so on. But I can’t figure any meaning to this except what Jesus plainly says, and I’ll go with that and 2000 years of tradition.

So, since we are taking things at face value, may I assume that you believe that Jesus said this sometime in the year 08? Or do you mean that the Catholic Church has existed since the year 08? I’m not exactly sure what you mean about 2000 years of tradition, but I do know that 2008 - 2000 = 8. So, you must be referencing something that occurred in 8 AD, unless of course you don’t mean for me to take the simple meaning of your words.

Am I supposed to employ a hermeneutic by which I understand that you are rounding off your numbers? What other hermeneutics are you employing, even though you deny anything that might have a fancy word attached to it?

If Jesus mean his words to be taken plaining and not metaphorically then what are we to understand that becoming thirsty means? Have you ever become thirsty; perhaps you don’t believe in Jesus? In verse 35 Jesus said, “he who believes in me will never be thirsty.”

 

[MotherNoRest]

Wow, that is a poor example and analogy to this verse!

Jesus DID say whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. How does that undo what he says after that? I suppose he hoped that those who truly believed in Him would also believe the words he was about to say.

You cannot answer the question of why all those followers said “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Why are these words recorded in scripture? If we are supposed to find these words so clearly metaphoric 1967 years later (give or take), why did the men standing right there not understand? And why didn’t Jesus clear it up?

Why did his followers leave? Nowhere after they murmured about this, does Jesus return to saying that “if you believe in me, you will not thirst.” He actually moves (in the original language) to using terms that mean “knaw” on His flesh. He makes the statement more emphatic about eating his flesh. After that, his followers left. They were scandalized.

The term “the flesh” in verse 63 does not refer to Jesus flesh. It refers to being “in the flesh” or thinking in a humanly only way, and not in the Spirit.

 

[allischalmers]

As a former Catholic that was led out of the wilderness and into the light by the Holy Spirit one does not have swim the Tibor, just believe that Jesus is the Son Of God who died for your sins

 

[Dauphin]

This is an imprecise poll. All three of the responses could potentially be interpreted in an orthodox way. The most correct answer is the third.

There is no salvation outside the Church.

Every baptised person is in the Church, so protestants who are not guilty of formal heresy can be saved. Protestants who have explicitly rejected any point of the Catholic faith most certainly cannot be saved, since they have rejected the revealed truth of God. This is the grave sin of formal heresy.

 

[reteeks21]

I’ve read it a few times, and I am just wondering why is it that Church tradition is being stressed just as much, if not more than the Bible at times?

I also ask this: Jesus did say eating His flesh, but how do we know it was not figurative? How you can so easily dismiss the exegesis arguement? He also said He was the gate, but does that mean He was made out of wood? Just curious. Thanks.

 

[Dauphin]

I’ve read it a few times, and I am just wondering why is it that Church tradition is being stressed just as much, if not more than the Bible at times?

Sacred Oral Tradition and Sacred Scripture are stressed equally because they are two essential pillars of the Church. If Sacred Oral Tradition and Magisterial authority are removed, you get the anarchy of protestantism, with its thousands of sects with their own peculiar interpretations of scripture.

I also ask this: Jesus did say eating His flesh, but how do we know it was not figurative? How you can so easily dismiss the exegesis arguement? He also said He was the gate, but does that mean He was made out of wood? Just curious. Thanks.

Answer 1: Authority of the Church
Answer 2: John 6 (see reaction of crowd - read carefully)

 

[reteeks21]

I’ve read John 6 numerous times. That still does not answer my question. Jesus said things very much like He said in John 6 several times. You have given the same standard answer without any real exegetical arguement. Just because the Chruch says it does not mean that they are always correct. I know that may get me branded as a heretic, but it is a valid statement.

And protestantism is not anarchy. Saying so is very rude and arrogant. Anarchy is trying to overthrow something, and I do not know one Protestant who wants to overthrow the Catholic Church. Try givng us a little more credit. There are numerous Catholics (I know a few) who do not hold 100% to the “authority of the Church” on every subject.

