Catholics and Jesus personal?

[Randy_Carson]

There is a lot going on in these three verses; let’s look at them closely. After hearing Jesus declare that his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink, his disciples, his followers, could not accept his words and no longer followed him. Of course, if they had understood that his body and blood were being used as symbols, they would have had no complaint. It was precisely because they understood exactly what Jesus meant that they refused to follow him any longer. Therefore, there can be no doubt as to what the eyewitnesses understood Jesus to be saying.

Now, imagine the scene: Jesus has been teaching a crowd, and many of them have gotten up to leave because they could not or would not accept his words. In rejecting his teaching, they rejected the one who gave it and turned their backs on the savior of the world. Thus, their souls were at risk of eternal separation from God. Jesus came to seek and save what was lost; therefore, if these disciples had a simple misunderstanding of the metaphorical language he had used that might cause them to spend eternity in Hell, Jesus would have corrected their error. But we do not see him chasing them down the road saying, “Wait, everyone. I think there’s been a misunderstanding … let me explain what I meant.” Jesus could not correct a misunderstanding because there had been none.

Instead, he watched sadly as they departed and then turned to the Twelve, the closest of his disciples, and put the question directly to them: “What about you? Are you leaving too?” In doing so, Jesus was risking everything he had been working for since he had first called Simon and Andrew to follow him by the shore of the Sea of Galilee. If the Twelve had abandoned him at this crucial moment, Jesus would have had to begin again with a new group of Apostles to whom he would entrust his teachings and upon whom he would build his church. By God’s grace, Simon Peter, the first among the Apostles, responded in faith acknowledging that Jesus is the Holy One of God and accepting this difficult teaching.

Was Peter’s response simply the result of being put on the spot unexpectedly – or was he prompted by the Holy Spirit to foreshadow the Church’s teaching of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist that would come after the Last Supper and Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension? For an answer, we should examine what the New Testament writers had to say after reflecting on the words of Jesus for several decades.

Grasping at Straws: John 6:63

But first, let’s examine another common misunderstanding that arises from the text we just read. In verse 63, Jesus said:

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:63)

Some people claim that these words prove that Jesus was speaking metaphorically because he said “the words I have spoken are spirit”. They take this to mean that Jesus was not speaking literally when he commanded us to eat his body and drink his blood. However, this would be a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he said, “the flesh counts for nothing.”

First, notice that whenever Jesus referred to his own body and blood, he said “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man”. Here are the examples:

“This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51)

"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. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56)

At this point, the narrative explains that the disciples were on the verge of revolt over this teaching. Jesus tells them that they cannot understand this teaching with their natural minds. Here is the verse in context: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’” (John 6:60-63)

In John 6:63, Jesus uses the phrase “the flesh” instead of “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man” because he is not talking about his own body; he is referring to man’s natural, unenlightened rational intellect.

Jesus tells the grumbling Jews (who can’t understand how he would give them his flesh to eat) that they cannot grasp it with their natural minds because it is a mystery beyond the ability of “the flesh” to understand. This is the same manner of speaking used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 & 3 when he is distinguishing between fleshly or carnal Christians and those who are discern the things of God with their spirits.

Second, it might be worth noting the obvious fact that Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh “counts for nothing”; otherwise, his death upon the cross would be meaningless. Instead, we know that his own body, his flesh, was broken and pierced for our sake; no Christian would deny that. Therefore, since HIS flesh does count for something, he must have been referring to “flesh” other than his own in v. 63.

Thus, the one verse that many non-Catholics cling to as an argument against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not mean what they falsely claim it means. Ironically, their “proof text” points out precisely why they cannot understand the Eucharist: they are using their own flesh or human reasoning instead of their spirits to discern the things of God. Unfortunately, their flesh “counts for nothing”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Problem of John

We have already looked extensively at the Gospel of John’s teaching on the body and blood of Jesus. However, there is one other powerful observation that we can make concerning this book. The author, commonly considered to be John, the beloved disciple of Jesus, was the last of the original Twelve to die and the only one who did not suffer martyrdom. At the time of this writing, John had known the martyrdoms of the first four leaders of the Church: Peter, Linus, Cletus and Clement. John died around the year 100 A.D. while Evaristus, the fifth bishop of Rome, was leading the Church.

