S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
No. Not possible.
- Status
Eternal life.
that’s a caricature of Catholic teaching. Any Catholic can know whether or not he is in a state of grace at the present moment.
I said no such thing. My last remark only means that partaking of the Eucharist means partaking of Christ’s divine life. How he does it, I don’t know. I only know that he does. I only know that he commanded us to eat his flesh. So the appearances get converted into you-know-what in the usual biological way. So what? He said so, we obey. What happens in between is his business.
No. That was not the Jewish way of understanding it, and the Greek allows absolutely no doubt about the literal, animal nature of gnawing. Never in the New Testament or in Greek writings does chew (trogo) flesh (sarx) = believe. The Greek is very clear: “chew my flesh”. Metaphorically, in ancient Jewish culture, it means “attack me” but that makes no sense to promise eternal life to those who attack him.
That is exactly what happens when one partakes of the Eucharist. We have eternal life NOW, and he who dies in grace receives the fullness of that eternal life at the resurrection, according to his promise.
But this is not a thread on the Eucharist. It’s about “peronal Lord and Savior.”. Start one of you want.
A
apophasis
Guest
“At the present moment?” Eternal life is not a moment-by-moment existence. It’s everlasting. It has no end. No Catholic believes, nor is allowed to believe, he has eternal life now. Being in a present “state of grace” is not the equivalent to having eternal life.
But according to Catholic doctrine the Euchristic Mass is a sacrifice. What does that have to do with partaking of Christ’s divine life?
Yes, “eat” His body which was sacrificed, and “drink” His blood which was shed on the cross. Neither have to do with His resurrected LIFE three days later. Your Mass is connected to His sacrifice, not His resurrection unto glory three days later.
Scripture teaches us that the true believer is now in the resurrected Christ, that we were raised up with Him and are now, positionally, seated with Him in the heavenly (Eph. 2:1-7; Col. 3:1-4). For this reason the true believer HAS eternal life because he is in the resurrected, glorified Christ - the “last Adam.” This has nothing to do with the Eucharist which has only to do with His sacrificial death.
“He who dies in grace?” Eternal life is not contingent. One either has eternal life or he does not. Eternal means everlasting.
Well, you said it’s participating in the Eucharist that makes Him a personal Savior. So we went from there.
You said those who partake of the Eucharist have eternal life. According to Catholic theology only your priests have the power to cause the miraculous change of the elements. So then one must conclude that anyone who does not participate in your Mass does not have, nor cannot have, eternal life. Right? So how then does Rome call Protestants their “separted brethren?”
There are far too many inconsistencies here.
Of course it is, otherwise, how can it even be everlasting?
You’re wrong. It is. Read the Catechism if you want but Catholic teaching clearly equates the state of grace as partaing of the divine life.
And yes we are allowed to believe. We know whether we are in mortal sin or not.
His death is life for us. And you are sorely wrong about his death not having to do with his resurrection. It has EVERYTHING to do with it. The Mass is the re-presentation of his death AND resurrection.
I’m reminded of the time you denied that Jesus is King just so that you can deny Mary the title of Queen. Now you’re dissociating his death and resurrection which is impossible.
We are partakers of the Divine Nature, which is what happens in the Eucharist. Divne nature has divine life, and divine life is everlasting.
And you’re wrong. Our Mass IS his death, AND his Resurrection AND his Ascension. Do a word study on the Greek anamnesis, and Hebrew zikkaron.
You’re wrong about the nature of the Mass AGAIN.
It’s not only about his death, but also about his resurrection and ascension AND his eternal High Priesthood. Those are never separable from each other.
The Eucharist IS the Risen Christ. Sanctifying grace IS eternal life.
Yep, and that fact does worry Catholics because Jesus’ words are very clear. Unless one trogo (chew) his sarx (flesh), one has no life in him. This is not the kind of language of metaphor.
Since we believe that the Eucharist is Jesus, his life is joined to our own, or more like ours are joined to him in a most intimate and personal way, since we EAT him. His life is everlasting life, and that’s what we share.
Nevertheless the absence of the Eucharist from non-Catholic/Orthodox communities does not preclude us from hoping for their salvation anyway.
I don’t know about you, but I will simply believe the Bible. He said “This IS My Body”. “This IS My Blood.”
That’s good enough for me.
