Condemnation of fellow Christians

[jphilapy]

Wil Peregrin:

Uni, how read you 1 Cor. 10-11?

1 Cor. Is talking about the believers being the body of Christ.

1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
1Co 10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

The point of Paul’s rebuke in 1 Cor 11:20-33 is 'Since Christ gave his life for us, and therefore we must give our lives for one another, how can we as believers participate in a celebration of that fact if we are not honoring it by our own lives. And as you can see even while the Corinthians were celebrating the fact that Christ died for them they were demonstrating that they did not truly honor Christ by the fact that they were not willing to Love one Another. I don’t believe God cares about the symbols, he cares about His people loving one another more than he cares about the bread and wine. Paul was saying they sin against the Body of Christ that was given for them when they sin against one another. Since the Christians are Truly His Body, it necessarily follows that any sin against one another is a sin against His body. And to love is to participate in His death, so when we eat the bread and drink the wine but have no love then we are being hypocrites because we are celebrating his death but are not participates in his death.

Jeff

 

[Wil_Peregrin]

mercygate, you’ve got a very magisterial Protestant understanding of faith

 

[Wil_Peregrin]

Jeff, I beg to differ, it says plainly that we have koinonia with the blood of Christ and the body of Christ. The Church is sometimes metaphorically referred to as the body of Christ, but NEVER as the blood of Christ. It is because we are indeed having koinonia with the blood and body of our Lord, that to fail to recognize the blood and body of our Lord when we partake, is to eat and drink judgement upon ourselves.

You then go on to say what you believe God cares about. By what authority? What text are you basing this opinion of yours on? ody of our Lord, that to fail to recognize the blood and body of our Lord when we partake, is to eat and drink judgement upon ourselves.
16 Το ποτηριον της ευλογιας, το οποιον ευλογουμεν, δεν ειναι κοινωνια του αιματος του Χριστου; Ο αρτος, τον οποιον κοπτομεν, δεν ειναι κοινωνια του σωματος του Χριστου;

27 Ωστε οστις τρωγη τον αρτον τουτον η πινη το ποτηριον του Κυριου αναξιως, ενοχος θελει εισθαι του σωματος και αιματος του Κυριου.

 

[jphilapy]

Wil Peregrin:

Jeff, I beg to differ, it says plainly that we have koinonia with the blood of Christ and the body of Christ. The Church is sometimes metaphorically referred to as the body of Christ, but NEVER as the blood of Christ. It is because we are indeed having koinonia with the blood and body of our Lord, that to fail to recognize the blood and body of our Lord when we partake, is to eat and drink judgement upon ourselves.

Don’t you think that having fellowship with the Spirit in us as the body counts as having communion with His blood?

And I don’t believe that the church is metaphorically referred to as the body of Christ, it is in fact the body of Christ. Since he lives in us by His Spirit that makes us His Real Body.
Wil Peregrin:

You then go on to say what you believe God cares about. By what authority? What text are you basing this opinion of yours on? ody of our Lord, that to fail to recognize the blood and body of our Lord when we partake, is to eat and drink judgement upon ourselves.

First of all we know God cares more about people than he does rituals. Just as Jesus healed on the sabbath and then said the Sabbath is made for man. The Pharisees cared more about the sabbath than they did about the healing of the sick.

Also we know that God cares more about the obedience that man gives than he does about sacrifices as is said in the old testament and quoted in the new. So why would God care about the bread and wine more than about the obedience of the Corinthians? So I say based on that point that Paul was rebuking the Corinthians because of how they are treating one another saying that by that act alone they profane God’s Real Sacrifice for them. To eat unworthily means to proclam the death of Christ yet sin against your brother.

Now I know that it is a foolish argument to say that God cares more about people than he does about the Crucifixion of Christ. Quite simply Christ died that we may be able to obey God. And our obedience is Love. And Love is the greatest commandment. Therefore you cannot say one is greater than the other as Christ died so that man be redeemed. To put it another way, God loves man so much that He gave His Son for us. So how can we compare the two? So to say that the bread is not the real flesh of Christ is by no means to downplay His Real Sacrifice. But to fail to love your brothers as Christ has Loved us and gave his own live for us is what is at issue here. So why would Paul care more about the bread and wine then he does for how the believers care for one another?