Given his longevity and his special relationship to Jesus, it would be understandable if the early believers gave a special place of honor to the Apostle John; no one alive would have had more authority to speak about the life and teaching of Jesus than he. Therefore, if John had felt that the Church had strayed from the true teaching of Jesus (or in its election of Church leaders), his objections would have been heard and heeded. Instead, his gospel account of Jesus’ teaching regarding his body and blood reinforced the plain meaning of our Lord’s words, “this is my body, this is my blood.” The fact that John, after more than half a century of reflection upon all that Jesus said and did, steadfastly held to the teaching of the early Church regarding the literal meaning of Jesus’ words, “this is my body; this is my blood” creates a problem for Protestants that cannot be explained away.

The Apostle Paul

One of the greatest Jewish theologians, Saul of Tarsus, converted to Christianity after encountering Jesus on the road to Damascus. Known to us as the Apostle Paul, he became the most prolific of the New Testament writers and a tireless evangelist. In his first letter to the Church at Corinth, Paul wrote:

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant of my blood; do this, whenever you drink of it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in and unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” 1 Co 11:23-29

Paul was not one of the original Apostles nor was he an eyewitness to the life and ministry of Jesus (as far as we know). But we are certain that he was not present in the upper room when Jesus shared his last supper with the Twelve. As he states in the passage above, he received the words, “this is my body, etc” directly from the Lord himself. Elsewhere he states, “To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.” Paul acknowledges that he had received “great revelations” from the Lord, and, of course, the Church discerned that his writings are the infallible word of God. As a result, we should be pay close heed when Paul warns “anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” Would there be need for any admonishment of this type if the bread and wine were mere symbols?

After considering the verses discussed above, it seems clear what the New Testament authors understood Jesus to be saying when he spoke of his flesh and blood as real food and drink. However, some Protestants argue that Jesus frequently spoke in parables and that this was one of those occasions. Does this argument hold up to scrutiny in the light of scripture?

The Bible tells us that Jesus did speak in parables to the crowds that followed him and that he later clarified the true meaning of his words privately for his disciples. For example, in Lk 8:9-10 we read, “His disciples asked him what this parable meant. He said, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables…” and Mark 4:10 tells us, “When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables” and again in Mark 4:34 we find “when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.”

Without a doubt, if Jesus had meant for his words on his body and blood to be understood symbolically, he would have explained this to the Twelve when they were alone – especially after what must have been the demoralizing departure of so many who were his followers and their friends. Further, had Jesus given the Twelve private instruction on the symbolic meaning of his flesh and blood later that evening or the next day, then surely the authors of the gospels would have revealed this fact just as they provided explanations of other parables. But this did not happen. Jesus did not clarify this teaching privately for his closest disciples because he had not been using a parable when he spoke.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The bible comes from god not man. The church of its day recognized what was inspired, they did not inspire it [man authority]

God inspired scripture, but it was written not by secretaries taking dictation but by true authors.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

 

[KP3243]

I have to disagree, as i said before you cant debate here. When i am all done learning my questions and catholic doctrine i would love to debate with you on this point. In fact I could set it up know if you wish to start in future soon.

1v1 debates are great on this forum
twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?339-Garbarsardar-s-Fight-Club

its called the fight club, i have done dozens, we could discuss or debate our differences there with no hindrance. A great topic title would be “Does scripture backs the Real Presence in the Eucharist up?”

Usually i debate atheist evolutionist and Muslims so this would be a interesting first.

I am just curious why would Catholics claim the Real Presence, if it wasn’t true. You can read letters by the Romans governors to Emperor as far back as the second century explaining what these disciples of Jesus were doing because one of the unnerving things to Rome was that the Christian communities were swearing an oath to the Church and in the letters they explain what they do when they get together, if you didn’t know it was written in the second century you would think it was written today because mass is still the same.

