Forgiveness for non-Catholics possible?

[DianJo]

Hi,
I think the quotes are all mixed up. Yes I do believe that Christ gave the Apostles that gift which died with them. Yes it is difficult to tell man my sins. Not all of course. When I sin against someone I have to go and confess to them and ask for forgiveness. When I sin against God I need to go to Him and Him alone to ask for forgiveness. He promises to do so. I have already given several Scripture references that proves this.

And when you sin against someone - you DO go to that person and tell them what you did and then ask for forgiveness - all the time? Be honest - how often does anyone do that? Tthat’s a convenient cop-out - Sorry.

That’s like someone says they don’t need to go to church because they can worship God at home or in the park. How often does that person really put aside time to actually do this? None, I would guess because I don’t actually see anyone in the park on a Sunday morning worshipping God in lieu of going to church!

 

[mikew262]

And when you sin against someone - you DO go to that person and tell them what you did and then ask for forgiveness - all the time? Be honest - how often does anyone do that? Tthat’s a convenient cop-out - Sorry.

Maybe not to him.

 

[DianJo]

Maybe not to him.

Well, that’s what he said didn’t he - to go and ask forgiveness of that person and makes amends - or am I misunderstanding what you and he are saying?

It’s just that when people make statements like this, I don’t ever see them actually doing this or anything else in relation of forgiveness of sins.

The Sacrament of Reconciliation is the “normative” way that we have our sins forgiven that Christ gave us - it is the fulfillment of the old law when Jewish priests offered sacrifice (get it? Jesus being the new sacrifice? I know you “get it” mikew262) for a person who sinned against God. Only now, we can come to Him ourselves in the confessional.

I understand that this doesn’t hold for Non-catholics (the sacrament). So, it would seem that they would go directly to God and/or to the person whom they sinned against - I just don’t see that happening. So how do they “know” they are truly forgiven? They have to hope, right? God can give forgiveness to anyone He chooses.

 

[jmcrae]

It’s just that when people make statements like this, I don’t ever see them actually doing this or anything else in relation of forgiveness of sins.

True, and come to think of it, the only people who have ever come up to me to apologize for something they did to me were Catholics who go to Confession regularly.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

And when you sin against someone - you DO go to that person and tell them what you did and then ask for forgiveness - all the time? Be honest - how often does anyone do that? Tthat’s a convenient cop-out - Sorry.

That’s like someone says they don’t need to go to church because they can worship God at home or in the park. How often does that person really put aside time to actually do this? None, I would guess because I don’t actually see anyone in the park on a Sunday morning worshipping God in lieu of going to church!

Hi,
As a matter of fact the only person I do not do this with all the time is my hubby It is stupid pride and submission. Plus he is not a believer so he doesnt look at life the same way. It is a little scary sometimes. Everyone else I absolutely do.

BTW Im a she:thumbsup:

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Well, that’s what he said didn’t he - to go and ask forgiveness of that person and makes amends - or am I misunderstanding what you and he are saying?

It’s just that when people make statements like this, I don’t ever see them actually doing this or anything else in relation of forgiveness of sins.

The Sacrament of Reconciliation is the “normative” way that we have our sins forgiven that Christ gave us - it is the fulfillment of the old law when Jewish priests offered sacrifice (get it? Jesus being the new sacrifice? I know you “get it” mikew262) for a person who sinned against God. Only now, we can come to Him ourselves in the confessional.

I understand that this doesn’t hold for Non-catholics (the sacrament). So, it would seem that they would go directly to God and/or to the person whom they sinned against - I just don’t see that happening. So how do they “know” they are truly forgiven? They have to hope, right? God can give forgiveness to anyone He chooses.

Hi,
With all due respect–just because you dont see people do it doesnt mean it doesnt happen. Sounds a little like judging.
I know I am forgiven because God promises that if I come to Him and ask forgiveness He grants it. I think I put some scripture in the thread somewhere backing me up.
God has never broken a promise so I trust He means what He says.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

True, and come to think of it, the only people who have ever come up to me to apologize for something they did to me were Catholics who go to Confession regularly.

I would suspect the same as a non-catholic christian as well. If someone is truly sorry for how they wronged someone and confess it to God, the HS will convict that person and make them feel miserable until they go to the person they wronged.

I have had my fellow christians apologize to me and I forgive them because I am commanded to.

 

[awantz]

True, and come to think of it, the only people who have ever come up to me to apologize for something they did to me were Catholics who go to Confession regularly.

