Does the RCC teach that non-Catholic Christians are anathema?

[Pat_De]

Originally Posted by jlhargus
JL: According to Paul there are two ways to discern. [1Cor11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, NOT DISCERNING THE LORD’S BODY. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.] Those receiving unworthily did not DISCERN the Lord’s body. Since they didn’t DISCERN the Lord’s body, they had to DISCERN it was not the Lord’s body. There are two ways to discern either it is the Lord’s body or it is not the Lord’s body. Who discerned incorrectly and ate and drank damnation to himself? Those who did not discern the Lord’s body. By the way do you deny you belong to Calvary Chapel or Vineyard Outreach?

JL: So your answer is? You discern it is NOT the Lord’s body.

JL: So the answer is yes, you are Calvary Chapel.

I really do pray you become more discerning of the carnal and the spiritual.

 

[Pat_De]

JL: Yet you are unable to post ANY evidence, which is evidence the statement is FALSE.

I have a secondary , but very reliable source and whether I showed either you still would not accept it; so we will call it false for your sake. You cannot show otherwise.

 

[Pat_De]

Hi Pat!
Im a Christian. I do not disagree with the fact that when we eat and drink the Lords Supper we proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. What I was looking for was evidence that the the Apostles did not celebrate the Lord’s supper in a “transubstantial way”. You have both confused one for the other and have assumed that they are somehow mutually exclusive when, in fact, they are not.

Hello, you can’t find something in the Bible that does not exist; it is a self defeating attempt.

Here is Ignatius - disciple of John from his letter to the Smyrneans, Ch7:
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, ** because they confess not the Eucharist** to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes.

Bolding mine. The flesh that suffered on the Cross, Pat, was it Christ’s literal flesh?

Just the facts, please.

Blessings!

You must put it into the context of what he was disputing, which you are not. This is consistent with the remembrance and thanksgiving of the flesh He gave for on the cross to pay our sin debt; there is noting that speaks of eating His flesh or transubstantiation. But there were false teachers saying He did not die on the cross or that He was a sacrifice for sins, heresies, which is most likely what he is defending here. Unfortunately we can’t ask him to clarify what he meant, but perhaps one of us will have the opportunity; who knows.

 

[Pat_De]

We never seen God call the Holy Trinity until the middle of the third century, but that doesn’t mean the doctrine is not in the Bible or explained by the early Christians. It is the same for the Holy Eucharist. In Jn 6 Bread of Life discourse, Jesus repeated himself constantly, “Eat my body and drink my blood.” If he was talking in a symbolic term, he would not repeat himself when people are confused. In addition, the greek word “trogo”- meaning to gnaw or chew- was used in that verse was never used for something symbolic.

Accept that and deny Calvin and Luther on the same basis? Pleae. It was a common Jewish idiom and from verse 60 onward Jesus makes it clear as new glass; but you must have the right lenses on to see the truth.

 

[Pat_De]

That is like saying “a relationship with Christ has never saved a soul”, since “religion” comes from the Latin word, *religiare *which means…

relationship!

Whenever someone is being disrespectful to the Catholic religion, on the sole basis of its classification as a “religion”, he is speaking nonsense.

Religion in the formal sense of the word has never saved a soul.

 

[Pat_De]

That’s very Catholic of you to say that, Pat!

Correction, that is very Christian and gospel of me; if I said that in a Catholic tone, well what is the gospel to a Catholic; I ask and never get a answer. I believe it is by faith in Christ and the cooperating with the Spirit to gain meritorious grace unto salvation. I don’t know; it is in the CCC, but the little work is added to it with a nuance.

 

[Pat_De]

If they did not believe in the real presence in the early church then why did they just say we do not eat the Body or drink the Blood of your Lord when they were charged with cannibalism?

“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”
-“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D. Think this is before the time you randomly try to write off the Apostles teaching on the Eucharist.

And again and he knew some of the Apostle
“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”
“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

You will also find it in the NT but you most likely will interpret that to fit your beliefs and not what he early church believed.

Why did Christ not then set the literal example as He did on everything; except this?

 

[Pat_De]

Pat De I would like to ask you do you think Hymenaeus is the same person here? Does he deny the Jesus as his personal savior or that Jesus died for us? Does he interpret the words of the Apostles to fit what he wants them to say?

17And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
*18Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
*19Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
2Tim 2

19Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:

20Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
tim 1

Just something to think about When you think Jesus started His church 1500 years later instead of when He sent the Holy Spirit and that the ECF do not teach what the early Christians believed.

Since the Bible says the church has yet to be revealed; then without that specific knowledge you reasoning is flawed.

