How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[rev_kevin]

I have been reading RevKevin but when I stand before the Throne I want to know we did are best to defend Him and His Church. As for RevKevin all we can do is pray and leave it up the the Holy Spirit because his heart has been hidden to the truth.

What you are saying is if I don’t believe in what the CC teaches or believes then when I go to the throne I will be damned to hell. My heart has not been hidden from the truth. The truth is in Jesus Christ himself not the teachings of the CC. Jesus said believe in me and you shall have eternal life, not believe in the CC and you will have eternal life or belive in the Apostles teaching you will have eternal life. The CC nor the Apostles can give eternal life only Christ can. You can say whatever you want about my salvation, I know whats in my heart, and God knows whats in my heart, you don’t. I will defend my faith just as much as you defend your.

 

[benedictus2]

One must take into consideration that the discussion, while appearing to be between 2 or 3 non-Catholics vs Catholics, is really for the benefit of the many many lurkers who scan the CAFs. Who knows.

Maybe those who are really seeking will find the Truth in the course of this dialogue, even if they post not a single word.

Yes, yes and yes!

When I post, I don’t post just for the ones I am currently debating. There are those who may be following the debate and who may stumble on to the thread later who might be helped by what we have written here.

Recently, someone thanked me for a post I made many months ago in another thread. He had just read it and he said it really helped him.

We cannot think that everything we write will sink in or make a difference. It might even be just a simple phrase, but when it is God’s time, it will enlighten someone if God so chooses.

So I think it is good that all the Protestant’s here bring up their arguments as it helps us present our case better. Sometimes, there might be an angle of this topic that we might not have thought of before and by this continuing debate these are brought to the fore and an answer put forth.

 

[benedictus2]

Betrothal: Baptism is our acceptance of Christ into our lives.

Well not really. Baptism is when we become members of the mystical Body of Christ, the Church. Babies are not in a position to accept Christ, but we baptize them all the same because they are also called be members of the Mystical Body of Christ.

 

[benedictus2]

I do not reject those words as you say I do. I don’t believe they mean what you think they mean. Its not the teachings of Our Lord that I reject, I disagree with some of the teachings of the CC. But thanks for the prayers.

I don’t think you mean to reject the teachings of our Lord but whether you mean to or not you do reject them when you deny Him in the Eucharist, because this teaching came directly from Him and from no one else.

The teachings of the Catholic Church are all based on the teaching of Our Lord.

You can simply ask yourself this: For hundreds of years, this has been the belief of Christians, right from the birth of the Church at Pentecost. Fifteen hundred years later some don’t believe that any more. Who is more credible, the apostles and those who came after the apostles or Zwingli and Calvin who came 1500 years later?

 

[benedictus2]

What you are saying is if I don’t believe in what the CC teaches or believes then when I go to the throne I will be damned to hell.

Not quite. It all depends on whether you really do not believe or you choose to not believe even when the arguments have suddenly started to make sense. That kind of deliberate choice to unbelief is a denial of the Holy Spirit. However if you really just can grasp it then that is another matter.

My heart has not been hidden from the truth.

No I don’t think it has been hidden from the truth. I would ask though whether you believe what you believe inspite of all that has been written here and elsewhere or because you have decided that this is what you belive and regardless of what every one else has to say that is it. If the latter then that means you have closed your heart to possible promptings by the Holy Spirit.

The truth is in Jesus Christ himself

Yes. Amen.

not the teachings of the CC.

Well actually the truth is in the teaching of the Catholic Church because Jesus willed it to be so. That is why He sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (which incidentally is today) and that is why today is the birthday of the Church. He said He will send the Holy Spirit who REMIND the apostles of everything He had told them so that they can follow His will.

Jesus said believe in me and you shall have eternal life, not believe in the CC and you will have eternal life or belive in the Apostles teaching you will have eternal life

That is true, and the Catholic Church has never said believe in the Catholic Church and you will have eternal life. The Catholic Church has always proclaimed Christ and she started doing that on Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out on her.

 

[benedictus2]

Do you remember what you wrote when you said I was wrong that is not what Jesus said? You said that Jesus said, Take it and eat it this is my body. Which I did say yes in Matthew it says take it and eat it but not in the other writtings. As far as Luke goes it does not say take it and eat it it says “This is my body, given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” Where do you see take it and eat it. In Mark it says, “take it, this is my body.” Where do you see take it and eat it" like it says in Matthew.

Are you pitting one evangelist against another?

Now here’s where you are wrong about what I have posted, I always said it said “this is my body.” I never said it didn’t. What I’m saying is when Jesus held up the bread and broke it, and said this is my body, he didn’t mean that it has changed into his real body or that he was in the bread. Jesus was using the bread as a symbol of his body that was going to be broken for our sins.

Well that kind of reasoning just does not make sense. He said this is my body. If it is just a symbol he would have said it is a symbol. Besides why would He even bother giving them bread to eat as a symbol. What is the symbolic signicance of eating bread, unless it actually effects what it is supposed to do (that is gve life) and the only way it will effect what it is supposed to do is it it were truly His body, because as He said in John, His flesh is true food.

You asked when Jesus said “take this” what were they to do with it, well logic would say they would eat it. But just because they ate it don’t mean that it became the real presence of Christ.

No their eating it is not what makes it the real presence of Christ. What makes it really and truly Christ’s body is Christ Himself, because He said so. If he hadn’t said so it would not be so.

The difference between your position and our is that we take Christ at His word. We take Word who was from the beginning at His word. When He said so, we believe that it is so.

 

[benedictus2]

This thought seems to define Catholic thought.
How are you so sure that Augustine knows more about Jesus than others?
Augustine was a man like others and therefore he was possibly subject to some error as all others are.

You obviously don’t know St Augustine and you obviouly have not read the posts in this thread.

Read St Augustine then read the posts of the protestants in this thread.

To forget that all men are subject to the possibility of error is to allow for possible error to become locked in as “truth”.
I am not saying that St Augustine knows everything about Christ. Just that in the matter we are discussing now, he knows so much more than rev kevin or any protestant currently on this thread.

 

[PRmerger]

Betrothal: An engagement to be married. the act or ceremony of becoming engaged to be married. To promise to take or given in marriage.
Baptism is our acceptance of Christ into our lives.

That’s how you see it.

We see Baptism as a mark from God that we are claimed by Him.

1280 Baptism imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual sign, the character, which consecrates the baptized person for Christian worship.CCC

So, now we see that 2 people can read the very same Scriptures and come up with 2 different understandings.

Did God come up with a plan to resolve this? Or did he just leave us to flounder with: you have your interpretation; I have mine?

If it’s the latter, we see the fruits of this–now there are over 40,000 different Christian denominations, each saying, “you have your interpretation; I have mine”. Clearly, that is not the intention of God but of the Author of Confusion.

God did provide a plan so people won’t have to flounder with not being certain. It’s called the Church.

 

[larkin31]

I don’t think you mean to reject the teachings of our Lord but whether you mean to or not you do reject them when you deny Him in the Eucharist, because this teaching came directly from Him and from no one else.

The teachings of the Catholic Church are all based on the teaching of Our Lord.

You can simply ask yourself this: For hundreds of years, this has been the belief of Christians, right from the birth of the Church at Pentecost. Fifteen hundred years later some don’t believe that any more. Who is more credible, the apostles and those who came after the apostles or Zwingli and Calvin who came 1500 years later?

Good question.

In science, the thinkers of the past were wrong about many many things for thousands of years. Is this not possible in faith?

 

[PRmerger]

Good question.

In science, the thinkers of the past were wrong about many many things for thousands of years. Is this not possible in faith?

Well, yes. Of course!

Those who deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist are clearly wrong in their faith!

 

[rinnie]

Of course we all have certain gifts. But to say that every single Pope has the gift to interperet scripture seems far fetched.
You are correct if one rejects God they do not have the Holy Spirit in them, I do not reject God therefore I have the Holy Spirit within me.
So the Pope don’t have the gift because according to what you are saying, there is no scripture that says that.
I’m not in direct conflict with the teachings of our Lord, I don’t believe in some of the teachings of the CC.

The Pope most certainly had the gift of the Holy Spriit to teach and interpret scripture. It happened when the Apostles were sitting there and Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit into them. They had that gift of the Holy Spirit to pass on as Jesus told them to.

Read the scripture the passing of the Priesthood was done by the laying of hands that had to be given by the Apostles or their successors. St Paul tells us to stay to the teachings of the Apostles not others. No other Church has the teachings of written and oral scripture. Why would that be? Simple because on the CC has the Fullness of the Truth. You cannot have the fullness of the truth if you only have half of the truth.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

[SIGN]Are you pitting one evangelist against another?[/SIGN]

Well that kind of reasoning just does not make sense. He said this is my body. If it is just a symbol he would have said it is a symbol. Besides why would He even bother giving them bread to eat as a symbol. What is the symbolic signicance of eating bread, unless it actually effects what it is supposed to do (that is gve life) and the only way it will effect what it is supposed to do is it it were truly His body, because as He said in John, His flesh is true food.

No their eating it is not what makes it the real presence of Christ. What makes it really and truly Christ’s body is Christ Himself, because He said so. If he hadn’t said so it would not be so.

The difference between your position and our is that we take Christ at His word. We take Word who was from the beginning at His word. When He said so, we believe that it is so.

That is exactly what he is TRYING to do, but has failed. All of the Apostles taught the same exact thing. How do I know this? Simple that were led by the Holy Spriit. The HS has one teaching not many. Even though Rev Kev tries to even make the Apostles teach different teachings they do not. They are like the Pope and Bishops in sucession are guaranteed that promise by God, That he will give them the words. And it will be indeed the same words.

You would think that when Rev Kev has to go to such a stretch to even try to argue such a point he would see the truth for himself:shrug:

 

[KathleenGee]

He’s here for a reason…keeping everyone in prayer…God bless you, Rinnie, for all your work on CAF!

Kathleen

 

[Nicea325]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

That is exactly what he is TRYING to do, but has failed. All of the Apostles taught the same exact thing. How do I know this? Simple that were led by the Holy Spriit. The HS has one teaching not many. Even though Rev Kev tries to even make the Apostles teach different teachings they do not. They are like the Pope and Bishops in sucession are guaranteed that promise by God, That he will give them the words. And it will be indeed the same words.

You would think that when Rev Kev has to go to such a stretch to even try to argue such a point he would see the truth for himself:shrug:

I agree wholeheartedly. The idea or belief that the HS was teaching the 12 different things is absurd. I know many Protestants do not like to hear it,but I am sorry,but the HS is not responsible for thousands upon thousands of different churches teaching conflicting beliefs.

 

[FantomScholar]

I agree wholeheartedly. The idea or belief that the HS was teaching the 12 different things is absurd. I know many Protestants do not like to hear it,but I am sorry,but the HS is not responsible for thousands upon thousands of different churches teaching conflicting beliefs.

What would make you think that this is something that Protestants assert?

 

[Nicea325]

What would make you think that this is something that Protestants assert?

I said many Protestants,not every Protestant. And what makes you think it is not something many Protestants believe? Many Protestants I know believe God is responsible for different churches. I am simply telling you what I have been told.

 

[PRmerger]

What would make you think that this is something that Protestants assert?

It’s just the reality of what has happened when people started buying the paradigm: “the HS will lead me to understand Scripture. I don’t need no stinkin’ church authority to tell me that!”

A while ago someone here on the CAFs made up a (non-exhaustive) list of different doctrines that have arisen from the above paradigm:

What has resulted is 40,000 Christian denominations, each claiming that their variation of the list below was inspired by the HS. This chaos and confusion, IMHO, cannot be from the HS, but from the Author of Confusion.

Abortion
Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
Baptism
Can men and women sit together during services?
Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help
Church leadership, or no leadership
Death/Soul Sleep
Divorce
Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed)
Head coverings or no head coverings
Health and wealth gospel
Hell, or no hell
Homosexuality
Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
Is it permissible for women to teach Scripture?
Judge others, don’t judge others
Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
Once saved, always saved
Ordination
Predestination
Rapture
Sola scriptura/private interpretation
The Eucharist (Communion)
themselves)
Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
Trinity vs. Unitarianism
What is original sin and its effects on humanity
What’s a sin, what is not a sin
When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
Women pastors, no women pastors

 

[FantomScholar]

I said many Protestants,not every Protestant. And what makes you think it is not something many Protestants believe? Many Protestants I know believe God is responsible for different churches. I am simply telling you what I have been told.

That may be true. I have often encountered people who argue that different denominations are a good thing. On a certain level, this is true only inasmuch as it can help us to recognize truth from error. For example, if a group from within Roman Catholicism were teaching, say, Mormon doctrine on the Trinity, but stayed within Rome, it would lead to a lot more confusion among Roman Catholics than if Mormons were a completely different group, which they are. So there will always be separation along doctrinal lines. This was true almost within a generation from Pentecost.

On a greater level, however, denominations are not a good thing in that Christ calls us toward unity in the faith. Although, I believe Christ’s high priestly prayer in John 17 is speaking of ontological unity among Christians (“that they may be one, even as you and I are one”). False teaching, though, is false, even if the church body is orthodox on the vast majority of teaching. So no, I don’t believe the Holy Spirit has led churches with false teachings to those conclusions. This isn’t to deny that the Spirit is still at work within them. The reason for my response to your comment is because that accusation is often made, but I have seen very little evidence to support the hypothesis that we believe the Spirit is leading people to multiple truths.

 

[FantomScholar]

It’s just the reality of what has happened when people started buying the paradigm: “the HS will lead me to understand Scripture. I don’t need no stinkin’ church authority to tell me that!”

Can you please identify who it is that teaches such a thing as a point of doctrine?

 

[Roy5]

A concern of mine over the years has been the impact of paganism and pagan religions upon Christianity once it expanded into the Greco-Roman world. I’ve always been concerned that communion is an area susceptible to pagan influence and can’t help but wonder if that influence didn’t make its impact. To believe in the ‘real presence’ of Christ is no problem. “Lo, I am with you always…” But to believe that the bread and wine change in substance once the priest offers the prayer of consecration - well, I find that in conflict with reason. I know, I know. Miracles and all that. But I have expressed my honest doubt here. As for Christ’s words, he spoke in metaphors and similes and parables all the time.

I saw a study not long ago that a majority of American Catholics don't believe in transubstantiaion either. So, I'm not alone in this. I believe that millions have quietly left the church because they simply and honestly cannot believe what they find to be unbelievable. Millions of others remain in the church for a variety of reasons who also don't accept this and other teachings. I guess these are what are called cafeteria Catholics. What should be done with them? In the 'good old days' they could be tried and executed for heresy, but here in America that not an option. My guess is that they have about as good a chance to get into heaven as all of the rest of us.

The church should admire and admit people who can't sincerely subscribe to all those teachings. Did Padre Pio really bilocal and levitate? Hm!