Do Catholics believe John 6:53?

[pnewton]

I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that John’s gospel was written later than the synoptic gospels.
I wonder if he was drawing attention to particular teachings and filling gaps that might have lead to misunderstandings between the time the first synoptic gospel was written and John’s was written.

michel

No doubt he did not see the need for a strict narrative along the order of The Acts of the Apostles, but even at the ancient view of history was not what we consider today. History was always presented toward an end of making some point, not just a straight chrolicling of events (kind of like the media of today).

 

[Always_For_Him]

Then why don’t you believe Jesus’ words when He says, “Unless you eat of the flesh…”? Why don’t you believe that those who are not Catholic cannot be saved if Jesus is speaking of the Eucharist? You must you change His words from, “Amen, amen…” to “ the normative means…” to make your theology work and by doing this you accuse Jesus of not speaking the truth.

As has been explained better than I ever could, Christians outside of the Catholic Church are under the umbrella of Christ because ALL Christian denominations take their origin from the Catholic Church, so they all have SOME Truth. The difference is where man changed the teachings to mean something else or just dropped them entirely. If you have a valid baptism, you can be saved if you abide in Christ. The problem is that every non-Catholic denomination has different beliefs on what abiding in Christ means. Jesus gave us His commancds on what we need to do 2,000 years ago. Who are we to change anything? We are supposed to follow the teachings and traditions as the Apostles taught, not the teachings and traditions of MAN that has separated themselves from the Apostles and their Church to teach their own interpretation of Scripture and ideology.

The question for me is how do non-Catholics determine what the true Church is if they have always been a part of a church or churches that have taught non-Apostolic teachings and personal interpretations as Truth and have never been exposed to the full Deposit of Faith given to us by Jesus? What you “grow up with” becomes Truth to you and any teaching outside of that will not be Truth for you. The problem is, it is historically factual that men separated themselves from Christ’s Church and CHANGED teachings. Luther’s problem with the sale of indulgences had nothing to do with the Church’s teachings on faith and morals and his response should not have changed ANY teaching of Christ. Never were we to follow teachings/heresy that differed from the teaching of the Apostles. Why is it acceptable to do so now?

500 years later, those who are Christians outside of the Catholic Church have NOT been taught the fullness of Christ’s Deposit of Faith and therefore can be saved through invincible ignorance. Those who left Jesus, didn’t follow Jesus 2,000 years ago, knew Jesus and were taught the Truth and CHOSE to believe something else over Him. Today, Christians in non-Catholic Churches, if they are validly baptized and abide in Christ CAN be saved. When there is conflicting Scripture interpretation, we ALL have to always seek the Truth, not just what we have come to believe the Truth is. We have to be humble and open to the Truth even if it goes against what we have always believed. Why is this so difficult?. Everyone knows that man founded new churches and continue to found new churches based on his own pride, ego and authority to teach what he wants to teach.

 

[NotWorthy]

Also, we need to remember that John is not an historical narrative in the sense that it is in chronological order. Instead, it connects ideas in order of relevance. The immediate context of the visit to Jesus at night is that of water, literal water. The baptism of Jesus, the water into wine, then comes Nicodemus, back to baptism by the disciples of John and finally the discourse on living water by Jesus at the well. The context has nothing to do with physical birth, but of physical water. Interestingly enough, John is the only gospel to exclude the Christmas narrative. Even from a non-Catholic standpoint it does not make sense that he switches from real water, to a symbol of birth, and back.

Hmmm, I agree with everything you said, except two minor points:
a) I actually thought John may be the only chronological ordered Gospel.
b) Mark doesn’t describe the Christmas narrative either, doesn’t it?

 

[joe370]

So, let me see if I have this right; baptism by water is to be rejected? Wow…

I have been following this thread you started closely, and you have yet to answer or refute anything; why is that?

We as Catholics aren’t here to gain the confidence of other Catholics; we are here to gain the confidence of Christians who are products of the protestant reformation, which claims that the Holy Spirit
failed to guide and protect Jesus’ Mystical Body to which He is the Head and Savior, from the evil one. Is that even possible??? You believe that baptism by water, as per the bible, is unnecessary?Again, wow… You believe as my sister now believes, thanks to her newfangled church built circa 1980! There were 7 Sacraments for the first 1500 years, then the protestant reformation came along exclaiming that God failed to guide His One church… and their successors by proxy removed 5 of those Sacraments, and then their successors removed the remaining 2 Sacraments, all the while, division and dissension utterly consumed this unsanctioned movement; when does it stop??? Pretty soon a church won’t even be necessary; actually that movement has already started!