I’ve had a bigger percentage Protestants apoligize to me compared to the percentage of Catholics. All the Catholics I know go to confession once a year. I don’t consider that reqularly.

 

[jmcrae]

I’ve had a bigger percentage Protestants apoligize to me compared to the percentage of Catholics. All the Catholics I know go to confession once a year. I don’t consider that reqularly.

Neither do I.

 

[DianJo]

Hi,
With all due respect–just because you dont see people do it doesnt mean it doesnt happen. Sounds a little like judging.
I know I am forgiven because God promises that if I come to Him and ask forgiveness He grants it. I think I put some scripture in the thread somewhere backing me up.
God has never broken a promise so I trust He means what He says.

Sorry, I certainly don’t intend to judge. If this is what you do, then fantastic! You are one of the few. I’ve just known of some people who give this argument as well as the one about not needing to be in church to worship God - when all it was was just words about praying at home or asking someone for forgiveness but I just that could be said about anyone.

I guess it’s left up to God to judge someone’s heart and not me or anyone else.

 

[Bishopite]

[sandusky;1982715]
So you are correct in saying the literal interpretation always takes precedence.

But how do YOU know the literal interpretation always takes precedence?

I did not say the spiritual sense of the literal; what I said is that the literal interpretation of “I am the Bread of Life,” is that it is a spiritual truth. I said nothing about a sense.

Spiritual truth yes yet a literal reality also.

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.

Ah…if you apply the converse of John 6:53 in a strict legalistic fashion, then it would exclude anyone who isn’t Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. However, Catholicism doesn’t teach a legalistic all or nothing interpretation of John 6:53. Those who through no fault of their own can’t or don’t know that they need to fulfill John 6:53 aren’t therefore culpable of having to consume Jesus’ body and blood.
Yet how ironic it is that you bring up the converse of a passage. Would the converse of Mt 10:22 apply also? He who does not endure to the end will not be saved?

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.

No I don’t reject what Jesus says. And how am I invincibly ignorant? The emphasis of the John 6 is verses 53-58.

Prior Church Doctrine should not determine the context of scripture; that approach yields an eisegetical interpretation biased by the prior doctrine; you said you wanted to relate the writer’s intention.

Oh goodness an eisegetical interpretation of John 6 is what you have since you deny the literal view of the chapter. And you don’t have a prior doctrinal position? You just read the “Bible” and know what it says? I’m a former Baptist who juxtaposed both sides of a number of years before being convinced of the literal position which is the Catholic position. And you?

The major distortion of John 6 comes from the proposition that it is connected to the Last Supper. It is bias that links those two sections of scripture; the only mention of the events of John 6 are found only in John 6.

Ah…I see. So again how do you know you have the correct position of John 6?

Be that as it may, you haven’t answered the question that I would like you to answer; namely, how is it that saying that Jesus, in vv48, 51 is truly a mixture of wheat, and grain, and therefore truly bread, is an “over[ly]* literal*,” interpretation to you; but, saying Jesus really means that one must literally eat His flesh, and drink His blood is not an “over[ly]* literal*,” interpretation
to you?

Ha. Funny, it’s the only I have to answer questions thread. Alright. That verse 48 would mean Jesus (a person) is a mixture of wheat and grain I would say is a literistic view of verse 48. That Jesus the person is the bread of life, because He came down from heaven just as the manna came down isn’t an over literal view.

Now answer my question. Can one be guilty of a symbol according to 1 Cor 11:27?
“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.”

 

[sandusky]

Bishopite:

But how do YOU know the literal interpretation always takes precedence?

We each understand literal interpretation differently so there is not point in continuing with that.

Bishopite:

Ah…if you apply the converse of John 6:53 in a strict legalistic fashion, then it would exclude anyone who isn’t Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. However, Catholicism doesn’t teach a legalistic all or nothing interpretation of John 6:53. Those who through no fault of their own can’t or don’t know that they need to fulfill John 6:53 aren’t therefore culpable of having to consume Jesus’ body and blood.

I am not speaking about legalism which I define as requiring something of a believer that God does not require of him. In the verse at hand, Jesus, who is God says that if you don’t eat His flesh, and drink His blood, you have no life in yourself. It is not legalism for you to take that literally, as it is God who has made the requirement of life in oneself contingent upon eating His flesh, and drinking His blood. Do you understand?

