Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[Benadam]

Is this the power to bind and loose?

1 Timothy 1:19-20

By rejecting conscience, certain persons have suffered shipwreck in the faith; 20 among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have turned over to Satan, so that they may learn not to blaspheme.

 

[rcwitness]

Is this the power to bind and loose?

1 Timothy 1:19-20

By rejecting conscience, certain persons have suffered shipwreck in the faith; 20 among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have turned over to Satan, so that they may learn not to blaspheme.

Yes, in the form of an official excommunication. The same was administered in 1 Cor. 5: 5

Reconciliation was administered in 2 Cor. 2: 5-11

 

[guanophore]

Martin Luther was well aware of who holds the Keys.

This is an improvement over the assertion that “Protestants deny the keys were given to Peter”, which I think you know cannot be substantiated.

It seems all Mainline Protestants at the higher levels understand they are only standing because the Pope’s grace long ago allowed them to.

I am interested to see some documentation to support this assertion. On the contrary, I think they believe they are authorized by God, and accept Scripture as the authority. Many mainline protestants also accept some Sacred Tradition and teaching authority. They consider their roots to be in the Apostolic Church, but do not consider themselves receiving anything from the Pope.

Your position also seems to contradict what is in the Catechism, where it is clear that the Holy Spirit is at work in these ecclesial communities.

(I would NEVER put Baptist and Lutheran beside each other in our modern times. They share nothing in common with each other in the least.)

It appears you have either a very limited, or very biased experience of these.

 

[Nicene]

This is starting to make sense, this form of dualism is called Nestorianism.

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

The problem is He is both God and Man (hypostasis), and this is where you separate him into two parts. He has two natures in one person, inseparable. Nestorius also separated him into the human lesser part, not to be worshiped, and the spirit part. The Council of Ephesus corrected this heresy and Nestorius was excommunicated. Why this was and is important is because it diminishes the second person of the trinity and effects the homousius of God…

In catholosism we don’t believe Jesus to be the lesser part of God but the Hypostasis of God being inseparable into component parts, He is 100% God, !00% man united in one person. He rose in a glorified body which we are also promised 1 John 3:2. As well in 1 cor 15:44:

44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.

This is not a spirit, but a spiritual body, In reading the entire passage Paul says we will all be raised and changed in the twinkling of an eye.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

“Or those that took it literally walked away”

No or about it, that is exactly what they thought, they thought carnally, thinking of cannibalism as protestants also accuse catholics. They are thinking carnally of the Gen 9:4, Lev 17: 10-13 and Dt 12:16 prohibitions.

However Jesus still isn’t deceiving them. He doesn’t back off from what he said (would have been very easy to say, Hey guys it’s symbolic) In the completely symbolic understanding Jesus had to commit a mortal sin by deceiving them, and there is only one father of lying.

The disciples stay when he askes them, and this is an important reply:

Jn 6:68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

The holy one of God isn’t a deceiver. They trust him that he truly has the words of eternal life, so it isn’t hard for them to accept even if they don’t yet fully understand.

However given the Nestorian nature of your belief it is understandable why you believe as you do. (What sect of protestantism are you if I may ask?) Jesus says in Jn 6:clock530:
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Egocentrism leads one to believe he is speaking of their own eternal life. He isn’t, he is speaking of HIS eternal life. What is his eternal life? the Hypostasis of the God Man, his glorified body, his risen body, as St. Paul says his spiritual body in 1 Cor 15:44. He is not a spirit. This is the Eucharist, the body, soul, blood and divinity of Christ. Those who don’t :

64 But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

"Or those that did not belong from the beginning, did not believe in Christ from the beginning, walked away.-:

I appreciate you trying to sell OSAS however there is no indication of this invented doctrine in scripture, prior to this as scripture tells us they believed and followed him up to this point, they even say this new teaching is too hard to accept because they are thinking carnally and as pointed out earlier with regard to cannibalism, of which we are also accused. It is my opinion, that only those who calls enlightens believe him and trust him. as he did with Peter, in Matt 16:17

Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

this isn’t our doing, it is a gift from God

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[mcq72]

Well thank you…have to think…it may be more that i seperate the human man part, between soul, mind, will, and even spirit vs the fleshly body, that is destined to turn to dust (save for glorification/resurrection), the former parts somewhat indestructible, though changeable into His pure image.

So no, not Nestorian issue, of God and man, but of aspects of man (body, soul/spirit/mind).

 

[mcq72]

No or about it, that is exactly what they thought, they thought carnally, thinking of cannibalism as protestants also accuse catholics. They are thinking carnally of the Gen 9:4, Lev 17: 10-13 and Dt 12:16 prohibitions.

