Do Catholics believe John 6:53?

[bullfrog654]

i think being religious muslim or jew is between the seperation of cults. know millions on eighther side got to have something going on their side.

i use this seperation in scripture. if your brother has a thorn in his eye take yours out first

i had a website and a decicated page i lost when i couldnt afford my web site any longer sixseals.com

 

[bullfrog654]

i myself believe in the guide lines of the church that describes a cult however due to ignorance i choose to understand more myself

my definition of a cult boils down to wako texas senario. one is not to walk blindly within scripture but rely on guidence from a higher source be it the trinity or government or cc.

dark forces our forced into seclusion this i understand. ex church of satan when you stop practicing it. seclusion however is too me like being judged like mother nature etc. for he who steals his hand shall be cut off senario.

so the SEEK FOR CC guidlines develops. i could elaborate but you all seem to know this stuff

 

[byzgirl]

“Again, the same is true of that difficult matter of the danger of the soul, which has unsettled so many just minds. To hope for all souls is imperative; and it is quite tenable that their salvation is inevitable. It is tenable, but it is not specially favourable to activity or progress. Our fighting and creative society ought rather to insist on the danger of everybody on the fact that every man is hanging by a thread or clinging to a precipice.”

• G. K. Chesterton

"We need to see that in God’s decision there are three logical stages or momenta: First, God wills sincerely and vehemently that all be saved; Second, He foresees some will gravely resist grace: on account of this resistance and because of it, He reprobates; Third, He decrees to save the others, not because of merits (which are not yet foreseen logically—only resistance is looked at—merits come after absence of resistance) but because He has always wanted that (salvific will) and these do not block His will.

Question for non-Catholics:

"Before Christ rose from the dead, was salvation possible?

We could rightly say no in a certain sense. Salvation was made possible by His resurrection therefore it was not possible until calvary. In the same way - salvation is made possible by the Church and no one is saved until they enter the Church.

It is important here to speak of the exceptions. We know by divine revelation (if not raw common sense) that at least the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets made it to Heaven. How could they without calvary? They didn’t believe in Jesus Christ — per se. They never said the sinner’s prayer and made Him Lord of their life. But how could they? Christ had not yet come. Could/would God require of a man something he was literally not able to produce?

Ok, we shall make an exception for those who came before Christ. Yet, on the same day Christ rose from the dead, hundreds or maybe thousands of people died. Where did they go? Christ had already come yet they had not believed in Him. I think fairness would dictate that we label them unable to believe as well. You should see where I’m going with this. Even today, there are those who are unable to believe in Jesus for whatever reason. For these, if they are literally unable to believe in Christ, we must allow exception (according to God’s divine mercy which we ought not pretend to know the extent of). It no sooner means that all those who are unable to believe now go to Heaven than it means that all those before Christ ended up in Heaven.

In spite of all this, we affirm without hesitation that Christ is the only means of salvation (it is, after all, sort of a Christian dogma if ever there was one). Therefore in a perfectly analogous way, the Catholic Church retains her dogma “there is no salvation outside the Church” despite the exceptions (which we pray are numerous). It is absolutely no more difficult to assert one than the other. In fact, perhaps the former is even a bit more of a stretch.

I should mention, if even as a footnote, that the Reformed branch of Christianity particularly seems to have no problem with placing all who don’t literally pray the sinner’s prayer in Hell (post-calvary of course). Then again, the Reformed Christian will rarely assert such a thing. It has been my experience that they would preface the statement with: “the Reformed theologians would say…” as opposed to merely stating it as their personal belief. Strange."

