Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[mcq72]

Definition.

This is what is lacking.

How many Catholic Bishops Taught symbolism?

How many Catholic Bishops were against the adopted Biblical Canon?

How many non-Catholic Bishops took to convince non-Catholics of Christ’s symbolism (Breaking of the Bread) and how many to convince them of 66 books in Bible Canon?

What I intended to do is put forth that even Catholic Priests/Monks/Bishops can have an opinion that differs from orthodoxy–yet, if their opinion differs from Church’s Doctrine (as in Apostolic Teaching which includes Oral and Written Teachings), the Church rejects that which is put forth, no matter how intellectualized or nouveau it may seem.

Maran atha!

Angel

yes, thank you . Understand you reject opinions and writings of fathers,clerics that do not end up being in agreement with final judgement/ decree on the matter.

I object to saying all final decrees are of apostolic teaching, when in fact some are more based on tradition, that is not explicitly apostolic but judged not to be contradictory by successors…Tradition isn’t capitol to CC for nothing. For sure it is authoritative as any apostolic writing, and what was oral is not known save by later “tradition”.

So bishops and clerics at times differ not with apostles but with “tradition”.

 

[susanlo]

Remember that quote I told you about Christ holding Himself in His Hands?

This link will do you some good. Did Tertullian and St. Augustine Deny the Real Presence? | Catholic Answers

I have a hard time understanding how any of the quotes in this article (except for maybe Cyril of Jerusalem) are showing the concept of transubstantiation. In the article Tim Staples wrote that, “both Tertullian and St. Augustine are emphasizing the fact that the Lord’s body and blood are communicated under the “appearances,” “signs,” or “symbols” of bread and wine.” However none of these terms are used in any of the quotes shared. The term “figure” appears over and over again in his selected quotes. Augustine used “figure” in the writing Christian Doctrine 16.24 that is quoted at the beginning of the article. This whole section of his writing is about interpreting certain Bible passages literally vs. figuratively. He means figure as the opposite of literal. Tim Staples wrote, “St. Augustine, for example, is warning against falling into the trap of believing the Lord was going to cut off parts of his body and give them to us. This would be cannibalistic and that is a definite no-no.” Was this really something that people were confused about almost 400 years after Christ’s ascension to heaven? Wouldn’t it make more sense that Augustine was warning against taking this passage too literally as some of his day (including Ambrose and Cyril of Jerusalem) were starting to do?

Tim Staples also cited the The Apostolic Tradition which was credited to Hippolytus, but had been edited and revised after his time. The quote clearly says that the bread and wine are the antitypes (symbols in other translations) of the body and blood. The bread and wine can not be symbols of body and blood and also actually be body and blood. Something can not symbolize what it actually is. Somebody could say that bread is changed substantially into flesh and this symbolizes faith, etc., but this isn’t what was written. I don’t know how this quote supports his position.

Since you bring it up as “proof” that Jesus meant it as a symbolic measure and by which you infer that the Apostles Taught as a symbolic measure.

I don’t think that any of the early writings can necessarily prove one way or the other about what Jesus taught. But I do think that these early writings prove that a wide range of explanations of the Eucharist were considered acceptable and orthodox in the early centuries.

 

[guanophore]

Paul does somewhat implies this in His letter to Timothy I believe (that salvation is in Writ)…

Paul was referring to the Septuagint. It is difficult to fathom how any Christian could understand salvation without the NT!

2 Timothy 3:15
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

The Scriptures point to Christ. He even chided the Jews for focusing too much on the words such that they were prevented from coming to Him.

37 And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness to me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen; 38 and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe him whom he has sent. 39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. John 5.

This chapter is followed by His teaching on how to encounter Him in the Eucharist.

Those of us who encounter Christ in the Eucharist do so because His word is abiding in us, and it resonates with our hearts, causing them to “burn within”. But this does not take the place of coming to Him personally. Salvation is not “in the writ”, but the Holy Writings point to Him.

