Can you talk me out of becoming a Catholic?

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=Contarini;6776397] Gabriel o 12 "The Catholic faith does, because the bread and wine are no longer, to the Lutheran the bread and wine remain as bread and wine. Transubstantiation clarifies the true presence of Jesus body and blood in the Eucharist, while the Lutherans (and other protestants) position believe the bread and wine “co-habit” (consubstantiaton) with the true presence of Jesus Christ? which is a very hard concept to believe (accept) from a Catholic perspective, that Jesus co-habits with natural bread and wine? I believe more clarification is needed in this Lutheran belief.

Gabriel,

I for one find transubstantiation to be a “clarification” that makes things a lot more confusing.

Edwin

Blessings Edwin; Transubstantiation can be summed up from scipture Hebrew 11: 1 Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence 2 of things not seen. 2 Because of it the ancients were well attested. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, 3 so that what is visible came into being through the invisible.

Now the definition of Transubstantiation = At the words of Christ, the bread and wine truly change into the body, blood sould and divinity of Jesus Christ, yet to our senses the bread and wine remain these; why? because Jesus stated in his bread of life discourse from John 6 that “it is the Spirit that gives life”, for the flesh (or our senses) is of no avail states Jesus.

Catholics have the faith of Hebrews, carnal knowledge does not apply in this mystery of the Eucharist. Transubstantiation never exhausts the mystery of the Eucharist, transubstantiation defends the True presence of Jesus from the Apostolic Catholic faith from any symbolic Jesus and begins one faith into this blessed sacrament which is the summit of the Catholic faith.

What constitutes a true presence of Eucharist requires a valid priesthood of holy orders to confect the species of bread and wine into the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Faith is required to enter into these mysteries of Jesus Christ in his Eucharist. Carnal knowledge and carnal understanding will always cause confusion.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=gcnuss;6776399]*

Transubstantiation was defined by the Catholic church in order to defend the True presence of Jesus Christ in his blessed sacrament from heretics and heresies which sprung up from man’s new wind of doctrine that God does not exist and God does not commune with the human race among others that man comes from the monkey.

Transubstantiation never attempts to exhaust or define this great mystery, but allows one to enter into this mystery in faith. Transubstantiation removes the unbelievers (goats) from the believers (sheep) because it states emphatically that Jesus Christ is truly presence and that “Behold, God’s dwelling is with the human race. He will dwell with them and they will be His people and God himself will always be with them” (Please see Revelations 21:3)

We can’t explain in rational terms how our Lord’s body and blood come to us as what appears to our human senses to be bread and wine. We trust fully in his words that it is so. My only argument with “transubstantiation” is that it attempts to force a divine mystery into a humanly constructed box. Why should a Greek metaphysical concept replace faith as the way in which I perceive the Real Presence?

Just a couple of thoughts.

Interesting you are able to enter a oxymoron ironically in your understanding of the term Transubstantiation. You want to be able to explain in rational (carnal) terms how this mystery takes place, and then place blame on the definition of transubstantiation which lifts ones heart into the mystery of the true presence, by falsely claiming it confines one to a box which can only come from a carnal knowledge of understanding in rational terms.

Transubstantiation never confines one to a rational knowledge, lets be clear here; transubstantiation states that the bread and wine are no longer, only the body, blood soul an divinity are present in the Eucharist. And you want to falsely claim that transubstantiation replaces faith? to a Greek metaphysical concept?

Your rational carnal understanding of the true presence remains grounded, while transubstantiation supersedes all carnal knowledge and calls one to faith not rational thinking which pertains to the flesh. All the while transubstantiation remains suspended in the mystery of the true presence of Jesus Christ in his Eucharist when God is worshipped in “Spirit and Truth”.

Peace be with you

 

[CatholicGuy22]

I’m pretty sure I’m making the right decision, but I’d like to hear any reasons why I should not become Catholic. Anyone have any thoughts?