 

[Pat_De]

Anathema does not mean cut off a person from Christ because it comes close to saying damming somebody to hell. It is an ancient biblical greek word that was used to cut a person of from fellowship for preaching false teachings until they repent. If it really mean to cut somebody off from Christ, Paul would be doing that because he used that word 5x in original greek (Gal 1:8–9; 1 Cor 16:22; 12:3; Rom 9: 3), and he didn’t cut anybody off from the Body of Christ. No human can do that.

studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=331

The only people that can be anathema are people who are part of the fellowship (i.e. only people who are Catholic will be excommunicated from the Catholic Church). A Protestant cannot be anathema because they are not members of the Cathollic Church.

***But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! *** from Galatians 1

Accursed = anathema = a thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, therefore a person or thing doomed to destruction

Another Gospel? Hellbound

 

[Pat_De]

No it was not added later but allowed again. The teachings of the ECF show this very well and so do many writings and some of the councils. The Eastern Churches (both Orthodox and Catholic) have never removed it from the service if I am right. They dip the Body of our Lord into His Blood (with a spoon now-a-days) and then drop it into the persons mouth. This is why I have seen in some writing the description of lay people compared to little birds waiting to receive our Lord in communion. If any Eastern Churches are here they can clarify this more for you and say if I am right or not.

I suggest the writing of the apostles and of Jesus…just a thought :0

 

[Church_Militant]

I suggest the writing of the apostles and of Jesus…just a thought :0

If you want to settle for less than the fullness of truth, that’s on you. The Bible nowhere lays claim to being the sole source for all that we believe and practice. It’s an unscriptural new wind of doctrine of modern men and nothing more.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a close friend and disciple of St. John the apostle makes it very clear what the early church believed and taught.

You can read the whole of his Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans as just one example, but here’s a couple of exemplary quotes for you to consider. (and keep in mind that he is far closer to the Lord and the apostles than your buddy Spurgeon down in your sig line.)

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

And

It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and neither in private nor in public to talk with(15) them; but to give heed to the law, and the prophets, and to those who have preached to you the word of salvation. But flee from all abominable heresies, and those that cause schisms, as the beginning of evils.

And more still…

CHAP. VIII.–LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(18) Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.(2) even as where Christ is, there does all the heavenly host stand by, waiting upon Him as the Chief Captain of the Lord’s might, and the Governor of every intelligent nature. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize, or to offer, or to present sacrifice, or to celebrate a love-feast.(1) But that which seems good to him, is also well-pleasing to God, that everything ye do may be secure and valid.

Today it appears that we are more civil towards such people, though in general I have not seen such civility returned in many of those who would take your position. That makes dialog quite difficult.

 

[momtoo]

You better read and understand Jesus words and warnings, for He admits one at a time.

Is that all I get? Let’s get down to it, Pat De. Your status says “former”, so why don’t you tell us what happened to make you hate so? Unless “former” means something else entirely. I recognize you either way.

 

[momtoo]

JL: So the answer is yes, you are Calvary Chapel.

Interesting, I know a couple Calvary Chapel families but they go to different Calvary Chapel churches so I don’t know if they are actually qualified as the same. One family has no interest in children and instead has dogs (which they treat as children). I have been told they are not interested in children (by them not by gossip). And one family that has “encouraged” my youngest to try to miss Mass as well as trying to get her to go to their church (crafts is quite a temptation for a child who is used to sitting and kneeling in a pew for an hour instead) to which I had to firmly explain to my child what was happening. These same people told my daughter she was not a Christian (they didn’t know what a Catholic was), that there church was larger than ours, and that THEY were “Christian”. Interesting. I must thank them since now my daughter has a better understanding of who is out there in the world and as they learn they will be stronger.

 

[jlhargus]

I have a secondary , but very reliable source and whether I showed either you still would not accept it; so we will call it false for your sake. You cannot show otherwise.

JL: Tee Hee, in other words NO LELIABLE SOURCE, thanks for admiting it’s FALSE.

 

[jlhargus]

Originally Posted by jlhargus

JL: According to Paul there are two ways to discern. [1Cor11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, NOT DISCERNING THE LORD’S BODY. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.] Those receiving unworthily did not DISCERN the Lord’s body. Since they didn’t DISCERN the Lord’s body, they had to DISCERN it was not the Lord’s body. There are two ways to discern either it is the Lord’s body or it is not the Lord’s body. Who discerned incorrectly and ate and drank damnation to himself? Those who did not discern the Lord’s body. By the way do you deny you belong to Calvary Chapel or Vineyard Outreach?

