B
- Status
R
ralphy
Guest
You indicated that you do not add the word “alone” to this scripture. What do you add? Ralph
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Why, nothing. By grace are we saved, just as it says.
Now, what are the channels of those Graces?
B
byzgirl
Guest
"The Council of Trent, in response to the beginning reformation, issued some very strong statement, declaring “anathema” anyone who knowingly teaches something contrary to the fullness of the truth. Many misunderstand “anathema”, thinking it to be a condemnation to Hell. Rather, it is essentially a synonym for excommunication, which means that those who are teaching a false doctrine, with full knowledge and intent, are to be considered outside the church family, which puts them outside
the sacraments, until the point that they repent. The scriptural basis for this can be found in verses such as 2 Thessalonians 3:6, which states, “We instruct you, brothers, in the name of [our] Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the traditions they received from us.”
Anathema is the ceremonial form of excommunication. It was a canonical penalty and actually is no longer in use. It applied *solely to Catholics *who are under the legitimate authority of Rome. Excommunication is a biblical concept. (Gal. 1:9, see also 1 Cor. 16:22 and 1 Cor. 5:1-7, 13)
Who Can Receive Communion?
bayou660.tripod.com/id2.html
home.inreach.com/bstanley/body.htm
Body and Soul
the sacraments, until the point that they repent. The scriptural basis for this can be found in verses such as 2 Thessalonians 3:6, which states, “We instruct you, brothers, in the name of [our] Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the traditions they received from us.”
Anathema is the ceremonial form of excommunication. It was a canonical penalty and actually is no longer in use. It applied *solely to Catholics *who are under the legitimate authority of Rome. Excommunication is a biblical concept. (Gal. 1:9, see also 1 Cor. 16:22 and 1 Cor. 5:1-7, 13)
Who Can Receive Communion?
bayou660.tripod.com/id2.html
home.inreach.com/bstanley/body.htm
Body and Soul
J
joe370
Guest
*“We instruct you, brothers, in the name of [our] Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the traditions they received from us.”
*
If first century Christians were instructed to embrace the traditions that they received from Jesus’ One church, shouldn’t we all follow suit, or did the Holy Spirit stop guiding Jesus’ One church into all truth after the last apostle died, rendering this command null and void?
If so, then why in the world would I believe in the Trinity for example, which was defined by the C.C. 300 hundred years after all of the apostles passed on to be with God?
A look at the Greek, on this ecumenical problem of the Blessed Trinity, is highly ambiguous. Prior to the Fourth Century, the Eastern Church Fathers did not teach that there was a Holy Spirit. The Council of Nicaea of 325 declared that Jesus was God, but did not define the Blessed Trinity. What amazes me is that Jesus’ One Church did not define that the Holy Spirit existed until the Fourth Century, in 381, at the Council of Constantinople. It was at that point that Jesus’ One Church finally accepted the findings of this council and that has been the traditional teaching on the Trinity ever since. **Why do non-Catholics believe a tradition that did not originate in the 1st century from any of the Apostles, and yet reject all of the other Traditions? **
It is clear that faith is based on how the faithful developed that understanding as time went on. It is clear from the Bible that the Father and Son are one, but it is silent, as to whether Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one; the word Trinity is not even found in the Bible!
The irony is quite palpable when you think about John 6; the true presence in the bread and wine upon being blessed, was believed by all, for the first 300 years of Christianity; the Trinity was not; what’s wrong with this scenario???
*
If first century Christians were instructed to embrace the traditions that they received from Jesus’ One church, shouldn’t we all follow suit, or did the Holy Spirit stop guiding Jesus’ One church into all truth after the last apostle died, rendering this command null and void?
If so, then why in the world would I believe in the Trinity for example, which was defined by the C.C. 300 hundred years after all of the apostles passed on to be with God?
