Do Catholics believe John 6:53?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BereanRuss
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not asking what is not there. I am asking you to produce something on the things you claim “are there” according to the Roman catholic church. Ralph
Have you ever read any of St. Clement’s or St. Ignatius’ Epistles? Have you ever read the Didache? All of these writings are within a 100 years of Jesus’ death, and they reflect much of the Sacred Traditions of the Church.
 
There are no degrees of sin, all sin is against Gods will. Ralph
Jesus answered…"for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin". Jn 19:11

It seems that Jesus does indeed think there are degrees of sin.

What say you, Ralph? Do you agree now that there are degrees of sin?
 
The word rapture is from the Latin word rapturus and it means, “caught up”

Then we who are alive and remain shall be CAUGHT UP together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. [1 Thes 4:17]
I agree! That is why I am OK with the word rapture even though it is not in the Bible. However, I am not OK with your church’s interpretation, simply because it’s NOT in line with what the C.C. teaches vis-a-vis the end time scenario. If the C.C., born on Pentecost, (if not the C.C. then which church?) --has failed to teach accurately, regarding all that Jesus commanded, then the Holy Spirit, promised by Jesus to be with His church forever, has failed to guide and teach Jesus’ One church, into all truth regarding all that Jesus commanded. Individuals comprising His One church can and do err, but when it comes to the deposit of faith, the college of sinful, fallible church teachers cannot, thanks to the Infallible “teaching” and “guidance,” As per the inerrant word of God.

Again, why does your church embrace a word that is not found in your bible, even though it identifies the end time scenario, albeit quite differently than the C.C. --all the while rejecting the priesthood, simply because the words presbyter and bishop are used in lieu of hiereus, to identify the N.T. priesthood? They do exactly as Christ did 2000 years ago, when He said: do this in remembrance of me. When the minister takes the bread, breaks it and blesses it, at which point the Holy Spirit transforms the bread into Jesus Mystical Body, and re-presents that one sacrifice offered up by Christ to the Father, the minister is performing his priestly duty, just as Christ did as the High Priest, at the last supper.

Jesus took a loaf of bread, gave thanks, broke it in pieces, blessed it and handed it to them, saying, take this and eat it. This is my body which is given for you. Keep on doing this in memory of me.

The presbyter/bishops follow suit, by obeying Jesus’ command, just as the apostles and their successors did, by taking the bread giving thanks and breaking it into pieces, blessing it and handing it to assembly of brothers and sisters in Christ, saying, take this and eat it. This is Christ’s body which is given up for you, thereby participating in Christ’s priestly function; without the priest, who must truly believe that the bread becomes the body of Christ, in order to administer his priestly duties, the re-presentation of that one sacrifice, is impossible!

As opposed to the O.T. priests who offered up sacrifices which were vicarious, in the N.T. Christ is the only Priest Who offered Himself up, once and for all, and told His chosen ambassadors to continue to take a loaf of bread –continue to give thanks –continue to break it in pieces –continue to bless it –continue to hand it to them –continue to say: take this and eat it. This is My (Christ’s) --Body, which is given for you.

Ministerial priests operate in Christ, the Head of the church, when they do as He commanded; ministerial priests decrease as Jesus, the High Priest increases; when the minister administers his priestly function, via the words of consecration, we ultimately see just one Priest on the alter, the High Priest, Jesus Christ, Who is working through His chosen instrument, the ministerial priest, by re-presenting, in mere bread and wine, His flesh and blood, through the power of the Holy Spirit --and by eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood, spiritually speaking, we bind our sacrifices to His One Sacrifice that was offered up once and for all, 2000 years ago, which is given up for all, at every Mass. Clearly it’s not a physical re-sacrifice, as it was 2000 years ago, because Jesus is no longer physically present, to physically die on the cross again; it’s a re-presentation of the one Sacrifice that is offered up at every Mass. The presbyters and bishops are simply doing what they were told to do…as the Apostles were told to do, in perpetuity, by Jesus, when He said: do this in remembrance of me.

Russ, Jesus shepherds His flock through the ministerial shepherds, just as He does in the protestant communities; He teaches, through His chosen ministerial shepherds, both Catholic and Protestant, who, acting as mediators, were/are told to teach to the world, all that He commanded; you and I understand Christ via the teachings of our ministerial ministers/pastors, at our respective churches; who is to be believed?