 

[byzgirl]

"It is true, as Jesus tells us in Jn 6:54, that he who receives the Eucharist has eternal life. But, you shouldn’t take this to mean that once a Catholic receives the Eucharist he has his irrevocable ticket to heaven. Instead, the Eucharist brings eternal life in that:

a. through it we receive Jesus Himself, who IS eternal life, and
b. the Eucharist helps us to live a life of grace and friendship with the Lord that is necessary in order to receive heaven (“eternal life”) when we die.
Furthermore, in no way does the “eternal life” received from the Eucharist diminish the need for faith. For one, there is no reception of the Eucharist without first entering into the Church through Baptism, which the Church calls “the sacrament of faith.” So, faith is what grants us the privilege to receive the Eucharist in the first place. Also, note that without faith the Eucharist will not be fruitful. In other words, even though the bread and wine have truly become Jesus Christ Himself, if we do not receive it in faith, believing that it is in fact Jesus Christ Himself, we will not experience the increase in holiness and friendship with God that the Eucharist provides.

As you can see, faith is in every way necessary and in no way diminished by the Eucharist, or for that matter, by any of the seven sacraments of the Church."

 

[joe370]

Hey Russ…just a couple questions!

Jesus said to His One established church, [do we agree that Jesus was addressing just one church to which He built?} --and let’s assume for the moment that His established church circa 33 AD was/is not the one and united universal church we see in the world today:

[COLOR=“Red”]“All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

And

“…you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

Which church in the world today, and again, assuming that that church is not the C.C. --thanks to Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit in perpetuity --were/are witnesses, starting in Jerusalem and eventually reaching out to the far ends of the earth… which church continues to possess said power to teach…continues to infallibly teach all that Jesus commanded, in perpetuity, thanks to the guidance of the Infallible Holy Spirit?

Logically speaking, if we can find that One church in the world today, built by God on Pentecost, again, perhaps we can unravel the esoteric meaning of:

"Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."

Russ, is that a reasonable assessment?

Russ, did their ancestors symbolically eat the bread from heaven that sustained their mortal bodies, that eventually led to death, due to the fact that that bread was not the “living bread that came down from heaven?”

Jesus tells us that He gave their ancestors actual food from heaven, to eat, that perishes --but for Christians, He tells us that He gave Himself as actual food from heaven for us to eat, **that endures for eternal life. ** Typologically speaking: the first type of bread was ephemeral, which foreshadowed the Living Bread that leads to Eternal Life with Christ, in His Heavenly Home! In both instances bread was/is to be eaten; the Greek word Jesus used for eat after they kept grumbling is gnaw {trogo}; why did Jesus use a much more literal word to drive His point home when they were grumbling? It seems to me that, if He wanted them to believe that He was speaking in metaphor, as you believe, then He wouldn’t have used the word trogo; what do you think my friend?

Also, did Jesus’ apostolic church, which believed that Jesus was/is speaking literally, for the first 1500 years, starting at Pentecost, teach erroneously that whole time? Yikes… I guess that means the Holy Spirit was remiss in His duties…

Cheers Joe…

 

[NotWorthy]

BereanRuss,

You may have answered this already, but this thread is going so fast…

How do you read John 6:53 in anyway BUT literal. In ancient Israel, according to the Psalms, to “eat someone’s flesh”, in a figurative way, was to “loathe and revile” someone.

How can you possibly take John 6:53 figuratively, understanding this?

 

[guanophore]

The Apostles did not have to change the words of Jesus like the CC does.

The Catholic Church understands the words of Jesus in the manner He intended them to be understood. The Real Presence in the Eucharist is a Spiritual Mystery. It is beyond the understanding of the human mind. Eucharist was given only to believers. Non-believers are not admitted. Jesus gave these instructions to His disciples.

If Jesus is not bound by His word how will He judge the liars of this world?

Jesus was giving instructions to the disciples about what He wanted them to do. His instructions do not apply to those who are not disciples. The fact that He give specific instructions to some that do not apply to others does not equate to Him being faithless to His word. You seem to want these words to apply to persons for which they are not intended.

If Jesus can say one thing and do another, how can He judge the word in rightousness?

Jesus’ actions are not contradictory. There is no salvation outside of Him - no other name under heaven by which we may be saved. It seems contradictory to you, perhaps, because you are separated from the Apostolic teaching.

