I am a Protestant who wants an honest answer

[Greg_McPherran]

Ozzie:

We eat and drink in “remembrance of Him”…

Ozzie:

Physically eating anything can do nothing.

Does physically eating the bread do something or not? What are you saying Ozzie? I see two contradictory statements. No one has to eat anything to remember Jesus. You said eating anything can do nothing, so why is it neccessary to eat anything to remember Jesus? How can eating be necessary and at the same time “eating can do nothing”?

Greg

 

[Cubby]

Ozzie said “If the frustrations and uncertainties of a religious life ever overwhelm you, you can always *“come home” *to Christ. He will NEVER cast you out (Jn. 6:37).”

I’d like to know what kind of frustrations and uncertainties you’re referring to? My relationship with Christ in the church he founded is 100% of the Christian faith and when frustrations or uncertainties of the world try and get a hold of me I go to the “Rock”.

I agree with your statement that Christ will never cast me (or you) out, but John 6:37 leaves the door open that we (like Adam and Eve) can cast ourselves out through disobedience and deliberate sin!

Ozzie - Would you argue with Jesus? “He who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt. 24:13; 25:31-46). Jesus teaches me that not only do I have to make the commitment to follow him and profess belief, but I also have to endure.

Ozzie - does it make any difference to you, as far as salvation is concerned, how you live your life?

Ozzie - How do explain Adam and Eve becoming unreconciled with God? What is the meaning of the prodigal son - if not that we can come back to the Father?

In the inspired words of St. Paul to the Romans chapter 11;

“see now the kindness and severity of God. Severity towards those who fell, but God’s kindness toward you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off. And they also, if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.”

(During Mass, this is the point where us Catholics would be “frustrated” with the religious duty of saying “thanks be to God!”)

A reading from the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (and all Catholics are again “frustrated” by saying “Glory to you God” while making the sign of the cross on our forehead - God’s word is written in our minds - on our lips - God’s word is written on our lips - and the sign of the cross on our hearts - God’s word is written in our hearts) John 6:52-57:

"The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them “Amen. amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood , you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have eternal life because of me.” THE GOSPEL OF THE LORD

OK. Lunch is over! Back to work.

Keep up the good work guys, I am enjoying this deepening and reaffirmation of my Catholic faith!

 

[RBushlow]

Our Lord said : “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” That’s a pretty good gain.

May God be with you.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie,

Your insistence that Jesus was only speaking figuratively in John 6 has been refuted, but not to your satisfaction. I’m not sure that anything we tell you will change your mind, but there are a couple of other points to be made.

Please keep in mind that the OT is a foreshadowing of the NT, and that the promises and fulfillment of the NT are always greater than that which prefigured it. When Jesus introduces the “discourse on the bread of life” he begins with the OT manna in the desert. This was a miraculous physical food to carry the Jews on their journey to the promised land. So also the body and blood of the Lord is our food for the journey. The miracle of the Eucharist is a greater miracle than that of the manna and Jesus is making that very point in the discourse. This food, the body and blood of Jesus, is of a transcending nature and Jesus attaches certain promises to it.

The disciples that did not accept the literal teaching were grumbling and Jesus responds with yet another comparison. In John 6:61-62 Jesus says, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?” In verse 62, Jesus is comparing the miracle of the Eucharist to His ascension into heaven. The Eucharist is the greater miracle than that of the Ascension, just as the Eucharist is a greater miracle than the miracle of the manna in the desert. Jesus is promising that He will indeed work a miracle that is greater than these. All three are miracles worked in the midst of the believers and all three are visible and none are figures of speach. They are all literal miracles.

I hope this helps.

 

[Ozzie]

Katholikos:

I was not implying that Catholics believe salvation can be earned. Salvation is a free gift of God. Works salvation is a heresy condemned by the Councils of Orange (529) and Trent (1545-63).

Hey!! Cut it out!!! You’re splashing me with all that back paddling, my friend.

ON JUSTIFICATION - CANON I. If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent)

Actually you were right the first time, Katholikos, you didn’t need to back paddle. The Council of Trent canons on justification are the most ambiguous statements I have ever read. In fact they are so indefinite that one must conclude they were intentionally written that way. When carefully read CANON I does not conclude that a man is not justified by works, period, but that he is not justified by works “apart from the grace of God.” In plain words, it states that justification is not fully gifted nor is it absolute. For this reason RC’ism introduces their totally unbiblical doctrine of “initial justification,” attaching to it the anti-biblical notion that divine justification can be "increased’ by “good works” and completely destroyed by a “mortal sin.” One could compare it to an embryo which if nurished grows (works) but always exists in the danger of being aborted (mortal sin).