 

[mercygate]

Wil Peregrin:

mercygate, you’ve got a very magisterial Protestant understanding of faith

Wil, I’m in a good mood, so I’ll assume you mean this as a compmliment.

Ninety of what most Christians believe is parallel – in dialogue with one another, I think we sometimes set up unnecessary antitheses.

 

[Descipleof1]

uniChristian:

I just don’t get this?
CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each [Page 83] species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that, after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that other effects do not result therefrom; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema. CANON VII.-If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the sacred Eucharist to be reserved in the sacrarium, but that, immediately after consecration, it must necessarily be distributed amongst those present; or, that it is not lawful that it be carried with honour to the sick; let him be anathema.

Why Does the Romanist Church want to condemn me to hell just because I don’t believe in Transubstantiation? I still believe Jesus is God and he was born of Mary just like prophesy claimed, but the Romanist church condemns me to hell. Could someone tell me why?

Maybe they suspended UniChristian because he only posted what he perceived to be bible truths? No one should fear the Word of the Lord, rather we should embrace it and love it.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Descipleof1:

Maybe they suspended UniChristian because he only posted what he perceived to be bible truths? No one should fear the Word of the Lord, rather we should embrace it and love it.

Other Protestants write on the forum and they are not suspended…

 

[JKirkLVNV]

>>

Christ in the Flesh, crucified, buried, resurrected, ascended to the right hand of the Father only to be turned into a cracker. Nah it makes a whole lot more sense that the wafer is a symbol of the reality and the reality is Christ in us. And likewise it makes more sense that the vine is a symbol of Christ and the reality is us in Christ. Christ in us and us in Christ. There is no other way to partake of someone more than that.

Jeff

(Emphasis in your quotation is mine).

1. The word “sense” does not, in fact, make a lot of “sense” in these discussions, not in the “sense” that you seem to mean! What is sensible about any part of the Christian Faith? Why would God love us enough to die for us? Why would He Who is utterly complete, utterly whole, utterly holy, put aside His Glory and become incarnate in the weakness of our flesh? For that matter, why bother to create us at all? Would not His Omniscience have indicated what astonishing lengths we would go to in order to send ourselves to hell? Christianity isn’t about sense, Christianity is about FAITH in the face of the mystery of the Divine Love. Of course, it doesn’t make sense that a “cracker” could become the Body of the Creator of the Universe or that a cup of wine could become His Blood! If that’s what you’re arguing, I bet every Catholic would concede, gladly, that you’re right…it doesn’t make sense. You just won’t get us to agree that the Host is not actually His Body and Blood, His Soul and Divinity.
2. ***“There is no other way to partake of someone more than that.” *** Unless, of course, you believe in the possibility of miracles. Have a blessed day.

 

[mercygate]

jphilapy:

Christ in the Flesh, crucified, buried, resurrected, ascended to the right hand of the Father only to be turned into a cracker.

jphilapy,

Are you aware that language like this is highly offensive to Catholics, and grossly misrepresents the Catholic position? You seem elsewhere to be quite respectful, if incredulous. But, for what it’s worth, the doctrine of transubstantion does not in any way mean that Jesus is “turned into a cracker.”

Here is a short article: catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

 

[Traditional_Ang]

jphilapy:

So is the catechism the final statement than for clearing up all confusion?

Jeff:

Try it. It can’t hurt. The CCC (the Catechism) is the Authooritative document for teaching the doctrines of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in a systematic fashion. You won’t go far wrong using it as a basis for your search into the Catholic Faith, esp. if you choose to work with a local Parish Priest or Perpetual Deacon, or read it as an adjunct to this.

Regarding St. Clement, as a Bishop, he partook of the Eucharist. You need to remember that when he refers to the WORD, he’s refering to Jesus Christ, and not the Bible (esp. the New Testament), since the Books of the New Testament had yet to be canonized, and would not be for over 200 years from the date of his letter.

I must confess that my last Patristics course was over 25 years ago, and that I’ve had a LONG sojourn outside of the Church since then. However, I can safely tell you that the early Church fathers availed themselves of the Eucharist of Our Lord’s Body and Blood as frequently as possible, and that they were very conscious of receiving the Body of Blood of Jesus under the guise of Bread and Wine.