A look at the Greek, on this ecumenical problem of the Blessed Trinity, is highly ambiguous. Prior to the Fourth Century, the Eastern Church Fathers did not teach that there was a Holy Spirit. The Council of Nicaea of 325 declared that Jesus was God, but did not define the Blessed Trinity. What amazes me is that Jesus’ One Church did not define that the Holy Spirit existed until the Fourth Century, in 381, at the Council of Constantinople. It was at that point that Jesus’ One Church finally accepted the findings of this council and that has been the traditional teaching on the Trinity ever since. **Why do non-Catholics believe a tradition that did not originate in the 1st century from any of the Apostles, and yet reject all of the other Traditions? **
It is clear that faith is based on how the faithful developed that understanding as time went on. It is clear from the Bible that the Father and Son are one, but it is silent, as to whether Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one; the word Trinity is not even found in the Bible!
The irony is quite palpable when you think about John 6; the true presence in the bread and wine upon being blessed, was believed by all, for the first 300 years of Christianity; the Trinity was not; what’s wrong with this scenario???
B
bullfrog654
Guest
how you could keep the children silent for a whole day when tempting me to give you my essay with the balance reached a few months ago from the expansion of stars towards times big bang (times and dates) how profane. in times satan tempted job
G
guanophore
Guest
No, our theology, passed down to us under the protection of the HS by Jesus does not cause “problems” for us.
The Bible is a product of Catholic Theology, and that is why nothing in it contradicts the Church Teaching.
No, Berean. You are interpolating your 21st century understanding of science into the scriptures. They did not know about amniotic fluid in those days. On the contrary, human birth was always associated with blood, not water. This is why Mary had to make a sacrifice. Birth was associated with blood. The ritual uncleaness was equated to the menstrual period (shedding of blood) not “water”.
"And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23(as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.” Luke 2:22-24
The event of birth made the woman “unclean” by virtue of exposure to the blood, not water.
Lev 12:1-13:1
12:1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the people of Israel, If a woman conceives, and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. 3 And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4 Then she shall continue for thirty-three days in the blood of her purifying; she shall not touch any hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed. 5 But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for sixty-six days.
6 “And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, 7 and he shall offer it before the LORD, and make atonement for her; then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. 8 And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.”
The Jewish understanding and practices were oriented toward blood as the “life” of the being, not “water”. You will not find any purfications with regard to water. And the only ritual cleansings that were prescribed relate to blood. God had revealed to Israel that the “life is in the blood”. In this it was His intention to forshadow the sacrifice of His Only Son.
However, if you are still not able to see the prefigurement of the OT in the New, I will show you another testimony:
John 1:12-13
12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
You see here that there is no “water” in the Hebrew understanding of birth. To Jews, natural children were born of blood (belonging to the natural parents), “the will of the flesh” (rape, fornication, and any other activity not of God).
John 1:12-13
12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
RSV
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.
This is what you have been taught to believe, because your spiritual ancestors have been separated from the Apostolic Teaching. However, the Apostles never separated water baptism from the baptism of the HS. They understood that Jesus joined the HS to the baptismal waters when He entered them, and that His commandment to “be born again of water and the spirit” was a reference to baptism. This is clearly shown in the writings of those who trained under the Apostles.
Oh, contraire! He is only lamenting because baptism is so essential and required. He is relieved that he did not baptize anyone else, because the disciples were becoming factions. You dont’ want to go here with Paul. No other NT writer is more clear on the regenerative nature of baptism than Paul!
Paul’s gift was preaching. He left the baptisms to his helpers while he got something to eat, and get some sleep.
R
ralphy
Guest
Generally speaking the Roman church adds “works” to obtaining salvation. Ralph
C
cazayoux
Guest
we follow what is in bible regarding works.
We are saved by grace, then faith working through love. (Gal 5:6)
michel
B
byzgirl
Guest
Back to the original question. Yes, we Catholics do believe in John 6:53.
The question then should be answered, "How well do we (Catholic AND non-Catholics) fulfill this command (that we Catholics believe as a literal interpretation)?