H
happygal
Guest
Wow, you talked as if you are God. HERETICAL…
personal savior, yes i can say that to my family , coz i am the only christian in my family. But on the other hand , we all know that he is everyone creator, so he is everyone personal Savior to those who accepted him, but to those who don’t he is not .
The meaning of personal savior is not that difficult to understand. provided you choose to understand in other way.
So don’t for any reason put up a word HERETICAL/what extra scripture teaching…blar…blar…be careful of what you said for you shall be judge accordingly…
A
apophasis
Guest
If eternal life is everlasting (which it is) you cannot lose it - it cannot be lost.
If it’s “divine” then it cannot cease.
No it’s not, it’s a sacrifice. And according to RC theology it’s a propitiatory one at that.
But tell me, at what point in your body does His body which you just ate rise up from the dead?
My arguments demonstrated that the Man Christ Jesus is not now reigning in Heaven as King, sitting on His father David’s throne which was promised to Him (Lk. 1:32-33). So how can the RCC ascribe to Mary the position of “Queen of Heaven” (apart from any divine revelation, BTW) when not even the Man Christ Jesus is reigning as "King of Heaven?
Since you say there is no disassociation between His death and resurrection in the Eucharist, then are you saying you’re actually sacrificing and eating His resurrected, glorified Body? This contradicts what the writer of Hebrews wrote concerning Christ’s High Priesthood according to the order of Melchizekek: *an indestructible life *" (Heb. 7:16-17). And not even the Man Christ Jesus was raised to life eternal (everlasting) since He (though glorified) is continually being subject to death millions of times a day in the Eucharistic Mass.
Why not? It’s no different than when He said “I am the door?” The Greek really means “door.”
Can you show me where Jesus said “eat my soul and divinity?”
So then are you saying only those who partake in your Eucharistic Mass have eternal life (the kind that is not really eternal but can be lost)?
And where did He say “This is My soul,” “This is My divinity?”
No it cannot be lost, so to speak. But it can be rejected. And yes, it’s propitiatory.
His body rose three days after he died. It’s the same event. You think too linearly.
See? Yet the Bible is very clear that he reigns. You just want to deny his Kingship to deny Mary her Queen-Mothership, contrary to the Bible.
I can’t believe you still buy this same caricature of the theology of the Mass. We do not believe that he dies again and again. He can die only once, and rise only once. But those events are once again made present at the Mass, since the events are ever present in heaven. Hebrews doesn’t contradict it; it confirms it. It is not NOT possible for Jesus to die again. The death made present is the SAME death that took place 2000 years ago and the SAME resurrection that followed right after… He cannot die again.
Because he clearly used the language of metaphor then, that is, he explained it right afterwards. Moreover, he pointed to no door and identified it as him. Same thing with the vine. He held no vine and identified it as himself.
But when he used the graphic language of chewing his body and drinking his blood, there were only two possible interpretations in Semitic culture: metaphorically, which is symbolic for “to cause great physical harm”, or literally, to really eat his body. To ancient Jewish ears, to eat flesh and drink blood meant that; it did not mean “believe” or “accept.” That’s why they were so disgusted, and his changing of the verb from phago to trogo only served to disgust them even more. So they left him. And he didn’t even bother to call them back. Jesus always clarified himself whenever he was misunderstood. He did no such thing and let them go.
Moreover, he later held bread and wine and declared them “This IS my body” “This IS my blood.” Paul relates the same thing and warns of grave consequences of partaking of the Lord’s supper in an unworthy manner. Why would this happen if it was “just a symbol?”
It doesn’t. It doesn’t have to. You will have to show me where his body, blood, soul, and divinity are separated from him. At no point was his divinity separated from him. Where his body is, there are the soul, blood, and divinity.
Again, eternal life cannot be lost or destroyed strictly speaking, but it can be rejected, like the Jews did in John 6. And again, it is impossible to separate his body and divinity; to do so is Nestorianism.
And yes, on the surface, John 6 does indeed point to that. Yet God knows the state of everyone’s soul, so we do not presume to know the state of those who do not partake of the Eucharist. So in truth, I do not know. We can only hope.
A
apophasis
Guest
It can’t be lost, but it can be rejected? Then you’re saying no one yet “has” eternal life. Contrary to Christ’s own words, “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood HAS eternal life” (Jn. 6:54). Yet you claim no one here on earth “has” eternal life yet.
This life is a time of testing as to whether or not you’ll “reject” it, is that right? Contrary then to Paul’s teaching that eternal life is a divine gift given to all who believe and are now “in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6:23).