Jeff, since you obviously accept the Resurrection of our Lord, why do you have such difficulty accepting that HE can make Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood? Esp. since he commanded us to EAT His FLESH and DRINK His BLOOD? Esp. since he said that’s what the 2 items were at the Last Supper?

Jeff, why do you rebel against the PLAIN MEANING of the SCRIPTURE as quoted in CONTEXT?

Why would you deny yourself the comfort and strength of this Sacrament of Union with Our Lord?

AS I said before, ask you local parish priest to let you inside for some private time with Our Lord in the Sacrament. I believe this will be more effective in giving you an answer than all the argumentation over the meaning of Scripture here ever could.

Peace be with you.

In Him, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

mercygate:

jphilapy,

Are you aware that language like this is highly offensive to Catholics, and grossly misrepresents the Catholic position? You seem elsewhere to be quite respectful, if incredulous. But, for what it’s worth, the doctrine of transubstantion does not in any way mean that Jesus is “turned into a cracker.”

Here is a short article: catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

Mercy:

I think Jeff is “Kicking against the goad”. In his heart, he knows that we’re steering him to the Lord and to the Truth, but his willful human nature is in rebellion.

That’s why I keep on asking him questions and keep on trying to get him in front of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Sooner or later, He’ll either bang the computer and give up and leave, or he’ll sit himself in front of the Blessed Sacrament and ask Our Lord to show him that he’s really there.

Either one is a decision. Please pray with me that he sits in front of the Blessed Sacrament.

May the Peace and Grace of Our Lord Jesus be with you…

In Him, Michael

 

[jphilapy]

Traditional Ang:

Mercy:

I think Jeff is “Kicking against the goad”. In his heart, he knows that we’re steering him to the Lord and to the Truth, but his willful human nature is in rebellion.

LOL. You cant steer someone to Jesus if they are already completely surrendered to HIM.

I undoubtly approach RC with an open mind and an open heart, but I can assure you that to date I am not impressed with the evidence.
When I look at the evidence I have to ask myself what is it all about?
So far all I see is lots of emphasis on rituals and institutions. I do believe that Jesus is and always should be supreme therefore getting ALL the emphasis. not the pope, the instution or the rituals. Isn’t the what Paul did? For he said:

1Co 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Jeff

 

[GKB_Protasius]

Sorry to jump in, but I thought I could respond to this statement by Jeff in a way that may better clarify our position:

When I look at the evidence I have to ask myself what is it all about?
So far all I see is lots of emphasis on rituals and institutions. I do believe that Jesus is and always should be supreme therefore getting ALL the emphasis. not the pope, the instution or the rituals. Isn’t the what Paul did? For he said:
*
1Co 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.*
**
I think you are seeing the rituals and institutions as distracting from Jesus. I would argue that they help us to understand Jesus and to preserve the truths about him. One thing that converted me to Catholicism was reading Henry Chadwicks *History of the Early Church *(Chadwhick is an Anglican and a lot of Orthodox like his book, but at least for me, it helped convert me to Catholicism). In it, I saw how there were so many people rising up and saying things about Jesus that weren’t true; for example, saying he was not God or he was not a man. Some of these groups would have nullified the exact verse you quoted! So in referring back to this thread, it was necessary to condemn them or the truths that Jesus is both God and Man, that God is a Trinity, and so many other things, would have been lost.

Institutions are very important. Not everyone, especially in the past, has the time, resources, or personal qualitifcations to study Scripture, Tradition, or doctrine, especially in the original Greek to understand everything, which is why we need institutions.

So I was struck that without an institution that could give a “final answer” on matters of faith and morals, everything would become helplessly muddy. We Catholics defend the “institution” of the Church so passionately because we believe that she has, by the guidane of the Holy Spirit, faithfully preserved and will continue to preserve true doctrine so that we can love and worship Christ and be united in Him. So even if we are wrong in what we believe about the Catholic Church, I, and many other Catholics, believe that way, because we believe that such a view is true and helps to maintain the truths God has revealed to us.

