Fruit of the Vine

[runandsew]

We can start with the Didache.

…

OK here is from the Didache

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”

The people who receive the Eucharist have to be baptized first. And at that time, they did not just come to a belief and were baptized the same day, they went through a long catechesis program which could last a year or more. They were probably taught in their training about the real presence, so they would not be scandalized if they had received it unprepared.
Also it says that it is “HOLY”, which would show that it was something more than just a symbol.
Plus the early Christians were accused of cannibalism, you can’t be a cannibal if you are just eating a symbol.

1 Corinthians 11:27
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

Just like it was mentioned in the Didache… It is HOLY.

 

[El_camino]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atemi
Exactly.

Except one man “sells” Jesus Christ and another “sells” Roman Catholicism.
But I know full well that you equate the two.

Scott Hahn said that he had found Jesus in his teens, and now he has found the Church that Jesus established in the Roman Catholic Church, if that is what you mean.

I am glad that you have a relationship with Jesus, and that is great if that is all you want from him, but he left us so much more, he left us a family, we are now sons and daughters of God through baptism, brothers and sisters of Christ, and we live this family relationship through his Church which he established. We find the fullest and richest fulfillment of this family unit in the Roman Catholic Church.

The New Testament shows us that Jesus established a church, He placed the Apostles in charge of His church, and He sent his Apostles out into the world to spread the Gospel. The Church is the body of Christ and Jesus is the head of this body.

John 13:20
“I tell you the truth, whoever accepts anyone I send accepts me; and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me.”

These “anyone I send” people that Jesus is talking about are the members from his church. So if Mr. Hahn seems to be focusing on “Roman Catholicism” to you, it is that he is trying to share the Church with others. The fullness of our relationship with Jesus is experienced inside the Church. I am not saying that you can’t have this relationship outside the church, but you will find the fullness of faith only inside the Church.
Anything outside it is a scaled down version, but if that satisfies you, then so be it.

Runandsew, your response hits the nail in the head. Coincidently, I was reading James white’s whining about the fact that Dr. Francis Beckwith, the VERY PRESIDENT of the EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY had return to the Catholic Church.

You can find James White’s whinning here:

aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1961

Low and behold, James White also gives the VERY SAME erroneous arguement that Atemi is posing here. James White says:

“As any review of the current body of Roman Catholic “conversion stories” will bear out …] the warm feeling of “coming home” to the Church (almost never anything about conversion to Christ) are the keys to successful conversioneering.”

James White and other protestants JUST DON’T SEE it. Protestants and other evangelicals that come to the Church are NOT just now coming to Christ (unless they were never active practicing protestants), but because they were ACTIVE practicing protestants they were ALREADY in CHRIST, they came, rather, to the fullness of the truth and to the Church that Christ intended them to be in. They are obeying Christ who they had already accepted probably long before, and by doing so, and having now access to the fullness of the truth and the sacraments they are less vulnerable than before to giving in to the attacks of the evil one.

On the other hand, most “Catholics” that become protestants, were not actually PRACTICING catholics (if they truly were practicing catholics and they knew what the Church is all about they would more than likely not leave), they were nominal catholic only, thus they were not really living in Christ. So you can argue that when they become Protestant they DO come to Christ.

By the same token, I have heard many conversion stories of Muslims, and atheists and many non-practicing Catholics who WERE not in Christ, but they DID come to Christ (and they clearly SAY IT and proclaim it) when they became Christian Catholics.

Many blessings,

E.C.

 

[El_camino]

OK here is from the Didache

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”

The people who receive the Eucharist have to be baptized first. And at that time, they did not just come to a belief and were baptized the same day, they went through a long catechesis program which could last a year or more. They were probably taught in their training about the real presence, so they would not be scandalized if they had received it unprepared.
Also it says that it is “HOLY”, which would show that it was something more than just a symbol.
Plus the early Christians were accused of cannibalism, you can’t be a cannibal if you are just eating a symbol.