. Understand you reject opinions and writings of fathers,clerics that do not end up being in agreement with final judgement/ decree on the matter.

I don’t think so. If the writings were not accepted, they would not be considered Fathers, doctors of the Church, and saints. Not all of their opinions reflected the Apostolic faith, but that does not mean there is no value in what they wrote.

and what was oral is not known save by later “tradition”.

I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that the Church ignored the Apostolic commandment to save the Teaching?

 

[lanman87]

I don’t think that any of the early writings can necessarily prove one way or the other about what Jesus taught. But I do think that these early writings prove that a wide range of explanations of the Eucharist were considered acceptable and orthodox in the early centuries.

I’m with you on this. I think the early church writings show a wide variety of belief in the church. And that what our Catholic friends consider to be Sacred Tradition are not necessarily the teachings of the Apostles but are the sum total of the beliefs that came to be accepted by the church. Many of these beliefs were not taught by the apostles but were introduced by theologians at a later date. Those theologians asked a lot of “how and why” questions and did there best to answer them. However, some of their answers became accepted as Apostolic teaching instead of the opinions of men.

During the Renaissance, when people again had access to the Hebrew and Greek text of both the Bible and the Church Fathers folks began to realize that Sacred Tradition was a mishmash of Apostolic Teaching and Theological Speculation. That is how Sola-Scriptura got started. It was the recognition that the only thing we can say for certain that was the teaching of the Gospel and Apostles was found in Scripture. Therefore the Bible became the final authority. If the Bible and Sacred Tradition conflicted then the Bible was the answer. If Sacred Tradition was not found in the Bible then the Bible was the deciding factor.

 

[susanlo]

Paul was referring to the Septuagint. It is difficult to fathom how any Christian could understand salvation without the NT!

2 Timothy 3:15

15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Paul was referring to Scripture which included the Hebrew texts, the Greek translation of these texts (Septuagint), and some of the Gospels and letters that were already written. In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul cites Luke 10:7 as “Scripture.”

1 Timothy 5:18 New International Version (NIV)
18 For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,”[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”

Footnotes:
a. 1 Timothy 5:18 Deut. 25:4
b. 1 Timothy 5:18 Luke 10:7

 

[Agathon]

During the Renaissance, when people again had access to the Hebrew and Greek text of both the Bible and the Church Fathers folks began to realize that Sacred Tradition was a mishmash of Apostolic Teaching and Theological Speculation.

Looking back, we Catholics could easily say the same for Protestant doctrine, except under the caveat that this was NOT Apostolic teaching at all. For instance, the basis for the authority of the Apostles and their successors to forgive sins, yet Protestants will say this is only a declaration. And Paul’s whole segment on the Eucharist would suggest that he believed in the Real Prescence.

 

[Agathon]

Paul was referring to Scripture which included the Hebrew texts, the Greek translation of these texts (Septuagint), and some of the Gospels and letters that were already written

And this hurts our argument how?

 

[lanman87]

Looking back, we Catholics could easily say the same for Protestant doctrine, except under the caveat that this was NOT Apostolic teaching at all. For instance, the basis for the authority of the Apostles and their successors to forgive sins, yet Protestants will say this is only a declaration. And Paul’s whole segment on the Eucharist would suggest that he believed in the Real Prescence.

Well, if you didn’t think that you would become a Protestant

I think one difference is that most Protestants/Evangelicals are only dogmatic about Christology, which we share with Catholics. All the other stuff is a matter of theological study and understanding, of which there are many opinions. That is why a Calvinist Presbyterian and a Wesleyan Methodist can get together and have a Bible Study. That is why Christians from different denominations get together and worship and support rescue missions and so forth.

Those theological disagreements are just academic debates. What really matters is if you have faith in Christ and seek to follow Him and give Him glory. So while we do hold slightly different understandings about some things, to most of us, it just isn’t that big of a deal.

