Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[Nicene]

Yes I understand you don’;t believe in presbyters, Elders, deacons, apostles or any of the other things which sacred scripture mentions. You know what you never find? Your fellowship service. Nice try at cherry picking again though. However you and I know that president was the officiator and early use of the word bishop. I suppose the biger question is why do you despise liturgy when sacred scripture says Jesus is the Liturgist? And do you even know what liturgy means?

For the record, you show a deep misunderstanding of sacred scripture when you use God breathed and of God. Theopneustos is translated as inspired for a reason: Chick.com: Why translate "theopneustos" in 2 Ti. 3:16 as "inspired" instead of "God-breathed"?

I thought you might like a jack chick publication to correct you. Why it is a fundamental misunderstanding of The difference between the third person of the trinity Hagio Pneumatos and theopneustos. the former is God and to be worshipped, the later isn’t, it’s called bibliolatry.: idolatry of the bible. Or if you prefer I can put up the same understanding from the catechism.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Quick question. Do you think God ever forgets his covenants?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

You mean ones you pulled out of context, yeah i read them, but they usually are pulled out of context, I have been at this for 25 years and expect no less. Biblically its called guile. Remind me what St. Paul says in sacred scripture about those who use guile?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[mcq72]

Actually Guanophore just did, nice try walking it back though With regard to h “some” of his other writings, you mean almost all of them? You really should read those ancient catholic fathers instead of cherry picking for apologetics they are a treasure house information.

Well then apparently you know them quite well, except for the ones that may seem contrary, even if only a few…Was quite fair with you …told you of these other writings so that you would know I come to my conclusions not from cherry picking…have seen them before …I mean you tell me what he meant with leave you teeth and belly behind

 

[GLam1761]

@guanophore yes, I agree and the Fact is
the prince of this world is AGAINST the
EUCHARIST, as he is against THE WOMAN,
and the CHURCH(the Redeemed in Christ)
from both the Protestant and Catholic/Orthodox
camps.

 

[mcq72]

Yes I understand you don’;t believe in presbyters, Elders, deacons, apostles or any of the other things which sacred scripture mentions. You know what you never find? Your fellowship service.

??? Not sure if you mean i don’t believe in these offices…Dont see any difference with Martyrs writing on a church gathering/service/mass to many P services…

Thank you for seeing a difference between “inspired” and “God breathed” that I should have…for ease of conversation I see no difference for that here on CAF

 

[Nicene]

Actually it isn’t what you presented either, hence the cherry picking. His tractate is on John 6:15 -44, the beginning of the bread of life discourse, which is an invitation to faith. Then seque’s neatly into 46-65 which he says Amen Amen I say to you. (I know you think he is lying when he says it but he isn’t). You did realize there are 2 sections to the bread of life discourse didn’t you? You also know what he meant when he said they were murmuring in v 43 right?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

So your church has these things correct, Apostles, Elder (bishop) presbyter (priest) and deacons? Luke and Acts are all about the restoration of the Kingdom of David which the apostles use in the first council. In fact you’ll find several references to the restoration of this kingdom. Instead of it being a governmental restoration it is an ecclesial one. As St. Paul points out. And for example Isa:

Isa 66:18 "For I know their works and their thoughts, and I am coming to gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and shall see my glory,
19 and I will set a sign among them. And from them I will send survivors to the nations, to Tarshish, Put, and Lud, who draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands afar off, that have not heard my fame or seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the nations.
20 And they shall bring all your brethren from all the nations as an offering to the LORD, upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the LORD, just as the Israelites bring their cereal offering in a clean vessel to the house of the LORD.
21 And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the LORD.
22 "For as the new heavens and the new earth
which I will make
shall remain before me, says the LORD;
so shall your descendants and your name remain.
23 From new moon to new moon,
and from sabbath to sabbath,
all flesh shall come to worship before me,
says the LORD.

The kingdom of David united the house of Judah, the house of Israel and incorporates the gentiles, And as the above passage says God will take as priests (presbyters in the NT) and Levites (deacons in the NT) according to sacred scripture and the apostles and prophets. So the remnants Paul brings up in fact he is pointing out is done by Christ. See the problem with your remnant theology projected onto scripture is it in fact tosses out the Davidic kingdom which Christ rebuilds and the apostles continue. Under your theology, Christ not only failed to keep his promise to be with them til the end of time, but also failed to restore the Davidic kingdom. Honestly under the remnant theology I’ve never seen a better argument even by athiests of Jesus not being the King of Kings. I mean how can he when he failed so miserably and decisively under remnant theology. If you want i can also post up the rest of the Davidic prophesies from Jer, Eze, Amos, Psalms, Hosea and Zech, as well as the luke and Acts ones:

Lk 1:32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High;
and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,

The last and worst part is the remnant theology seeks to erect the dividing wall again that was torn down, by those who seek to rebuild the Jerusalem temple.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Hey fun fact, where do you think the tables were located in the temple that Jesus tipped over? And yes it is related to above.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[feed_me]

Come to a mass at a church and see how it is, i know how how you feel about the protostant churches and those issues you talk about, luckly i meet some people that are in a protostant church where the gifts of the holy spirit are active there so i dont have to ask if this is from the Lord or not, and i enjoy going there. So God is still active in some protostant churches, its just hard to find the ones that are still following God.