If Jesus established the priesthood He is not a God of love for the priesthood is of the LAW and by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified in His sight.

Sorry, Berean, but this is just a deficient understanding of God’s revelation to the human race. Both the OT and the NT priesthoods, though different, emantate from His Love. the Law also emanates from His love. The priesthood does not justify people. God’s grace justified people. He uses the priesthood as an avenue for HIs grace. However, this belongs on another thread.

Why do you say that it is necessary in one breath and in the next breath say it is not necessary for the Jew or the Muslim?

Because certain instructions that Jesus gave to His Apostles He did not give to Jews and Muslims. This is His perogative. He created everyone.

The Catholic priesthood is an earthly priesthood and the NT does NOT establish another earthly priesthood.

Well, we see it differently, don’t we?

Catholics understand the priesthood the way the Apostles taught it. Those who are separated from Apostolic TEaching see it differently. However that is a topic for another thread.

No leader in the NT church is ever referred to as a priest. None.

See what happens when you read with your anti-Catholic blinders on?

If you were willing to learn, instead of making such preposterous statements, you would be framing this as a question, and honestly inquiring how we understand that they do. However, the more of your posts I read, the less I think you are here to learn.

If the priesthood is so essential to the Christian faith, why didn’t the Apostles ever mention it in the entire NT?

They did, quite a bit. However, that is grist for another thread. You are proceeding from a false assumption, also, that all things essential to the Christian faith are found delineated in Scripture. This is just not true. This is not a function the Scriptures were intended to perform.

 

[guanophore]

Generally speaking the Roman church adds “works” to obtaining salvation. Ralph

No, ralphy. We just don’t stop reading Eph.2 at vs. 9.

We read on to v. 10 and beyond. Anyway that is off topic in this thread. If you want to talke about the relationship of works to salvation, please do so on another thread. Berean is already having a hard time staying focused on the topic.

 

[guanophore]

Paul would not rest until a person was saved.

I agree with you. He also beleived that we are not saved in this lifetime, which is why He labored so hard to keep believers focused on the prize,and to keep himself from being disqaulified

If water baptism was required in addition to a profession of faith, Paul would not rest and would make sure that they entered fully into the kingdom. The fact that Paul rested is an indication that they were saved and ready for baptism.

Baptism has never been separated from the profession of faith in the Apostolic Church. That is a topic for another thread, though. As much as I enjoy discussing baptism, we can’t do it here.

If no other writer is more clear then Paul on baptism, why not quote me a verse or two to make your point instead of just saying, “Paul is strong on baptism…”?

I will be happy to do this. Start a new thread, and I will be there!

You cannot consume Jesus with your mouth. He is not a pill I take once a week.

Berean, if and when you ever become interested it delving deeper into your Christian faith, you would be well benefitted by some study of the early church heresies. What you have stated here was stated by heretics from the very beginning. The Apostles and their successors dealt with this heresy 2000 years ago.

Nothing you eat can defile you and nothing you eat can save you.

I agree. People who are not in a state of grace or take the sacrament sacriligiously are not benefitted at all. It is by grace we are saved, through faith. Taking the Body and Blood is an activity of the saved.

Nothing you eat enters your heart, only your stomach.

It is not what goes in your maouth, it is what comes out of your mouth defiles you and what comes out of your mouth that saves you.

This is a reference to physical food, not spiritual food.

If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Such a confession and believe requires obedience. Failure to obey His commandments is not a saving confession, or saving belief.

 

[joe370]

BereanRuss,

You may have answered this already, but this thread is going so fast…

How do you read John 6:53 in anyway BUT literal. In ancient Israel, according to the Psalms, to “eat someone’s flesh”, in a figurative way, was to “loathe and revile” someone. How can you possibly take John 6:53 figuratively, understanding this?