We are here to impart what the C.C. teaches, not what we teach! We believe in what the Holy Bible reveals for it is a product of the C.C.; we believe we are to take unresolvable issues to the church as per the Bible, not to the Bible, because we believe she, as the bride of Christ, received power when the holy Spirit came upon her; we believe that she is Jesus’ witness starting in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth; we believe in the Magesterium, which simply means, to teach…we believe that she was sent out into this sinful world to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, to teach the world to observe all that Jesus commanded!!! We also believe Jesus Christ when He said:* “behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” *

Do you believe all of this???

Please attempt to answer the tough questions here at CAF; if you don’t, what’s the point of this forum???

God bless…

You are only finding problems with you own theology, not with the Bible. The CC says that Jesus is speaking of baptism here but Jesus did not say Baptism.

There are several other possible meanings of “water” in this verse.

1. The water of the womb. Jesus is telling Nic that there are two births required, the first birth from the womb (water) and the second birth of the Spirit.
2. The washing of the water of the word. We are born again by the word of God.

'Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.

Water baptism is not required for salvation. Baptism of the Holy Spirit is required for salvation.

That is why Paul was not concerned about baptism but preaching the gospel:

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

(Edited)

 

[ralphy]

Doing something in the memory of somebody else meant worship. The animal sacrifices done at the Temple, during the time of the Aaronite priesthood? That was done in the memory of God as well. Were those sacrifices symbolic, as well?

These sacrifices done in the temple were done as an atonement for sin (as God requested),it did not take away sin. When Christ shed His blood at Calvary,(the only pure spotless blood to be found), it took away sin. This sacrifice was the last sacrifice for sin, He said it is finished. The so called “sacrifice of the mass” is not required and not needed. Ralph

 

[ralphy]

Excellent post, ‘NotWorthy’!

It’s all about the problem of Protestant misintepretation and of their taking Scripture out of context that leads to confusion.

If you would really question a Protestant, you would find them admitting to things that are very Catholic belief. While they attempt to stick to their guns with particular verses (usually taken out of context), they must concede (reluctantly) to the truth that the Catholic Church possesses.

For example, a Protestant (while stating that ‘all one has to do is profess that Christ is Lord’)–a verbal profession (faith) is all that is needed for salvation–will admit that, Christ asked for more than faith (alone). A Protestant will twist around the idea that works are necessary, and in some traditions, will suggest that ‘works’ come about ‘coincidentally’, because they are saved (already, by a sinner’s prayer). They hint that these works are ‘automatic’…that there is no effort in them (otherwise, they think that they are empty and works of the flesh). These are the same people who will be collecting “Angel Food” and working at homeless shelters, and building homes and helping those in crisis/disaster relief, etc. All good things. All things that actually require some thought, some preparation, some actual participation. They are doing God’s work (not their own). In essence, they are ‘working’ in faith and in love. But they don’t want to suggest that you ‘need’ works to be saved. They will twist and turn in the wind to avoid Saint John’s verse which states that ‘without works, faith is dead’. No works are necessary? Is that a contradiction, or just taking things out of context from God’s plan of salvation.

If works are necessary, then (in proper context), it would follow that God requires other things (besides a loving/active faith which includes His Works). He also wants us to be baptized. There’s a verse which directly states, “Baptism now saves you”. Is that a contradiction? No. If works are necessary, and penance is necessary, and following his commandments are necessary…then faith alone is wrong. In fact, no where in Scripture does it say ‘faith alone’. That was an insertion by Martin Luther (who didn’t like the Book of James–didn’t jive with his personal interpretations).

If these things can also be ‘admitted’ as part of God’s salvation plan for us, then it’s not so hard to imagine that when Christ commanded that we ‘eat His Flesh and drink His Blood’ that He meant so. That if he commanded us to ‘be baptized in water AND Spirit’ that he meant for us to be baptized (in water and Spirit, and not separated into a symbolic ‘spiritual’ baptism of believers and a take-it-or-leave-it ‘water baptism’ which is mere symbolism. Why partake of the Body and Blood of Christ if it’s symbolic? Why such long discussion about it? Why did followers leave and Jesus not explain (no, it’s not symbolic…Jesus didn’t chase after them or call them back to say…"Hey, you know when I called myself a door and a vine…well, that’s exactly what I’m saying here.’

In a previous post, I gave a listing of verses, that convert Steven Ray listed. The questions were, ""How does one receive salvation, justification, new birth, and eternal life?Can we be saved without faith? Without God’s grace? Without repentance? Without baptism? Without the Spirit?

And it was summed up, at closing with an answer that says this:

These are all involved and necessary; not one of them can be dismissed as a means of obtaining eternal life. Neither can one be emphasized to the exclusion of another. They are all involved in salvation and entry into the Church. The Catholic Church does not divide these various elements of salvation up; overemphasizing some while ignoring others; rather, she holds them all in their fullness."