The ministerial shepherd of the C.C. and the E.O.C. have another function however, a priestly function, as per the Holy Bible, not administered by the ministerial shepherds amongst the divided protestant communities, because of their symbolic interpretation, and this was done by Jesus One church since Pentecost –right or wrong? Sacramentally speaking, these ordained ministerial shepherds are mediators in another capacity; they are the channel by which all can partake of the Eucharist…access to the One High Priest, again, sacramentally speaking, Who transforms the bread into His Body, for us to eat, and without this ministerial priest, we would not be able to eat this transformed bread; it would simply be bread, as you proffer, that some how, becomes a symbol of Christ’s Flesh, upon the blessing. How does eating mere bread and drinking mere wine, after the words of consecration, symbolically point to the cross? Bread in no way is a symbol of flesh; wine in no way is a symbol of blood! When you take a sip of wine, does blood pop into your mind?

The simple fact remains: the ministerial shepherds, both Protestant and Catholic, represent Christ, here on earth, just as the Apostles and their successors did when they were told: as the Father has sent me into the world, so I send you…to teach all that I have commanded; the ministerial shepherds belonging to the C.C. represent Christ, here on earth, just as the Apostles and their successors did, when they were told to do this in remembrance of me…by doing exactly as Jesus did, at the last supper, they administer their priestly duties…they participate, as loyal servants in Jesus’ One and only High Priesthood when they utter the same words uttered by Jesus, thereby commemorating the last supper, just as all Christians participate, as loyal servants in Jesus’ One and only High Priesthood when they offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

continued…
 
The unbroken line of Apostolic succession is key to this ordained ministerial priestly function, via the imposition of hands, as per the N.T., as it was for the first 300 years, hence the term holy orders. So, to encapsulate, the first order of business, for the ministerial shepherd, is to preach and teach all that Jesus commanded, ergo, his mediatorship; the second order of business is the administering of the sacraments, which was done by the early church; Jesus’ early church is the perfect model of what Jesus’ church should look like today, for this church was closest to the Apostolic Age; truth has a tendency, over time, to get watered down; that is why it is so important to familiarize ourselves with everything the early church taught! This apostolic succession, like any succession, business or otherwise, is the only deterrent against this watering down process… This Apostolic succession makes it possible for the Apostles, who were told to go out into the world, starting in Jerusalem, and then into Judea and Samaria and eventually to the ends of the earth, to continue to preach and teach all that Jesus commanded; it’s the synergistic glue that keeps Jesus’ church one, regardless of the onslaught of the evil one, on Jesus’ One church. It is the only reason why the C.C. is one and united, and the only reason why P.C.'s reject it!

Russ, I think this is where we are getting are wires crossed; you do not believe that the bread truly becomes the flesh and blood of Christ, therefore it is not a true re-presentation, or a true offering of the one Sacrifice offered up by Christ 2000 years ago. If you are right and the early church…the people taught by the Apostles were wrong, then I can certainly understand your opposition! If you choose not to believe that the bread and wine are truly Jesus’ Mystical flesh and blood via the power of the Holy Spirit, then the debate is at a stalemate; someone has to concede otherwise we are just spinning our wheels, well beyond the one thousand post limitation.
 
**Okay. Is it not time that the Roman Catholic church produced some of this traditions on paper they keep talking about, I don’t mean the things written down by the catholic church as to the things they added on or taken away from scripture. I would like to see you back up some of the things that you are saying and where the authority comes from. My backup comes from the word of God. For instance, show me where the “priest” gets the power to change the “bread” and “blood” into the body and blood of Christ. Ralph
**

Paul said to Jesus’ One church:
Code:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thessalonians 2:15—RSV)
If the Apostles and their successors would have to produce some of these traditions on paper, these traditions would no longer be traditions passed down to each successive generation by word of mouth; they would be traditions passed down by letter, negating the need for traditions taught, by word of mouth! They knew it was unnecessary to commit everything to writing, for Christ told His chosen ambassadors (people) --to teach all that He commanded; He never said: commit all that you have learned to writing, call it the bible, and hand out this bible to everyone, and tell them to interpret said bible via the power of the H.S., and by the way, you’re gonna have to wait about 1500 years, at which point I will bring Mr. Gutenberg into the world who will build a press which will enable mass production, enabling all to possess their very own bibles. :confused:

Jesus built one church and gave her the keys, which are a symbol of authority…He gave her the power, via the guidance Holy Spirit to teach all that He commanded, starting in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, by word of mouth or by letter. Any traditions that we cite, you will no doubt reject because you believe: if the bible doesn’t mention said traditions, then they must be traditions of the C.C., which begs the question: what’s wrong with that? Do you not trust the one church empowered by Jesus Christ to teach all that He commanded, to the ends of the earth --which is being taught and guided by the Holy Spirit, in perpetuity?

Catholic traditions such as the Immaculate Conception, were believed by the very men who were taught by the Apostles, who then passed on these traditions to their successors…etc. etc.They were handed down from the Apostles through each successive generation, by word of mouth, just as Baptism by water, was handed down from the Apostles through every generation by word of mouth, until the bible was codified circa 393 Ad, at which point, it was still passed on by word of mouth, until Gutenberg invented the printing press, at which point it was passed on to each successive generation, by either word of mouth and by letter, in the Catholic Church, and solely by letter via private interpretation, which of course led to the descent into the maelstrom, called the Protestant Reformation.

The Apostle passed on to their successors all that Jesus taught. Some of these teachings were committed to letter, while others were passed on orally. Not everything was committed to writing because the bible was never designed to be our sole authority; that commission was given to Jesus’ One Apostolic Church! For example: the reason more isn’t said about the personal lives of our blessed mother Mary and the Apostles is quite simple: the Holy Bible isn’t about them; it’s all about Jesus Christ and what me must do if we want eternal life, e.g. John 6. However, that doesn’t mean we should just ignore what was passed on orally, by the Apostles, to their successors in perpetuity, such as Mary’s I.C., Purgatory…etc.

Ralph, why do you embrace sola scriptura vis private interpretation, which is clearly a man-made tradition, stemming from Martin Luther himself?

Why do you commemorate the birth (Christmas) and death (Easter) of Jesus considering the fact that the bible makes no mention of it? We are told by Jesus to do just one thing in remembrance of Him; does your church do it?
 
**My backup comes from the word of God. For instance, show me where the “priest” gets the power to change the “bread” and “blood” into the body and blood of Christ. Ralph
**
My brother in-law who belongs to the Lutheran church, believes that Jesus was speaking in metaphor, regarding John 6, and he derives his conclusions from the the word of God; Pastor Dave, who I met here at CAF and also belongs to one of the Lutheran churches, believes that Jesus was speaking literally, and he derives his conclusions from the word of God, as well.

Ralph, who is wrong and who is right?

Ralph, the ministerial priests possess zero power to change the bread and wine into Jesus’ flesh and blood; that power comes from the Holy Spirit; the priest doesn’t do anything other than what Christ asked His apostles and their successors to do in perpetuity; read the C.C.C. if you don’t believe me.

Jesus took a loaf of bread, gave thanks, broke it in pieces, blessed it and handed it to them, saying, take this and eat it. This is my body which is given for you. Keep on doing this in memory of me.

The presbyter/bishops follow suit, by obeying Jesus’ command, just as the apostles and their successors did, by taking the bread giving thanks and breaking it into pieces, blessing it and handing it to the assembly of brothers and sisters in Christ, saying, take this and eat it. This is Christ’s body which is given up for you, thereby participating in Christ’s priestly function; without the priest, who must truly believe that the bread becomes the body of Christ, in order to administer his priestly duties, the re-presentation of that one sacrifice, is impossible!
 
Ok. Let me ask you a few questions. If the present pope is a successor of Peter as you say, why does he have to ride around in a bulletproof vehicle where ever he goes, I would think that the Lord would protect him or is he possibly scared of death.?

Ralph, the Lord came to save us…to protect us, including the Pope, but not from death in this world, only from the 2nd death in the next world, and by the way, who isn’t afraid of dying; aren’t you???