1 Corinthians 11:27
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

Just like it was mentioned in the Didache… It is HOLY.

Runandsew, I had already posted that to Atemi, because the Didache, which he himself posted, contradicts him by saying that unbaptized people cannot receive the Eucharist. If the writer(s) of the Didache were to consider the Eucharist only merely symbolic, then who would care if unbaptized believers (i.e., catechumens) do not partake of it?

When I confronted Atemi with this, first he said the Didache DID NOT say that (he had not read the Didache), and then when I quoted it directly HE COMPLETELY dodged it and never replied. I have been asking him to at least be honest and recognized he was WRONG, but he answered that me asking him to be honest is childish.

Any way,

Many blessings,

E.C.

 

[JohnPaul0]

Ahh, because what he said he would not drink until in his Father’s kingdom was not actual wine (which, as you say, he did drink on the cross). So if not actual wine, what substance was he speaking of at the Last Supper that he would not drink?

The other aspect in support of this view is that in Matt 26:29, Jesus says: “I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (3 emphs added).

1. **with you - **presumably this was the plural “you” (any Greek readers out there?). If so, they all weren’t around at the cross when Jesus drank wine, so it lends support to the interpretation that the cup in Matt 26:29 was not wine anymore
2. *in my Father’s kingdom : *not yet come when Jesus drank the wine on the cross, so more support for the Catholic understanding.
3. that day: By Jewish reckoning, Holy Thursday and Good Friday were the SAME DAY, which began at sundown Thursday. Yet, the ordinary meaning of Jesus’ words “that day” would mean a future day. So, again, His drinking of wine on the cross rules out the interpretation that the “fruit of the vine” in Matt 26:29 was still just wine.

-JohnPaul

 

[Atemi]

Scott Hahn said that he had found Jesus in his teens, and now he has found the Church that Jesus established in the Roman Catholic Church, if that is what you mean.

I am glad that you have a relationship with Jesus, and that is great if that is all you want from him, but he left us so much more, he left us a family, we are now sons and daughters of God through baptism, brothers and sisters of Christ, and we live this family relationship through his Church which he established.

I agree with everything you say and I am a partaker of all those blessings as well.

Were you really under the impression that only Catholics are a family, or that only Catholics are brothers and sisters of Christ?

LOL, no.

We find the fullest and richest fulfillment of this family unit in the Roman Catholic Church.

Yes. That is the constant claim.

As I was a Catholic most of my life, I know that particular claim to be false.

The New Testament shows us that Jesus established a church, He placed the Apostles in charge of His church, and He sent his Apostles out into the world to spread the Gospel. The Church is the body of Christ and Jesus is the head of this body.

Yes. Agreed.

This speaks nothing of Roman Catholicism, however.

John 13:20
“I tell you the truth, whoever accepts anyone I send accepts me; and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me.”

That’s nice.

Am I now to suppose that Christ doesn’t send anyone but Roman Catholics?

Again, I know better than this.

These “anyone I send” people that Jesus is talking about are the members from his church. So if Mr. Hahn seems to be focusing on “Roman Catholicism” to you, it is that he is trying to share the Church with others.

We are not sent to “share the church” with others, but share the Person of Jesus Christ and His Good News.

That may be half the problem.

The fullness of our relationship with Jesus is experienced inside the Church.

Actually, ANY relationship with Jesus is experienced inside the church. It cannot be any other way.

But you are preaching to the choir here.

I am not saying that you can’t have this relationship outside the church, but you will find the fullness of faith only inside the Church.

If I am outside of Christ’s church*** I am damned***.

There is no life outside of Christ’s church.

Are you saying you have some divine evidence that I am damned and outside of the church?

Please present it if you do. If not, keep your careless estimations to yourself.

…

 

[runandsew]

Atemi:
The fullness that I speak of are mainly the sacraments, (though the fullness of truth is to be found in the Catholic church only), these sacraments convey God’s grace to us, which help us to live a Christian life and grow closer to God.
If you have left the Church, then you do not have all these graces available to you, and therefore you are missing out of the fullness of our faith. That is what I am talking about.