Bishopite:

Yet how ironic it is that you bring up the converse of a passage. Would the converse of Mt 10:22 apply also? He who does not endure to the end will not be saved?

Yes.

Bishopite:

No I don’t reject what Jesus says. And how am I invincibly ignorant? The emphasis of the John 6 is verses 53-58.

I did not say that you are invincibly ignorant; go back and re-read what you said in your initial response, and what I said subsequently.

Bishopite:

Oh goodness an eisegetical interpretation of John 6 is what you have since you deny the literal view of the chapter. And you don’t have a prior doctrinal position? You just read the “Bible” and know what it says? I’m a former Baptist who juxtaposed both sides of a number of years before being convinced of the literal position which is the Catholic position. And you?

You misunderstand; I have not denied the literal view of the chapter; rather, I find the eat my flesh, and drink my blood passage to be figurative language; that is my literal interpretation: figurative language expressing spiritual truth.

I am an ex-Catholic who came to see the Catholic understanding of John 6 as irrational.

Bishopite:

Ah…I see. So again how do you know you have the correct position of John 6?

In letting scripture define scripture, I find no other position to take, other than to understand John 6 within its own context, and not in the context of the Last Supper, in which John’s account differs greatly from the synoptics. The John 6 flesh and blood passages are neither mentioned, nor discussed anywhere else in scripture; why impose that passage on another passage when none of the writers do?

Bishopite:

Ha. Funny, it’s the only I have to answer questions thread. Alright. That verse 48 would mean Jesus (a person) is a mixture of wheat and grain I would say is a literistic view of verse 48. That Jesus the person is the bread of life, because He came down from heaven just as the manna came down isn’t an over literal view.

No; it’s analogous: as the manna came down from God, so did the Son come down from God.

Bishopite:

Now answer my question. Can one be guilty of a symbol according to 1 Cor 11:27?

“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.”

The Corinthians were guilty of not judging the body rightly v29, but one can only see real presence if one rips the the verses from their immediate context, and the overall context of the epistle, and reads his bias into it.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Drifted off topic and closed.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

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.

 

[Bishopite]

[sandusky;1984485]We each understand literal interpretation differently so there is not point in continuing with that.

I think part of the problem with your position is that you don’t accept differing senses of the same passage which limits you to an either or interpretation; it boxes you in unecessarily.

I am not speaking about legalism which I define as requiring something of a believer that God does not require of him. In the verse at hand, Jesus, who is God says that if you don’t eat His flesh, and drink His blood, you have no life in yourself. It is not legalism for you to take that literally, as it is God who has made the requirement of life in oneself contingent upon eating His flesh, and drinking His blood. Do you understand?

Again, you are starting off with a false premise that everyone necessarily HAS to partake of the Eucharist in a literal way in order to be saved which the Catholic Church in no way teaches. There is the possibility for those who through no fault of their own can be saved without ever partaking of the holy Eucharist.

I did not say that you are invincibly ignorant; go back and re-read what you said in your initial response, and what I said subsequently.

You misunderstand; I have not denied the literal view of the chapter; rather, I find the eat my flesh, and drink my blood passage to be figurative language; that is my literal interpretation: figurative language expressing spiritual truth.

What you are doing is redefineding what a literal view of Scripture is, then claiming you haven’t denied that literal view. It seems the underlying problem you have is with authority which leads you to take your own personal interpretation of Scripture. Scripture, history and reason point to an authoritative Church that Jesus established that guides us into all truth.

I am an ex-Catholic who came to see the Catholic understanding of John 6 as irrational.

Fine, but you made the claim against me that I had an “a priori” view of John 6 without even knowing that for many years didn’t have that same position. It seems you are assuming all Catholics just blindly follow the Church because that’s what they were taught or that they do so without first reasoning through the Scriptures and Christian salvific history.

In letting scripture define scripture, I find no other position to take, other than to understand John 6 within its own context, and not in the context of the Last Supper, in which John’s account differs greatly from the synoptics. The John 6 flesh and blood passages are neither mentioned, nor discussed anywhere else in scripture; why impose that passage on another passage when none of the writers do?