 

[Dauphin]

I’ve read John 6 numerous times. That still does not answer my question. Jesus said things very much like He said in John 6 several times. You have given the same standard answer without any real exegetical arguement. Just because the Chruch says it does not mean that they are always correct. I know that may get me branded as a heretic, but it is a valid statement.

John 6 is really quite clear. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Christ was talking figuratively. How do you explain the disgusted reaction of the crowd? How do you explain the difficulty the apostles experience in accepting his teaching? Why didn’t Christ clarify that he was just talking figuratively when the crowds left in disgust? I’ve never heard a protestant give a good answer to this, and I don’t expect to get one. The answer is that Christ was referring to his real flesh, and indicating that people really did have to consume it.

And protestantism is not anarchy. Saying so is very rude and arrogant. Anarchy is trying to overthrow something, and I do not know one Protestant who wants to overthrow the Catholic Church. Try givng us a little more credit. There are numerous Catholics (I know a few) who do not hold 100% to the “authority of the Church” on every subject.

The people you describe are not Catholics in the sense that they hold the Catholic faith. In the strict sense of the term, they are protestants, in that they reject the authority of the Church.

My point is that protestantism leads to doctrinal confusion and uncertainty, since its only rule of faith (the Bible) is open to a vast number of interpretations. The wildly contrasting beliefs of the many protestant denominations is clear evidence of this.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

My point is that protestantism leads to doctrinal confusion and uncertainty, since its only rule of faith (the Bible) is open to a vast number of interpretations. The wildly contrasting beliefs of the many protestant denominations is clear evidence of this.

Let’s take your last point first. The same doctrinal confusion has taken place within Catholicism. The record of schisms and excommunications is ample evidence of that. The only difference is that the Catholic Church having cast all those who did not continue to remained loyal to the Pope under the bus then feel inclinded to say that they are free of dissenssion. My only response to that is that most dictatorships are. I’m not sure that the result you get is any better than the anarchy you accuse others of practicing outside the Catholic Church. But if you are happy to have others think for you, then fine. I think that for the most part, and only a few exceptions, the Popes have been benevolent dictators.

John 6 is really quite clear. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Christ was talking figuratively.

No, the burden is on each interpretor to show why theirs should be preferred above all others. You grant yourself too much license.

How do you explain the disgusted reaction of the crowd? How do you explain the difficulty the apostles experience in accepting his teaching? Why didn’t Christ clarify that he was just talking figuratively when the crowds left in disgust? I’ve never heard a protestant give a good answer to this, and I don’t expect to get one. The answer is that Christ was referring to his real flesh, and indicating that people really did have to consume it.

I believe the answer is that the crowd did indeed hear it in a literal sense and was disgusted. The disciples understood better and took it as a figure of speech. Jesus didn’t run around telling people what to think. As he said, he told things in parable (i.e. figures of speech) for those who had ears to hear. Some did, some didn’t. He worked with those who were good soil,prepared to receive his words.

Wow, that is a poor example and analogy to this verse!

Jesus DID say whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. How does that undo what he says after that? I suppose he hoped that those who truly believed in Him would also believe the words he was about to say.

You cannot answer the question of why all those followers said “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Why are these words recorded in scripture? If we are supposed to find these words so clearly metaphoric 1967 years later (give or take), why did the men standing right there not understand? And why didn’t Jesus clear it up?

Why did his followers leave? Nowhere after they murmured about this, does Jesus return to saying that “if you believe in me, you will not thirst.” He actually moves (in the original language) to using terms that mean “knaw” on His flesh. He makes the statement more emphatic about eating his flesh. After that, his followers left. They were scandalized.

The term “the flesh” in verse 63 does not refer to Jesus flesh. It refers to being “in the flesh” or thinking in a humanly only way, and not in the Spirit.

