How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[PRmerger]

Hi PRmerger

Doing something Hard do not necessarily Mean it makes you uncomfortable. you can be doing something very soft and be very uncomfortable.

Fair enough.

But I don’t find taking up my cross daily to be something very comfortable. And, it’s hard to do as well!

Why should it make you uncomfortable knowing what your friends are doing.

Living in sin should make all of us uncomfortable.

Concerning yourself over things that you should not be concerned about.

We are called to admonish the sinner and instruct the uninformed. That’s uncomfortable for me (although, for some reason, it’s quite easy to do with my husband! )

If you was my friend and i was in that position. Then you coming up to me and my wife saying we are committing Adultery. I would say who are you to Judge.

And I would say that we are commanded to judge. But to judge rightly. (John 7:24)

What makes you so Sure they are committing Adultery.

Jesus said.

That’s what I’m saying. Sometimes Jesus made some hard sayings. But we must follow them nevertheless.

There are those who dismiss certain hard teachings (such as on divorce/remarriage, the existence of hell, no salvation outside of Christ and His Church) by saying, “God wouldn’t ____”. In my opinion, they are creating a god in their own image. A god who fits their own comfortable designs.

If any of my christian friends or christian family are committing a serious known Sin.
I would not be concerned and uncomfortable about it. I would gently warn them. I have done that with my sister. I did not find it hard at all to tell her at all. She is involved in a relationship Having Sex.
She and her partner have now set a date to get married. They did this the day after i warned her using scripture.

That was very Catholic of you to admonish the sinner!

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PRmerger.

IF Somebody wants to be baptised. You can do it at the swimming baths or in the bath.
I was baptised in a big drum full of water in somebody’s garage. In the winter the water was very cold. By Immersion.

The Lord super has to be proper wine and bread for me. You only need One cup.

I celebrate the Lords day sunday.

Interesting. How do you do these rituals if you don’t attend a church and have a presbyter?

And what about all those other denominations that have read the very same Scriptures and come to contrary doctrines?

That is, some use Scripture to say baptism must be done in a river.
Some say Jesus would never have drunk wine. And use of multiple cups is allowed.
Some are quite insistent that the Lord’s Day is Saturday.

They all use Scripture to back up their doctrines.

 

[PRmerger]

It troubled me when you said “heard of the Catholic Church.” You see, we have been to two Catholic Churches in the last four weeks.

Just curious, Tommy. Why did you go to 2 Catholic churches?

Feelings make me wary because they are so very deceptive, but God gave us feelings. I felt as though I was in a fast food restaurant. I left both feeling unfulfilled, empty. In our church, we kneel at the communion rail; the pastor gives us the host, saying, "This is the body of Christ given for you (name); then, when we are given the chalice, we are told, "This is the blood of Christ, shed for you****. There is reverence that I did not see at the Catholic Church.

One should judge Catholicism by those who “take its medicine”, not by those who don’t. Clearly, those who show no reverence to the Eucharist are not taking the medicine of the Catholic church.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, David Ruiz,

First of all, let me welcome you to CAF. It is always good to see new folks join a thread. Now, let’s get down to some serious work…

I thought the apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church .

You know, there is no substitute for going to a reliable source… so, let’s do that.Here we have St. Paul’s first letter to the young Bishop Timmothy. Chapter 3 (1st 13 verses) primarily deals with some of the qualifications for those wanting to serve God. The Apostle to the Gentiles is not quite sure if he will be able to see Timmothy - so he is sending this letter on now so as to prepare him for the work that needs to be done.

**14
I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon.
15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
16
Undeniably great is the mystery of devotion, Who was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed to the Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory. **

The Church is the union of believers joined to the Mystical Body of Christ, with the visible leader being the Pope who is lead by the Holy Spirit in all official teachings. We are moving toward the Glory of God and the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matt 16:18). Please note: while the Pope can not teach error, it does not mean he is perfect in thought or deed. The 2,000 year history of the CC provides examples where their leaders have sadly fallen short of the mark.

Here are two links that I think you may find helpful:

columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/faq-cc.html

catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp

So, I am not entirely sure of where it is you want to go with Apostles and prophets. No one can deny that Chist gave special powers and authority to His Apostles. And, Christ chose the leader of His Church (and that would be the Catholic Church) and told Peter that whatever He bound on earth was bound in heaven and gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom (note, Christ did not have eleven other sets of keys…)

They taught both orally and in writing .The writings began with them ( finished by 100 A.D.)

So far…so good!

I do not recall any of the churches denying their authority until a council convened to ratify them hundreds of years later.

And, just what council was that? There is a real problem (at least in my opinion) of where you put the “until” in that sentence. You will really need to reference that statement. Thanks.

I do not see the reason for leaving out anything major in their writings. To say that they taught things orally, and but not in writing, with all the authors , books and time span is a stretch.It also opens the door to almost anything

Please note that the Apostles were not the only ones who were literate at this time. There were genuinely holy people who wanted to write down pious thoughts - the ECF would be an example of this group. There were also Gnostics who wanted to create works of fiction and try to pass them off as Gospels during the 2nd - 4th centuries in order to create confusion amongst the early Catholics. Some examples of these would be the Gospel of: Mary, Thomas, Judas, Truth, etc. These were not inspired by the Holy Spirit and were not part of the Canon - the entire collected writings that the Catholic Church determined were the Inspired Word of God - and became the Bible you are now holding (even the abridged version!).

Hence early Fathers said stick to scriptures .Again ,they had them ALL by 100 A.D.,in one church or another.

Oooooops … you are going to have to give a citation for which ECF you are talking about so we can get not only what was said but the context in which it was given. You see, ‘Sola Scriptura’ is a 16th century invention, and not from the any part of Catholic Church. And, the reason for this is that it is the Catholic Church who gave you the Bible, it was not the Bible that gave you the Catholic Church. Now, after the 16th century, you can look around and see all these various groups that claim scripture alone holds all the truth - but, really, this is a tradition of men that can be dated as to its origin.

Additionally, no where in Scripture does it tell you that Scripture ALONE is the answer. As St. Paul says in 2Tim 3:16, all scripture is good … but it just doesn’t have all that is needed! In case you have any doubts, look at the result of the private interpretatins of scripture that abound in protestantism that have spawned 20,000+ cults, sects, groups, assemblies, congregations, unions, denominations - all claiming to be not only a church but the true church - and all discounting and discrediting the teachings of other such groups! Seriously, there is no unified doctrine amongst even the major groupings of protestantism - much less the numerous splinter groups. Well… maybe that was an exaggeration … they do agree on one thing! The agree that they are true and the Catholic Church is false… and that is where the consensus ends.

I am lookig forward to hearing from you on these issues I have raised. God bless

 

[schaick]

How do you baptize? In a river or with sprinkling?

What about celebrate the Lord’s supper? Do you use grape juice? Wheat and crackers? One cup or many?

And do you celebrate the Lord’s Day on Saturday or Sunday?

Just wondering…'cause even with folks reading the very same Scriptures there’s lots of different interpretations coming up about what it means.

Those things you listed does it matter?

Does the alcoholic or pregnant woman that is not allowed to consume wine not receiving the true Eucharist if it is grape juice that is consecrated?

Remeber for years Catholics were not receiving the full Eucharist because they were only taking the bread and not the wine.

These are applications that you are describing and not interpretations.

Saturday or Sunday- this is one that all of us may be quilty of:

Remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy.

Having said that man is so full of sin that I think **being able to keep any day **holy would be a good thing!!!

 

[KathleenGee]

Tommy,

Thank you for taking the time to read the catechism…yes what you have shared is what we should do…and all catholics should have the catechism in their homes…

I suggest you continue to reflect on those teachings, hold them to your heart and pray to the Holy Spirit to lead you to the right Catholic parish where you experience ‘home’.

We Catholics here in America are coming out from alot of inner difficulties that split us apart…and you probably went to parishes that are still healing…

 

[PRmerger]

Those things you listed does it matter?

Ah, the “it’s not an essential” argument.

Do you have any Scripture verses, shaick, that say, “These are the things that matter in the Bible, and these are the things that are irrelevant”?

Does the alcoholic or pregnant woman that is not allowed to consume wine not receiving the true Eucharist if it is grape juice that is consecrated?

Yup. If anyone receives grape juice at “Mass” it is not the true Eucharist.

Remeber for years Catholics were not receiving the full Eucharist because they were only taking the bread and not the wine.

You are quite unfamiliar with Catholic teaching, shaick. Unless you can provide a source that says we were not receiving the full Eucharist? Each species is the body/blood/soul and divinity of Christ, in His resurrected fullness.

 

[PRmerger]

These are applications that you are describing and not interpretations.

Fair enough. Which application is correct then, and how do you know? There are some who insist that baptism must be done in adulthood. Some who use this “application” in infancy. Some insist it’s an ordinance. Some proclaim it’s a sacrament. Some say it’s not a valid “application” unless one is fully immersed. Some say sprinkling is ok.

How do we know which “application” is correct?

 

[shaky]

Okay this is slightly off topic but I think it deserves a little comment.

Hi benedictus

I think its Right on topic.

If we fail in this duty then we fall into the sin of omission.

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[PRmerger]

You don’t Admonish a unbeliever.

Firstly, do you have a Bible verse that says this?

Secondly, just because someone claims he is a believer does not make him saved. For do not even the demons believe?

 

[shaky]

Interesting. How do you do these rituals if you don’t attend a church and have a presbyter?

And what about all those other denominations that have read the very same Scriptures and come to contrary doctrines?

That is, some use Scripture to say baptism must be done in a river.
Some say Jesus would never have drunk wine. And use of multiple cups is allowed.
Some are quite insistent that the Lord’s Day is Saturday.

They all use Scripture to back up their doctrines.

Hi PRmerger

You can do it in a house.

Contrary doctrines: I can clearly see how wrong they are. what gets me i show them were there going wrong by useing other scriptures to back up what i am saying.
Like when they say father is greater then Jesus, using scripture. I use scripture to prove there co-equal. I use scripture showing where Jesus was made a little lower then the angles. I explain this happened at incarnation . So while Jesus walked the earth. The father was greater then him. Then i use scripture were Jesus says to his father. Now glorify me with the glory i had with you in the beginning. This explains clearly that Jesus is co-equal
when i keep doing it throughout the false doctrine. They go silent on me. I am still waiting for them to show me different.

It is because they miss-interpret scripture by twisting the scripture. Then there useing the bible wrong by hoping around it. Some ignore certain scriptures altogether. believing they should not be there.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Those things you listed does it matter?

Does the alcoholic or pregnant woman that is not allowed to consume wine not receiving the true Eucharist if it is grape juice that is consecrated?

Remeber for years Catholics were not receiving the full Eucharist because they were only taking the bread and not the wine.

These are applications that you are describing and not interpretations.

Saturday or Sunday- this is one that all of us may be quilty of:

Remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy.

Having said that man is so full of sin that I think **being able to keep any day **holy would be a good thing!!!

Umm. . . .wow. Where did you **ever get the completely incorrect idea that only receiving the Body of the Lord was somehow not getting “Full” Eucharist, and that one MUST receive the Blood as well? The fact that reception of both (if permitted by one’s bishop) is a ‘fuller’ sign does not mean that reception of one (Body OR Blood) is ‘LESSER’. **

If you are receiving the totality of Christ (and I do not believe that ANY Christian teaches that He is separate and that His Body and His Blood are two separate unequal entities!!!) in receiving ONE species, then receiving two is simply getting a little more of ‘the whole’.

Picture Christ as one whole, and imagine you can receive Him ‘once’ (the Body OR Blood), and then imagine you can receive Him ‘again’ (whichever of the two, Body or Blood, you did not receive the first time).

Are you getting “DOUBLE” Christ??? If He was fully there with the first species (and He is), aren’t you getting “all” the first time? As well as the second? Doesn’t the second have you receiving ‘all’, but just 'one more time" (and after all, people can receive every day if they choose so it isn’t as though people are getting ‘lots more’. )

**Honestly, I wish people would learn what the CHURCH REALLY TEACHES instead of putting their own erroneous ‘take’ onto a Church teaching and presenting it as fact. . .when it is not. Catholic Christians NEVER believed that reception of one species was ‘only part of the Eucharist.’ **

 

[PRmerger]

.

It would not be a case of PRMerger judging you but rather the Lord.

 

[schaick]

Ah, the “it’s not an essential” argument.

Do you have any Scripture verses, shaick, that say, “These are the things that matter in the Bible, and these are the things that are irrelevant”?

Yup. If anyone receives grape juice at “Mass” it is not the true Eucharist.

You are quite unfamiliar with Catholic teaching, shaick. Unless you can provide a source that says we were not receiving the full Eucharist? Each species is the body/blood/soul and divinity of Christ, in His resurrected fullness.

We know from GOD’s Word what is required of us for our salvation.

If it doesn’t go against GOD’s Word and isn’t spelled out specifically in GOD’s Word- it doesn’t matter.

Do you think it matters whether the grape juice is fermented or not? After consecration doesn’t it become transformed under the species/accidents to the Blood of Christ?

Jesus specifically says that the bread is HIS Body and the fruit of the vine is HIS Blood.

Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America:
(Source: USCCB)

1. Since, however, by reason of the sign value, **sharing in both eucharistic species reflects more fully the sacred realities **that the Liturgy signifies, the Church in her wisdom has made provisions in recent years so that more frequent eucharistic participation from both the sacred host and the chalice of salvation might be made possible for the laity in the Latin Church.
2. From the first days of the Church’s celebration of the Eucharist, Holy Communion consisted of the reception of both species in fulfillment of the Lord’s command to “take and eat . . . take and drink.” The distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds was thus the norm for more than a millennium of Catholic liturgical practice.
3. The practice of Holy Communion under both kinds at Mass continued until the late eleventh century, when the custom of distributing the Eucharist to the faithful under the form of bread alone began to grow. By the twelfth century theologians such as Peter Cantor speak of Communion under one kind as a “custom” of the Church. This practice spread until the Council of Constance in 1415 decreed that Holy Communion under the form of bread alone would be distributed to the faithful.
4. The Council’s **decision to restore Holy Communion under both kinds **at the bishop’s discretion took expression in the first edition of the Missale Romanum and enjoys an even more generous application in the third typical edition of the Missale Romanum:
   Holy Communion has a more complete form as a sign when it is received under both kinds. For in this manner of reception a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet shines forth. Moreover there is a clearer expression of that will by which the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord and of the relationship of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Father’s kingdom.

The General Instruction further states that “at the same time the faithful should be guided toward a desire to take part more intensely in a sacred rite in which the sign of the Eucharistic meal stands out more explicitly.”

1. The extension of the faculty for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds does not represent a change in the Church’s immemorial beliefs concerning the Holy Eucharist. Rather, today the Church finds it salutary to restore a practice, when appropriate, that for various reasons was not opportune when the Council of Trent was convened in 1545. But with the passing of time, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the reform of the Second Vatican Council has resulted in the restoration of a practice by which the faithful are again able to experience “a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet.”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

We know from GOD’s Word what is required of us for our salvation.

If it doesn’t go against GOD’s Word and isn’t spelled out specifically in GOD’s Word- it doesn’t matter.

Do you think it matters whether the grape juice is fermented or not? After consecration doesn’t it become transformed under the species/accidents to the Blood of Christ?

Jesus specifically says that the bread is HIS Body and the fruit of the vine is HIS Blood.

Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America:
(Source: USCCB)

1. Since, however, by reason of the sign value, **sharing in both eucharistic species reflects more fully the sacred realities **that the Liturgy signifies, the Church in her wisdom has made provisions in recent years so that more frequent eucharistic participation from both the sacred host and the chalice of salvation might be made possible for the laity in the Latin Church.
2. From the first days of the Church’s celebration of the Eucharist, Holy Communion consisted of the reception of both species in fulfillment of the Lord’s command to “take and eat . . . take and drink.” The distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds was thus the norm for more than a millennium of Catholic liturgical practice.
3. The practice of Holy Communion under both kinds at Mass continued until the late eleventh century, when the custom of distributing the Eucharist to the faithful under the form of bread alone began to grow. By the twelfth century theologians such as Peter Cantor speak of Communion under one kind as a “custom” of the Church. This practice spread until the Council of Constance in 1415 decreed that Holy Communion under the form of bread alone would be distributed to the faithful.
4. The Council’s **decision to restore Holy Communion under both kinds **at the bishop’s discretion took expression in the first edition of the Missale Romanum and enjoys an even more generous application in the third typical edition of the Missale Romanum:
   Holy Communion has a more complete form as a sign when it is received under both kinds. For in this manner of reception a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet shines forth. Moreover there is a clearer expression of that will by which the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord and of the relationship of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Father’s kingdom.

The General Instruction further states that “at the same time the faithful should be guided toward a desire to take part more intensely in a sacred rite in which the sign of the Eucharistic meal stands out more explicitly.”

21. The extension of the faculty for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds does not represent a change in the Church’s immemorial beliefs concerning the Holy Eucharist. Rather, today the Church finds it salutary to restore a practice, when appropriate, that for various reasons was not opportune when the Council of Trent was convened in 1545. But with the passing of time, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the reform of the Second Vatican Council has resulted in the restoration of a practice by which the faithful are again able to experience “a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet.”

 

[PRmerger]

We know from GOD’s Word what is required of us for our salvation.

So are you saying that only verses that apply to salvation are the essentials?

If it doesn’t go against GOD’s Word and isn’t spelled out specifically in GOD’s Word- it doesn’t matter.

Do you have a Scripture verse that says this, schaick?

 

[Julia1996]

Julia,

I see you just joined the forums in July. Welcome!

Yes. I did. Thank you for noticing.

After joining CAF, I learn so many new things every day.

 

[schaick]

Umm. . . .wow. Where did you **ever get the completely incorrect idea that only receiving the Body of the Lord was somehow not getting “Full” Eucharist, and that one MUST receive the Blood as well? The fact that reception of both (if permitted by one’s bishop) is a ‘fuller’ sign does not mean that reception of one (Body OR Blood) is ‘LESSER’. **

If you are receiving the totality of Christ (and I do not believe that ANY Christian teaches that He is separate and that His Body and His Blood are two separate unequal entities!!!) in receiving ONE species, then receiving two is simply getting a little more of ‘the whole’.

Picture Christ as one whole, and imagine you can receive Him ‘once’ (the Body OR Blood), and then imagine you can receive Him ‘again’ (whichever of the two, Body or Blood, you did not receive the first time).

Are you getting “DOUBLE” Christ??? If He was fully there with the first species (and He is), aren’t you getting “all” the first time? As well as the second? Doesn’t the second have you receiving ‘all’, but just 'one more time" (and after all, people can receive every day if they choose so it isn’t as though people are getting ‘lots more’. )

**Honestly, I wish people would learn what the CHURCH REALLY TEACHES instead of putting their own erroneous ‘take’ onto a Church teaching and presenting it as fact. . .when it is not. Catholic Christians NEVER believed that reception of one species was ‘only part of the Eucharist.’ **

No need to try and ridicule me- you are questioning what Jesus taught.

How is it that catholics accuse some Christians for not taking literally that it is HIS Body and Blood yet can’t take the rest literally?

Matthew 26
26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said,** Take, eat; this is my body.**
27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying,** Drink ye all of it;
28For this is my blood** of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
29But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

Mark 14
22And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
23And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
24And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
25Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

Luke 22
19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and **brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body **which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

 

[PRmerger]

Do you think it matters whether the grape juice is fermented or not? After consecration doesn’t it become transformed under the species/accidents to the Blood of Christ?

Indeed, it matters, schaick!

One can’t baptize with chocolate milk.
One can’t use Coca-Cola and Pringles to confect the Eucharist.
One can’t make a lizard a priest.
One can’t marry a turnip.

One must have proper form and proper matter in order to confect the sacraments. Otherwise, you get the absurdities listed above.

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus specifically says that the bread is HIS Body and the fruit of the vine is HIS Blood.

Come on, now, schaick. Do you really think that Catholics believe that Wonder Bread is HIS Body? And that any fruit of the vine is actually HIS blood? Really?

Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America:
(Source: USCCB)

1. The extension of the faculty for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds does not represent a change in the Church’s immemorial beliefs concerning the Holy Eucharist. Rather, today the Church finds it salutary to restore a practice, when appropriate, that for various reasons was not opportune when the Council of Trent was convened in 1545. But with the passing of time, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the reform of the Second Vatican Council has resulted in the restoration of a practice by which the faithful are again able to experience “a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet.”

To which Catholics give a hearty “Amen!”