 

[Della]

not at all, were not allowed to debate here what are you doing?. The bible comes from god not man. The church of its day recognized what was inspired, they did not inspire it [man authority] I have studied the translation of bible etc and would love to provide some sources on this topic if you wish. I believe it is 100% ant biblical and historical to believe the church inspired thew bible.

The Church does not claim to have inspired the Bible. I’m afraid some misunderstanding has happened here. The Bible is the inspired written word of God–both OT and NT, of course. The OT was compiled from the Torah, the Psalms, Prophets and other sacred writings preNT by the Church. The NT was written by the Apostles of the Church as well as two of their disciples, Mark and Luke. The Bible was compiled from many writings which the Church determined were inspired. I think that may be what gave you the idea that KP3243 was saying that the Church inspired the Bible, which of course it didn’t. The Bible was compiled mainly so all dioceses and parishes would be reading from the same texts for the liturgies, for the Mass and the daily Mass readings, and daily prayer life of the Church. It was not compiled to prove doctrine or dogma, but rather to be the witness to them, for it was to the Apostles Jesus gave the authority to “bind and loose” and to decide matters of faith and morals.

nowhere does the bible say we must celebrate Christmas,neither does it give a perfect day when it is.

The word Christmas is a shortening of the term “Christ’s Mass,” which merely means the day on which the Church decided to celebrate Mass in honor of the Nativity of the Lord. The date was chosen to line up with the Church’s main holy day of obligation, Easter–the time when Jesus died and rose from the dead. Christmas is also a holy day of obligation for Catholics, but not because Jesus was born on that date.

When the bible says something, than as a protestant we know its true. If the bible said celebrate Christmas [not in bible] at this date, than i would. It is simply a holiday,nothing more.

We Catholics believe that if the Bible says something it’s true, as well. As for the date of Christmas, please see my previous remarks. :tiphat: The word holiday means “holy day.” It doesn’t mean a day off from work so we can eat more food/exchange gifts/be with family, as many people seem to think.

 

[KP3243]

Quote:
nowhere does the bible say we must celebrate Christmas,neither does it give a perfect day when it is.​

But why would you celebrate Christmas then, it is a Catholic tradition which you reject?

 

[total_relism]

THIS IS MY BODY, THIS IS MY BLOOD
A Catholic Understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
by Randy Carson :tiphat:

In the sixth chapter of John, Jesus makes the following statement: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If a man eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Jn 6:51 (all scripture quotations from the NIV)

Just exactly what did Jesus mean when he said, “this bread is my flesh”? Many people argue that Jesus was only speaking symbolically when He said that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Is this true?
who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Our forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever. He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.” (Jn 6:53-58)[/INDENT]

Rather than quieting the crowd which had broken out into arguments about what he had just told them, Jesus pressed his point home even more emphatically: “my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” In fact, whereas he

(cont.)

The Problem of John

We have already looked extensively at the Gospel of John’s teaching on the body and blood of Jesus. However, there is one other powerful observation that we can make concerning this book. The author, commonly considered to be John, the beloved disciple of Jesus, was the last of the original Twelve to die and the only one who did not suffer martyrdom. At the time of this writing, John had known the martyrdoms of the first four leaders of the Church: Peter, Linus, Cletus and Clement. John died around the year 100 A.D. while Evaristus, the fifth bishop of Rome, was leading the Church.

Given his longevity and his special relationship to Jesus, it would be understandable if the early believers gave a special place of honor to the Apostle John; no one alive would have had more authority to speak about the life and teaching of Jesus than he. Therefore, if John had felt that the Church had strayed from the true teaching of Jesus (or in its election of Church leaders), his objections would have been heard and heeded. Instead, his gospel account of Jesus’ teaching regarding his body and blood reinforced the plain meaning of our Lord’s words, “this is my body, this is my blood.” The fact that John, after more than half a century of reflection upon all that Jesus said and did, steadfastly held to the teaching of the early Church regarding the literal meaning of Jesus’ words, “this is my body; this is my blood” creates a problem for Protestants that cannot be explained away.