**Hey NotWorthy…

No one will answer that question I’m afraid; gee, I wonder why??? **

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by ralphy View Post
Generally speaking the Roman church adds “works” to obtaining salvation.

**Ralph, will you please show me where, in the C.C.C. it says: we are saved by good works, and not by Jesus’ Sacrifice on the Cross…show me any official Catholic document that supports your accusation? **

If you don’t/can’t, then perhaps it’s time to stop casting aspersions on Jesus’ established church circa AD 33. When you do this, not only are you calumnizing the C.C., but you are calumnizing its Founder/Savior, Jesus Christ Himself, if in fact you believe that she, as the bride of Christ, is part of Jesus’ Mystical Body to which He is the Head and Savior?

Just the C.C. in Rome, or the entire C.C., the world over?

 

[bullfrog654]

man reading so much today and copied almost this whole post i relize my sites been blessed by god doubled my faith on my site in the last two weeks im sure here as well… however i read somewhere earlier today that is it possible the holy spirit gets preoccupied on other duties i believe he does and is right over the internet

this post is declared top secret in the gazing monitoring eyes of the government be watchful lol

though i do believe these days the theif in the nighT is seperating the sheep from the cattle

 

[BereanRuss]

I agree with you. He also believed that we are not saved in this lifetime…

Baptism has never been separated from the profession of faith in the Apostolic Church…

I will be happy to do this. Start a new thread, and I will be there…

Berean, if and when you ever become interested it delving deeper into your Christian faith, you would be well benefitted by some study of the early church heresies…

I agree. People who are not in a state of grace or take the sacrament sacriligiously are not benefitted at all…

This is a reference to physical food, not spiritual food.

Such a confession and believe requires obedience.

What do all of these responses have in common? You never quote single scripture.

 

[BereanRuss]

joe370:

Ralph, will you please show me where, in the C.C.C. it says: we are saved by good works, and not by Jesus’ Sacrifice on the Cross…show me any official Catholic document that supports your accusation?

If the CC does not believe in works then there is no need for the work of the priest to transform the bread and wine, right? The fact that the work of the priest is required testifies that the work of salvation is not complete but requires daily offerings to continue.

Therefore, any statement in the CCC that requires the work of the priest could be cut and pasted here in response to your question.

 

[joe370]

If the CC does not believe in works then there is no need for the work of the priest to transform the bread and wine, right? The fact that the work of the priest is required testifies that the work of salvation is not complete but requires daily offerings to continue.

**Russ, by that same logic, if you do not believe in works, then there really is no reason for you, as a priest of the royal priesthood, as per sacred scripture, to minister to others; there is no need for your church Pastors to teach the word of God? The fact that your work or the work of you church leaders/teachers is required testifies that the work of salvation is not complete but requires daily ministering, to continue. Is that the case?

Firstly, the C.C. does believe in good works, and I can provide plenty of scriptural passages to support the C.C.‘s position; don’t you? Without Christ’s redemptive work on the cross, all good works would be pointless; we are saved by Jesus’ expiation --ONLY!!! Are we in agreement? Secondly, my friend, do you really believe that a mere sinful, fallible man transforms the bread and wine, and not the Holy Spirit; is that what you are saying?**** Could you perhaps answer some of my questions I’ve asked you, in my preceding posts??? No one else will. **

Therefore, any statement in the CCC that requires the work of the priest could be cut and pasted here in response to your question.

Again, any statement from your church teachers that requires their work could be cut and pasted here in response, as well!!!

God bless Russ… Looking forward to you responses…

 

[guanophore]

"ralphy:

Generally speaking the Roman church adds “works” to obtaining salvation.

**Ralph, will you please show me where, in the C.C.C. it says: we are saved by good works, and not by Jesus’ Sacrifice on the Cross…show me any official Catholic document that supports your accusation? **

This is a righteous challenge, but don’t encourage him to do it here. It needs a new thread.

What do all of these responses have in common? You never quote single scripture.