The Protestants on this forum thread want to accuse us of 'not really believing what Christ said, because we refrain from the conclusion that Protestants who “don’t” partake of that same Eucharist, as damned to hell (according to Christ’s command and warning). That said, it’s possible that some of them will be (according to their knowledge and degree of fulfillment of that command). Most of us are not going to be able to perfectly attain fulfillment on most of God’s commands (for obtaining salvation). We strive to do so. The only one to fulfill all of them, in perfection, is Jesus, the Incarnate One. That is why Saint Paul described the Christian’s journey as one of ‘working out one’s salvation–in fear and trembling’…that coming from a man, most Protestants, would admit to being a ‘saved’ Christian by their definition of what it takes.
And we also know that Protestants, usually partake of some form of ‘communion’, frequently or not-so frequently, at their churches (albeit in the ‘symbolic’ understanding and not validly)–but, as understood from a previous post I shared, it doesn’t mean that Christ is NOT present in some way, in those communions, AT ALL. But just not in the way that Christ intended, nor meant in John 6:53. Christ is present, in some sense, where “three or more people are gathered in His Name”. And they do receive graces, in their imperfect ‘commemoration’–just not the full extent and physical and spiritual benefit in which a Catholic receives Him in the Catholic Mass.
Will He damn all of those people to hell (for failure to believe and fulfill that ‘Eucharistic’ Command in perfection? Perhaps. But, on the other hand, He didn’t condemn ALL those people that lived lives and died BEFORE Chist and even several centures after… before the Bible was available to every Catholic. And, according to most sola Scriptura christians, (whose sole authority is the written Scriptures) that is an anomaly–one which would conclude that ALL of those souls, before the arrival of Christ, were damned to hell. By what manner, otherwise, could they be saved? They couldn’t profess belief in Jesus.
Jesus also gave the two greatest commandments, and told the rich man to refrain from breaking His commandments and to give all he had to the poor, in order to be saved.
Can any of these be cut out of the picture, as an important ‘part’ of our salvation? No.
Can any of us be ‘condemned’ (by God) for our lack of fulfilling any of them? Yes. And that judgement is His alone.
It’s funny how certain Protestants will want to stick this verse to us (as proof of a weakness in belief)–and try and get us to state that 'they will be damned to hell" for their disbelief. Catholics don’t have God’s power to do so. And we don’t claim to know God’s mind.
What I find so incredulous, is that anti-Catholics often walk around stating that Catholics–they think–do NOT believe in having a personal relationship with Christ (to coin a phrase)–more biblically expressed as “following Christ”. But it’s not a rejection of verbal proclamations that is problematic for Catholics, it’s a rejection of the Evangelical doctrine (sola fide) that profession/altar call’ type faith (saying a Sinner’s Prayer) is ALL that is necessary–and that “alleged” failure to fulfill that, according to anti-Catholics, condemns us to hell. As a matter of fact, they seem to love their alleged power to pre-judge and send everyone (that doesn’t believe as they do) to hell. They fail to ask themselves if they adequately fulfill everything that is necessary for their own salvation.
We shouldn’t be condemning each other, as Christians brothers and sisters. As Catholics, we DO have a responsibility to make sure that our Protestant brothers and sisters, who are imperfectly joined to the Church–shall KNOW our position (that we most certainly DO believe in Christ’s words in John 6:53, and that we certainly DO believe that He meant it in a literal manner, and not as mere symbolism). And that is precisely what they mostly reject. Christ’s words, as meant literally. With that knowledge, we implore Protestants to make amends and pray that they will come to share, in FULL communion (as Christ intends), with the Church and the Eucharist–the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ–that is found, in its fullness, in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
1 Corinthians 5:12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
James 5:9 Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door.
1 Corinthians 10:15
I speak as to wise men: judge ye yourselves what I say.
The chalice of benediction, which we bless,
is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
And the bread, which we break,
is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?