Interesting…can you show me where Scripture says the criteria for interpreting it correctly is “letting Scripture define Scripture?”
The letting Scripture define Scripture is a human hermenuetic. Removing Scriptures proper authority is antithetical to those very Scriptures when we read…1 Tim 3:15…“the Church is the pillar and support of truth”
And…where in any part of Christian salvific history prior to the reformation do we find any Church leader teaching Scripture alone as the strict and only authority?
To say that John 6 flesh and blood passages aren’t mentioned anywhere else in Scripture is nuts, again look to 1 Cor 11 27-29 where Paul says if you eat and drink of the communion in an unworthy manner, you bring judgment upon yourself. How can a symbol bring judgement?
And since Scripture IS part a cohesive whole of “all Scripture” (2 Tim 3:15-17) being you just affirmed that “letting scripture define scripture” what about 1 Cor 11?

No; it’s analogous: as the manna came down from God, so did the Son come down from God.

The Corinthians were guilty of not judging the body rightly v29, but one can only see real presence if one rips the the verses from their immediate context, and the overall context of the epistle, and reads his bias into it.

Just as Elijiah was a “type” of Jesus as a person, the manna is a “type” that points to the future Eucharist and that it came down from heaven also points to Jesus who came down from heaven and John 6 can reasonably and plausibly be understood in a literal sense as being the fulfillment of both in the person of Jesus Christ and the Eucharist.

 

[sandusky]

Bishopite:

I think part of the problem with your position is that you don’t accept differing senses of the same passage which limits you to an either or interpretation; it boxes you in unecessarily.

That is a false assumption, but you are correct if you are referring to the scripture being polyvalent which I think falsely frees one to wild flights of eisegetical fantasy.

Bishopite:

Again, you are starting off with a false premise that everyone necessarily HAS to partake of the Eucharist in a literal way in order to be saved which the Catholic Church in no way teaches. There is the possibility for those who through no fault of their own can be saved without ever partaking of the holy Eucharist.

If that were my premise, then it would be false; however, that is not what I said. I said that in v53 Jesus says that having life in you is contingent upon eating His flesh, and drinking His blood; I did not say that the RCC teaches that, but I did say that you reject the literal interpretation of that verse because RCC teachings contradict the literal teaching of Jesus in that verse.

Bishopite:

What you are doing is redefineding what a literal view of Scripture is, then claiming you haven’t denied that literal view. It seems the underlying problem you have is with authority which leads you to take your own personal interpretation of Scripture. Scripture, history and reason point to an authoritative Church that Jesus established that guides us into all truth.

I did not redefine anything, but stated to you in the opening of my last post that we each have a different understanding of literal interpretation, and since you don’t understand literal interpretation in the same way that I do, it is silly of you to tell me that I am redefining it;
I could say the same about you.

Bishopite:

Fine, but you made the claim against me that I had an “a priori” view of John 6 without even knowing that for many years didn’t have that same position. It seems you are assuming all Catholics just blindly follow the Church because that’s what they were taught or that they do so without first reasoning through the Scriptures and Christian salvific history.

I am not assuming that Catholics blindly follow the Church, but I am asserting that once in your church the member’s interpretation cannot conflict with defined teachings of the Church;
that’s all.

Bishopite:

Interesting…can you show me where Scripture says the criteria for interpreting it correctly is “letting Scripture define Scripture?”

I cannot; however, it is a sound hermeneutical principle.

Bishopite:

And…where in any part of Christian salvific history prior to the reformation do we find any Church leader teaching Scripture alone as the strict and only authority?

If you want to discuss sola scriptura, you may do so on this thread.

Bishopite:

To say that John 6 flesh and blood passages aren’t mentioned anywhere else in Scripture is nuts, again look to 1 Cor 11 27-29 where Paul says if you eat and drink of the communion in an unworthy manner, you bring judgment upon yourself. How can a symbol bring judgement?

And since Scripture IS part a cohesive whole of “all Scripture” (2 Tim 3:15-17) being you just affirmed that “letting scripture define scripture” what about 1 Cor 11?

1 Cor 11 is about the Lord’s Supper; it is not about John 6.

If one takes the larger context of that epistle, it is about the divisions, striving, quarrelling, squabbling, despising, and shaming of the Body of Christ—the Church and its members.

This theme of the “Body of Christ,” can be followed (cf 1 Cor 1:10ff; 3:1ff; 10:15, 16; 11:17-34; 12:12-31); the body that is not rightly discerned, or judged, or whatever your translation says (v29), is not the “real presence of Christ in the elements,” but the church—the body of believers.

That is the context.

Bishopite:

Just as Elijiah was a “type” of Jesus as a person, the manna is a “type” that points to the future Eucharist and that it came down from heaven also points to Jesus who came down from heaven and John 6 can reasonably and plausibly be understood in a literal sense as being the fulfillment of both in the person of Jesus Christ and the Eucharist.