As I have said, Berean, I am always delighted to examine what the scriptures have to say about baptism. It does not belong on this thread, though.

If the CC does not believe in works

I think you are not reading carefully, Berean. What he said was that the Catholic Church does not teach that we can be saved by works. That does not equate to “not believe in works”.

then there is no need for the work of the priest to transform the bread and wine, right?

I don’t think this can actually best be characterized as “work of the priest”. It is a work of God. People only work miracles by the grace of God. But from either point of view, it is one of the works that God has prepared beforehand,that we should walk in them. I think it is quite presumptuous to say of those works that God has prepared and commanded for us “there is no need for the work”. Spiritually dangerous, too, I think.

 The fact that the work of the priest is required testifies that the work of salvation is not complete but requires daily offerings to continue.

I think this statement may well be accurate about Catholic teaching. Indeed, the Apostles taught that we are saved through baptism, that we work out our salvation while on this earth with fear and trembling, and that we obtain our salvation when we depart this world in a right relationship with Christ (state of grace).

Walking with God does, indeed, require the daily offering of our selves so that we can continue in the path of salvation. We do this in the way that Jesus provided, by offering ourselves with the bread and wine, and join with Him in His sufferings, through the Eucharist, joining Him at the foot of the cross.

Therefore, any statement in the CCC that requires the work of the priest could be cut and pasted here in response to your question.

No, that is just another item that is off topic in this thread. If you are satisfied that we have answered the OP, then the best thing is to start new threads for these other topics.

 

[BereanRuss]

Russ, by that same logic, if you do not believe in works, then there really is no reason for you, as a priest of the royal priesthood, as per sacred scripture, to minister to others; there is no need for your church Pastors to teach the word of God? The fact that your work or the work of you church leaders/teachers is required testifies that the work of salvation is not complete but requires daily ministering, to continue. Is that the case?

Without the priest there is no salvation. Without the Christian pastor, there still is salvation. The Catholic is dependant upon the work of the priest for SALVATION. This is a huge difference.

Firstly, the C.C. does believe in good works, and I can provide plenty of scriptural passages to support the C.C.‘s position; don’t you? Without Christ’s redemptive work on the cross, all good works would be pointless; we are saved by Jesus’ expiation --ONLY!!!

If you were saved only by Christ’s redemptive work, what need is there for the work of the priest for SALVATION? You trust in the work of the church in addition to the work of Christ. If this were not true, there would be no need for a daily mass someplace on the earth. BOTH are required in the CC, not Christ alone.

 

[BereanRuss]

The Catholic Church understands the words of Jesus in the manner He intended them to be understood…

Jesus was giving instructions to the disciples about what He wanted them to do. His instructions do not apply to those who are not disciples…

Jesus’ actions are not contradictory. There is no salvation outside of Him - no other name under heaven by which we may be saved…

Sorry, Berean, but this is just a deficient understanding of God’s revelation to the human race…

Because certain instructions that Jesus gave to His Apostles He did not give to Jews and Muslims…

Catholics understand the priesthood the way the Apostles taught it…

See what happens when you read with your anti-Catholic blinders on…

If you were willing to learn, instead of making such preposterous statements, you would be framing this as a question, and honestly inquiring…

They did, quite a bit. However, that is grist for another thread…

Again, what do all of these responses have in common? There is never a reference to any scripture.

We are in the sacred scripture section. Thy using them and maybe we will have a real conversation for a change.

 

[bradwill911]

Without the priest there is no salvation. Without the Christian pastor, there still is salvation. The Catholic is dependant upon the work of the priest for SALVATION. This is a huge difference.

If you were saved only by Christ’s redemptive work, what need is there for the work of the priest for SALVATION? You trust in the work of the church in addition to the work of Christ. If this were not true, there would be no need for a daily mass someplace on the earth. BOTH are required in the CC, not Christ alone.