Well if you leave the Holy Roman Catholic Church i promise you stress, guilt, and a sence of someting is missing… oh and the eternal flames of hell where you will be tormented day and night. But other than that its Great:thumbsup:

 

[MariaG]

And I attended RCIA off and on for a couple of years, eventually being a candidate for admission for two months before dropping out. No pressure was ever put on me. In fact I rather wish that the priest and lay catechists *had *given me a hard time about dropping out

Edwin

Me too! You are a very articulate christian whom I truly pray will someday take the plunge.

But whatever happens, you are worthy soldier in God’s army:thumbsup:

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

And also with you, my friend.

Just to add to what Pastor Gary said, when discussing our belief regarding the real presence, I find that Melanchthon’s description in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession says it very well;

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel of 12;6779495]

Agreed, but I have a problem with Melanchthon’s comments from 1Cor. 10:16 which states " The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Melanchthon’s states; "For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55]

Although I follow Mel’s comment when he attaches the Roman and Eastern Catholic church faith in the true presence to his commentary. but when he states “that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ”. I have a problem with his understanding of the true presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, if he relates Jesus presence “only in the spirit of Christ”? Can you asscertain his opinion correctly and definitively here for me?

I would agree that Mel. never makes any comment to the disposition of bread and wine here,

because his true presence is summed up in the spirit of Christ not in the changed bread and wine into the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ which his conclusion does not agree with the Roman and Eastern Catholic churches

. I seel Mel’s comment follows the true presence as do the Roman and Eastern churches, yet makes a distinction here by reflecting the Catholic position bread and wine change into the true presence of Jesus body, blood while summing his true presence belief “in the spirit of Christ”.

Hi Gabriel,
I think you misunderstood his point, as he says.* “For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, **if the **Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ.” *He is stating it is not simply summed up in the spirit of Christ, but in the actual becoming of the body and blood. To support this, he then goes on to reference Vulgarius, "And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh."
His point is that it is a change, and not just spiritual, and he references Vulgarius and later Cyril as supporting evidence.

This ecumenical document does not make the clear distinction of the true presence of Jesus body and blood, it only gives the Western and Eastern true presence, leaving only each ones summary of faith. It appears no ground gained here? The Catholic church has pronounced publicly the doctrine of Transubstantiation that Jesus Christ body, blood soul and divinity are truly present in the Eucharist as binding upon all the faithful world wide.

Without giving any lutheran commentary; what has the Lutheran (authorities) church made binding or loosing upon the faithful Lutherans as to what is believed in the true presence of Jesus Christ in species of bread and wine? Or does Lutherans carry the divinely rite of binding and loosing on earth upon all the faithful?

Pastor Gary quotes the Augsburg Confession, and that is binding on the (Lutheran) believer:"*Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise." *
This is what Christ states when He says, “take and eat, this is my body”.

To be sure, if I thought that in any way the Lutheran position even appeared to be a notion of Spiritual presence, or symbolic presence, I would immediately leave the Lutheran Church.

good to speak to you Jon

It is always a blessing to me when we dialogue.

Jon

 

[spockrates]

Good question.

Now bear in mind that the particular Assemblies Church that I attend is not what I would call “hard core Assemblies”. It has chosen to adopt its “unique interpretation” of some of the more controversial “Fundamental Truths”

Thank you, Pianist for answering so graciously. I hope I did not sound like I was putting you on the spot and calling you out, as though you were a Catholic in Protestant’s clothing. If I gave that impression, please understand it was not my intention. Such would make me a hypocrite, I think, for after all, I am a closet Catholic!

Back to your question. From the “16 fundamental truths”:

So now (in the sense of adopting my own unique interpretation) let us see what this does and does not say.

I do observe that this uses the word “symbol” and “memorial”. But at the same time it does not use the word “only”. And (as I have learned from Catholic apologists in discussion of Bible and Faith alone), one can not assume the word “only” if it is not used in the text.

And (as I have learned from Catholic apologists here) 1 Cor 11:25 uses the word “remembrance”. But again this text does not necessarily mean “only remembrance”.