That is a good argument for the Catholic Church’s understanding of Scripture. Indeed, it doesn’t contradict, and it doesn’t twist and turn in the wind. It stays strong and determined, as it has for 2000 plus years. Never to fail, by the promise of the Holy Spirit.

Do the Roman catholics believe in Eph 2:8,9 Ralph

 

[BereanRuss]

So, let me see if I have this right; baptism by water is to be rejected

I did not say that. I only said that it is not a requirement for salvation. I believe that all believers should be baptized in water but I also believe that it is far more important to be Baptized by the Spirit than with water.

(Edited) I will not be posting here nearly as often. I thank those who host this sight for allowing me to post my thoughts and I pray that all of you are blessed of the Lord.

Russ

 

[pnewton]

Do the Roman catholics believe in Eph 2:8,9 Ralph

Absolutely! We do not add extra words like “alone” to the equation, though. However Grace is the subject, not faith. Faith is an aside. As St. Terese put it, everything is Grace. So there is not need to boast in our works, with which we can not win heaven. Paul also reminds us that Faith is just as much a Grace from God.

 

[pnewton]

Hmmm, I agree with everything you said, except two minor points:
a) I actually thought John may be the only chronological ordered Gospel.
b) Mark doesn’t describe the Christmas narrative either, doesn’t it?

You caught me with my brain down on the second. The first is an interesting point I have never heard. On the surface, there I can see some merit in it. One would think that a fisherman like John would not try and follow a chronology as that was not in his cultrure. However, since this was a later Gospel, it surely is something he could have learned and been capable of writing.

 

[joe370]

(Edited)** I will not be posting here nearly as often. I thank those who host this sight for allowing me to post my thoughts and I pray that all of you are blessed of the Lord.

Russ**

Russ, (Edited); I am just trying to understand your position vis-a-vis baptism and now I do, and I respect your stance on baptism. What I said (Edited), appears to be correct; baptism, by your own admission, by water is unnecessary for salvation? I think…is that right? I don’t want to be accused of putting words in your mouth? Don’t stop posting here at CAF just because I am trying to understand your belief system.

(Edited) I’m no one when it comes to authority vis-a-vis faith and morals; that distinction goes to Jesus’ established church, as per the bible, (Edited)

If I am wrong about something, simply correct me; no harm no foul…

Peace and God bless Russ…

 

[NotWorthy]

You caught me with my brain down on the second. The first is an interesting point I have never heard. On the surface, there I can see some merit in it. One would think that a fisherman like John would not try and follow a chronology as that was not in his cultrure. However, since this was a later Gospel, it surely is something he could have learned and been capable of writing.

I’m just thinking that John wrote everything according to what season it was or what festival was approaching, it seems.

For instance, how do we know that Jesus’ ministry lasted roughly 3 years? John reports three separate Passovers.

 

[benedicta00]

Is Jesus referring to the real presence of Himself in the Eucharist? Is there another souse to obtain Jesus’ flesh and blood other than within the RCC?

Yes, in the eastern Catholic and eastern Orthodox churches.

 

[NotWorthy]

**It appears that I am being censored (again) by those who monitor this site so I will not be posting here nearly as often. I thank those who host this sight for allowing me to post my thoughts and I pray that all of you are blessed of the Lord.

Russ
Reply With Quote**

Russ, nobody is censoring you, especially me; I am just trying to understand your position vis-a-vis baptism and now I do, and I respect your stance on baptism. What I said which was not censorship; far from it, appears to be correct; baptism, by your own admission, by water is unnecessary for salvation? I think…is that right? I don’t want to be accused of putting words in your mouth? Don’t stop posting here at CAF just because I am trying to understand your belief system.

I am not authorized to censor…to do anything; I’m no one when it comes to authority vis-a-vis faith and morals; that distinction goes to Jesus’ established church, as per the bible, and perhaps the moderators here at CAF!!! Only the moderators, as per their rules, can remove or suppress what they consider morally objectionable, so please don’t put words in my mouth; I wouldn’t want someone to think that I am playing the role of moderator!

If I am wrong about something, simply correct me; no harm no foul…

Peace and God bless Russ…

I don’t think Russ is accusing us. You’ll notice in one of his recent posts, there is a red “Edited”. It shows that our good moderators didn’t appreciate what Russ said (I told him not to talk about my momma that way!!!).

 

[joe370]

These sacrifices done in the temple were done as an atonement for sin (as God requested),it did not take away sin. When Christ shed His blood at Calvary,(the only pure spotless blood to be found), it took away sin. This sacrifice was the last sacrifice for sin, He said it is finished. The so called “sacrifice of the mass” is not required and not needed. Ralph

Hey Ralph…

Did Jesus’ established church on Pentecost…Jesus’ established church for the first 300 years…Jesus’ established church for the first 1500 years get it wrong when it came to the Mass? They all believed!!! Did Jesus wait 1500 years to properly convey the truth regarding the impropriety of the Mass?

