Forgiveness for non-Catholics possible?

[sandusky]

Thank you bishopite for correcting my attribution. I was having problems with the ‘quote’ function.

I feel that this thread has become a slanging match between two obsessives. While I appreciate your need to validate yourselves publicly, it has skewed the discussion, so that it is now virtually incomprehensible to anyone who does not read an entire tome of assertions, ripostes, and denials followed by more of same. Let’s take a bit of a break. You might want to continue the discussion by email.

Perhaps you would allow me to take one theme - transubstantiation - and try to move to a discussion of forgiveness and and salvation for non-Catholics that is more to the point for other viewers. Whatever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandusky
In John 6:53, Jesus says, unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in yourselves; that is an unqualified statement, the converse of which is that the one who does not eat the flesh and drink the blood is dead, and does not have salvation.

You reject what Jesus’ says in that verse on the basis of invincible ignorance, when in fact, Jesus’ makes no such qualification; therefore you are inconsistent in your literal interpretation because it contradicts Church teaching.

If I am a literalist, I would need a bit of Christ’s body to eat - His right finger? a left toe, a bit of hair? Disgusting thought, heinous sin, grotesque cannibalism. The Catholic argument that it is through the process of transubstantiation that the bread and wine of Communion become, in substance but not appearance, the body and blood of Jesus Christ at consecration is not acceptable to many Christians, Catholic Christians, and moral non-Christians. And because we cannot literally eat the body of Christ, it is also figurative, symbolic.

Understanding our Creator God makes it clear that natural laws of the universe/multiverse are fixed and immutable. God will not intervene in the physical, chemical or biological laws which He has established for all eternity. If He did, we would be confronted by chaos and anarchy.

The mandatory stability of physical matter means that the substance of the bread and wine of the Eucharist does not and cannot change into blood and flesh. I know, I know, you will say that according to the teaching of theology a revealed fact can be proved solely by recurrence to the sources of faith viz. Scripture and Tradition, with which is also bound up the infallible magisterium of the Church (Catholic Encyc).

As a Christian I am not bound by this belief, I will not eat Christ’s (literal) body, I am not interested in eating his transubstantiated flesh (which is itself but a symbol of the literal flesh and blood), but I do accept that the bread and wine we offer during the Eucharist, through Him, with Him and in Him, in memory of the death *he freely accepted, *represent his flesh and blood.

1. Do you think Christ had any concept of transubstantiation when he commanded us to drink and eat his body? He did not. Therefore how did he assume we were going to eat his flesh and body literally down through the ages?

Transubstantiation, as a concept, is a device of man and not of the Scriptures, whatever Christ or the apostles are reported to have said about what we should eat and drink in His memory. It is the memory of His sacrifice that matters.

Do you really think that our God, as a God of ineffable love and compassion, will send to hell (assuming there is something called hell) all those who refuse to accept the concept of transubstantiation? Reading the Bible literally, as inerrant, is in cases like this probably unChristian, an anathema to the loving grace of our God. This is the test by which we must read intelligently.

1. Even if you, as a Catholic Christian, believe this change in substance is possible, it is not for you to say that those who do not are unsaved and will go to hell, directly to hell and will not collect $200 on the way (*Monopoly). *It is simply not for you to know or say.
2. Neither is it acceptable to accuse your fellow Christian Quester of invincible ignorance, when he contradicts *your *interpretation of the Scriptures and the teaching of the Catholic Church. All are interpretations of fallible men and women, including you.

Blessings.

Carol,

You’re not following us.

I am not a Catholic; I reject transubstantiation; I do not believe in the literal eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ; I have not accused anyone of invincible ignorance.

 

[sandusky]

Bishopite:

No I reject your personal interpretation of what is the literal meaning of John 6:53.

Fair enough.

Bishopite:

Ok agreed. However, yours is *your own personal
interpretation,

mine is of the Church of 1 Tim 3:15

Fair enough.

Bishopite:

Ah, gotcha

In light of your statment above: ***"…mine ***[the interpretation of the verse] ***is of the church…"***how so?

Bishopite:

Am I? Or are you? My hermenuetic is sound because it is from the Church Jesus established which is in agreement with the Apostolic Tradition passed down from the early Church fathers to our day.

You are.

You assume that your’s is the church that Jesus established; the only ones that I know of that agree with you, are those who are members of your church; I would say that your claim has been, is now, and will continue to be in dispute.

 

[jmcrae]

You assume that yours is the church that Jesus established; the only ones that I know of that agree with you, are those who are members of your church; I would say that your claim has been, is now, and will continue to be in dispute.

Actually, everyone who doesn’t have a horse in this race also thinks that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. I’m thinking of the Jews, the Hindus, the Moslems, the majority of atheists (with the exception of one or two ex-Anglicans) and so on. Secular school history books show Jesus as “the founder of Christianity,” and in the next paragraph they say, “The Pope is the head of the Christian Church.” (They also show Buddha as the founder of Buddhism, and that the Dali Lama is the head of the Buddhist faith - so you can see that they aren’t “just saying it” in order to provoke people to become Catholic.) They are just reporting what the record shows, without passing any value judgements on it.

I actually don’t know any Protestants in real life who wouldn’t acknowledge that the Catholic Church predates their own.