For we, being many, are one bread, one body,
all that partake of one bread.
1 Corinthians 10:21
You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord,
and the chalice of devils:
you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord,
and of the table of devils.
Luke 24:30-31)
“And it happened that, while he was with them at table,
he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them.
With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him,
but he vanished from their sight.”
Isaiah 53:4-6
“What shall I render to the LORD,
for all the things that he hath rendered to me?
I will take the chalice of salvation;
and I will call upon the name of the LORD.”
Psalm 115:12-13
“When you look at the crucifix,
you understand how much Jesus loved you.
When you look at the Sacred Host
you understand how much Jesus loves you now."
“Grieve over the contempt cast upon Jesus Christ
in the Blessed Sacrament, and try to make amends for it
by a greater and more ardent love.”
~ The Cure’ of Ars, St. Jean Vianney
“The soul hungers for God, and nothing but God can satiate it. Therefore He came to dwell on earth and assumed a Body in order that this Body might become the Food of our souls,”
~ The Cure’ of Ars
The question then should be answered, "How well do we (Catholic AND non-Catholics) fulfill this command (that we Catholics believe as a literal interpretation)?
The Protestants on this forum thread want to accuse us of 'not really believing what Christ said, because we refrain from the conclusion that Protestants who “don’t” partake of that same Eucharist, as damned to hell (according to Christ’s command and warning). That said, it’s possible that some of them will be (according to their knowledge and degree of fulfillment of that command). Most of us are not going to be able to perfectly attain fulfillment on most of God’s commands (for obtaining salvation). We strive to do so. The only one to fulfill all of them, in perfection, is Jesus, the Incarnate One. That is why Saint Paul described the Christian’s journey as one of ‘working out one’s salvation–in fear and trembling’…that coming from a man, most Protestants, would admit to being a ‘saved’ Christian by their definition of what it takes.
And we also know that Protestants, usually partake of some form of ‘communion’, frequently or not-so frequently, at their churches (albeit in the ‘symbolic’ understanding and not validly)–but, as understood from a previous post I shared, it doesn’t mean that Christ is NOT present in some way, in those communions, AT ALL. But just not in the way that Christ intended, nor meant in John 6:53. Christ is present, in some sense, where “three or more people are gathered in His Name”. And they do receive graces, in their imperfect ‘commemoration’–just not the full extent and physical and spiritual benefit in which a Catholic receives Him in the Catholic Mass.
Will He damn all of those people to hell (for failure to believe and fulfill that ‘Eucharistic’ Command in perfection? Perhaps. But, on the other hand, He didn’t condemn ALL those people that lived lives and died BEFORE Chist and even several centures after… before the Bible was available to every Catholic. And, according to most sola Scriptura christians, (whose sole authority is the written Scriptures) that is an anomaly–one which would conclude that ALL of those souls, before the arrival of Christ, were damned to hell. By what manner, otherwise, could they be saved? They couldn’t profess belief in Jesus.
Jesus also gave the two greatest commandments, and told the rich man to refrain from breaking His commandments and to give all he had to the poor, in order to be saved.
Can any of these be cut out of the picture, as an important ‘part’ of our salvation? No.
Can any of us be ‘condemned’ (by God) for our lack of fulfilling any of them? Yes. And that judgement is His alone.
It’s funny how certain Protestants will want to stick this verse to us (as proof of a weakness in belief)–and try and get us to state that 'they will be damned to hell" for their disbelief. Catholics don’t have God’s power to do so. And we don’t claim to know God’s mind.
What I find so incredulous, is that anti-Catholics often walk around stating that Catholics–they think–do NOT believe in having a personal relationship with Christ (to coin a phrase)–more biblically expressed as “following Christ”. But it’s not a rejection of verbal proclamations that is problematic for Catholics, it’s a rejection of the Evangelical doctrine (sola fide) that profession/altar call’ type faith (saying a Sinner’s Prayer) is ALL that is necessary–and that “alleged” failure to fulfill that, according to anti-Catholics, condemns us to hell. As a matter of fact, they seem to love their alleged power to pre-judge and send everyone (that doesn’t believe as they do) to hell. They fail to ask themselves if they adequately fulfill everything that is necessary for their own salvation.
