Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[mcq72]

I wonder if you would say that to St. Peter. It was true about the Church then. Why wouldn’t the Church look the same now?

You bring up Peter much the same way Jewish folks brought up Abraham, when "challenged’’ (to at least reform) by Jesus.

I say (inspired by movie ,a Gumperism ), “Apostolic (Peter) is as apostolic does”.

Jesus responded, "If ye were of Abraham (Peter) ye would do the works of Abraham(Peter)…but now ye seek to kill me, a man who is telling you the truth…"John 8:39

or a milder version ,“Bring forth the the fruits worthy of repentance, for God is able to raise up children of Abraham (Peter) from these stones…the ax is laid to what brings forth fruit not”…Luke 3:8

So for you and I, we are challenged to be like Peter, now, today.

For those before us, who initially challenged the church with reform, the shoe (verses above) fit unfortunately a few times, even from both “sides”.

For sure the CC was never the same after split with East and then later with reformers, and in that regard only

Interesting to also note that Christ saves whom He will, inspires whom He will, even dead stones…interesting because Luther is often ridiculed for his “problems”, as a man, as a cleric, and everything else …he might have even said of himself to be e dead stone before being set free by grace.

 

[Agathon]

You bring up Peter much the same way Jewish folks brought up Abraham, when "challenged’’ (to at least reform) by Jesus.

Jesus didn’t lead a revolt against authority; He represented its fulfillment. So any comparison between Luther and Jesus fails.

 

[mcq72]

Since the invention of Sola Scriptura in the 16th century, this personal way of interpreting the authorative Scriptures has continued to cause divisions in the Body.

Well as Jon has often simply stated , sin is what divides, whether from individuals who think they are enlightened, or by churches, magesteriums who also think likewise.

 

[mcq72]

He represented its fulfillment…So any comparison between Luther and Jesus fails.

Of course He did, and it was not accomplished (yet) within and for Israel/Judaism…He was rejected for being even worse than a “rebel”.

Luther and Hus, and Tyndale etc. are quite comparative, but of course from only this side of the fence.

 

[mcq72]

What I am proposing is that the interpretation of the Scriptures be “ruled” (guided) by the Holy Spirit, rather than human perception.

Ok for you, but the CC proposes much more as i opinionated:

The Holy Spirit guides but “…only thru Rome and by others but only when they concur with Rome, including any reform, and that only of practice, (due to infallible reception of doctrine, by Rome only).”

 

[mcq72]

Sorry, I missed it on the first take… against what?

Maran atha!

Angel

The goad, as the rule or God’s Writ…we all try to be soooo scriptural, even with our traditions…and as a few in history have uttered in frustration with reformers etc…“if it weren’t for that bible…”

 

[mcq72]

I think you have determined that the Catholic Church is “in error today” based on what you have received of the Apostolic Tradition (Scripture).

No ,also from “tradition”

But there was never any attempt to commit the fullness of the faith to the New Testament.

Wow…the famous escape clause for tradtion…" ;

“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” John 21:25

Notice it does not say “teach”.

The antidote:

“For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,…since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,…That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.”…Luke 1

 

[guanophore]

sin is what divides, whether from individuals who think they are enlightened, or by churches, magesteriums who also think likewise.

A point about which @JonNC and I are in complete agreement. But we are also in agreement that Scripture must be understood in the light of what God has revealed to the Church, that the Church is authorative, and authority does exist, outside of which the faith can be, and will be, obscured. The councils, creeds, and writings of the Fathers all help us to stay on track understanding what the Apostles taught. When people separate themselves from these custodians of the Truth, division results.

I am not claiming that people who reject these sources of Sacred tradition are willfully rebelling against God. I have known many fervent and holy Protestants who have never studied the history of the creeds, the theological issues dealt with by Councils, the early heresies that plagued the Church, how the canon was formed, etc. They don’t know, and they dont’ really care! They exist in a separation that they don’t even recognize or that does not matter to them.

Luther and Hus, and Tyndale etc. are quite comparative, but of course from only this side of the fence.

I think not. A person who is willing to make an unbiased evaluation of history can see the comparisons, even if one has no religious faith.

The Holy Spirit guides but “…only thru Rome and by others but only when they concur with Rome, including any reform, and that only of practice, (due to infallible reception of doctrine, by Rome only).”

And where, exactly, is this proposed? I don’t recall seeing this in any Catholic document.

 

[guanophore]

No ,also from “tradition”

“tradition” with the small “t” is merely the customs of men - it language, practices, ways of dressing, family heritage, what we call ethnicity today.

Since there is nothing in “tradition” that is considered infallible teaching (deposited to the Church by the Apostles) then it is not possible for any of these to create doctrinal error.

I think what you are saying is that what the CC says she received from the Apostles is not, in fact, the Word of God, but just human customs. If you can’t see it in your Bible, then it is not of Divine origin, and therefore, has caused “errors” for Catholics.

Notice it does not say “teach”.

ARe you really going to assert that Jesus did not “teach” anything to the Apostles between His resurrection and His ascension?

Or that He taught them things that were not written?

Mark 4:34 he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.

The gospels were written, as is testified in the above passage “that you may believe”. The duty to teach the faith was given to the hands of those chosen by God.