The Apostle Paul

One of the greatest Jewish theologians, Saul of Tarsus, converted to Christianity after encountering Jesus on the road to Damascus. Known to us as the Apostle Paul, he became the most prolific of the New Testament writers and a tireless evangelist. In his first letter to the Church at Corinth, Paul wrote:

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant of my blood; do this, whenever you drink of it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in and unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” 1 Co 11:23-29

Paul was not one of the original Apostles nor was he an eyewitness to the life and ministry of Jesus (as far as we know). But we are certain te.

2 things,ok 3.

1] why are you trying to debate on this forum, when you cant?

2] I offered a debate on forum were we can be unhindered, your choice to accept.

3] i am fully aware of the catholic teaching/understanding on the topic, i disagree with it and am willing to debate at proper place/time.

 

[total_relism]

God inspired scripture, but it was written not by secretaries taking dictation but by true authors.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

i see nothing wrong with the above, this is not what you said last post to use as a argument.

I am just curious why would Catholics claim the Real Presence, if it wasn’t true. You can read letters by the Romans governors to Emperor as far back as the second century explaining what these disciples of Jesus were doing because one of the unnerving things to Rome was that the Christian communities were swearing an oath to the Church and in the letters they explain what they do when they get together, if you didn’t know it was written in the second century you would think it was written today because mass is still the same.

maybe they were taught that way?. As for early Christians, that debate is on the bible and john’s gospel, something for another thread.

The Church does not claim to have inspired the Bible. I’m afraid some misunderstanding has happened here. The Bible is the inspired written word of God–both OT and NT, of course. The OT was compiled from the Torah, the Psalms, Prophets and other sacred writings preNT by the Church. The NT was written by the Apostles of the Church as well as two of their disciples, Mark and Luke. The Bible was compiled from many writings which the Church determined were inspired. I think that may be what gave you the idea that KP3243 was saying that the Church inspired the Bible, which of course it didn’t. The Bible was compiled mainly so all dioceses and parishes would be reading from the same texts for the liturgies, for the Mass and the daily Mass readings, and daily prayer life of the Church. It was not compiled to prove doctrine or dogma, but rather to be the witness to them, for it was to the Apostles Jesus gave the authority to “bind and loose” and to decide matters of faith and morals.

The word Christmas is a shortening of the term “Christ’s Mass,” which merely means the day on which the Church decided to celebrate Mass in honor of the Nativity of the Lord. The date was chosen to line up with the Church’s main holy day of obligation, Easter–the time when Jesus died and rose from the dead. Christmas is also a holy day of obligation for Catholics, but not because Jesus was born on that date.

We Catholics believe that if the Bible says something it’s true, as well. As for the date of Christmas, please see my previous remarks. :tiphat: The word holiday means “holy day.” It doesn’t mean a day off from work so we can eat more food/exchange gifts/be with family, as many people seem to think.

i agree with first

agree with second.

ok thanks for post i see no problems above.

Quote:
nowhere does the bible say we must celebrate Christmas,neither does it give a perfect day when it is.​

But why would you celebrate Christmas then, it is a Catholic tradition which you reject?

i dont because its catholic day, i do because i enjoy it,its custom of the country im in,love the celebration and best yet, its not unbiblical.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Return to topic of “Catholics and Jesus personal?” and stay there or closed this thread will be.

 

[Della]

I was just wondering if catholic are encouraged to have and seek a personal relationship with Jesus as savior and god?. If so when and were is this generally taught in catholic belief/theology. Are catholic encouraged to pray to jesus personally and ask forgiveness of sins without a priest present?.

thanks.

Yes, we are. It’s part of our spirituality, not part of our doctrine. In Evangelical circles, having a personal relationship with Jesus is necessary for salvation. Catholics don’t believe that. We believe that baptism is necessary for salvation because it is biblical and what the Church has always taught from 33 AD onwards.

It is God’s grace that saves us, not feelings. It’s fine to have affection for Jesus, but we are called to something deeper than that, we are called to love God with all our being. That includes the heart, of course, but more than that it requires we give our wills to God, as well. No one can truly love God who is not willing to live as he commanded.