The only groups I’ve seen that disqualify others from being Christians (other than for Christology reasons) are Catholics and the Church of Christ (Stone -Campbell Restoration movement) and maybe a few Independent Fundamentalist Baptist.

To be sure the Catholic church now has a softer stance on “separated brethren” but prior to Vatican II the Catholic church was adamant that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church, which meant not only being baptized but holding all the teachings and traditions of the Catholic church.

 

[Agathon]

To be sure the Catholic church now has a softer stance on “separated brethren” but prior to Vatican II the Catholic church was adamant that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church, which meant not only being baptized but holding all the teachings and traditions of the Catholic church.

May I ask you a question? If someone had full knowledge that the food he was eating was poisonous, wouldn’t he be culpable for his death since he ate the food?

 

[lanman87]

May I ask you a question? If someone had full knowledge that the food he was eating was poisonous, wouldn’t he be culpable for his death since he ate the food?

Yes, I understand the Catholic perspective. When I see devout Evangelicals getting sick and dying because they eat the symbolic/spiritual Lord’s Supper instead of the literal Catholic Eucharist then I’ll re-examine my position on the importance of holding to Catholic Doctrine.

As it is, I see the Lord work mightily in the hearts and lives of the faithful in Protestant and Evangelical churches. To me, that is proof enough that God is blessing those who have a heart for Him, regardless of denominational differences or differences of opinion about transubstantiation.

 

[guanophore]

The only groups I’ve seen that disqualify others from being Christians (other than for Christology reasons) are Catholics …

What makes you think this has happened? Are you talking about the CC, or individual Catholics? If there is a Catholic “group” that does this, then they are violating the teachings of the Church!

To be sure the Catholic church now has a softer stance on “separated brethren” but prior to Vatican II the Catholic church was adamant that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church, which meant not only being baptized but holding all the teachings and traditions of the Catholic church.

Yes, but that was a position taken as a result of the Reformation, to make it clear that people who left the Church would be departing the One Church founded by Christ. Modern Protestants cannot be charged with the sin of separation. Most modern Protestants really have no idea what the CC believes and teaches, to embrace it or deny it.

 

[Agathon]

Yes, I understand the Catholic perspective. When I see devout Evangelicals getting sick and dying because they eat the symbolic/spiritual Lord’s Supper instead of the literal Catholic Eucharist then I’ll re-examine my position on the importance of holding to Catholic Doctrine.

Thomas is in the building.

 

[Wannano]

lanman87:

Yes, I understand the Catholic perspective. When I see devout Evangelicals getting sick and dying because they eat the symbolic/spiritual Lord’s Supper instead of the literal Catholic Eucharist then I’ll re-examine my position on the importance of holding to Catholic Doctrine.

Thomas is in the building.

I will bet Thomas is grateful Jesus never laughed at him!

 

[Agathon]

He still gave him a well deserved rebuke.

 

[Wannano]

He still gave him a well deserved rebuke.

What Lanman brought forward has much merit since the Bible does make reference to people dying. Don’t think he is doubting Jesus in the same way at all.

 

[lanman87]

What Lanman brought forward has much merit since the Bible does make reference to people dying. Don’t think he is doubting Jesus in the same way at all.

I’m not doubting Jesus at all. I’m doubting the claim that non-Catholic Christians are being poisoned because they don’t believe in transubstantiation. I would even say the fact that Non-Catholic Christians are being blessed, comforted, and healed (spiritually, emotionally, and physically) is proof that non-Catholic Christians are not taking the Eucharist in an unworthy manner. And it is also proof that the way we celebrate the Lord’s Supper is somehow fake or not a real participation in the Body and Blood of Christ. If we were truly eating and drinking the Lord’s supper without discerning the body and blood of Christ then we would eat and drink judgement on ourselves and become ill and even die.

Instead, people are coming to faith in Christ and serving Him. People are getting delivered from depression, from addiction, marriages are being restored, the poor are being fed, the thirsty given water, and God is being glorified for it all. God is not judging us, He is blessing us and working in and through us to increase His kingdom and to show His love to a world filled with hatred and evil.