So (using the same logic as I have learned from Catholic apologists) this fundamental truth and a belief in the “real presence” are not totally contradictory. So we are good.

Seriously, I don’t sense this is a big issue in my church that I attend either way, and if it is not with them, it is not with me…particularly since my belief in a Real Presence is more one of approach than one of theology anyway.

What you say reminds me of the words of Saint Augustine:

In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.

It seems you are thinking that doctrines regarding the Eucharist are non-essential insofar as they are something we might debate, but something over which we should never divide. I’m curious, then, what you think is an essential doctrine of Christianity, or whether there are any.

 

[spockrates]

… Christ taught our humanity to “make your yes mean yes and your no mean no, anything else comes from the devil”.

Does your 3 rock interpretation suggest that Jesus words did not mean when he stated? " you are “Peter” and upon THIS ROCK, I will build MY church"? Because if your interpretation is suggesting Jesus did not include, or excluded something else from His Own Words? And if your interpretation has any foundation here? it suggest’s to me that Jesus words meant something other which comes from the devil?

Perhaps if you took the time to carefully consider my last post, and ask what I meant rather than assuming, you’d see me in a different light?

 

[spockrates]

Well if you leave the Holy Roman Catholic Church i promise you stress, guilt, and a sence of someting is missing… oh and the eternal flames of hell where you will be tormented day and night. But other than that its Great:thumbsup:

Guy:

Is this promise something you have the power to give, or are you speaking from personal experience?

 

[AmateurPianist]

Thank you, Pianist for answering so graciously. I hope I did not sound like I was putting you on the spot and calling you out, as though you were a Catholic in Protestant’s clothing. If I gave that impression, please understand it was not my intention. Such would make me a hypocrite, I think, for after all, I am a closet Catholic!

No problem.

What you say reminds me of the words of Saint Augustine:

In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.

It seems you are thinking that doctrines regarding the Eucharist are non-essential insofar as they are something we might debate, but something over which we should never divide. I’m curious, then, what you think is an essential doctrine of Christianity, or whether there are any.

What I look for in this is issues that are so clear that even a caveman should get it (with apologies to Geico) as opposed to issues that people who know and love God that I respect greatly have historically disagreed with throughout the course of history. What I try to do is to look at an issue from a number of different angles and ask the silly question on whether I can at least understand Christians having legitimate disagreements on how this issue is to be understood. If so, I would classify it as not essential.

With respect to the Eucharist I would definitely put it in the later. My reason is that through my study of Scripture there is not this one passage in Scripture that clearly is about the Eucharist and clearly puts to rest all of the issues that divide Scripture. From my study of Scripture (with apologies to Bill Clinton) it all depends on what the definition of “is” is. Furthermore from my study of history, there is wide disagreement amongst Christians, even those who believe in real presence as to how this exactly works. In my mind anyway, I tend to separate the issue “what exactly happens or does not haapen under the covers with the communion elements” from “how exactly do I approach communion”. But that is just me.

The way this works out for me anyway is that the ancient creeds (apostles/nicene) probably work as a summary for what is essential. And in some cases parts of these creeds might be subject to interpretation.

The funny thing is that I personally find myself far less tolerant of nice, new creative ways of interpreting Scripture that are 50 years old or so…particularly with respect to moral theology…than historical issues that Christians have argued about seemingly forever.

For example a while back there was an orthodox Calvinist here who just so happened to believe in gay marriage (I didn’t know that such a beast existed but what do I know). Now maybe in a narrow sense this is a non-essential as I still expect to meet this guy in heaven (but if I were God though…no way), but I still have a 0 tolerance level for this type of stuff. I find that I have far more in common with the Catholics and Orthodox here who believe in the sanctity of all human life and the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman (but might we might disagree on some other stuff) than this fellow.

 

[spockrates]

No problem.