So then I’m deceived in thinking that one day follows another? That in three days there’s really not two in between but all is one event? And when the Bible says He rose on the third day He actually rose on the first and died on the third - all being the same event?
Can you show me where the Bible says the Man Jesus is now reigning on His father David’s throne in Heaven as “King of Heaven?” Can you show me according to the Bible that Mary is reigning with Him as Queen? Spare me the Rev. 12 passage. The woman there never goes to heaven, only the child she gives birth to does.
Then it’s not a true sacrifice, is it? Then it can only be a commemoration, just as Christ originally said it was to be: "Do this in remembrance of Me." When you partake of your Mass, it’s done on earth, not heaven. And on earth, Christ’s death and resurrection are historical events.
I agree.
So what is finished on earth is never finished in heaven, is what you’re saying?
No it doesn’t. His High Priesthood is based on an “indestructible LIFE,” not an everlasting death.
He was speaking to them in bodily form, was He not? There was blood running through His veins, was there not? So based on your own reasoning, “eats My flesh” and “drinks my blood” are surely metaphors for believing. Compare Jn. 6:47 with 6:54.
He did clarify Himself in Jn. 6:63 and confirmed that the words He spoke were not literal but spiritual. It’s the Spirit WHO gives life, not WHAT one physically eats or drinks. He already pointed out that the ancients physically ate the manna in the wilderness and yet died in the wilderness. Jesus does not here deny the basic principle He spoke of prior: everything that enters the mouth goes to the stomach and is eliminated.
Yes, “…do this in remembrance of Me.”
It was their general behavior he was warning them about. The consequence fell on them because they did not “judge the body rightly.”
But He said “eats My body” and “drinks My blood.” One can certainly eat a man’s body and drink his blood without taking part in his soul. Wouldn’t you agree? The truth is, Jesus said absolutely nothing about eating His soul or divinity. That part was added by men to conform to their own theology.
We say no such thing, and the Church certainly says no such thing. When one is in God’s grace, he is a partaker of his divine life, as I already said. That’s Biblical and is Catholic teaching. Here and now, one who is in God’s friendship and grace HAS eternal life.
But in the wayfaring state, man has the free will to reject that eternal life, just as he can reject this temporal life. The eternal life of God is always available, but man can always turn his back. God never interferes with man’s free will.
That is Catholic teaching as well, and is consistent with 1 Peter. Yet the same Paul warns of remaining in God’s love lest we be cut off also, as per Romans 11:22 When grafted onto the vine, we have eternal life. But man in this life can choose to leave God’s love and therefore be cut off.
once-saved-always-saved is NOT Biblical teaching.
In the temporal sphere, of course, it took three days. But in heaven, as you well know, there is no time. Hebrews clearly says that Christ is an eternal high priest, and his priesthood does not pass away. Well, as you well know, the defining function of a priest is the offering of sacrifice. If he is the eternal High Priest, then by definition there has to be an eternal sacrifice, otherwise, his priesthood would have ended with his death. But what is the sacrifice? His death, of course. But he is not dead in heaven, he is alive. As an eternal priest, he has an eternal offering ever present in heaven. To God, there is no past or future. Christ died in time, but in heaven, his sacrifice is present to the Father who transcends time.
This is confirmed in the Book of Revelation when John sees a Lamb standing as if slain. The Lamb imagery points to Christ as the sacrifice in heaven. But he is standing and alive and victorious.
The Bible clearly tells us that the sacrifice of Calvary, his offering is ever present to the Father in heaven.
that’s what we tap into at Mass.
Christ must reign until his enemies are placed under his feet.
Jesus used the word “anamnesis” which is the Greek equivalent of the word “zikkaron” in Hebrew. This points to a sacrificial kind of memorial different from the regular Greek mnemnos. Anamnesis/zikkaron refers to a remembrance in which the event being recalled is not merely called to mind, but actually made present in a mystical way. This was how the Israelites understood the Passover, and when anamnesis appears in the Septuagint, it always refers to this sacrificial type of remembrance.
It is both, again because of the anamnesis. Since Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, yet he does not leave heaven, for Catholics, there is a joining of the earthly and heavenly realms. God is not limited to time and space and he can indeed have earth partake in an eternal event. This is one reason Christ had to ascend.