As for the Church being Roman Catholic, Jesus established a Church, they were soon to be called ‘Christians’, and then Catholic’s. After the split between east and west, and especially after the Protestant reformation, the western Church was known as the Roman Catholic Church, but it has an unbroken chain of apostolic secession which can be traced from St. Peter himself. So when I say that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church which the Apostles were a part of, it is not that it was known by that name at the time of the apostles, but that one can trace this unbroken line of bishops and teaching back to that date.

And as for the Apostles being sent only being Catholic and not other Christians, well that is not what I am saying, because even in the Gospels not just the Apostles were doing the work of God, and even now non-catholics are sent today to spread the word, But the Apostles were a part of the leadership of the Church Jesus established, and the others are not. You read in the Mark 9:38-40
John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us.” Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me. For whoever is not against us is for us.

So even though Christians go out into the world today to spread his word, they are not in union of his visible physical church, but are still members of the invisible church.

I said nothing about you being damned. You, even though you are no longer Catholic, are still a Christian, and are still a part of his church. But with that being said, you have freely given up the fullness of the faith because of your own personal beliefs which differ from what has been entrusted to the Church and handed down through the ages, and this you choose to leave the Roman Catholic Church. You still have the promise of heaven, but you have rejected the graces which were available to you through the sacraments. So though you still are saved, you are making it harder upon yourself to live the Christian life by rejecting these graces God is offering you. But God gave us free will, and you are exercising it.

 

[Odell]

Atemi

dont ignore my post #64 it has everything to do with this thread. o you cant use the excuse that it is off topic to get away from answering my question.

 

[Atemi]

So even though Christians go out into the world today to spread his word, they are not in union of his visible physical church, but are still members of the invisible church.

Wow.

So how many churches did Christ found?

How can I be in His church and out of His church all at the very same time?

…

 

[runandsew]

Wow.

So how many churches did Christ found?

How can I be in His church and out of His church all at the very same time?

…

OH, just one.
The Catholic Church.
The one you left.
I don’t know how you can do it, but you manged to do it.

 

[runandsew]

Atemi,
I am not sure if you really don’t understand the nature of the church, or you are just being argumentative, but it is off the topic so I will respond one last time to your questions.
Here are a couple of links about the church from the Catechism, and salvation outside the church from this rock magazine
I am not sure I could do it justice in a short post.
But I’ll try an analogy:
Think of the church as your family that you grew up in, you have now chosen to leave home and live on your own, with your own rules. But you are still a member of that family.

Or maybe you are a US citizen, you leave the US to live in another country, you become a citizen of that country, but you still maintain your citizenship back in the US. You still have the right to vote, and the bill of rights would still pertain to you if you were to return to the US, but you decide to stay in that other country and live by their laws.
I don’t know if these are the best analogies, but it is the best I can do for right now. Please if you want a far better answer presented in a more understandable presentation that I can write, then please look at the links I provided.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Atemi,
I am not sure if you really don’t understand the nature of the church, or you are just being argumentative, but it is off the topic so I will respond one last time to your questions.
Here are a couple of links about the church from the Catechism, and salvation outside the church from this rock magazine
I am not sure I could do it justice in a short post.
But I’ll try an analogy:
Think of the church as your family that you grew up in, you have now chosen to leave home and live on your own, with your own rules. But you are still a member of that family.

Or maybe you are a US citizen, you leave the US to live in another country, you become a citizen of that country, but you still maintain your citizenship back in the US. You still have the right to vote, and the bill of rights would still pertain to you if you were to return to the US, but you decide to stay in that other country and live by their laws.
I don’t know if these are the best analogies, but it is the best I can do for right now. Please if you want a far better answer presented in a more understandable presentation that I can write, then please look at the links I provided.