What I look for in this is issues that are so clear that even a caveman should get it (with apologies to Geico) as opposed to issues that people who know and love God that I respect greatly have historically disagreed with throughout the course of history. What I try to do is to look at an issue from a number of different angles and ask the silly question on whether I can at least understand Christians having legitimate disagreements on how this issue is to be understood. If so, I would classify it as not essential. …

Interesting. I think of an essential as that which a person must believe to receive and keep eternal life. But do you disagree?

 

[CatholicGuy22]

Guy:

Is this promise something you have the power to give, or are you speaking from personal experience?

Personal experience. When ever i was away from the church i felt all the above. I should said it a little better than i did though to avoid confusion.

Good day!

 

[spockrates]

Personal experience. When ever i was away from the church i felt all the above. I should said it a little better than i did though to avoid confusion.

Good day!

Good day to U 2!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi Gabriel,

I think you misunderstood his point, as he says.* "For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, **if the ***

I am overcome with joy each time we meet here, I am always blessed to share my faith with you and recieve commentary from you.

Thank you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Perhaps if you took the time to carefully consider my last post, and ask what I meant rather than assuming, you’d see me in a different light?

Make no mistake about it spockrates; I pass no judgement upon you in any way, nor am I refuting your personal opinions or interpretations. What I give to you is tough Love. I have witnessed many CCD, and RCIA teachers implement their own personal views in the doctrines of the Catholic Church in many subjects and become humbled that the Catholic Church did not hold to their personal traditional views.

All I hope to inform you while your considering the Catholic Church is that she is definitely a Rock and cannot be moved by any wind of doctrine. As you study the Catholic faith, my prayer for you is that you allow the Holy Spirit to teach you, keep you and guide you into all understanding in the mystical body of Jesus Christ which is his Catholic Church. My advice to you is; do not come into these mysteries of the body of Christ with preconcieved or non catholic held views.

These preconcieved views will prove unproductive, such as to the Catholic doctrine of the “True presence of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity” in the Eucharist while the bread and wine are no longer only to our flesh, but to our soul the bread and wine become the true body, blood of Jesus Christ in His Eucharist.

After all these postings with you, I hope they have not been unproductive, and that I want to Love you back into the body of Christ and commune with God as he created (prepared) a body for us in order to bring this to a reality in time from eternity.

Peace be with you spockrate:thumbsup:

 

[AmateurPianist]

Interesting. I think of an essential as that which a person must believe to receive and keep eternal life. But do you disagree?

I actually agree. but in that light I find Jude and 2 Peter chapter 2 troubling.

 

[spockrates]

Make no mistake about it spockrates; I pass no judgement upon you in any way, nor am I refuting your personal opinions or interpretations. What I give to you is tough Love. I have witnessed many CCD, and RCIA teachers implement their own personal views in the doctrines of the Catholic Church in many subjects and become humbled that the Catholic Church did not hold to their personal traditional views.

All I hope to inform you while your considering the Catholic Church is that she is definitely a Rock and cannot be moved by any wind of doctrine. As you study the Catholic faith, my prayer for you is that you allow the Holy Spirit to teach you, keep you and guide you into all understanding in the mystical body of Jesus Christ which is his Catholic Church. My advice to you is; do not come into these mysteries of the body of Christ with preconcieved or non catholic held views.

These preconcieved views will prove unproductive, such as to the Catholic doctrine of the “True presence of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity” in the Eucharist while the bread and wine are no longer only to our flesh, but to our soul the bread and wine become the true body, blood of Jesus Christ in His Eucharist.

After all these postings with you, I hope they have not been unproductive, and that I want to Love you back into the body of Christ and commune with God as he created (prepared) a body for us in order to bring this to a reality in time from eternity.

Peace be with you spockrate:thumbsup:

Thanks for the love, Gabriel. Yes, I agree that preconceptions are often misconceptions. I also find that, for me personally, the best way to avoid such is to avoid partisan religion, as my mentor Socrates tells me:

Now, the partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. And the difference between him and me at the present moment is merely this—that whereas he seeks to convince his hearers that what he says is true, I am rather seeking to convince myself; to convince my hearers is a secondary matter with me.