Here is the problem with your response. You find that my way of understanding the teaching on being thirsty is in error, yet it is from the same larger pericope and made using the same logic that your understanding of the eating of Jesus’ flesh is taken. If you are going to criticize then the same critique can be apllied to the other. Thus, in your own words, the interpretation you have accepted of John 6 is a “poor example and analogy”. If Jesus said that whoever believe in him will NEVER be thirsty, yet believers are thirsty. Then it follows that either Jesus got it wrong, or we are wrong in applying that verse literally rather than figuratively. Now, if the passages about Jesus’ flesh being the bread of life are to be taken literally, then so is the verse about never being thirsty. But if the verse about those who believer NEVER being thirsty is to be taken figuratively, then so can the verses about Jesus’ flesh being the bread of life.

Picking and choosing is something we see Catholics accusing protestants of, but in reality they themselves do it as well. I’m just calling you on it is all. Decide whether you are going to read John 6 figuratively or literally, and then let us do so with the entire passage not just a few select phrases.

 

[Dauphin]

Let’s take your last point first. The same doctrinal confusion has taken place within Catholicism. The record of schisms and excommunications is ample evidence of that. The only difference is that the Catholic Church having cast all those who did not continue to remained loyal to the Pope under the bus then feel inclinded to say that they are free of dissenssion. My only response to that is that most dictatorships are. I’m not sure that the result you get is any better than the anarchy you accuse others of practicing outside the Catholic Church. But if you are happy to have others think for you, then fine. I think that for the most part, and only a few exceptions, the Popes have been benevolent dictators.

If Popes are dictators, then they are dictators by the mandate of Christ. Unity with the Successor of Peter has always been essential to the unity of the Church. The heresies to which you refer were all protestant in nature - in that they rejected the authority of the Church or took that authority as their own. The Catholic faith itself has never been subject to confusion or uncertainty, because the apostolic faith is perfect.

No, the burden is on each interpretor to show why theirs should be preferred above all others. You grant yourself too much license.

If Christ says “My Flesh is real food and My Blood is real drink”, it’s up to protestants to explain how that doesn’t mean that Christ’s flesh is real food and Christ’s Blood is real drink. The text stands on its own as a statement of Catholic doctrine.

I believe the answer is that the crowd did indeed hear it in a literal sense and was disgusted. The disciples understood better and took it as a figure of speech. Jesus didn’t run around telling people what to think. As he said, he told things in parable (i.e. figures of speech) for those who had ears to hear. Some did, some didn’t. He worked with those who were good soil,prepared to receive his words.

I see… so a firm grasp of literary techniques is necessary for salvation? When did it stop being faith alone?

The apostles clearly didn’t understand any better than anyone else. They simply gave the assent of faith and accepted Christ’s mysterious words, which would later be given a clearer meaning in the Eucharist. Where do you get the idea that they took it as a figure of speech? How do you get this from the text? Please refer me to the verse.

Christ failed to correct himself because He meant precisely what He said. At no point did he indicate that it was an allegory. To say that this was really just a test of who could decipher the allegory is a bit of an odd suggestion to say the least. It has no basis in the text.

 

[reteeks21]

Of course He didn’t stress that it was an allegory, especially to His disciples, because He was constanly speaking allegorical. And it is not a matter of literary technique; it is faith alone. Again, it is insulting to say things in that manner when someone is only trying to make their point, which was pretty obvious. How come you can’t concede that Christ spoke allegorical all the time? It’s because to do so would show your point of view, possibly, to be wrong.

Making comments like “anarchy” and trying to twist words like your literary techniques comment are precisely the reason why so many Catholics and Protestants can’t get along.

 

[Dauphin]

Of course He didn’t stress that it was an allegory, especially to His disciples, because He was constanly speaking allegorical. And it is not a matter of literary technique; it is faith alone. Again, it is insulting to say things in that manner when someone is only trying to make their point, which was pretty obvious. How come you can’t concede that Christ spoke allegorical all the time? It’s because to do so would show your point of view, possibly, to be wrong.

