How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rinnie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KathleenGee said:
Shawn,

Jesus’ continual prayer was that we would be one…you are contradicting Scripture and 1500 years of Christian practice…

The Lord has also called us to peace with His Word, not agitation and disputes.
Click to expand...
What’s wrong with contradicting standard practice? Jesus did. Jesus brought much agitation to his local authorities and to the lives of his followers.
 
shawn38 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Bingo! That is exactly what we have been saying all along. The promise of guidance into all truth was given to His Church and not everyone. You can just take for example the cults like Davidian, People’s Temple, etc.

But… having said that, those who read the Bible sincerely does get guided by the Holy Spirit as to how the scripture brings light into their own faith journey.
 
Jesus does not contradict Himself.

The Apostles didn’t contradict Him…their successors didn’t contradict Him…

but it has been going on by alot of people for the past 1500 years.

So you see here people just putting out Scripture and looping because there is no acknowledgment of lawful authority that Christ bestowed on the Apostles…
 
larkin31 said:
No. I am not commenting on what God CAN or CANNOT do. I am commenting on what HAPPENS in the Bible. There is no group of people, religious or otherwise, in the Bible who do not err. I see no logical reason that this pattern would end with the establishment of the Church on a person(s) no less fallible than those who err through the rest of the Bible. This is not a comment on what a God can or cannot do (that is pure speculation), but rather a summary of what, according to the biblical text, we have a record of people and groups actually doing. They ALL err, and the Bible repeatedly points out their errors, and this is all, supposedly, under the eye of God. Infallibility is a non-Biblical, theologically unnecessary belief in any and all connections to human endeavors. And ALL dogma is the result of human endeavors.
Click to expand...
Yoursaid that the Bible is inspired not inerrant.
We are asking you to explain how the Bible can be inspired by the Holy Spirit and yet be not inerrant.
 
benedictus2 said:
Yoursaid that the Bible is inspired not inerrant.
We are asking you to explain how the Bible can be inspired by the Holy Spirit and yet be not inerrant.
Click to expand...
Who’s “we”?

My answer: The same way that people can be inspired and erroneous. And people wrote the Bible. 🤷
 
benedictus2 said:
Yoursaid that the Bible is inspired not inerrant.
We are asking you to explain how the Bible can be inspired by the Holy Spirit and yet be not inerrant.
Click to expand...
Yes. And, if one is an agnostic, whom does he think is doing the inspiring? 😃
 
Larkin31,

It goes back then to Christology…how you define Christ…and how He is understood in the context of universal mankind. You have to study the times the people lived in for the Church to make such teachings.

We were talking about this very problem in Bible study today…how protestants think we have to follow this rule or that rule…but we have all come to see that the Church is right, and as we mature and learn more, we find out the context, the purpose, and the significance of why we practice the way we do…the Word of God Made Flesh…and incarnated into every day life.

All that we are taught upholds the integrity of Who Christ is and His mission and His calling for us to be one with HIm.
 
larkin31 said:
No. I am not commenting on what God CAN or CANNOT do. I am commenting on what HAPPENS in the Bible. There is no group of people, religious or otherwise, in the Bible who do not err. I see no logical reason that this pattern would end with the establishment of the Church on a person(s) no less fallible than those who err through the rest of the Bible. This is not a comment on what a God can or cannot do (that is pure speculation), but rather a summary of what, according to the biblical text, we have a record of people and groups actually doing. They ALL err, and the Bible repeatedly points out their errors, and this is all, supposedly, under the eye of God. Infallibility is a non-Biblical, theologically unnecessary belief in any and all connections to human endeavors. And ALL dogma is the result of human endeavors.
Click to expand...
*We all err. The Church does not err!!! When it applies to teaching the Faith the Church is preserved from error.

OK so you can’t understand this.

blessings
Cinette:)*
 
shawn38 said:
What does the scripture say?
1 Jn 4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.

Also, apply the test of Scripture just as the Bereans did.
Click to expand...
*Absolutely! Didn’t you know that the devil is a spirit also?

We are talking about the H O L Y S P I R I T!

Blessings
Cinette:)*
 
Cinette said:
*We all err. The Church does not err!!! When it applies to teaching the Faith the Church is preserved from error.

OK so you can’t understand this.

blessings
Cinette:)*
Click to expand...
I see that you are claiming this. I just don’t see WHY this is necessarily true. All of you Catholics claim this, but no one ever explains WHY. I take it as a matter of your faith, and not as any form of logic.

My point simply is that humans err, even the great prophets erred, even Peter erred. Shortly after the life of Jesus even churches were arguing and falling into error. It seems to me obvious that any institution with which man is associated can potentially err. It is no big deal to me, and I see no insult in saying so.
 
Esdra; 6678311:
**I don’t like that statement that the RCC has the fulness of truth. For me it sounds as if the RCC would be the only true church, which she apparently isn’t. Have a look at the Oriential Orthodox Churches. They are mostly older than the RCC. You keep saying that a church “is more true” when it is older because it has the older scriptures… You know what I am trying to say? **
Click to expand...
Actually from the very beginning there was only one Holy Catholic and ApostolicChurch as per this timeline
davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_catholic_church.htm

Then came the schism the east-west schism (refer to this timeline)

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/timeline_history_of_catholic_orthodox_relations.htm

In this conversion account, TL Frazier wrote:
“After reading everything I could lay hands on coming from the ancient church, concentrating especially on the second century, I started developing a theology more closely resembling traditional Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. Reading a book of Church history, I remember being impressed by the authoritative role Pope Victor I (A.D. 189-198) played in the second century during the Quartodeciman controversy over the date on which Easter was to be celebrated.