Also where has all the power gone that was passed down to him in the line of succession? Ralph
I guess it was given to all of the divided P.C.‘s. :rolleyes:The power of reconciliation… the power that was passed down to the current Pope and the college of Bishops, in an unbroken line of succession, to teach and preach all that Jesus commanded is still there, and will remain there as long as the H.S. continues to “teach” and “guide” Jesus’ established church circa 33 AD. The power to perform miracles ended with the Apostolic Age,as per the bible.

But 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." When he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him from their sight.

Surely the Apostles are not still alive and well today, teaching all that Jesus commanded to the ends of the earth; :DI guess were gonna have to just trust that their successors through every century, right up until today, are still doing as they did considering the fact that Jesus said:
Code:
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.
 
BereanRuss did not take all you catholics on by his lonesome, God through the Holy Spirit was with him all the way and still is. Ralph

**Ralph, so, if the Holy Spirit is guiding Russ, and the Holy Spirit is guiding me; then who decides who’s right and who’s wrong? Clearly the bible is not helping much, in this case; Isn’t the church to which Jesus built the final interpreter?
**
 
Code:
You are accusing God that His word incomplete.
On the contrary. Catholics believe that the Word of God is Jesus, and that He is the “all in all”.

You, on the other hand, seem to try to justify the compaction of the second person of the Trinity into Holy Scripture, as if it was intended to contain everything we needed to know.

If this were God’s intention He would have sat in the house and wrote books. Instead, He taught, and founded a Church, and taught the Apostles everything they needed to know. Their knowledge of His revelation did not disappear when some of it was committed to writing.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

How can the Bible make the believer complete if it is not complete itself?
The Bible cannot make any one complete. This was never the intention or purpose of scripture.

It is “profitable”. But, look what it is profitable for? Teaching, reproving, correcting, etc, are all gifts that Jesus gave to people. It is to those that He has ordained to the task of building up the body that scripture is profitable in their work.

Eph 4:10-16
11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.

The completeness is not achieved by reading scripture, but by receiving the revelation of God from those He has gifted with it.

It was not until the Reformers separated themselves from those that Christ appointed that they needed to invent some other “authority”. Scripture is inspired and inerrant, so the decision was made to substitute Scripture for the persons that God gifted and called to build up His body.
Code:
Which is not scriptural.  Baptism is meaningless until there is first a profession of faith.
It is very Catholic of you to say this! The Catholic Church has always required a profession of faith prior to baptism. 👍
Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized? Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Until there is faith, there is no reason to baptize.
Absolutely. In fact, the Church refuses to baptize those who do not demonstrate such faith.
And Peter was not permitted by the Father to speak. When he did attempt to speak, he spoke fool foolishly.
Many have been given revelations and told not to share them. That is irrelevant. You asked for a scriptural example of someone praying to a person other than God, and it was provided for you. Now you are trying to change the subject?
 
Okay. Is it not time that the Roman Catholic church produced some of this traditions on paper they keep talking about, I don’t mean the things written down by the catholic church as to the things they added on or taken away from scripture.
It would be a difficult challenge indeed to find any of the Sacred Traditions that are not referenced in writing somewhere. However, you seem to forget that the entire NT was “added” to Scripture by the Catholic Church.

The Church also ensured that no documents were read during Divine Liturgy that were not consistent with the Apostolic Teaching. This use of the documents in Liturgy was one of the criteria for a book or letter to be included in the NT.
I would like to see you back up some of the things that you are saying and where the authority comes from. My backup comes from the word of God. For instance, show me where the “priest” gets the power to change the “bread” and “blood” into the body and blood of Christ. Ralph
Well, if you are not willing to accept what the NT says, I doubt very much that any other testimony could be provided that would be satisfactory. IT is the NT that testifies that Jesus founded His church upon the Rock of Peter, established a priesthood, trained them, empowered and authorized them, and that they did the same for their successors.

The writings of the Early Church Fathers, as well as the Pagan historians of the time attest to these facts.
 
Befor you talk about the “offering at the mass”, you should read Heb 10:11-18. Ralph
This passage provides an explanation for the foundation of the Mass. It is Jesus once for all time sacrifice that is “remembered” by means of amanesis.
Why do care what I believe about th future things when we cannot even agree on present things?
It is a good example of the type of imaginitive fiction that develops when people are separated from the Apostolic Teaching, and attempt to glean for themselves from the Scriptures.