 

[mcq72]

The last and worst part is the remnant theology seeks to erect the dividing wall again that was torn down, by those who seek to rebuild the Jerusalem temple.

Well, have to look up exactly what you consider remnant theology to be…but as to the Jews, some of them, seeking to rebuild the temple, not sure how christians fit in to be criticized…save that some believe that it is something indicating end times, as interpreted from Revelation…so it does not effect us…some get excited thinking the Lord’s day draweth nigh, which isn’t a bad thing…for us.

 

[mcq72]

Under your theology, Christ not only failed to keep his promise to be with them til the end of time, but also failed to restore the Davidic kingdom. H

Do you feel the Davidic kingdom is restored here on eath, now? Are we not in time of the gentiles, as Paul states? or sure we are in church age, ecclesial, but Paul seems to indicate God will revive lsrael…I have heard both from P’s, some thi king of replacement theology (promises to Israel now fulfilled in church), and others not,Israel restored at end times.

 

[guanophore]

One could say Catholics exclude the ones protestants “use”…

The spiritual communion espoused by Protestants is included within the Catholic understanding of Eucharist, so there is no need for exclusion. Augustine was Catholic, and his understanding of the Sacraments is Catholic. Protestants tend to pick and choose our of his writings things that seem to support Reformation theology. The violence done to Augustine is to exclude the rest of his writings on all these subjects (because they are too “catholic”.

except for the ones that may seem contrary, even if only a few…

If they seem contrary to a Catholic, then they have less than a full understanding of the Sacrament. It contains what it symbolizes, which means the symbolism is as important as the grace it contains to effect that which is symbolized.

I mean you tell me what he meant with leave you teeth and belly behind

I am sure it would not exclude what is reflected in his other writings.

Then seque’s neatly into 46-65 which he says Amen Amen I say to you. (I know you think he is lying when he says it but he isn’t).

I don’t think this is fair to the sincerity of @mcq72 about his faith. Just because he understands the words differently does not equal “you think he is lying”!

 

[mcq72]

The spiritual communion espoused by Protestants is included within the Catholic understanding of Eucharist, so there is no need for exclusion.

Then why all the fuss when we quote such a "spiritual " communion ? pretty sure that is all I did with Wannano , that stirred a frenzy in another.

 

[mcq72]

Hey fun fact, where do you think the tables were located in the temple that Jesus tipped over? And yes it is related to above.

had to double check, but I believe the outer court, even where the gentiles could assemble (bad example to them)…as to rebuilding that which separates (Jews and gentiles or gentiles from inner court)…that can occur in many ways…for sure the Jews in Jesus time were deeply entrenched in their rituals and rites, so much so they could not see the reality behind them , or that they pointed forward…to Christ and His sacrifice…so today which church could be deeply entrenched with herself , and her rites, before the "gentiles’’ or unsaved, even one that says salvation is with the church as emphasis, as opposed to emphasis on person and acts of Jesus ?

I have often said many Catholics are saying or drawing folks to their church where you can meet Jesus, and P’s draw people to Christ, where He places them in the church, calling them out (ecclesia).

it is the Catholic church that says no salvation outside of her. Most P churches would never say that about their church. Many ex catholic say they later find Jesus in other churches, that they did not find Him in all the religious and rituals of Catholic life. I also understand that some x P’s say they had Christ but liked the C rituals to fellowship with Him more, in essence , having grace and renewing in Christ only thru intermediary of church and its priest and sacraments . Not too mention turning the mass into a sacrifice on top of of a remembrance and thanksgiving…and a separate priesthood , just as in Jesus time, instead finally righteousness fulfilled and a body , a nation (church) of priests , as promised to Israelite s before their sin in the desert (the CC priesthood tiers is OT, and a secondary setup By God, not His first preference, just like having a king was “secondary” preference to God for Israel)…

so I agree with you that we do not want to go backward , and rebuild any walls between God and any seeking person, even His holy of Holies, wherein we are now His monstrances, His temple,…and carrying His banner is serious business…He is zealous for His name.

 

[guanophore]

Then why all the fuss when we quote such a "spiritual " communion ? pretty sure that is all I did with Wannano , that stirred a frenzy in another.

I think it is a lack of catechesis, and a lack of understanding and appreciation for what the CC teaches about spiritual communion. [The CC supports spiritual communion when the faithful cannot be present to the Eucharist in person.](http://

It is no coincidence that the USA is the birthplace of the vast majority of Christian denominations.

No. It is a direct reflection of Sola Scriptura. Division begats division.

However, one side effect of of having all these denominations is that is shows us true orthodox belief.