I know with absolute certainty that I am right. Even if the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist couldn’t be demonstrated conclusively from scripture (which I believe it can), it would still be true. It forms part of the Sacred Oral Tradition inherited from the apostles. If you can produce a single document written by a Christian previous to the tenth century, that explicitly denies the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I’ll convert to your faith.

I can say that because I know there is no such document. The purely “symbolic Eucharist” is a modern invention of protestants. It is completely alien to the Church of Christ.

Christ did indeed speak in allegory, but we can be certain that he is not speaking allegorically here because of the reaction of His followers, and his subsequent statements. We can also be certain of it by examining John 6 in the light of Sacred Oral Tradition and Magisterial teaching.

Making comments like “anarchy” and trying to twist words like your literary techniques comment are precisely the reason why so many Catholics and Protestants can’t get along.

That comment wasn’t meant to offend. I simply meant that protestantism has no firm rule of faith, since the Bible is so obviously open to erroneous interpretation. There must be a competent authority to interpret scripture to prevent the doctrinal “anarchy” that protestants experience.

 

[Harpazo]

I believe the answer is that the crowd did indeed hear it in a literal sense and was disgusted. The disciples understood better and took it as a figure of speech. Jesus didn’t run around telling people what to think. As he said, he told things in parable (i.e. figures of speech) for those who had ears to hear. Some did, some didn’t. He worked with those who were good soil,prepared to receive his words.

Calling the Pope a dictator (or a “benevolent” one) doesn’t help your case at all.

I don’t understand this statement at all. Jesus did tell people what to do. He IS God in human flesh. Why else would he have come to us if not to tell us how to live? You’re other statement about the Eucharist conflicts with what I’ve heard another UM pastor say on here. He’s convinced that the UMs believe the same about the Eucharist as Catholics and Orthodox do, yet here you are calling it a figure of speach. What do you say Methodists teach about Communion? Do you believe it’s symbolic? Consubstantiation?

Simply curious. I’ve heard conflicting things from Methodist clergymen/women.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

 

[Grace_Seeker]

You’re other statement about the Eucharist conflicts with what I’ve heard another UM pastor say on here. He’s convinced that the UMs believe the same about the Eucharist as Catholics and Orthodox do, yet here you are calling it a figure of speach. What do you say Methodists teach about Communion? Do you believe it’s symbolic? Consubstantiation?

Simply curious. I’ve heard conflicting things from Methodist clergymen/women.

Alaha minokhoun
Andrew

From our Book of Discipline, which is the only official voice for United Methodist beliefs, the section on “Doctrinal Standards”:

Article XVIII–Of the Last Supper

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of the bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occassion to many superstitions.

The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the means whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith.

The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

We who are United Methodists do believe very much in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But that does not mean that we believe that the bread and wine (we usually use juice) must somehow be transformed for Christ to be Really Present. We do not think that his Real Presence is limited to the elements of Bread and Wine alone, but that he is Really Present in the assembly itself, the body of Christ that is present in the corpus of individual believers and the reality of the Holy Spirit’s presence so that where two or three are gathered in Christ’s name, there is he in the midst of them.

Writing in This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion, a book commissioned by our 2000 General Conference, Gayle Carlton Felton comments on the United Methodist understanding:

For many United Methodists, the remembrance or memorial aspect of the Eucharist is the sole, or at least prime meaning that they recognize. But Holy Communion involves much more. A sacrament is a sign-act in which God uses the tangible and material as vehicle for spiritual grace. In Holy Communion, Jesus Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, is truly present with and for the church. Christ’s presence is not limited to particular words or actions or objects; it is in the totality of the experience. The presence is not physical; Christ cannot be seen or touched, but Christ can be perceived and experienced by those who come to the Table.

The divine presence is not in the elements of bread and wine (as we often understand Roman Catholicism to teach). Neither does the reality of the presence depend upon the faith of the worshipers, a view called receptionism. The presence is an act of God and is objective, existing independently of any human thought or act. This truth is a mystery; it is far beyond our human capacity to grasp or explain…

(The parenthetical comments in the above quote are not my addition, but a part of the text.)