It is very like the topic of this thread, that Jesus’ words were ‘figurative’ and not literal.
There are no degrees of sin, all sin is against Gods will. You are never cut off from the Throne of Grace if you are saved. In fact you can not get to the Throne of grace unless you ARE saved, as you can not go through Christ to get to the Throne of grace without salvation. Ralph
I guess Jesus was just mispeaking Himself when He said some have greater sins than others?

John 19:10-11
11 Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.”

Someone has taughtyou to believe that a person who is “saved” cannot be cut off from grace. This is a rather modern theological speculation that emerged from Calvanism 1500 years after the Church was founded by Christ. It has no support in Apostolic Teaching, and therefore, we consider it a “different gospel”.

However, I agree that salvation is the way to the throne of grace.
 
Regarding:

God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89

Russ, the fact that there were other men that the Apostles did not recognize, casting out demons proves nothing; clearly they were granted this power by Jesus, while He walked the earth. Jesus’ church was born on Pentecost, and that church was empowered to do miracles via the Holy Spirit, which ended after the apostolic age…to do as Jesus said, when He said: do this in remembrance of me…to forgive sins via the Holy Spirit, and to teach all that Jesus commanded, in perpetuity!

Are you saying that these men casting out demons in Jesus’ name, belonged to a different assembly of teachers, even after Pentecost, or do you agree that there was only one church for the first 1000 years of Christianity?

Do you believe that men, outside Jesus’ one church had the right to separate from the church born on Pentecost, and teach conflicting doctrines, for the first 200 years of Christianity…for the first 1000 years of Christianity?

Jesus also appointed the 72, which the apostles knew, and He no doubt appointed those other men as well, who the apostles did not know; if not Him, than who? Neither the 72 men or the men casting out demons, were present when the H.S. descended upon Jesus’ One Apostolic church. These men derived there power directly by Jesus, and only while He walked the earth; once He ascended into the clouds, no doubt they lost their powers to cast out demons; this power was given directly to the apostles only, on Pentecost!!! Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away; for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’ But after I am raised up…that included the 72 and the unidentified men who were casting out demons, at least until Pentecost…

Jesus said to just one church: Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.
 
Russ and Ralph…

Was Jesus’ early church (e.g. Ignatius, 107 AD, who was taught by John and Peter) --duped by the Apostles into believing in the true presence…into believing what the C.C. and the E.O.C. teaches today? They did believe!!! It’s a simple question which deserves a simple answer!!!
 
The theology of Christ praying to Saints, as shown in Scripture, is exactly what Catholics do in practice! 👍
You comment is offensive. Christ will never pray to any man for to pray to another is to petition them for something or to praise them. It is not for God to praise man. It is for man to praise God. It is not for God to petition man but it is for man to petition God.

I am the LORD, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images. [Is 42:8]
 
Ok. Here goes…
This is what Sacred Tradition has declared, not Scripture:
Genesis is inspired. Exodus is inspired. Leviticus is inspired. Matthew is inspired. Mark is inspired…

You would not know these are inspired were it not for the Holy Catholic Church.
All scripture is inspired according to 2 Tim 3:16. This is what God said in His word. Is the Roman catholic church trying to claim this as “their” statement? Obviously yes, nice try! I have no problem with scripture. I do have a problem with what the Roman catholic church adds to it. Ralph
 
You comment is offensive. Christ will never pray to any man for to pray to another is to petition them for something or to praise them.
Actually, to “pray” is to make any form of request. We “pray” the Judge to have leniency on the young hooligan, because it was his first encounter with the law, and we feel certain that he has learned his lesson.

We aren’t worshipping or praising the Judge, in this instance - we are simply asking a favour.

We “pray” the fair young lady to come out with us tonight to the movies and perhaps a bite of dessert afterwards. Again, we are not worshipping her, nor giving her the praise that is due only to God - we just want the privilege of her company for the evening.
It is not for God to praise man. It is for man to praise God. It is not for God to petition man but it is for man to petition God.
Jesus was “praying to” Elijah and Moses, to inform them of the upcoming events that were to take place in His ministry, so that they could comfort the souls in Hades. He was not worshipping them, nor giving them the praises due only to God.
 