It is difficult to understand that an educated person who knows about the contents of the NT could possibly espouse the position that it was written precisely to be a full compendium of the faith.

Since you don’t believe there is any apostolic teaching that is not contained in the NT, you will not need those mp3’s of Paul teaching at the hall of Tyrannus. Therefore if you happen to come across them I will be most happy to relieve you of them!

" And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, arguing and pleading about the kingdom of God; 9 but when some were stubborn and disbelieved, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them, taking the disciples with him, and argued daily in the hall of Tyran′nus.[a] 10 This continued for two years, so that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks." Acts 19

Are you honestly going to try to purport that Paul taught for two years and ALL of it is found in the NT?

 

[guanophore]

The antidote:

“For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,…since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,…That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.”…Luke 1

I agree, this is an antidote - It supports the value of the Sacred Tradition “wherein thou hast been instructed”. Scripture is there to lead people to faith, and to verify the faith in which they have been instructed. You yourself accept the fivefold ministries, and you know that the task of teaching was not given to texts, however holy , but to people.

 

[Benadam]

You bring up Peter much the same way Jewish folks brought up Abraham, when "challenged’’ (to at least reform) by Jesus.

That would be analogues if the Holy Spirit had definitively pointed out to the Church with miracles, signs and wonders that Martin Luther was the real Holy Father.

I see a commonality with protestantism.

There is a prevailing view among protestants that things are unfolding exactly as they did before
with Jesus. Same forces at work in the same way just different institutions.

That history is visibly repeating it’self precisely as it was in Jesus’ time and the evil institution that authorized Christ’s death in the past is doing again but is now the Catholic church. You may deny it but it manifests as an ad hominem all the time. My simple question, became a mirror reflection of history and I’m among the evil Jews challenging Jesus. I just wanted to know why you believe that the Church wouldn’t look the same today as it did in the beginning. A central Inerrant authority, a visible institutional presence in society, profoundly opposing the worlds ways, a contradiction causing the fall and rising of many.

Instead of looking at that it seems the mirror between the ages popped up and projected the Sanhedrin onto me because I became ‘Catholicism’. This is a curious thing I’ve been noticing.

 

[mcq72]

That would be analogues if the Holy Spirit had definitively pointed out to the Church with miracles, signs and wonders that Martin Luther was the real Holy Father.

Then we would have said he has a demon, like Joan

 

[mcq72]

Instead of looking at that it seems the mirror between the ages popped up and projected the Sanhedrin onto me because I became ‘Catholicism’. This is a curious thing I’ve been noticing.

Not curious enough to see any Holy Spirit behind any movement in reformers. No budging on any faith and moral issues (doctrine) that reformers brought up. Mostly just shoring the lines of division at that time.

But yes, some things are better today, though not reading any posts accepting God as being behind any old reformers.

 

[Nicene]

While I appreciate the diversion from Nestorianism, which you haven’t addressed, it i in fact what I was pointing out while you said he or us, seeming to combine his and our deaths did not in fact turn to dust as i pointed out in acts above. Your post contradicted that he did not see corruption.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene.

 

[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.

Still awaiting the source material for this claim from post 1938, it’s been 5 days

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Actually big difference, your claim was that they did not believe from the beginning, which is not in the text, seems like you are backtracking now.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

I have St. Augustines writings, confessions, sermons, and on christian doctrine. Maybe I missed it and i don’t recall this, maybe you could post the section of confessions to which you are referring.

However I do find it interesting that you delete the rest of the section in Jn, So once more in context:

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.”

so we see, in context, his subject is he being the manna from heaven, not believing on him as you like to say.
However the word truly, truly in greek is actually Amen, Amen, which means This is truth, this is truth. yet you say he is lying, that it is in fact a symbol. v57. There really is no way around this.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Peace an God Bless
Nicene

 

[Benadam]

hen we would have said he has a demon, like Joan

I put the word definitive in there to rule that out.

 

[Benadam]

Benadam:

Instead of looking at that it seems the mirror between the ages popped up and projected the Sanhedrin onto me because I became ‘Catholicism’. This is a curious thing I’ve been noticing.

Not curious enough to see any Holy Spirit behind any movement in reformers. No budging on any faith and moral issues (doctrine) that reformers brought up. Mostly just shoring the lines of division at that time.

But yes, some things are better today, though not reading any posts accepting God as being behind any old reformers.

I don’t see how your response has any relation to my statement… I’m seeing a reaction to catholicism common to protestants and prejudice against catholicism…

 

[Nicene]

Please provide scriptural support for your above claim with regard to Elizabeth, John the baptist and Elijah where they ate his flesh, eternal life ( I must point out your redefinition of his “eternal life”) However for example John the baptist:

Lk 1:15 for he will be great before the Lord,
and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink,
and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit,
even from his mother’s womb.

He didn’t eat Jesus eternal life but was in fact filled with the Holy spirit from the womb. You’ll have to show scripturally that they “they spiritually chew on His every Word, in the future promises and outlining of His coming”

As for the thief, the confessed his sins, Admitted Jesus to be the Christ, and died a baptism by blood: dying a martyr before being able to receive normative baptism.

Lk 23: 40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.”
42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

Peace and God Bless
Nicene