We shouldn’t be condemning each other, as Christians brothers and sisters. As Catholics, we DO have a responsibility to make sure that our Protestant brothers and sisters, who are imperfectly joined to the Church–shall KNOW our position (that we most certainly DO believe in Christ’s words in John 6:53, and that we certainly DO believe that He meant it in a literal manner, and not as mere symbolism). And that is precisely what they mostly reject. Christ’s words, as meant literally. With that knowledge, we implore Protestants to make amends and pray that they will come to share, in FULL communion (as Christ intends), with the Church and the Eucharist–the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ–that is found, in its fullness, in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
1 Corinthians 5:12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
James 5:9 Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door.
1 Corinthians 10:15
I speak as to wise men: judge ye yourselves what I say.
The chalice of benediction, which we bless,
is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
And the bread, which we break,
is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?
For we, being many, are one bread, one body,
all that partake of one bread.
1 Corinthians 10:21
You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord,
and the chalice of devils:
you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord,
and of the table of devils.
Luke 24:30-31)
“And it happened that, while he was with them at table,
he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them.
With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him,
but he vanished from their sight.”
Isaiah 53:4-6
“What shall I render to the LORD,
for all the things that he hath rendered to me?
I will take the chalice of salvation;
and I will call upon the name of the LORD.”
Psalm 115:12-13
“When you look at the crucifix,
you understand how much Jesus loved you.
When you look at the Sacred Host
you understand how much Jesus loves you now."
“Grieve over the contempt cast upon Jesus Christ
in the Blessed Sacrament, and try to make amends for it
by a greater and more ardent love.”
~ The Cure’ of Ars, St. Jean Vianney
“The soul hungers for God, and nothing but God can satiate it. Therefore He came to dwell on earth and assumed a Body in order that this Body might become the Food of our souls,”
~ The Cure’ of Ars
N
NotWorthy
Guest
This would be great on another thread. There’s been enough red herrings on this one. John
J
juliamajor
Guest
That’s right spew out your misinformation-and your stereotypes. your vomitus is quite familiar all from the Boettner handbook. Been there heard that-. try a different song and dance- this one is a little long in the tooth!Please come up with something new.That’s been the playbook for a longgggg time. Please come up with something 1. original2. intelligent. 3. well thought out 4. and not filled with the standard evil catholic buggaboos…
R
ralphy
Guest
From the answers I read from Roman catholics, I believe the statement I said is true. Ralph
J
juliamajor
Guest
wow- what a deep thoughtful reply!
R
ralphy
Guest
The reply may be short, but I think the statement is deep. ralph
J
jmcrae
Guest
There are people who are under the impression that the word “spiritual” is synonymous with the word “imaginary.” Catholics - at least, those who study and understand their faith - are not among these.
J
juliamajor
Guest
okay honey- you keep believing that, if it makes you happy
Brevity may be the soul of wit but not in this case.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
If you would like to bet your soul on your own mischaracterization of Catholic beliefs as opposed to what the Church actually teaches, then we can’t stop you.
B
BereanRuss
Guest
JM,
Seeing that I did not use the word “spiritual” or the word “imaginary” in what you quoted, what are you talking about?
J
jmcrae
Guest
The phrase ““It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing” is taken by many Protestants to mean that we are to make pretend (imagine) that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus Christ, but that, really, they are still just bread and wine.
This is not what Jesus means, however. Rather, He means that when the bread and wine become His body and blood, that they will then be imbued with His Spirit - that it is not only His flesh and blood, but also His spirit and divinity - it is not dead flesh that we consume, but rather, the living Christ that we commune with, in Holy Communion.
- Status