His death was a one-time event, and is not everlasting in the sense that he remains dead forever. That is not the same as saying that his death was offered once for all, and then made present to the Father for all eternity. Again, look at the Lamb of Revelation. He stands as if slain. The death is always present, but the Lamb himself is alive. But the Lamb will always be a sacrificial animal.
No it’s not. “Eat flesh” and “drink blood” are semitic metaphors for causing grave bodily harm. In essence, this interpretation requires Jesus saying “Unless you gravely assault me you have no life in you.” It makes no sense, which leaves only the literal. Hence, his disciples left him and he made no effort to call them back.
Same old, same old. Nowhere does the New Testament equate “spirit=symbolic.” If in fact he said that his flesh profits nothing, then he just contradicted what he said only a few verses earlier.
In fact, it only serves to reinforce that what he said requires a spiritual understanding and not just the understanding of the flesh. How indeed can one believe that bread and wine can become God, except that he said so?
Again, no one is concerned about the biological processes. It is a sacrament.
Anamnesis, anamnesis, anamnesis.
Only if the man were dead. But Jesus isn’t dead.
It wasn’t added. It’s simply a reasoned conclusion from the Scriptures that clearly say that Jesus is God, and is alive, and is fully God and fully man. That means we eat his body, we eat all that goes along with it, including soul and divinity. Catholics are not Nestorians, so this is the reasoned conclusion one draws from it.
N
NonDenom
Guest
Hi
How can this be, I thought that Catholics didn’t believe in assured Salvation, I might be wrong on this though.
In Him and Only Him
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Is this an assertion or can you please provide a reference to a Church document which states this?
Really? Tell me, what would happen to the person who died in a state of grace?
What would happen to a person who died apart from grace?
Yes.
Is Jesus a priest forever? Has he offered a sacrifice “once for all”? Why?
I see. Then tell me, why does Paul say that he was resolved to preach Christ crucified instead of resurrected? Why does he say that he wants to know nothing except Christ and Him crucified instead of resurrected?
Oh, what the heck…here are the verses:
*]1 Corinthians 1:23
but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
1 Corinthians 1:22-24 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 1 (Whole Chapter)
*]1 Corinthians 2:2
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
1 Corinthians 2:1-3 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 2 (Whole Chapter)
*]Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Galatians 2:19-21 (in Context) Galatians 2 (Whole Chapter)
*]Galatians 3:1
*Faith or Observance of the Law *] You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.
Galatians 3:1-3 (in Context) Galatians 3 (Whole Chapter)
*]Galatians 6:14
May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
Gee…why doesn’t Paul preach Christ resurrected?
He does, of course, preach the resurrection, but he understands that the power is in the Cross - not the empty tomb.
This is why Catholics have crucifixes instead of empty crosses…
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
Catholics do not believe in the unbiblical principle of once-saved-always-saved, that is, no matter what sins they commit they can never lose their salvation.
Catholics do, however, have a moral certainty at any moment whether or not they are in a state of grace.
But Catholics also believe that God never interferes with man’s free will. Anyone at any time can choose to reject the salvation he had received. Well, God doesn’t force any gifts on anyone, eternal life included.
P
promethius95945
Guest
Point number 1: to call out errant teachings which deny the truth promulgated by God’s church is not to pretend to be “God” but rather to do as God called us to do: be faithful to HIS word.Wow, you talked as if you are God. HERETICAL…
personal savior, yes i can say that to my family , coz i am the only christian in my family. But on the other hand , we all know that he is everyone creator, so he is everyone personal Savior to those who accepted him, but to those who don’t he is not .
The meaning of personal savior is not that difficult to understand. provided you choose to understand in other way.
So don’t for any reason put up a word HERETICAL/what extra scripture teaching…blar…blar…be careful of what you said for you shall be judge accordingly…
Point number 2: The fact that Christ’s salvation is open to everyone (aside from whether or not they choose to accept it) is exactly what MAKES Jesus a universal rather than personal Savior and is likewise what makes the personal Savior idea heretical.
Point number 3: The distinction is obviously NOT easy to understand, since the idea of a personal savior has led to many protestant off-shoots who believe in such terrible ideas as predestination, etc.
Point number 4: I’ll stop calling certain teachings of various protestant sects heretical when the teachings of those protestant sects fall in line with God’s Word as proclaimed and protected by His church. Not before, because THAT would be a disservice to God.
P
promethius95945
Guest
repost on accident
- Status