Do Catholics believe John 6:53?

[cazayoux]

I was Catholic for 20 years. I know what you believe.

I was Catholic for 28 years before I learned anything about my faith.
Your 20 years as an uneducated Catholic does not at all, in any way, mean you understand anything about the Catholic faith.
It is sad, but there are many, many just like you (and me at one time).
But we are fixing that!

I did not equate the Catholic priest with the Levitical priest.

You did just a couple of posts ago.

I equated the works of the Law with the priesthood.

With the O.T. priesthood … .or with the the leitourgos christos ministerialhood (priesthood).

There was no earthly priesthood before the Law. It is the Law itself that requires a priest to do the work that is in the law. If there are not more “works of the Law” to be done, there is no longer a need for an earthly priesthood.

Here … let me fix that for you.

There was no **Levitical **priesthood before the Law. It is the Law itself that requires a Levitical priest to do the work that is in the law. If there are not more (Levitical) “works of the Law” to be done, there is no longer a need for an Levitical priesthood.

Agreed!

…there is no longer a need for an earthly priesthood.

You keep saying this, but I’ve shown you that there is a N.T. priesthood.

The existence of another earthly priesthood PROCLAIMS loudly that the work of salvation in not complete in Christ but continues to require additional works to maintain it.

You equate ‘earthly’ to ‘Levitical’ and this is the problem with your theology.

This is “another gospel”.

The way you describe it, it would be another gospel, but your understanding is SO far from the actual truth, it’s laughable.

There is no longer a need for a priest because the law has been fulfilled in Christ.

Here … let me fix this one for you, too.

There is no longer a need for a Levitical priest because the law has been fulfilled in Christ.

You see a priest and his role in the sacraments as ‘works of the law’, but this is not the case at all.
Jesus says to baptize, priests do this. Is this a ‘work of the law’?
How is it any different with any of the sacraments?

michel

 

[BereanRuss]

So, in order to prove that we are real Christians, we have to go around breaking the 10 Commandments, and if we don’t break the Sabbath, worship idols, use God’s name as a swear word, insult and disobey our parents, commit murder, have sex outside of marriage, steal, gossip, swear falsely, lust after our neighbor’s spouses, and covet our neighbor’s goods, we have fallen out of grace?

Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness… [Rom 4:4,5]

You cannot ignore Paul and cling to James – very dangerous. You must hear both Paul and James.

 

[cazayoux]

Works of the law include the ten commandments.

There is no distinction in the Bible between the “moral law” and the “ceremonial law”. All are included in this word “law”.

‘Law’ includes the commandments, we agree.
However, the commandments are called out specifically as ‘the commandments’ and is not inclusive of all of the ‘law’ that is in Leviticus.

While ‘works of the law’ are not necessary, we see Jesus telling us to keep the commandments… which means you *do *ignore the following scripture …

Matt 19:17
[17] And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”

John 14:15
[15] "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

The following also show that CHRISTIANS keep the commandments.

Rev 12:17
[17] Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea.

Rev 14:12
[12] Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

michel

 

[bradwill911]

Only the law creates the need for a priest. No law = no priest required.

Where is that in Scripture?

 

[BereanRuss]

You equate ‘earthly’ to ‘Levitical’ and this is the problem with your theology.

ANY priesthood declares that the work of salvation is not complete. That is why there is penalty for not keeping the law - Even mortal sin for not keeping every required day. It is the duty of the priest to do the work of this law and the duty of the parishioner to partake of his work.

If there is no law, there is no need for work and there is no need for a priest. The priesthood proclaims that there is law to be kept.

 

[BereanRuss]

Where is that in Scripture?

Aaron and his sons shall tend it from evening until morning before the LORD.[Ex 27:21]

There was no need to tend the tabernacle before the law came. The priest existed because the law existed. Before the law there was no priest.

Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another–to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. [Rom 7:7]

 

[cazayoux]

Only the law creates the need for a Levitical priest. No law = no Levitical priest required.

Abraham had a relationship with God by faith without any Levitical priest. The entrance of the law is the catalyst that then produced the Levitical priesthood.

Fixed the above for you… but wait … let’s look at that second part.
It’s not true.
Abraham had a relationship with God that DID include an earthly priest, Melchizedek.
I think you need read Hebrews to learn more about this relationship with Abraham.

The existence of the priesthood today proclaims that the work of the salvation is not completed. If salvation is secured by the work of Jesus on the cross, there are no longer works for the Levitical priest to perform. The fact that the priest is still required testifies that the work of Christ is not completed.

Again … wrongly equating the Catholic priesthood to ‘works of the law’.