:banghead:

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
Russ, by that same logic, if you do not believe in works, then there really is no reason for you, as a priest of the royal priesthood, as per sacred scripture, to minister to others; there is no need for your church Pastors to teach the word of God? The fact that your work or the work of you church leaders/teachers is required testifies that the work of salvation is not complete but requires daily ministering, to continue. Is that the case?

**Without the priest there is no salvation. Without the Christian pastor, there still is salvation. The Catholic is dependant upon the work of the priest for SALVATION. This is a huge difference.
**
If you don’t need the teachings of your Pastor for salvation, which are, absolutely good works, then why defer to him; take it right to Jesus Christ, via your Holy Bible, codified and canonized by a P.C. --right or wrong? The Catholic is NOT dependent upon the work of the priest for SALVATION; he is dependent upon the work of the High Priest, Jesus Christ, for SALVATION, working through His ministerial priests and His royal priests!!! All the ministerial priest does is what Jesus commanded:

*“For I have received from the Lord, that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus Christ the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He brake it and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body which was broken for you. This do in remembrance of Me.” *

Are they not to do this in remembrance of Jesus because it’s considered work, even though it’s Jesus the High Priest commanded it…??? Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ And He took the cup, and gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink ye all of it; for this is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

Do you believe Him, when He said: this is my body? You think a sinful fallible minister of Christ is where catholics can find salvation --really? The priest is a humble servant of Christ ministering just as your Pastor does. I think what you mean to say is: without the Eucharist there is no salvation; is that what you meant? Well, that’s what your Holy Bible conveys! As per sacred scripture, there is no salvation outside Jesus’ established church, for He, as per scripture is the Head and Savior of His Eklessia, not the savior of Christians reading their Holy Bible. The early Christians were commanded not to forsake the Assembly (Heb. 10:25). That is how important it is. We must worship together; we must encourage one another; we must incite one another to noble living.

Why should I even believe that the bible is Holy, if the C.C. taught is not Holy…if the C.C. taught erroneously vis-a-vis other teachings? Can the Holy Spirit err? I ask again: did Jesus’ established church for the first 300 years teach a heretical doctrine when it comes to the Eucharist? Did the Holy Spirit misguide Jesus’ established church for 1500 years; they all believed what you refuse to believe, and that’s cool; to each his/her own. Wouldn’t that make the C.C. and the E.O.C. apostate churches, for the first 1500 years of Christianity?

Firstly, the C.C. does believe in good works, and I can provide plenty of scriptural passages to support the C.C.‘s position; don’t you? Without Christ’s redemptive work on the cross, all good works would be pointless; we are saved by Jesus’ expiation --ONLY!!!

**If you were saved only by Christ’s redemptive work, what need is there for the work of the priest for SALVATION?
**

Again, the priest does not transform the bread and wine; are we on the same page yet? The early Christians believed that they were saved only by Christ’s redemptive work, but they still did as the C.C. does today, and as the bible instructs; were they wrong?

You trust in the work of the church in addition to the work of Christ. If this were not true, there would be no need for a daily mass someplace on the earth. BOTH are required in the CC, not Christ alone.

You trust in the work of your church don’t you? If Jesus empowered His One church to teach all that He commanded, and He did as per scripture, then why wouldn’t I trust in the work of the Church, considering the fact that she, as the bride of Christ is being taught and guided by the Holy Spirit in perpetuity? Russ, the church is Jesus’ Mystical Body to which Jesus is the Savior --correct? We are saved by belonging to His Eklessia which He built 2000 years ago, which is suppose to be one and united as per scripture, just as the C.C. is; agreed? I can show you plenty of passages if necessary.

I ask again: Which church in the world today existed when the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus’ apostolic church on Pentecost, and again, let us assume that it is not the C.C.? There are over 200 commands in the N.T.; do we need to observe them all or just believe that Jesus Christ is our savior? BTW, if I approached a priest and said: thank you for saving me, he would think that I was nuts. If you stopped going to your church altogether, would you consider yourself saved?

continued…