Yes, the early church was also accused of cannibalism by pagans, and the response was denial of eating human flesh, but that they eat bread representing His flesh.

I do not make the charge,yet you would not deny that you eat His flesh and drink His Blood, joined to Divine but still human flesh and blood, and if it is spiritual eating by faith it does not change the eating of human flesh and drinking of blood(glorified or not).

 

[mcq72]

He doesn’t back off from what he said (would have been very easy to say, Hey guys it’s symbolic) In the completely symbolic understanding Jesus had to commit a mortal sin by deceiving them, and there is only one father of lying

Correct, did not explain to crowd any different understanding, both of a symbolic or spiritual or change of substance etc…so was it a mortal sin, was He lying? He knew what they were thinking, and He did not correct them. He did not say it was not true, direct cannibalism (which you cite as their carnal thought) .

Because one eats and drinks of Him figuratively thru the elements, or one eats and drinks of Him literally thru the elements…we both eat and drink eternal life, and eat by faith, as Peter did with his confession at end of discourse.

 

[mcq72]

I appreciate you trying to sell OSAS however there is no indication of this invented doctrine in scripture, prior to this as scripture tells us they believed and followed him up to this poin

You miss the whole point of the discourse, which is in text you posted, that no one, no one, can come to Jesus unless granted by the Father.Jesus does not say they lost there salvation, as if they had it. What part of “don’t believe” leads you to think they believed??? What part of from the beginning" do you not take literally? Beginning of what, the discourse? Maybe, but the better answer is from the beginning of their journey, of following Him because of the miracles, or from receiving bread…it is stated right at the beginning of gathering crowds and additional followers, that He would not be swayed by their following, and aspirations even misguided belief (not even Peters, when he said Christ would not suffer)…HE knew what was in the hearts of men…says it at the “beginning” in John2 or 3…way before our discourse.

If you wanna say you can be saved or be a believer, a follower of Christ without "believing ",

or that you can be a believer without being called by the Father, be my guest, but that is the word of the Lord, not mine, not OSAS.

I know we agree to having to be called and understand the conundrum of believing but not believing…yet we are being given God’s perspective, who knows beginning from end, but from our perspective, we see the sower and seeds parable.

 

[Agathon]

You miss the whole point of the discourse, which is in text you posted, that no one, no one, can come to Jesus unless granted by the Father.Jesus does not say they lost there salvation, as if they had it.

“When I am lifted up, I will draw everyone to Myself.”

 

[guanophore]

MARTIN LUTHER:

“'So we stand here and IN AWE staring up to HEAVEN and yet we INVENT OTHER KEYS

It appears that Luther is supporting the same point you are making!

“So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has, and no others. It is as if He were saying: why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of Heaven, but they are not found in Heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in Heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.”

[Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed. trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergendoff, Luthers Works, vol 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, pp. 365-366]

This being the case, I am not sure what is the point you are trying to make. Are you using Luther to support your premise that Protestants imagine phantom keys? That seems like an odd source, given that you seem so hostile to all things Protestant.

Even Martin Luther is disagrees with you. And he’s ‘Mr Protestant’.

Actually he is much more Catholic than Calvin and Zwingli combined! High Church Lutherans are closer to Catholic than all evangelicals.

This Jesus of your imagination… this phantom construct of yours. This cartoon scenario in your imagination… that phantom Jesus of yours is just sitting up there with keys and he’s going to give you entry into heaven… because… well… YOU ARE THAT SPECIAL and cool. Uh huh.

I find your tone insulting.

Now you must question if your really Christian in the least. Or are you a modern folk pagan.

Actually, I think you need to question your charity.

How do you define “Christian”?

 

[guanophore]

YIKES! Can’t make this stuff up! When do we begin to recognize what is Christian, and what is OUTSIDE of the faith completely?

Since you seem to have rejected the Catechism on this matter, perhaps you would like to enlighten us about your own personal revelation in the matter?

The Pope has the key to heaven. So he ‘ultimately’ dictates who is a Christian, and the requirements of getting into heaven.

It sounds like you believe the Pope is impeccable. Do you really believe that a Pope has never made an error in this?

The Roman Pontiff is trying his best to help all men get to heaven. But you refuse to co-operate.

I agree about the successor of Peter, but it seems to me that YOU are the one who is uncooperative with regard to charity. Have you considered availing yourself of the catechesis of the Pope? I would especially recommend his remarks on the good Samaritan.