JL: So your answer is? You discern it is NOT the Lord’s body.

JL: So the answer is yes, you are Calvary Chapel.

I really do pray you become more discerning of the carnal and the spiritual.

JL: I see you can’t defend your position, NOT DISCERNING THE LORD’S BODY, so you try to deflect from that fact, with a silly comment.

 

[PRmerger]

Religion in the formal sense of the word has never saved a soul.

That’s very Catholic of you to say that also, Pat! The CC teaches that salvation comes from God alone. You agree, then, with the CC?

From the Catechism:

The second part of the Catechism explains how God’s salvation, accomplished once for all through Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit…CCC 15

Salvation comes from God alone CCC 169

Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head CCC 846

Since it is ultimately Christ who acts and effects salvation… CCC 1584

Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since “without faith it is impossible to please [God]” CCC 161

 

[jlhargus]

JL: So the answer is yes, you are Calvary Chapel.

Interesting, I know a couple Calvary Chapel families but they go to different Calvary Chapel churches so I don’t know if they are actually qualified as the same. One family has no interest in children and instead has dogs (which they treat as children). I have been told they are not interested in children (by them not by gossip). And one family that has “encouraged” my youngest to try to miss Mass as well as trying to get her to go to their church (crafts is quite a temptation for a child who is used to sitting and kneeling in a pew for an hour instead) to which I had to firmly explain to my child what was happening. These same people told my daughter she was not a Christian (they didn’t know what a Catholic was), that there church was larger than ours, and that THEY were “Christian”. Interesting. I must thank them since now my daughter has a better understanding of who is out there in the world and as they learn they will be stronger.

JL: Yes there are several Calvary Chapel people on CAF, the only ones who will admit to being Calvary Chapel, I have found, are those who have an official position. The rest seem to avoid the name as a vampire avoids a cross.

 

[PRmerger]

Correction, that is very Christian and gospel of me; if I said that in a Catholic tone, well what is the gospel to a Catholic; I ask and never get a answer. I believe it is by faith in Christ and the cooperating with the Spirit to gain meritorious grace unto salvation. I don’t know; it is in the CCC, but the little work is added to it with a nuance.

What does that is very “gospel of me” mean? That is a syntactically disordered sentence.

The Gospel to a Catholic is the Good News of God. Nothing more, nothing less!

Catholics do not work their way to salvation, Pat. I am saddened that in your days as a Catholic you were not well catechized.

What you abhor is a figment of your own imagination–that is, a pornographized version of Catholicism.

You have gulped down the “porn” version of what the Catholic church is and bought it for the truth.

You despise something that doesn’t even exist. Just like a man who devours porn has attached himself to the grotesque and perverted image of a woman that doesn’t actually exist.

Sadly, you have no idea what the Church you were baptized into actually teaches. :sad_yes:

 

[PRmerger]

JL: Yes there are several Calvary Chapel people on CAF, the only ones who will admit to being Calvary Chapel, I have found, are those who have an official position. The rest seem to avoid the name as a vampire avoids a cross.

I am not familiar with the doctrines of Calvary Chapel. It seems to be a relatively new denomination?

Why would any member want to avoid association with it?

 

[PRmerger]

you Church teaches the worship of statues, relics and Mary despite that many during the councils, where such things were brought up rejected such notions.

Please provide your source for a teaching of the Church that says we are to “worship statues”. Have you been reading another "pornographized’ article about Catholicism, Pat?

Try the real thing, not the porn version. You’ll like it!

[SIGN1]Not a single Catholic worships a statue.[/SIGN1] I daresay if you go to any Catholic church and ask the average Joe Catholic, even the most clueless one, *“Pssst! Hey, Joe! See that statue of Mary over there? Do you worship that?” *Even Clueless Joe is going to say, “Um…no. That’s ridiculous!”

Worship and adoration, latria, are reserved for God alone. Veneration, honor, respect are due to all who proclaim the name of the Lord worthily.

In fact, in your private email to me you said this, (I am quoting verbatim, bold mine), which sounds like you also have a very high veneration for some earthly person, not God. Why do you get to elevate this fallible pastor, yet deny Catholics the same right to venerate saints in heaven?

Originally written by Pat De about some human being he greatly venerates: "He knows and understands more about Catholicism than most Catholics including the most “learned"on CAF.** He knows the Christian God and the Christian gospel better than almost anyone on this planet alive today**;** I wish i could attain the level of faithfulness this person **has and maybe one day I will as I continue to read and study and love God through His sanctifying word.”

(Permission has been granted by Pat De to share this in this post here)