I was also impressed by the fact that during the early trinitarian and christological controversies, after the patriarchs of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch and Constantinople had succumbed to one heresy or another, only the papacy remained constant in witnessing to the orthodox Faith.”
**Our doctrine ISN’T that divergent than the RCC’s. It is just another glance at something… **
Click to expand...
Actually it is not just another glance (or view) at something. The biggest difference is the Eucharist. For the Catholic (and also for the Orthodox), the Eucharist is central to its doctrine. The Second Vatican Council stated that the Eucharist is the source and the summit of Christian life.

A lot of people who think that this and that doctrine is unimportant (and mind you many Catholics are of this mind – picking and choosing only those that suit them) only do so because they do not know that all these together form one coherent whole.

It would be like a tapestry say. Some people think they can pull one thread and and the integrity of the tapestry will remain intact but no.

Another example would be a beautiful stained glass window where some of the coloured glass panes have been replaced by plain glass or simply taken out.

The doctrines are not individual solo performances that stand on their own independent of each other. Rather is like the different instruments in an orchestra which when played properly under the batton of the Maestro make a beautiful symphony.
**I am happy to hear that. Although I haven’t realised so far that Catholic parishes are into New Age. At least this is not the case in **
Click to expand...
Austria**, Europe. Maybe it’s different in the US - I don’t know. **
Most definitely here in Australia. I attended a lecture last night at our parish and got into a debate with the extremely feminist and new age inclination of most of those who attended - even including our parish priest.

I find it disturbing that our priest didn’t even twig to the fact that the quote that he put in our bulletin was very new age.
**Actually I am one with EVERY Church that accepts Christ Jesus as it’s Saviour and believes in Trinity and have Christ as head of their Church. So I am one with the Anglicans, the Lutherans, the Methodists, the Mennonites and most other protestant denominations (also the Pentecostal Churches!) **
Click to expand...
On some level yes, but in reality no. Or else Protestantism will have only one set of beliefs.

But I do believe that at the very basic, we are share a brotherhood and sisterhood in Christ.
**WE ARE ONE BODY. ALL who believe in Christ Jesus are ONE Body. **
Click to expand...
But our division proves that not to be so. Christ did not intend for some sort of spiritual and amorphous church. Christ wanted one visible church. The unity has to be visible. Even if we take the Protestant Churches by themselves, if they are truly united, there would only be one protestantChurch.
 
Esdra; 6678311 said:
**I think this will never happen. What could happen, however is that alle become “Christians” - without a unifying doctrine. **
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I don’t think it will happen (although God can make miracles and that is definitely not beyond His power).
**A huge Church with a lot of different types of services, worship etc. **
Click to expand...
Code: 
     You see, the different types of services, worhip is not the issue. Within the Catholic Church there are already different kinds of rites. The Roman rite is different to the Byzantine, to the Cyro Malabar, etc.
But our doctrines are the same and we are under one visible shepherd – the Pope. And this was so in the early Church.
Some will honour Mary and the Saints - the others Jesus alone
Click to expand...
Code: 
     The honor we give to Mary is tied up and bundled up with Jesus for she was the first disciple of Jesus. She was the one who said yes, so that God
will become incarnate.

The honor we give Mary is completely misunderstood by a lot of protestants. And yet if you delve deeply into the Bible you will see how Mary is very much tied up with our salvation.

She is the new Eve as Jesus is the new Adam. Whereas Jesus is the one who reverses Adam’s disobedience. Mary is the one who reverses Eve’s disobedience. This is why Marys’ yes comes first in the same way that Eve’s rebellion came first**.**
** This is the only chance, in my eyes, that we will become ONE Christianity! **
Click to expand...
But people with differing beliefs going to different services obeying different doctrines are not one. They are divided.
Well this is the point we can’t agree on! For me the RCC isn’t the one and true church. Most other (who accept the Doctrine of “mere Christianity”) are equally true in my opinion.
Click to expand...
You might actually be surprised that CS Lewis is closer to Catholic doctrine than protestant doctrine. He believes in purgatory and gave a beautiful analogy about it.

I don’t think he had an issue with Catholic dogma at all. From what I’ve read, what stopped Lewis from converting was the thought that if he converted, then he will have to gives assent to doctrines that he is not even aware of should the Church proclaim them after he has converted.

This position is actually not very well thought out at all because, if one becomes convinced of the truth that the Catholic Church is indeed the Church that Christ founded on earth, then whatever she will pronounced dogmatically later on will always be in accord with Christ’s will because she has the guarantee of the Holy Spirit.

And this is what I challenge people on most of the time.

Instead of trying to decide whether this or that doctrine is true, what they must put some thought on and some research on is to find out whether the Church is who she claims to be.

Because once they become convinced that that is indeed true, then it follows that the rest of her doctrines, is free from error.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top