 

[lanman87]

Yes, but that was a position taken as a result of the Reformation, to make it clear that people who left the Church would be departing the One Church founded by Christ. Modern Protestants cannot be charged with the sin of separation. Most modern Protestants really have no idea what the CC believes and teaches, to embrace it or deny it.

Maybe I have misunderstood and if so I apologize. It is my understanding that prior to Vatican II the teaching of the church was “there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church”. This would include American evangelicals (Baptist, Methodist, Assembly of God, Church of God…) as well as historical protestants (Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians and so forth). But that at Vatican II, the church softened it’s stance on non-Catholic Christians and admitted that some truth was found in some of those groups and it is possible that some in those groups may obtain salvation. And that they are really Catholic because they have been baptized in the Trinity but they just don’t have the full understanding and graces of the sacraments. They are kinda Christian lite and maybe, if they are really pious and do a lot of good works, they may obtain salvation, even without the sacraments of the Eucharist and reconciliation.

This bring up the question about those of us who have studied what the Catholic church teaches and find we agree with the Reformers? Do we have any hope of salvation?

 

[guanophore]

embrace it or deny it.

Maybe I have misunderstood and if so I apologize. It is my understanding that prior to Vatican II the teaching of the church was “there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church”.

Nothing has changed in this regard.

This would include American evangelicals (Baptist, Methodist, Assembly of God, Church of God…) as well as historical protestants (Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians and so forth).

This was the common perception at the time of Vat. I. This is why the issue was addressed in so much detail in Vat. II. The Church has always taught that persons who are not visibly Catholic may be saved.

But that at Vatican II, the church softened it’s stance on non-Catholic Christians and admitted that some truth was found in some of those groups and it is possible that some in those groups may obtain salvation.

I am not sure what you mean by this. The Church never had a “hard” stance with non-Catholic groups. They have never been, and cannot now be recognized as valid “churches” since they lack the marks of the Church passed down to us from the Apostles.

some truth was found in some of those groups and it is possible that some in those groups may obtain salvation.

Yes, formal recognition of the work of the HS within these ecclesiastical communities has been made, but it has always been possible that some persons, though not visibly Catholic, may obtain salvation. However, there is no salvation outside of Christ, and there is no salvation outside of His One Body, the Church.

And that they are really Catholic because they have been baptized in the Trinity but they just don’t have the full understanding and graces of the sacraments.

Yes. Since the early centuries of the Church, trinitarian baptism is valid even if administered by heretics. This is also not a change. Jesus only has One Body, and baptism joins us to His One Body, the Church.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#818

They are kinda Christian lite

This is in NO WAY part of Catholic teaching. Ignorance of the fullness of the faith does not equate to “lite”.

and maybe, if they are really pious and do a lot of good works, they may obtain salvation, even without the sacraments of the Eucharist and reconciliation.

This is contrary to Jesus’ teaching. Scripture is clear that anyone who is saved is saved by grace, through faith, not of works, lest any man should boast. The Sacraments are avenues of grace, without which it is more difficult to access salvation.

I think you may have confused two separate teachings. The teaching about persons being saved by following their conscience applies to non-Christians. God has instilled in all of us His Natural Law, and those who have never heard of Christ are judged by how well they responded to the Truth that was revealed to them.

 

[Agathon]

What Lanman brought forward has much merit since the Bible does make reference to people dying. Don’t think he is doubting Jesus in the same way at all.

When you’re laying out conditions for God to prove something, that says a lot.

 

[Agathon]

And it is also proof that the way we celebrate the Lord’s Supper is somehow fake or not a real participation in the Body and Blood of Christ. If we were truly eating and drinking the Lord’s supper without discerning the body and blood of Christ then we would eat and drink judgement on ourselves and become ill and even die.

The Temple was prospering for 40 years after the death of Christ. Does that mean God favored the Temple?