We are encouraged to pursue all the virtues, love being the prime virtue. But the doorway to love is humility. Without it, our love will be cold and our motivations filled with self-interest. Therefore we must realize who God is, who we are in relation to him and to others, and then we can love as fully and as deeply as God wants us to.

 

[steve_b]

I was just wondering if catholic are encouraged to have and seek a personal relationship with Jesus as savior and god?. If so when and were is this generally taught in catholic belief/theology.

Getting back to the topic of the thread,

On this earth, one can’t have a closer relationship with God than to consume Him body, blood, soul and Divinity in a state of grace, in the way He established…in the Eucharist. We become one with Him and He becomes one with us. That’s how close we become with Him and He with us, on His terms

Here’s what the CCC teaches on the Eucharist . You want to know what Catholics believe? Please open up each paragraph (they aren’t real long) and read it for yourself.

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=eucharist&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

When Catholics pray the “Our Father” which Jesus taught us to pray, and we say to the Father, “give us today our daily bread” it’s the Eucharist that is being asked for. Thus it’s why we Catholics have daily Eucharist available to us who are Catholic. The Eucharist is as personal with Jesus one can be with Him, this side of heaven.
tr:

Are catholic encouraged to pray to jesus personally and ask forgiveness of sins without a priest present?.

Jn 20:
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Jesus just gave His 1st priests the power to forgive or not forgive peoples sins. Obviously Jesus doesn’t do useless things. If He meant for all sinners to go to Him ONLY, He never would do something redundant like this having priests do what only He does “ALONE”. Obviously protestants don’t have this subject right. Since Jesus meant for His priests to have this power, and didn’t make His priests mindreaders, it presumes confession to His priests is necessary in order for His priests to exercise this authority and power, to forgive or not forgive sins. It also presumes we confess our sins to a validly ordained priest. And Catholics say, AMEN…I believe you Jesus.

Obviously this also gets into the other subject you have going at the moment forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11454788&postcount=14

 

[FathersKnowBest]

The church of its day recognized what was inspired, they did not inspire it [man authority]

This is a very common protestant misunderstanding.

ALL the teachings of the Church (at least all the infallible and unchangeable ones, i.e., dogmas and doctrines, not disciplines) are from God (since the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit) and not from the whims of the Church.

The very fact that the Church has the Authority to loose or bind is from Christ’s words to St. Peter, and His other teachings.

So, if one is to follow Scripture, they MUST follow the Church. If you don’t follow the Church, you’re going against Scripture. Period.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I was just wondering if catholic are encouraged to have and seek a personal relationship with Jesus as savior and god?

We certainly are. It’s necessary to have a personal relationship with Jesus.

But that’s just a starting point.

I have a “personal relationship” with my colleagues at work. I have a “personal relationship” with my auto mechanic. And with my barber. And my doctor. Etc., etc.

We need MORE than a “personal relationship” with Jesus. We need a covenantal relationship with Him. We do this by having a sacramental relationship with Him.

Read this article: “I Have A Personal Relationship With Jesus Christ!”

 

[total_relism]

Yes, we are. It’s part of our spirituality, not part of our doctrine. In Evangelical circles, having a personal relationship with Jesus is necessary for salvation. Catholics don’t believe that. We believe that baptism is necessary for salvation because it is biblical and what the Church has always taught from 33 AD onwards.

It is God’s grace that saves us, not feelings. It’s fine to have affection for Jesus, but we are called to something deeper than that, we are called to love God with all our being. That includes the heart, of course, but more than that it requires we give our wills to God, as well. No one can truly love God who is not willing to live as he commanded.

We are encouraged to pursue all the virtues, love being the prime virtue. But the doorway to love is humility. Without it, our love will be cold and our motivations filled with self-interest. Therefore we must realize who God is, who we are in relation to him and to others, and then we can love as fully and as deeply as God wants us to.

thanks for post, i will avoid the debate on salvation at this time.