Given that the Samaritans had embraced heresies, it is significant that Jesus used this group to demonstrate what is most loving. It may be that you do not realize that many Protestants are more demonstrative of Christlike virtues than many Catholics.

Taking it upon yourself to make judgments here about other members as to whether they “refuse to cooperate” with God’s grace in their lives is a step too far.

 

[Nicene]

Yes, the early church was also accused of cannibalism by pagans, and the response was denial of eating human flesh, but that they eat bread representing His flesh.

I would like to see the source material for these references please, ancient roman records, Josephus, early catholic fathers…take your pick. The onus is on you to produce the evidence of them denying eating his flesh and that it only represented his flesh. I eagerly await your source material for this claim.

I do not make the charge,yet you would not deny that you eat His flesh and drink His Blood, joined to Divine but still human flesh and blood, and if it is spiritual eating by faith it does not change the eating of human flesh and drinking of blood(glorified or not).

I don’t deny it at all, I don’t know where you get that at all, but the doublespeak on cannibalism is not lost on me.

Remember I’m not the one who doesn’t believe his words.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Blockquote

Correct, did not explain to crowd any different understanding, both of a symbolic or spiritual or change of substance etc…so was it a mortal sin, was He lying? He knew what they were thinking, and He did not correct them. He did not say it was not true, direct cannibalism (which you cite as their carnal thought) .

While I appreciate the attempt to make it ambiguous in fact he is not:

47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

He wasn’t guessing, they state their unbelief to his words out loud, and his reply a second time is “Truly Truly” no mistaking that for a symbol, he says it is true, not once but twice. just as a side note the “murmuring” also recalls the Jews murmuring against God in the desert, then they receive the manna. Jesus says he is the true manna from heaven.

But more to the point he is in fact from the text above according to your symbolic understanding lying to them. Jews had zero issues with symbols. He just needed to say he was kidding. However i would challenge you to find the word symbol in the text, the word you will be searching for is paraboles in greek.

Because one eats and drinks of Him figuratively thru the elements, or one eats and drinks of Him literally thru the elements…we both eat and drink eternal life, and eat by faith, as Peter did with his confession at end of discourse

Are you now saying it isn’t symbolic at that it is in fact real as the Jesus says? Because a symbol is not his eternal life. As for Peter, he says you have the words of eternal life, and the words to which he is referring are right above.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Blockquote

You miss the whole point of the discourse, which is in text you posted, that no one, no one, can come to Jesus unless granted by the Father.Jesus does not say they lost there salvation, as if they had it. What part of “don’t believe” leads you to think they believed??? What part of from the beginning" do you not take literally? Beginning of what, the discourse? Maybe, but the better answer is from the beginning of their journey, of following Him because of the miracles, or from receiving bread…it is stated right at the beginning of gathering crowds and additional followers, that He would not be swayed by their following, and aspirations even misguided believe (not even Peters, when he said Christ would not suffer)…HE knew what was in the hearts of men…says it at the “beginning” in John2 or 3…way before our discourse.

It says He knew from the beginning, it doesn’t state they didn’t believe from the beginning as your previous post states, two vastly different things. However you are projecting onto the verse something not present.

If you wanna say you can be saved or be a believer, a follower of Christ without "believing ",or that you can be a believer without being called by the Father, be my guest, but that is the word of the Lord, not mine, not OSAS.

Actually in context Christ says in v65 with reference to his above discourse on his flesh and blood

61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

However lots of people give intellectual assent without actually believing him. Is that from the Father?

I know we agree to having to be called and understand the conundrum of believing but not believing…yet we are being given God’s perspective, who knows beginning from end, but from our perspective, we see the sower and seeds parable.

To which one are you referring, there are two.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Well thank you…have to think…it may be more that i seperate the human man part, between soul, mind, will, and even spirit vs the fleshly body, that is destined to turn to dust (save for glorification/resurrection), the former parts somewhat indestructible, though changeable into His pure image.

So no, not Nestorian issue, of God and man, but of aspects of man (body, soul/spirit/mind).

Actually it still is. While I’m not exactly sure why you are combining his and our deaths you again admit separating his body from his spirit mind soul will and mind as you say.

But the topic is Christ not us:

Acts 2:30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne,
31 he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[mcq72]

When I am lifted up, I will draw everyone to Myself.”

Yes, and every knee will bow, and tongue confess that He is Lord.

 

[Agathon]

He’s talking about His crucifixion, not Judgement Day,

 

[mcq72]

He’s talking about His crucifixion, not Judgement Day,

Well yes, past,present,and future, beginning just after the fall of man in the garden.

 

[Agathon]

Question mark.