Could you please help me out here my friend?

 

[joe370]

**

Do the Roman catholics believe in Eph 2:8,9 Ralph

**

Certainly… after all, the C.C. was the church that included that book in the Holy Bible, out of a bevy of pseudo books that did not make the cut!

*“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast.” Ephesians 8
*

Right after that, it reads:

“…For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them.”

Salvation is a free gift, as per the C.C.; no Holy Spirit…no Holy C.C. and no Holy Bible!!! You believe that Salvation is a free gift because the C.C. decreed it when she codified and canonized the Holy Bible. Is that a reasonable conclusion, or is this the work of another church?

 

[byzgirl]

Do the Roman catholics believe in Eph 2:8,9 Ralph

We most certainly believe EVERYTHING in the Bible. It’s just that we Catholics have the correct interpretation.

By the way, please do the same courtesy that BereanRuss (the originator of this post) politely afforded us, by refraining from the term Roman catholics (he has since used the CC, or Catholic Church designation, in place of RCC), which I found to be a good gesture.

As another forum contributor pointed out, we are not all ‘Roman Catholics’ on this forum, but are certainly part of the Catholic Church, in union with the Roman Pontiff. I’m NOT Roman Cathoic, but an Eastern (Byzantine) Catholic. I’d appreciate your understanding of that point, and to use a term that more adequately represents the universality of the Catholic Church.

 

[joe370]

To all my non-Catholic friends… Which church in the world today existed when God sent the Holy Spirit to His Sons established church on Pentecost, and yes, it has a direct relation with: Do Catholics believe John 6:53?

 

[bradwill911]

We most certainly believe EVERYTHING in the Bible. It’s just that we Catholics have the correct interpretation.

By the way, please do the same courtesy that BereanRuss (the originator of this post) politely afforded us, by refraining from the term Roman catholics (he has since used the CC, or Catholic Church designation, in place of RCC), which I found to be a good gesture.

As another forum contributor pointed out, we are not all ‘Roman Catholics’ on this forum, but are certainly part of the Catholic Church, in union with the Roman Pontiff. I’m NOT Roman Cathoic, but an Eastern (Byzantine) Catholic. I’d appreciate your understanding of that point, and to use a term that more adequately represents the universality of the Catholic Church.

Byzgirl,

Can you explain the difference in rites to me? I’m not familiar with any of the other rites. I realize this is off topic so feel free to send me a personal message.

Thanks!
Brad

 

[byzgirl]

To all my non-Catholic friends… Which church in the world today existed when God sent the Holy Spirit to His Sons established church on Pentecost, and yes, it has a direct relation with: Do Catholics believe John 6:53?

So what’s your proof that a church (like the one you attend or espouse) was anything like the Church established at Pentecost? How do you correlate your beliefs to those of the early Church (and not the heretics)? The heretics, after all, mostly referred to the Old Testament Scrotires (and any NT writings that were available–in the earliest centuries, before the Church decided on a canon of inspired text)…and, called themselves Catholic very early on (Saint Ignatius used the term as early as 104 A.D., and it was well in use before that documentation).

If ‘Catholics’ were going around, quoting Scipture, and claiming to have the right interpretation (and rejecting the Apostolic Tradition) in favor of their own, personal interpretation…
then how did the Church decide who the ‘real orthdox’ christians were? Obviously, EVERYONE knew the difference. When people back then referred to the Catholic Church, they didn’t go knocking on the heretics’ door. They knew where to find the genuine Church (regardless of those that went against Her). There is a quote from one of the early church fathers, that says this exact thing (I’m just too lazy to copy and paste right now). But most Protestants certainly don’t care about the ‘extra-biblical’ accounts of actual member of the early church (eye witnesses of an historical record).

So where’s your proof that your current beliefs are ‘more’ like the early Church. I can’t see that modern Protestants even have concensus on essentials (there’s many different camps on baptism, communion, and the fundamentals of salvation)! A book without an interpreter is bound for error. That’s why the Bible is a book of the church. God gave the Holy Spirit to the Church, which is why it has endured throughout time (and will continue to do so, until Christ’s imminent Return). God always keeps His Promises. Are you suggesting otherwise?

 

[BereanRuss]

Russ, nobody is censoring you, especially me…

Joe,

Thanks. No, you are not censoring me at all but some of my posts are being deleted by those who monitor this forum with the explanation that I have broken the rules of this website.

Rules are for good reasons but unfortunately I cannot say what I believe without breaking the rules at some point. If I cannot communicate what I believe, what is the point of blogging?