Getting back to the topic of the thread,

On this earth, one can’t have a closer relationship with God than to consume Him body, blood, soul and Divinity in a state of grace, in the way He established…in the Eucharist. We become one with Him and He becomes one with us. That’s how close we become with Him and He with us, on His terms

Here’s what the CCC teaches on the Eucharist . You want to know what Catholics believe? Please open up each paragraph (they aren’t real long) and read it for yourself.

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=eucharist&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

When Catholics pray the “Our Father” which Jesus taught us to pray, and we say to the Father, “give us today our daily bread” it’s the Eucharist that is being asked for. Thus it’s why we Catholics have daily Eucharist available to us who are Catholic. The Eucharist is as personal with Jesus one can be with Him, this side of heaven.

Jn 20:
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Jesus just gave His 1st priests the power to forgive or not forgive peoples sins. Obviously Jesus doesn’t do useless things. If He meant for all sinners to go to Him ONLY, He never would do something redundant like this having priests do what only He does “ALONE”. Obviously protestants don’t have this subject right. Since Jesus meant for His priests to have this power, and didn’t make His priests mindreaders, it presumes confession to His priests is necessary in order for His priests to exercise this authority and power, to forgive or not forgive sins. It also presumes we confess our sins to a validly ordained priest. And Catholics say, AMEN…I believe you Jesus.

Obviously this also gets into the other subject you have going at the moment forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11454788&postcount=14

this would be a wonderful debate/discussion subject to do under friendly terms in future if you wish. There is a great 1v1 debate section on this forum if you would like to with me this issue or another that i am sure we disagree on in future,pm me if interested.
twcenter.net/forums/forum.php

This is a very common protestant misunderstanding.

ALL the teachings of the Church (at least all the infallible and unchangeable ones, i.e., dogmas and doctrines, not disciplines) are from God (since the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit) and not from the whims of the Church.

The very fact that the Church has the Authority to loose or bind is from Christ’s words to St. Peter, and His other teachings.

So, if one is to follow Scripture, they MUST follow the Church. If you don’t follow the Church, you’re going against Scripture. Period.

hmmm,me thinks your missing a few points in logic here. if you care to debate this subject further, down the line i would be more than willing to with you, pm me.

We certainly are. It’s necessary to have a personal relationship with Jesus.

But that’s just a starting point.

I have a “personal relationship” with my colleagues at work. I have a “personal relationship” with my auto mechanic. And with my barber. And my doctor. Etc., etc.

We need MORE than a “personal relationship” with Jesus. We need a covenantal relationship with Him. We do this by having a sacramental relationship with Him.

Read this article: “I Have A Personal Relationship With Jesus Christ!”

ty 4 link

 

[steve_b]

this would be a wonderful debate/discussion subject to do under friendly terms in future if you wish. There is a great 1v1 debate section on this forum if you would like to with me this issue or another that i am sure we disagree on in future,pm me if interested.
twcenter.net/forums/forum.php

Sorry, I don’t go to other forums. We’ll have to do it here or it won’t happen

 

[po18guy]

Wow, I can’t believe this is something that actually is in question.

As a Christian, I find it incredibly insulting that another Christian would doubt that I as an individual had a personal relationship with Christ, or that the Catholic Church as a whole would not teach and encourage such a relationship with our Savior.

Yeah, truth plods along slowly while ignorance flashes like lightning.

The question is: how can bible Christians have a personal relationship with Christ, since they confess directly to God, ignoring, by-passing and back-dooring Jesus? How can they, who reject the Body and Blood of our Savior - the New Testament of which Christ spoke in the scriptures - have any sort of personal relationship? It seems horribly superficial and emotional, frankly.

I see neither altar nor tabernacle in the buildings of these folks who scream incessantly about that which they do not and cannot have: that elusive, undefinable “personal relationship.”

 

[total_relism]

Yeah, truth plods along slowly while ignorance flashes like lightning.

The question is: how can bible Christians have a personal relationship with Christ, since they confess directly to God, ignoring, by-passing and back-dooring Jesus? How can they, who reject the Body and Blood of our Savior - the New Testament of which Christ spoke in the scriptures - have any sort of personal relationship? It seems horribly superficial and emotional, frankly.