Who said salvation was secure?
After you accept the free gift of grace and with faith love Jesus and obtain salvation … you can lose it.
I showed you the parable of the true vine earlier.
Those with eyes should see.

Is the record skipping? I’m hearing the same story even though Russ has been corrected in his wrong thinking. Is that a debate strategy? Just keep repeating yourself? That really won’t work here. It undermines your credibility. Ask Ralphy.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

ANY priesthood declares that the work of salvation is not complete. That is why there is penalty for not keeping the law - Even mortal sin for not keeping every required day. It is the duty of the priest to do the work of this law and the duty of the parishioner to partake of his work.

If there is no law, there is no need for work and there is no need for a priest. The priesthood proclaims that there is law to be kept.

You equate ‘earthly’ to ‘Levitical’ and this is the problem with your theology.

 

[bradwill911]

I was Catholic for 20 years. I know what you believe.

I am a cradle Catholic who separated from the Church for about 15 years. I was rather anti-Catholic during that time and made many of the same arguments that you have brought up. I’m afraid that many (maybe most) Catholics are not catechized very well.

Berean, while I appreciate your convictions and the fact that you’re taking the time to post here, you do not seem like you know much about the faith you practiced for 20 years. That is not a personal attack or a question of your intelligence. I’m sure you are intelligent.

If you knew what we believed, why are you often wrong in stating what the Church teaches? If you knew what we believed, you would be accurately stating the teachings of the Church.

 

[cazayoux]

Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness… [Rom 4:4,5]

You cannot ignore Paul and cling to James – very dangerous. You must hear both Paul and James.

Agreed … to *believe *in Jesus is to DO what His scripture (include James) says.
We are NOT ignoring Paul.
It does seem like you are ignoring Peter, though.

michel

 

[jmcrae]

Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness… [Rom 4:4,5]

You cannot ignore Paul and cling to James – very dangerous. You must hear both Paul and James.

St. Paul’s letters would have been very short, if he had not also been calling us to obedience.

 

[BereanRuss]

While ‘works of the law’ are not necessary, we see Jesus telling us to keep the commandments… which means you do ignore the following scripture …

And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”

But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith. Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.” 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”), that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith…

And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise…

Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. [Portions of Gal 3]

"If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

“This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

 

[jmcrae]

But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith. Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.” 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”), that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

And what was Abraham’s faith? When the knowledge came to him that there is but one God, Creator of all that is seen and unseen, did he simply say, “Hey, cool!” and then roll over and go back to sleep? Genesis 15, and Genesis 17 show that Abraham immediately began to establish a Covenant with God which included the sacrifice of various animals, circumcision, and various other religious practices.

“This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

And what is “belief”? Is it just mental assent? If so, then even the demons are saved. But I strongly doubt that the demons are actually saved. I think there is a great deal more to it than just that.

 

[BereanRuss]

You equate ‘earthly’ to ‘Levitical’ and this is the problem with your theology.

Again, if there is ANY priesthood then there is a law by which the priest must perform his duties. If there is no law, there is not need for a priest.

The existence of the priest proclaims that there is law to be kept but by the works of the law shall NO flesh be justified in His sight.

 

[BereanRuss]

Abraham had a relationship with God that DID include an earthly priest, Melchizedek.

Abraham had a relationship with God long before meeting Melchizedek.

 

[BereanRuss]

Genesis 15, and Genesis 17 show that Abraham immediately began to establish a Covenant with God which included the sacrifice of various animals, circumcision, and various other religious practices.

With no priest.

 

[jmcrae]

With no priest.

He was the priest.

 

[jmcrae]

Again, if there is ANY priesthood then there is a law by which the priest must perform his duties. If there is no law, there is not need for a priest.

The existence of the priest proclaims that there is law to be kept but by the works of the law shall NO flesh be justified in His sight.

No, the existence of a priest shows that there is a Covenant to be kept. Do you deny the existence of the New Covenant?

 

[bradwill911]

Aaron and his sons shall tend it from evening until morning before the LORD.[Ex 27:21]

There was no need to tend the tabernacle before the law came. The priest existed because the law existed. Before the law there was no priest.

Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another–to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. [Rom 7:7]

So Scripture doesn’t say that there is no need for a priest before the law or that a priest is no longer required. Your interpretation of this passage is where you are led to believe that priests are somehow now outlawed? That’s quite a jump.

 

[vinarabo]

If the only place to receive His flesh and blood are in those two churches, how then are some Muslims and Jews and protestants and even heathens ever saved apart from the RCC?

We can never know the mind of God. He can save whomever He chooses. He knows their heart. Its not a fair question to ask if they will be saved. We dont know. We do know that if we follow Him, we will be saved. Thats why we need to pray for all people. You never know what wisdom is given to them at the moment of death.