Imagine that you are sleeping in a pup tent in the backyard while the rest of the family is warm, safe and dry inside with lights, plumbing, climate control, refrigerator, etc.

Yeah, you’re still on your father’s property, and you can see the glow of the lights and hear the laughter, but you’re definitely not living the life that you’re entitled to.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Atemi]

OH, just one.
The Catholic Church.
The one you left.
I don’t know how you can do it, but you manged to do it.

So am I in that one church or out of that one church?

You cannot seem to make up your mind or stay with one charge…

 

[El_camino]

Atemi,
I am not sure if you really don’t understand the nature of the church, or you are just being argumentative,

I think it is the latter… just notice the lack of objectivity of all his answers. It is obvious he does it for love of dispute. I got tired of giving him answers to his posts and him calling those answers irrelevant or childish or then he changing his position completely, as if nothing had happened, once he would realize that his arguement has been shrededed to pieces. I truly cannot maintain a constructive discussion with a person like that. I don’t know if you guys can.

Any way,

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So am I in that one church or out of that one church?

You cannot seem to make up your mind or stay with one charge…

Imperfect communion. Separated.

These are the proper terms.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Atemi]

Imperfect communion. Separated.

Separated from what?

The Body of Christ?

If so, then I am outside His Body and damned.

This is a necessity in any orthodox Christian ecclesiology.

 

[Odell]

Originally Posted by Atemi

My position is based mainly on what the early believers did teach, not what they taught against.

Ill break it down ito 4 questions for you maybe that will be easier

The problem is Protestants teach against the body and blood because there is a Church that teaches it. That same Church tought it 2000 years ago.

question
1)Do you not think that people would protest against this so called false teaching back then as you do now?

question
2) do you have proof of their teaching

(2 Thess 3:6) “We instruct you brothers in the name of Jesus Christ to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the TRADITION they received from us.”

(1 Timothy 1:3) “Instuct certain people not to teach false doctrines”

according to you our teachings are false. Paul Instructs the leaders of the Church to instruct people like us who have false teachings.

question
3)So where is the leaders of your Church that should of been telling us this is wrong?

Oh yeah your church didnt excist. But ours did and we instructed the people who belived as you.

We have the proof of your false doctrine do you have proof of our supposed false doctrine?

WE HAVE NOT SEEN IT YET

question
4) The bottom line is if you cant show us that your church taught againtst what we show pople have always believed then what proof do you have of anything? why should we believe anything you say?

I would like a response

 

[Odell]

Separated from what?

The Body of Christ?

If so, then I am outside His Body and damned.

This is a necessity in any orthodox Christian ecclesiology.

geting off subject lets answer my question:thumbsup:

 

[Atemi]

geting off subject lets answer my question:thumbsup:

Yes. Thx for the reminder.

OT…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Separated from what?

The Body of Christ?

If so, then I am outside His Body and damned.

This is a necessity in any orthodox Christian ecclesiology.

If my finger is cut off, it is still part of my body. It is not outside my body, but it is separated.

If you are uncomfortable with this analogy, then we can stick with “imperfect communion” with which you did not take issue.

Oh, one more thing just to be clear…as a former Catholic, your personal situation is far more problematic…I might go so far as to call it “grave”.

Others may have thoughts on this…

 

[El_camino]

Oh, one more thing just to be clear…as a former Catholic, your personal situation is far more problematic…I might go so far as to call it “grave”.

Others may have thoughts on this…

Randy, I disagree. His situation is no different than protestants that have never been Catholics. He did not really know the Church when he was Catholic, thus the reason left so easily.

In past times, on the other hand, when the knowledge about the Church teaching was more openly taught and known than it is nowadays in this secular world, then it might have been different. This is why I believe that the Reformers, who were former Catholics, were TRULY heretics, and were in this graver sitatuion that you mention, because they knew the truth yet they decided to openly reject it.

Atemi did not know the truth and now he is just too brainwashed, to engaged with his new protestant church to simply accept it.

Many blessings,

E.C.