I see neither altar nor tabernacle in the buildings of these folks who scream incessantly about that which they do not and cannot have: that elusive, undefinable “personal relationship.”

I will take this as a question for protestants. First we pray to ask forgiveness to god and jesus directly [jesus happens to be divine] and ask our high priest [jesus] to intercede for us as well. We think the link connect straight to god through jesus [no priest necessary] . Not one of us [well that i know of] rejects jesus in a fully human [body] and his blood [that saves us not works].

you may feel the need to be in some church made tabernacle not built to biblical dimensions/demands. But we see a direct connection to god.

“Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body,” (1 Cor. 6:19-20).

"Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come** to him and make our home with him”** (John 14:23).

Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.
hebrews 8 1-2

 

[Della]

I will take this as a question for protestants. First we pray to ask forgiveness to god and jesus directly [jesus happens to be divine] and ask our high priest [jesus] to intercede for us as well. We think the link connect straight to god through jesus [no priest necessary] .

But you have pastors, do you not? If no one is necessary except Jesus, why the need for anyone to get up to lead you? Can’t you all just meet and pray together if all of you are so directly connected to God? You see how illogical your position if you take it to its logical conclusion? Your position is why the Quakers have no ministers.

Not one of us [well that i know of] rejects jesus in a fully human [body] and his blood [that saves us not works].

Neither do Catholics, but we have Jesus’ body and blood actually present in the Eucharist. A distinct advantage to having a “personal relationship” with him.

you may feel the need to be in some church made tabernacle not built to biblical dimensions/demands. But we see a direct connection to god.

“Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body,” (1 Cor. 6:19-20).

So, why bother to have a church building at all? Why not meet in each other’s houses to read the Bible and pray that way? Again, taken to its logical conclusion, this is illogical.

"Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come** to him and make our home with him”** (John 14:23).

Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.
hebrews 8 1-2

Indeed, Jesus is the tabernacle not made by human hands. And this same Jesus, who is our high priest, established the ministerial priesthood to administer the 7 sacraments he gave us, and which all Christians everywhere practiced for nearly 1600 years. Were they wrong all those centuries? Why did the world have to wait for the so-called reformation to get the “true gospel?” Isn’t that rather presumptuous–to assume that mere men, with no authority from God, decided to throw out what Christ himself established?

The plain truth is that these are the questions all Protestants who believe as you have written here have to answer for themselves, so they will know what Christ and the Apostles actually taught. The Church existed for several centuries before Luther. It evangelized Europe and a good part of the world before he was ever born. A bit of real history and solid theology gives us the truth about these things.

 

[sennincatholic]

i dont because its catholic day, i do because i enjoy it,its custom of the country im in,love the celebration and best yet, its not unbiblical.

First we get the phrase " its not biblical " as justifications for your arguements.
Now you say " its not unbiblical " .Well, i dont know what to make of this.
How do you know that something which is not unbiblical is biblical or something which is not biblical is not unbiblical?

 

[JonNC]

=total relism;11471351]I will take this as a question for protestants. First we pray to ask forgiveness to god and jesus directly [jesus happens to be divine] and ask our high priest [jesus] to intercede for us as well. We think the link connect straight to god through jesus [no priest necessary] . Not one of us [well that i know of] rejects jesus in a fully human [body] and his blood [that saves us not works].

Please don’t assume to speak for all protestants. Please, speak for yourself, or your communion.
From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:
*It is well known that we have so elucidated and extolled [that we have preached, written, and taught in a, manner so Christian, correct, and pure] the benefit of absolution and the power of the keys that many distressed consciences have derived consolation from our doctrine; after they heard that it is the command of God, nay, **rather the very voice of the Gospel, that we should believe the absolution, and regard it as certain that the remission of sins is freely granted us for Christ’s sake; and that we should believe that by this faith we are truly reconciled to God [as though we heard a voice from heaven]. ***

That voice we actually hear, “as though we heard a voice from Heaven”, is that of the pastor/confessor, exercising the power of the keys granted to the Church by Christ Himself, first through St. Peter, then the rest of the apostles.

Jon