I hope this helps in explaining our position. Thanks for your posts!
Peace in Christ,
Frank Rausch

 

[jphilapy]

Frank,

Although I think you and I may disagree on what exactly constitutes a valid christian institution, it wasn’t the point of my reply to knock institutions. I was replying to Michaels statement about leading me to the Lord. Not that I need him to. But since I don’t hold to the teachings required by the RC such as transub. etc. folks here automatically have placed me into the unredeemed file. So my point is that if the RC and its members really want to lead people to Jesus then it isn’t by preaching pope, institution and rituals. It is by preaching Christ cruicified.

I remember early on when I began to follow the Lord I would tell everyone about how they need to come to my church, hear my great pastor, hear the awesome music and so on. Jesus spoke to me and asked me why I was telling them about church. He said the church is his elect. Tell them about Him. So from then on when I talked to people it wasn’t about those things, it was about Jesus.

Jeff

 

[GKB_Protasius]

Greetings! Thanks for your response!

I think I have a better idea of what you are saying. First, I wouldn’t put you in the unredeemed category. Second, I have to say I don’t have much of a head for Scripture and Doctrine. I love those things and read my Bible almost everday (i should everyday, have to get better habits!), but in terms of knowledge in those categories, I’m far behind the other Catholics on the forum. However, I’m a convert (from skepticism/cynicism) so I may be able to give a slighty different view.

In terms of other institutions and how we view other Christian traditions, I think we often take a zero-sum approach, as in “we are right and they are wrong.” I think one thing that may be better is to thiink in terms of a rating of 1-10. If Catholicism is true, that is, Catholic doctrine corresponds to God’s will, then Catholicism gets a 10. In my opinion, lots of other Christian traditions would get 8’s and 9’s. If you are right about what God intends, and we are wrong, then you would have the 10 and we would have a lesser number. We should strive for a 10 though, because that way we can be closest to God as possible (though of course knowledge does not always equal faith).

Of course, that analogy isn’t perfect. If you have the 10 and convince me you do, but I don’t convert to believe as you do out of pride or some other concern of the flesh, then I think I would be damned to hell, because I put something ahead of God in a really horrible way. If on the other hand, I didn’t convert because in the middle of our discussions I was hit by a car and died, I don’t think God would hold that against me. I think that if the same thing were to happen to someone thinking of becoming a Catholic, God wouldn’t hold that against them either, according to Catholic teaching.

I agree with you, we shouldn’t come to a church just because it has good preaching or because of the music. I would also say we shouldn’t go to a Catholic church just because we like ritual or because we personally like the Pope. On the other hand if we are convinced that God intended the Catholic Church as it is and that the Papacy is truly what Catholics believe it is and that Catholic rituals are what God intendend, then we must become Catholics. I believe that these rituals help us to preserve and convey what God has taught us and are in accordance with His will. So I think Catholics go on about rituals and institutions because we believe they are integrally connected to the truth. Also it may seem that we are talking a lot about institutions/rituals because that is something we disagree on. If we just were talking about things we agree on, I think we would be talking quite a bit about Christ and him Crucified.

Forums are great, but I think if we really want to understand each other, it’s good to reach each other’s books. I would suggest Peter Kreeft’s “Catholic Christianity” as a great book. Scott Hahn’s “The Lamb’s Supper” is also good I think, as it talks about the ritual of the mass, which I think is maybe what you are pointing to in regards to ritual? The “Imitation of Christ” is also quite good, because it shows how Catholics do talk a lot about Jesus. I would appreciate it if you could suggest books so that we can understand your view better, though as I am in Korea, it may be awhile before I can see them, so a website may be better in my case . Also, I will be traveling soon, so I may not be able to reply to your next post, but thanks for your answers!
peace in Christ,
Frank Rausch

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Descipleof1:

Maybe they suspended UniChristian because he only posted what he perceived to be bible truths? No one should fear the Word of the Lord, rather we should embrace it and love it.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

We don’t fear The Word of the Lord we also Love it.We love the Lord Himself! Unichirstian was suspended because he was name calling and being totally unchristian.If you are going to proclaim Jesus as your Lord and Savior then as rule you will try not to scandalize Him,by acting in a very unloving, uncharitable,and unchristian way

 

[jphilapy]