You are begging the question.

 

[Bishopite]

[Carol Coombe;1984536]

You have gotten me mixed up with sandusky who is the one who wrote what you quoted. It surely was NOT me. : )

Check post # 94

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.

 

[Bishopite]

[sandusky]
If that were my premise, then it would be false; however, that is not what I said. I said that in v53 Jesus says that having life in you is contingent upon eating His flesh, and drinking His blood; I did not say that the RCC teaches that, but I did say that you reject the literal interpretation of that verse because RCC teachings contradict the literal teaching of Jesus in that verse.

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

I did not redefine anything, but stated to you in the opening of my last post that we each have a different understanding of literal interpretation, and since you don’t understand literal interpretation in the same way that I do, it is silly of you to tell me that I am redefining it;
I could say the same about you.

Ok agreed. However, yours is *your own personal
interpretation, mine is of the Church of 1 Tim 3:15

I am not assuming that Catholics blindly follow the Church, but I am asserting that once in your church the member’s interpretation cannot conflict with defined teachings of the Church; that’s all.

Ah, gotcha.

1 Cor 11 is about the Lord’s Supper; it is not about John 6.

If one takes the larger context of that epistle, it is about the divisions, striving, quarrelling, squabbling, despising, and shaming of the Body of Christ—the Church and its members.

This theme of the “Body of Christ,” can be followed (cf 1 Cor 1:10ff; 3:1ff; 10:15, 16; 11:17-34; 12:12-31); the body that is not rightly discerned, or judged, or whatever your translation says (v29), is not the “real presence of Christ in the elements,” but the church—the body of believers.

That is the context.You are begging the question.

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.

 

[jmcrae]

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? …] because we cannot literally eat the body of Christ, it is also figurative, symbolic.

What we eat in the Catholic Eucharist (or rather, what we fully embrace into our bodies) is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, living and whole, of the Resurrected Jesus Christ, which as you know is beyond time and space - He walked through walls; He was in the Upper Room at the same time that He was in Emmaus, a day’s journey away.

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.

Miracles happen all the time - Jesus was identified as the Messiah by His miracles - the healing of the sick, the multiplication of the loaves and fishes (no, this was not a miracle of generosity; the Jews already had the concept of “sharing” and understood it perfectly - no one would have thought it miraculous if they had simply been sharing some food - the multiplication of the loaves and fishes terrified the Romans (whose terror terrified the Jewish leaders - one simply does not make one’s oppressor nervous if one wishes to live a long and happy life) because they above all people knew that an army travels on it’s belly - and what a belly any army that Jesus raised up would have!!

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.

But leprous skin can turn healthy, the blind paint, the lame dance, the deaf compose symphonies - these things, too, are beyond nature, and yet, as Christians, we know that Jesus did them.

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).

This entails believing what the witnesses (the Apostles) say they saw, and what they say they heard, and what they teach in His name.

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.

Um. So, you won’t actually commit what you think is cannibalism, but you don’t mind pretending to commit cannibalism, by saying that the elements symbolize His body and blood?

1. Do you think Christ had any concept of transubstantiation when he commanded us to drink and eat his body?

Yes, I do. He gave us the Bread of Life discourse in John 6, and then He said, “This is my body … This is my blood.” Nothing about “this represents …” - the very One who said, “Let there be light,” and there was light - the very One who said “I AM has sent you” - that is, the One whose use of the verb “to be” nearly always results in things coming to be, that were not, says, “This is My body.” “This is My blood.”

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.

The Catholic Mass is the New Testament Passover, and just like in the Old Testament Passover, the flesh of the lamb must be consumed, or the Angel of Death will not “pass over.”

Up until Christ’s day, Jews ate the Passover, not only to remember the escape from Egypt in a historical story-telling way, but also to become one with those who escaped, and to eat the Lamb of Sacrifice and become joined to those whom the Angel of Death passed over.

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?

God sends no one to Hell - people end up in Hell by rejecting God’s commandments and God’s ways. God wants everyone to go to Heaven, but we cannot arrive there if we don’t go on the journey that gets there.

God didn’t just drop the Bible out of the sky and say, “Here’s a bunch of weird stories and arcane sayings - figure out what it means on your own!!” - No. God gave us a Church, and He remains with, protects, and guides that Church.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

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.