All scripture is inspired according to 2 Tim 3:16. This is what God said in His word. Is the Roman catholic church trying to claim this as “their” statement? Obviously yes, nice try! I have no problem with scripture. I do have a problem with what the Roman catholic church adds to it. Ralph
I think you are confused, Ralph. All Scripture is inspired, yes, that’s true.

But you asked for an example of Sacred Tradition. The Canon of the Bible is Sacred Tradition. For while the Holy Spirit was inspiring the authors to write the Holy Book of Scripture, He never inspired anyone to make a Table of Contents… Oh right, but He did! He inspired the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to determine the Canon of Scripture.

And there’s one little tid-bit that you may not realize. The Catholic Church chose Scripture that agreed with Her Sacred Traditions! That was one of the main factors in determining Scripture.
 
All scripture is inspired according to 2 Tim 3:16.
But the list of what is Scripture wasn’t formally defined until the late 4th century, under Popes Damasus and Innocent I - at the time that St. Paul was writing that to Timothy, he had no way of knowing that the very letter he was writing was going to be included in the Bible, nor even that there was going to be such a thing as a Bible.

Back then, they had Scriptoria - special rooms of scrolls that they could choose from to read out at the Synagogue or in the Temple, but these scrolls hadn’t been bound together into a book, yet - and even if it had, it would certainly have not included the New Testament, yet.
 
(From post 878… continued)
At any rate, questions aside for now, there are additional problems with believing that Jesus was speaking of the Eucharist when He said, “…unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man…”

First are the problems I have already stated – If Jesus is speaking literally than He is contradicting Himself and others such as the Apostle Paul.

But there are other problems with this interpretation as well for the CC refers to protestants as “separated brethren” indicating that even though they are “separated”, they remain “brethren”. However, Jesus said, “Amen, amen…” indicating that His word is unchangeable and irreversible.

Therefore even the CC does not take Jesus’ words literally for if the church truly believed Jesus’ word they would not call those whom Jesus has clearly excluded from His kingdom, “brethren”.

Not only does the CC refer to protestants as “brethren”, but the CC also teaches that even some Muslims and Jews and even pagans are part of the CC even though Jesus clearly excludes them from His kingdom when He loudly proclaims, “Amen, amen…”

But there is another problem with this theology. This theology is opposed to the love and grace of God.

Why would God allow His Son to suffer humiliation and rejection and crucifixion and shame – all for the purpose of saving whoever calls upon His name – only to reject them from His kingdom because they failed to be part of a religious ritual? God desires all men to be saved and is not willing that any perish.

Certainly God desires His church to celebrate communion and to remember Him in the breaking of bread but God has redeemed us from the law. Why would God redeem us from one law only to condemn us with a new law? This is an argument against the love and mercy and grace of God.

Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”)… [Gal 3:13]
  1. If Jesus is speaking literally in John 6:53 He is clearly contradicting both Himself and the teachings of the Apostles whom He inspired to write the NT.
  2. Even the CC does not take Jesus’ words literally for the CC clearly teaches that protestants and others are part of the universal church. The CC includes in the universal church those whom Jesus clearly excluded from His kingdom when He said, “Amen, amen…”
  3. This interpretation opposes the love and mercy of God. It declares that God is more concerned with ritual then with humility and brokenness and faith for it teaches that God does indeed exclude some, even those who have called upon the name of Jesus, from eternal life for failing to receive the Eucharist in the CC.
For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. [John 3:17]
 
Russ and Ralph…

Was Jesus’ early church (e.g. Ignatius, 107 AD, who was taught by John and Peter) --duped by the Apostles into believing in the true presence…into believing what the C.C. and the E.O.C. teaches today? They did believe!!! It’s a simple question which deserves a simple answer!!! (Quote) If Ignatius believed that the actual “Body and Blood” of Christ was present in Lords table, he was duped along with every other Roman catholic from that time to the present, and I am sure that John and Peter did not believe it, nor did they teach it. If such an important event was as “you” say it was, don’t you think there would have been more said about it throughout scripture . Jesus was talking in a spiritual manner. Ralph
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top