In terms of other institutions and how we view other Christian traditions, I think we often take a zero-sum approach, as in “we are right and they are wrong.” I think one thing that may be better is to thiink in terms of a rating of 1-10. If Catholicism is true, that is, Catholic doctrine corresponds to God’s will, then Catholicism gets a 10. In my opinion, lots of other Christian traditions would get 8’s and 9’s. If you are right about what God intends, and we are wrong, then you would have the 10 and we would have a lesser number. We should strive for a 10 though, because that way we can be closest to God as possible (though of course knowledge does not always equal faith).
<<

Frank I appreciate your view here and don’t disagree with it however, I don’t think this is the view of the catholic church. Based on what I have been reading and what others have said there appears to be two irreconcilable views taken by the RC. One says there is no salvation outside the RC, the other says there is. As a matter of fact there was a recent debate by RCs on this forum regarding what is what.

Well if this is the case then don’t you think that the RC has made a long leap from its original position.

anyone?

Jeff

 

[Wil_Peregrin]

JPhilapy,
Try -quantum- mechanic, where you can talk about such things as properties of identity and translocal phenomena, is. (Look up Einstein, Poincare, Rosen (EPR)) Much more useful in the matter of the Eucharist (though doubtless ultimately inaccurate or even wrong). In the end, the way Benedicite put things, is much more appropriate.

Jeff, if you -refuse- the Eucharist, do you have faith?

The Person of the Holy Spirit is not the Person of the Son. So, no, I don’t think that when God is having Paul write to the Corinthians that when they receive the Cup, they are having koinonia with the blood of Christ, and that when they receive the Host, they are having koinonia with the body of Christ, that the Person of the Holy Spirit is intended to be referred to here. I’m not sure what basis one could use to construe that passage to mean anything other than Christ’s actual body and blood.

Since Jesus is raised in that same body, His body is at the right hand of the Father. The church is metaphorically His body. Otherwise when the baby of a Christian mother nurses, that baby would be receiving the body of Christ, orally, would he not?

If God commands the sacrament, how can you oppose obedience to God, with the sacrament?

As to God not caring about His commanded rites, read of Israel and Moses at Mt. Sinai. “If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned.” Yes, God obviously considers the rituals void of value to those who perform them if they lack faith, including the obedience that comes from faith, but that doesn’t disestablish the sanctity of the rites God has commanded.

To say that Christ died on the Cross so that we might be able to obey God would seem to resemble the Moral Government heresy, aka works-righteousness. Christ died on the Cross to take the penalty of breaking the Covenant upon Himself, in our place, that we might be forgiven, and no longer be covenant-breakers. That is why Jesus shed His blood, for there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood. The one who breaks the covenant must be killed, blood shed. So Jesus did this in our place because it was the only way that justice and mercy could “meet and kiss”. When we partake of the Eucharist, among other things, we are participating in a covenant reenaction ceremony. We once again pledge our fealty(faith) to Christ. And Christ, having born the penalty of breaking the covenant, in our place, receives us into the New Covenant in His Blood.

MercyGate, I mean that in spite of many who disbelieve it, we are actually in agreement on what faith is and must be.

Sarah, Uni was rude, and continued to refer to people with a term they had asked not to be referred to by.

MercyGate, it isn’t only offensive to Catholics, but the Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox, Copts, Assyrians and Armenians as well (did I leave anyone out?)

Jeff, you can’t be completely surrendered to Christ. You are still here in this mortal coil. “Anyone who says he is without sin, lies, and the truth is not in him.” But without humility, you will never discover your faults, and with God’s grace, begin to address them.

One thing one can say about the Roman Catholic Church - they preach Christ and Him Crucified (even if the Bishop of Winona does not in his TV Christmas message) Go to a Catholic Church sometime. What is front and center? What is the center of the Liturgy of the Eucharist if not Christ and Him Crucified. Why do you think they have crucifixes?

Frank, Scott Hahn is one of the best covenant theologians I know of, even if he did go to Gordan-Conwell

 

[Wil_Peregrin]

JPhilapy,
I believe that the Catholic doctrine you are perceiving as two, and contradictory, is that there is no salvation outside the Church, and that all baptised Christians are in the Church, whether they know it or not.