I do agree with you, but not for the reason you think. It is clear that there can be no unity within ecclesial communities that hold mutually exclusive doctrines. 1 Corinthians 11:18 For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it…19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. divisions = schismata factions = schismata 1 Corinthians 1:10 [ Divisions in the Church ] I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. divisions = schismata The apostle expressly forbids divisions, factions - schism. This is the fruit of Sola Scriptura, and what all this division/denominating has shown is that the CC is “true”. The CC receives her doctrines from the Apostles, and not majority vote/opini) I think that many do not recognize that there is no difference between this, and what our brothers and sisters in Christ experience.

Anyone who listens to Catholic radio will hear this daily.

I believe the outer court, even where the gentiles could assemble

Yes! What got Jesus so provoked was that Israel was intended to bring His glory to the world, and instead of making a place for the Gentiles to worship the One True God, they had turned it into a marketplace.

so today which church could be deeply entrenched with herself , and her rites, before the "gentiles’’ or unsaved, even one that says salvation is with the church as emphasis, as opposed to emphasis on person and acts of Jesus ?

For us, there is no separation between Christ and His One Body, the Church. Just as when the Scripture states that Paul persecuted the Church, and Jesus accused Paul of “persecuting me”, so today, there is no separation.

There is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved, and there is no other Body than the one of which He is Head. Jesus did nothing without purpose, and he founded the Church to help us get to heaven. He gave us the “rites” because He created human beings, and knows that we need them.

 

[guanophore]

it is the Catholic church that says no salvation outside of her.

This is because Jesus has only one Body. Anyone who is in Christ, becomes a member of His One Body. There is no salvation outside of Christ, or His One Body, the Church.

I have often said many Catholics are saying or drawing folks to their church where you can meet Jesus, and P’s draw people to Christ, where He places them in the church, calling them out (ecclesia).

We would not make a separation between the two.

Most P churches would never say that about their church.

Indeed, they could not. One effect of modern American evangelical thought is a change in the definition of 'church".

Many ex catholic say they later find Jesus in other churches, that they did not find Him in all the religious and rituals of Catholic life.

I used to be one of those!

having grace and renewing in Christ only thru intermediary of church and its priest and sacraments

These are not “intermediaries”. Jesus is the one who is active both in the Church, and the Sacraments.

Not too mention turning the mass into a sacrifice on top of of a remembrance and thanksgiving…and a separate priesthood

This is not something catholics “did”. This was passed down to us from the Apostles.

The priesthood is not “separate”.

just as in Jesus time, instead finally righteousness fulfilled and a body , a nation (church) of priests

This is the teaching of the CC. There is the priesthood of all believers, the ministerial priesthood, and our great high priest. This is based on the OT model, but the priesthood is not heirus, but after the order of Melchizedech.

I am so grateful for your posts- it brings such clarity that the American Evangelical gospel is, indeed, the 'different gospel" that we have been told to avoid!

 

[Nicene]

I do want to thank you because I hadn’t read those tractates before. However God has a funny sense of humor, as I said those passages are about in invitation to faith. So completing the passage you quote:

1. “They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perishes, but for that which endures unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already. Faith is indeed distinguished from works, even as the apostle says, “that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law:” Romans 3:28 there are works which appear good, without faith in Christ; but they are not good, because they are not referred to that end in which works are good; “for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes.” Romans 10:4 For that reason, He wills not to distinguish faith from work, but declared faith itself to be work. For it is that same faith that works by love. Galatians 5:6 Nor did He say, This is your work; but, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent;” so that he who glories, may glory in the Lord. And because He invited them to faith,

And reading his tractate 26 made me chuckle. In post #1931 I posted that Christ was speaking of his eternal life. Your reply was rather jeering, however St. Augustine says the same thing about it being his eternal life in tractate 26, discussing passages 41-59. As for Peter ate his confession there is nothing in Augustine, the closest you’ll come is Sermon 295 on Peter and the keys to the kingdom.

My guess is its another pseudograph of St Augustine’s, and why no one can dispute it, because it’s not anywhere in his writings.

As for me knowing St. Augustine very well or any other of the fathers, that is twofold. I pray the liturgy of the hours daily, the office of hours includes as second readings that of the fathers. God’s mystery always astounds me: last weeks readings were on Barnabas, sun-thurs, just as you brought them up, St. John of the Cross and St. Iraenaeus against heresies, this week: St Theodret, St. Augustine (psalms) and St. Gregory. I also read and study them. That doesn’t mean I’ve read every single thing ever written or even try to memorize them, but am quite familiar with them.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

The reason I bring it up as I have debated evangelicals on the subject, and they are actively in their churches raising money to rebuild it. As evangelicals and calvinist dispensatinalists, are they not now still part of “the invisible church”? I’ve never heard of them being kicked out as heretics and they certainly profess to be evangelical: Xavier and Evangelist being two I’ve debated.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Benadam]

The bread of life discource brought judgement. Eating without discerning the body can bring condemnation sickness and even death. It is a participation in His blood and His body., both of which means suffering united to Christ. All these characterize a test of faith from the eating of the Bread of life.