Many Protestants deny that Jesus founded any church at all, but I’ve never met anyone who thinks that Jesus founded the Presbyterians, or the Methodists, or the United Church of Canada, etc. - the reason they deny Christ ever founding a Church is that, to say that Christ founded a Church means to acknowledge that Christ founded the Catholic Church, since there is no other organization on earth that is so exactly the right age to be “the one.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

Actually, everyone who doesn’t have a horse in this race also thinks that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. I’m thinking of the Jews, the Hindus, the Moslems, the majority of atheists (with the exception of one or two ex-Anglicans) and so on. Secular school history books show Jesus as “the founder of Christianity,” and in the next paragraph they say, “The Pope is the head of the Christian Church.” (They also show Buddha as the founder of Buddhism, and that the Dali Lama is the head of the Buddhist faith - so you can see that they aren’t “just saying it” in order to provoke people to become Catholic.) They are just reporting what the record shows, without passing any value judgements on it.

I actually don’t know any Protestants in real life who wouldn’t acknowledge that the Catholic Church predates their own.

Many Protestants deny that Jesus founded any church at all, but I’ve never met anyone who thinks that Jesus founded the Presbyterians, or the Methodists, or the United Church of Canada, etc. - the reason they deny Christ ever founding a Church is that, to say that Christ founded a Church means to acknowledge that Christ founded the Catholic Church, since there is no other organization on earth that is so exactly the right age to be “the one.”

Consider these days,

Before 1054 A.D East-West Schism- The Church was Catholic.

The word Catholic was not used until 107-110 by St. Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of St. John, the Apostle, and ordained bishop by St. Peter.
St. Ignatius of Antioch:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper 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; 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.

St. Ignatius of Antioch:

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. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of 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. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Protestantism came out 1517 A.D. Before the Protestant Reformation, the concept of Faith Alone, Scripture Alone was alien to the Early Christians. The theory of the Rapture (that all believers will be taken into heaven before the great tribulation will escape suffer) which contradict that we must “bear our cross.”

Historically Speaking the Protestantism is man-made religion. Christianity has its beginning with Jesus, and he establish His Church through Peter as the “Rock” or Kephas the Aramaic word for Rock.

If you look at Protestant Churches in the Evangelical sects, they lack bishops or the Eucharist. Alter calls is not even practice back then.

 

[sandusky]

jmcrae:

Actually, everyone who doesn’t have a horse in this race also thinks that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. I’m thinking of the Jews, the Hindus, the Moslems, the majority of atheists (with the exception of one or two ex-Anglicans) and so on. Secular school history books show Jesus as “the founder of Christianity,” and in the next paragraph they say, “The Pope is the head of the Christian Church.” (They also show Buddha as the founder of Buddhism, and that the Dali Lama is the head of the Buddhist faith - so you can see that they aren’t “just saying it” in order to provoke people to become Catholic.) They are just reporting what the record shows, without passing any value judgements on it.

I actually don’t know any Protestants in real life who wouldn’t acknowledge that the Catholic Church predates their own.

Many Protestants deny that Jesus founded any church at all, but I’ve never met anyone who thinks that Jesus founded the Presbyterians, or the Methodists, or the United Church of Canada, etc. - the reason they deny Christ ever founding a Church is that, to say that Christ founded a Church means to acknowledge that Christ founded the Catholic Church, since there is no other organization on earth that is so exactly the right age to be “the one.”

All true, and the dispute continues.

 

[jmcrae]

All true, and the dispute continues.

In my own case, I was under the impression that all religions were founded at around the same time (1560) - I have no idea why.

But once I figured out that Christ founded the Catholic Church, I realized I had to become Catholic. After all, the Scriptures record that He said, “Follow me …” do they not?

Shall I then follow Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, or anyone else besides Jesus? I think not.

 

[Bishopite]

Originally Posted by jmcrae
I actually don’t know any Protestants in real life who wouldn’t acknowledge that the Catholic Church predates their own.

Many Protestants deny that Jesus founded any church at all, but I’ve never met anyone who thinks that Jesus founded the Presbyterians, or the Methodists, or the United Church of Canada, etc. - the reason they deny Christ ever founding a Church is that, to say that Christ founded a Church means to acknowledge that Christ founded the Catholic Church, since there is no other organization on earth that is so exactly the right age to be “the one.”

All true, and the dispute continues.

History shows that there has always been dispute against the Catholic Church, from arianism, donatism to pelagianism yet it has stood firm. Indeed it is interesting that you accept the Catholic Church’s antiquity, yet not its authority. Your position on John 6 is built upon your own personal interpretation. My position is built on the Christian Church of antiquity; which one of our positions is more reasonable and plausible? I believe mine.

 

[sandusky]

jmcrae:

Shall I then follow Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, or anyone else besides Jesus? I think not.

Shall I worship Mary?

 

[jmcrae]

Shall I worship Mary?

NO, of course not!! (There was a heretical sect in the early Church that tried to do that, and they got shut down by the Pope pretty quick!!)

But you can ask her to pray for you, which is an entirely different thing.

And of course, just as we do for war heroes, their mothers, and other admirable figures, we can also write really gushy, sentimental poetry that exalts her virtues, and make both good and bad art that depicts her in her various attitudes in order to encourage children to imitate her.

 

[dessert]

Shall I worship Mary?

Following someone and worshipping someone are two different kinds of fruit.
What do you mean by worship in this case? Dessert

 

[Bishopite]

[jmcrae;1987706]NO, of course not!! (There was a heretical sect in the early Church that tried to do that, and they got shut down by the Pope pretty quick!!)

That sect was the Collrydians who used to make sacrifices to the Blessed Virgin Mary and were excommunicated from the Church, I understand.

 

[TheHem]

Thanks quasimodo.

Is this your personal opinion or a Church teaching?
Is it in the catechism? Sorry for being pedantic.

God bless,
Noel.

It’s in the CCC. Paragraph 1257 say’s he’s not bound by his sacraments.
: up: