How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[rev_kevin]

*You are saying that the Holy Spirit has been wrong for 1500 years!!! People in the Church have made mistake,(even Popes) and sinned but when it comes to matters of Faith and Morals, of Doctrine, of teaching the Church is protected by the Spirit. Jesus needed to protect His Church - we couldn’t do it without His help.

Christianity is the fulfillment of the Jewish Faith. Don’t you believe Jesus was the Messiah? Of course you do. Then, you should study the history of the Church and you will understand.*

Blessings
Cinette

I believe what he is saying is humans can be wrong. All humans can be wrong even if they are guided by the Holy Spitit. The Holy Spitit can quide you but its up to the individual to do what and to understand what the Holy Spirit is saying and wants you to do. Even if they are guided by the Holy Spirit they are human and can be wrong. The Holy Spirit isn’t wrong its man that can be wrong. The Holy Spirit guides all of us. But do all of us do what the Holy Spirit wants, No. Do all of us see it the way the Holy Spirit wants us to see, No. Man is fallible even when guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guides us not forces us to do what he wants us to do. Mistakes happen even when guided by the Holy Spirit. If someone tells someone something and they tell it to someone else and so on, things get left out or added, even when guided by the Holy Spirit because humans are fallable, no matter who they are.

 

[Cinette]

I believe what he is saying is humans can be wrong. All humans can be wrong even if they are guided by the Holy Spitit. The Holy Spitit can quide you but its up to the individual to do what and to understand what the Holy Spirit is saying and wants you to do. Even if they are guided by the Holy Spirit they are human and can be wrong. The Holy Spirit isn’t wrong its man that can be wrong. The Holy Spirit guides all of us. But do all of us do what the Holy Spirit wants, No. Do all of us see it the way the Holy Spirit wants us to see, No. Man is fallible even when guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guides us not forces us to do what he wants us to do. Mistakes happen even when guided by the Holy Spirit. If someone tells someone something and they tell it to someone else and so on, things get left out or added, even when guided by the Holy Spirit because humans are fallable, no matter who they are.

Yes, we are fallible beings. Yes, we may not allow ourselves to be guided by the Holy Spirit. You are correct.

However, we are talking about the Church Jesus founded for us all. Do you think that he would allow it to fail? Absolutely not! Jesus kept his promise.

People have said no to the Holy Spirit when they left the Church founded by Jesus. This is how humans are - they like to play God and think they know best. Others have just followed the path of other generations and are born into the Protestant denominations.

Sometimes there are people on the threads who are like sport fans - this is MY team nomatter what - I stick by my team - my Dad was a fan and I am a fan and so on. They are like that with their denominations - it makes them feel good. I am not referring to all Protestants because I have a lot of respect for many. We see them on the threads all the time and also learn from them - they make me research and learn and I am grateful for that. It is great and that is why I like to debate issues where we do not agree. When the thread is closed I always feel a little sad but I continue to reflect and often go back to read certain postings.

Blessings
Cinette

 

[larkin31]

*You are saying that the Holy Spirit has been wrong for 1500 years!!! People in the Church have made mistake,(even Popes) and sinned but when it comes to matters of Faith and Morals, of Doctrine, of teaching the Church is protected by the Spirit. Jesus needed to protect His Church - we couldn’t do it without His help.

Christianity is the fulfillment of the Jewish Faith. Don’t you believe Jesus was the Messiah? Of course you do. Then, you should study the history of the Church and you will understand.*

Please note: I am agnostic.

What I am asking you to do is acknowledge that you exempt your own faith from the mistake that you claim all others have made. All you are saying is this: “I believe that my faith is the one and only true faith.” As a statement of faith, this is fine. But as a foundation for argument or persuasion for infallibility, it is weak. Even the very first humans in Eden under God’s eye erred. Rather dramatically! I don’t see that God has EVER prevented humans from erring–not even his prophets (c.f. life of Moses).

 

[benedictus2]

Well, your argument simply is that this group of believers can’t be wrong for that long. I see no reason why believers can’t be wrong for several millenia. Or more. It’s happened with other faiths, right?

I will reply to this two ways.

First address is to Larkin the agnostic : As an agnostic, that is a very reasonable question. Since as an agnostic you do not believe in the Bible then the first thing I would propose first is that we debate the truth of Theism, then Christianity and after that then may be we can addres the question you have put forth above. But since this is neither the thread or the time to do that, then I will just say… you will need a lot of basic before you can even comprehend the possible answers to your question.

Second address is to Larkin the protestant (pretend for a while that you are for I am sure you still remember the beliefs that you were supposed to hold as a Christian) -

The first spring board is the Bible. Since we both hold the Bible to be inerrant, then we can search scripture for support for my argument.

The first is that Jesus promised that the gates of hell will not prevail and that He will send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth. If we both believe as true that Jesus is God and that the Bible is inerrant, then we must accept that the Church is infallible with regards doctrine because that is what Christ promised.

Now I can make that claim to Esdra because we do have this common belief in the in-errancy of the Bible and the divinity of Christ.

Why do you consider the RCC exempt from the mistakes that other believers have made? It’s simply your faith that exempts them, no? Judaism is older than Christianity. Are Jews also right, or even more right, because they have believed such for so long?

If you remember your protestant days, we believe Christianity to be true because Christ is the incarnation of God. Christ is the messiah and therefore supersedes Judaism, becuase Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism.

 

[benedictus2]

How long have the Jews been wrong? 2000 years! The Jews were God’s chosen people, yet they still await the Messiah.

Exactly! They have been wrong for 2000 years. As a Christian you need to believe that they are wrong, otherwise you are not a Christian at all since you obviously do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah.

As Peter said to them, the Author of life came and you killed Him.

 

[benedictus2]

Please note: I am agnostic.

What I am asking you to do is acknowledge that you exempt your own faith from the mistake that you claim all others have made. All you are saying is this: “I believe that my faith is the one and only true faith.”

Yes!

As a statement of faith, this is fine. But as a foundation for argument or persuasion for infallibility, it is weak.

Not if the debate is between two Christians, because then they have a common ground, the Bible. Otherwise if only one is Christian, then the use of the Bible by that person becomes fallacious - circular reasoning.

Even the very first humans in Eden under God’s eye erred. Rather dramatically!

Okay, here you are mixing your terminologies again, which I think you have done before.

The error in Adam and Eve’s case is not doctrine, but sin. God did not promise that the Church will be free from sin but from lie.

Adam and Eve knew what was the truth. They had it straight from God’s mouth. Their error was not proclaiming the lie but following the lie which led to pride and disobedience. In short to sin.

I don’t see that God has EVER prevented humans from erring–not even his prophets (c.f. life of Moses).

Again, depends on what you mean by erring. Committing a sin ( I think God has intervened in some ways I am sure) but what we are talking about her is error as in lie. That is the one promise He gave, that the Church will not teach error, not that the Church will be sinless. Otherwise, there would be no need for the sacraments.

 

[benedictus2]

*That doesn’t make sense Esdra!!

It is a lot more fun to debate on things we differ - I enjoy it more. Think about it!

Blessings
Cinette*

Precisely! If we both agree on everything, what is there to debate about

And that is the reason we debate. So that maybe once illumined by reason under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then we can agree on everything.

And then we shall be one as He and the Father are one

 

[benedictus2]

So, to conclude, I see no problem why Protestants keep being accused here that they are sects and don’t have the full truth and that they are not founded by Christ Jesus Himself…

I am sorry to have to cut your post just to this section but it is very late and there are still other posts I have yet to reply to.

I have only one answer to this. Because the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth. The protestant denominations all came only after 1500 years of Christianity. Once cut off, these initial branches kept dividing and dividing and dividing. The further down the line one’s denomination is, the further one gets from the truth.

But… I do believe that the Holy Spirit is operative in your lives but not in your doctrines. God will not abandon His creation just because of the rebellious pride of the reformers.

As a matter of fact, I truly have a great appreciation for the protestants, more so now since I have realized how greatly new age belief has encroached into our parishes. I love the fact that a lot of Protestants are completely focused on Jesus Christ unlike some of the Catholics I know.

It makes me also kind of sad. We all believe in the same Lord, we all love Him equally - and what we are arguing here are about are really peanuts!! (I know, you won’t agree here, benedictus…)

But that is the consequence of not being one Body together. That is the result of the breaking of the Body of Christ. And the sad reality is, that as lone as hold different doctrines, then we cannot be one, because what will unify us will be our belief. That is why you are one with your immediate baptist community but you are not one with all the other protestant denominations.

I have said this before, and I still maintain this to be true. We will never be one unless every one becomes Catholic.

But do I mean that we cannot even fellowship? Does that mean we must hate each other? Well no. I greatly value your (name removed by moderator)ut and I highly appreciate more than you can ever know how much you love our Lord and how much you wish we are all one.

For me it is very important that the person must love our Lord, unequivocally as the one True God in the Trinity and no other.

It is not for me to say that you should be a Catholic. God has allowed you to drift away from His Church. If He wants to, He can zap you just like that and infuse you with knowledge of the Catholic mysteries in the same way He did Fr Donald Calloway or Alphonse Ratisbone. But He did not do that.

All that I am here to do is to explain to you why I believe with my whole heart that you are wrong about the Catholic Church and use whatever God given talent I may have for that end.:hug1:

 

[larkin31]

…The first spring board is the Bible. Since we both hold the Bible to be inerrant, then we can search scripture for support for my argument.

The first is that Jesus promised that the gates of hell will not prevail and that He will send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth. If we both believe as true that Jesus is God and that the Bible is inerrant, then we must accept that the Church is infallible with regards doctrine because that is what Christ promised.

Now I can make that claim to Esdra because we do have this common belief in the in-errancy of the Bible and the divinity of Christ.

If you remember your protestant days, we believe Christianity to be true because Christ is the incarnation of God. Christ is the messiah and therefore supersedes Judaism, becuase Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism.My Protestant church (I was raised by a Protestant minister step-father) never claimed the Bible to be inerrant. Oh gosh, no. So your generalizations about Protestant belief is incorrect. Jesus was inerrant, but the folks who wrote the gospels and other books of the OT and NT were not inerrant in doing so. Inspired, yes. Inerrant, no.

 

[PRmerger]

Inspired, yes. Inerrant, no.

What does that mean?

 

[larkin31]

Okay, here you are mixing your terminologies again, which I think you have done before.

The error in Adam and Eve’s case is not doctrine, but sin. God did not promise that the Church will be free from sin but from lie.

“from lie”? I do not recall any such passage in the Bible. Where is this promise that the Church will be free “from lie”?

 

[benedictus2]

“from lie”? I do not recall any such passage in the Bible. Where is this promise that the Church will be free “from lie”?

How about the more precise term to be led into ALL TRUTH.

 

[benedictus2]

What does that mean?

Yes, I would like to piggy back on this question.

Larkin, what do you mean when you say it was inspired but not inerrant?

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit can inspire a person into error?

 

[shawn38]

Exactly! They have been wrong for 2000 years. As a Christian you need to believe that they are wrong, otherwise you are not a Christian at all since you obviously do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah.

As Peter said to them, the Author of life came and you killed Him.

We agree then that just because a belief is long standing doesn’t mean it’s correct.

 

[PRmerger]

We agree then that just because a belief is long standing doesn’t mean it’s correct.

Right.

No one here is saying that just because a belief is long standing it’s correct. What we are saying, is given Jesus’ words in Matt 16:18, Luke 10:16, does it make sense that for 1500 years the Church would be teaching something blasphemous?

 

[shawn38]

*You are saying that the Holy Spirit has been wrong for 1500 years!!! *

The Holy Spirit can’t be be wrong for He is the Spirit of Truth. This does not mean that man, believing he’s being guided by the Holy Spirit, is correct. Remember the devil discuises himself as an angel of light.

 

[benedictus2]

Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
1 Cor 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.
1 Cor 7:23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

What was the price?
Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”
1 Ptr 1:For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

That is all very well and good. But it still does not address my point that our redemption was not “finished” until Jesus Christ rose from the dead. So therefore, it cannot have been redemption that was meant by the “It” in “It” is finished.

Good. I’m glad we agree on this. However, where does it ever say that Jesus drank of this cup? It doesn’t. However the drinking is alluded to when He’s praying in the garden.

If you want to go down this track, I could counter with where does it say that He drank the first and the second? For that matter, how do we know even that it was really a passover since John did not say it was?

I comment more on this shortly after I understand your position more on the 4th cup.

I already have so not quite sure what you mean here.

A little note at this stage. The Catholic Church (as far as I know) has no defined interpretation of the this cup. What I have been advancing here is Scott Hahn’s exegesis so please note that I am not defending dogma here. I do think though that Scott has made a very good case for this kind of interpretation.

Before we can go further, we have to address “not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God”. Your position would have to mean that the day Christ was crucified is the day when he drinks it anew in the kingdom of God. Correct?

To be honest, I have not really given that much thought.

Having said that though, this is my musing on it.

The kingdom of God here does not necessarily force an eschatological reading.

Jesus is referred to as the kingdom of God. In Christ’s person is realized the kingdom of God.

But first let us ask, what would be the characteristic of the kingdom of God? Would it not be where God is supreme, Where God’s will is done?

So let us look at this from a broader Biblical perspective.

In the beginning of creation, we have the paradise, the sacrum convivium where God’s will is done and where God reigns but also dwells in easy fellowship with man.

Then comes the fall and the recapitulation by Chrsit.

Let us contrast the three stage of these events.

Falls 1st Stage – the lie of the devil: you will be come gods
Recapitulation 1stStage- The truth of Christ who is God.

Fall 2nd Stage – Pride – Adam and Eve who was made of humus (of earth) refuses to be just humus and wants to grasp at deity.
Recapitulation 3rd stage – Christ who IS Deity, humbles Himself and becomes human (Human and Humility both derive from the word humus – of the earth).

Fall 3rd Stage – Because of pride Adam and Eve disobeys in effect saying I will be god. My will be done. In the process brings death.
**Recapitulation 3rd Stage **– Jesus in humble submission to the will of the Father obeys even unto death (Not mine but thy will be done) so therefore purchases life for us once again.

So back to the kingdom of God. Once Adam and Eve declared their autonomy, the kingdom of God is no more. The will of God is no longer done. The will of the self takes over.

Christ in perfectly obeying the will of the Father submitting to it unto the cross , has by that action restored the Lordship of God in man. Once more, a human obeys the Father perfectly. So as He hangs on that cross, by submitting to this ignominious end, He reverses that disobedience and so we can definitely say that at this point, the Kingdom of God is once again restored by this perfect obedience.

Christ obviously did not ascend on that day, but descended into the prison and preach to the captives until the resurrection, three days later. Could you clarify this for me.

That is true. But this only becomes problematic if we limit it to an eschatological interpretation. You may be right in limiting this to an eschatological reading but for this to be true, every piece of the puzzle has to fall together and it just does not do that.

 

[benedictus2]

Mea culpa

Anytime. Hope you have a good rest. I look forward to your replies on the John 6 text. I listed it under this same thread title with the number 2 afterword.

I will try to locate it. If I don’t get to reply tonight (rather this morning since it is already 12:15 am) I will do so when I get back home tomorrow.

 

[PRmerger]

The Holy Spirit can’t be be wrong for He is the Spirit of Truth. This does not mean that man, believing he’s being guided by the Holy Spirit, is correct. Remember the devil discuises himself as an angel of light.

So, in your systemology, when 2 Christians who both claiming to be inspired by the HS come to different understandings of Scripture, how does one determine whose interpretation is correct?

 

[shawn38]

Right.

No one here is saying that just because a belief is long standing it’s correct. What we are saying, is given Jesus’ words in Matt 16:18, Luke 10:16, does it make sense that for 1500 years the Church would be teaching something blasphemous?

Peter’s proclamation that Christ is the Messiah? Obviously the gates of hell will never prevail against that.

Apparently satan prevailed against Peter leading him to deny Christ three times. Why would Christ want to build His church upon that?