(Phaedo)

I’ve found many a partisan on both sides of the divide–both Protestant and Catholic, but few philosophers, who are interested only in discovering the truth.

 

[spockrates]

I actually agree. but in that light I find Jude and 2 Peter chapter 2 troubling.

Yes, and we are in good company, for Christ appears to agree with us!

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

(John 6:53-54)

But what is it about Jude and 2 Peter that trouble you?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thanks for the love, Gabriel. Yes, I agree that preconceptions are often misconceptions. I also find that, for me personally, the best way to avoid such is to avoid partisan religion, as my mentor Socrates tells me:

Now, the partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. And the difference between him and me at the present moment is merely this—that whereas he seeks to convince his hearers that what he says is true, I am rather seeking to convince myself; to convince my hearers is a secondary matter with me.

I understand your point, but socrates philosophy does not apply; You see the Catholic Church IS the pillar and foundation of Truth, I am not seeking Truth here, Iam only repeating to you what was handed down to me, which is not my Truth to give, but only my faith in this Truth I can give to you.

I will confess that Iam deaf and dumb to questions and interpretations that try and twist the doctrines of the Pillar and foundation of Truth in the Catholic Church, by forcing a new interpretation into what our dear Lord Jesus Christ has revealed to the Church.

Then we no longer have a simple discussion or dispute here over ones interpretations or ones opinion, we have a need to clarify what God has revealed to the Messenger (the Catholic Church) that cannot change, which Jesus describes as building his church upon “rock”, and the difference between a new wind of doctrine which needs to be put in its proper place to be viewed from the outside (not believed) of the Church without it infecting what is already in the inside (believed) of the Church.

This is why I stated earlier that “absuletly” there is no problem with your private interpretations or opinions. Our private interpretations become a problem when we try and force them into the Rock (Catholic) revelations and interpretations already held for 2000 years now. When placed upon the Rock, these winds of doctrines are easy to detect because they get washed away from the cares (waves) of the world.

Peace be with you

 

[spockrates]

I understand your point, but socrates philosophy does not apply; You see the Catholic Church IS the pillar and foundation of Truth, I am not seeking Truth here, Iam only repeating to you what was handed down to me, which is not my Truth to give, but only my faith in this Truth I can give to you.

I will confess that Iam deaf and dumb to questions and interpretations that try and twist the doctrines of the Pillar and foundation of Truth in the Catholic Church, by forcing a new interpretation into what our dear Lord Jesus Christ has revealed to the Church.

Then we no longer have a simple discussion or dispute here over ones interpretations or ones opinion, we have a need to clarify what God has revealed to the Messenger (the Catholic Church) that cannot change, which Jesus describes as building his church upon “rock”, and the difference between a new wind of doctrine which needs to be put in its proper place to be viewed from the outside (not believed) of the Church without it infecting what is already in the inside (believed) of the Church.

This is why I stated earlier that “absuletly” there is no problem with your private interpretations or opinions. Our private interpretations become a problem when we try and force them into the Rock (Catholic) revelations and interpretations already held for 2000 years now. When placed upon the Rock, these winds of doctrines are easy to detect because they get washed away from the cares (waves) of the world.

Peace be with you

Socrates did not teach a systematic philosophy, but only a method of discovering the truth. That’s the same method I try to use to reveal logical errors and find reasonable resolutions to such. For example, you say that the Catholic Church teaches that there is only one rock on which the Church stands, and that rock is Peter. I agree that Peter is a rock on which the church stands, but wonder if there are not other rocks, such as Christ Himself, and the truth about Christ that Peter taught. You say, no, there is no other rock but Peter. I show you a passage in our Catechism that says the truth about Christ is a rock on which the Church stands. You say this is not a teaching of the Church, but my own private interpretation, and repeat, once more, that Peter is the only rock. Who am I to believe–you or the Catechism? If I believe the Catechism, then how am I not following your advice to submit to the authority of the Church?