Continued…

 

[Ozzie]

Continued from previous post…
Now here’s the unambiguous, Scriptural teaching on true, divine justification: *“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (that’s an eternal absolute!), being justified AS A GIFT BY HIS GRACE *(an eternal absolute) (how?) through the REDEMPTION which is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:23-24). Scripture clearly teaches that Christ’s atoning work was the procuring cause of all eternal benefits for the believer. Based on this revealed truth, any true believer can boldly and confidently say, “God has declared me righteous without any cause in me, by His grace through the redemption from sin’s penalty that is in Christ Jesus.” Justification is a “done deal” according to God’s immutable gift through Christ’s infinite, redeeming work on the cross.
Paul goes on to reveal the divine purpose of it all: *”…for the demonstration of His *(God’s) righteousness at the present time, that He (God) might be JUST (righteous) *and the JUSTIFIER *(the One who declares righteous) of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom. 3:26). At the cross God dealt with all of man’s sins in respect to His infinite holy Being. There (on the cross) He held a public Judgment Day on all human sin, displaying His absolute righteousness by not sparing His own Son but delivering Him up for us all (read Rom. 3:25). In the atoning death of His own Son God’s righteousness was fully exhibited in His wrath against sin (2 Cor. 5:21), yet at that very same moment He was, in love, working out the complete deliverance of the sinner from the divine wrath that was justly due him. Through the divine wisdom of the cross God could remain JUST (not waiver in His view toward sin) and yet JUSTIFY (declare righteous) the sinner who puts his faith in Jesus (see Jn. 3:14-18).

There is no such doctrine as “initial justification” in the N.T. It is absolute and completely GIFTED because of Christ’s finished work of redemption on the cross. It cannot be increased through any human effort (works), nor destroyed by any human sin. God’s Judgment Day on sin took place 2000 years ago, and His Son took the heat of His righteous wrath toward sin in our stead - God’s righteous Substitute (“it is finished”).

“But to the one who does not work, but BELIEVES in Him who JUSTIFIES the ungodly, his FAITH is reckoned as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom GOD reckons righteous apart from works” (Rom. 4:5-6).

Sorry dear people, but Rome and Scripture are in conflict. One could almost say “Paul” is still rebuking “Peter.”

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Ozzie:

We eat and drink in “remembrance of Him”…

Ozzie:

Physically eating anything can do nothing.

Does physically eating the bread do something or not? What are you saying Ozzie? I see two contradictory statements. You said eating anything can do nothing, so why is it neccessary to eat anything to remember Jesus? How can eating be necessary and at the same time “eating can do nothing”?

Greg

 

[WBB]

Ozzie:

The Council of Trent canons on justification are the most ambiguous statements I have ever read. In fact they are so indefinite that one must conclude they were intentionally written that way. When carefully read CANON I does not conclude that a man is not justified by works, period, but that he is not justified by works “apart from the grace of God.”

The Canons from Trent or any other council are not any more ambiguous than *your *own interpretations of scripture are. Furthermore, what Canon 1 says is not anti-scriptural. It says that apart from the grace of God, man can not procure his justification by works. That simply means that you are justified by God’s grace, but once justified, you can’t just sit on your butt and do nothing, because as St. James says (which for some reason you pass this right over and over and over) faith without works is dead. You (as usual) want to read into things that are plain and simple. Every text of scripture you have interpreted for yourself has this odd twist to discredit the Church’s teaching. My question is what is your motive?

 

[motorman]

Ozzie:

The problem with isolated quotes from men like these is they’re not doctrinal statements. It needs to be remembered that there’s a great difference between the half-poetic, enthusiastic, glowing language of devotion, in which the early writers spoke of the “eucharist,” and the clear, calm and cool language of logical and doctrinal definition. .

Hey Ozzie,

It always srikes me as odd when I hear people speak like this because it is right after or right before they start in there own “doctrinal statements” I do not mean to be rude but usually come across a such.

The Fathers of the church were so Close to Christ with some being only one generation apart. But yet we have “Men” now that believe they have a better understanding of correct interpretation of scripture while discarding the churches teaching that has been taught since the time of christ.

Once again not meaning to be rude or insensitive, just had to get that of my chest!

In Christ
h

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Hi everyone!

I saw this as a quote in someone’s post:

Salvation is a gift of God made possible by the sacrifice of Christ Jesus. But we cannot escape responsibility for own actions. We have to earn our salvation by keeping the Commandments and avoiding sin. St. Paul tells us that “the wages of sin is death” Rm 6:23.

Someone may already have pointed this out (I haven’t read every post) but the Church does NOT teach that we earn our salvation in any way.

Just wanted to clarify that.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[JesusFreak16]

Ozzie, I know your name is familiar to me, but I don’t remember anything about you. Anyway, YOU ROCK. I agree with everything you have said here.

Ozzie:

You list four conditions to determine one’s salvation. The latter three negate the first. If you trust in the latter three to determine your salvation, then you’ve never truly trusted in the first. It is impossible to believe in Jesus “as your Savior” if you don’t believe he’s actually saved you. That’s an oxymoron.

Cubby said: “Second, Ozzie - I’m 100% sure of my salvation as is evident in my works and my love for the church that Christ established. It’s not helping your cause to insult us.” (Cubby)

Ozzie:

So the assurance of your salvation is based not on the cross and subsequent bodily resurrection of Christ Jesus, but your works and love for the Roman church. Like I said above, you negate the first by the latter three.

I totally get what you are saying. She (he? sorry I don’t know don’t take offense) says that she has faith in Jesus but goes on to talk about her works and the church. If someone has faith in Jesus, they know that works are good and Jesus takes delight in good works, but they are not going to get you into heaven.

Ozzie:

I can’t speak for Lisa, my friend

Awww… thanks you’re my friend too. I do aree with you though, so you could have spoken for me.

God Bless~
Lisa

 

[Cubby]

Brothers and Sisters (including you Ozzie),

Greetings in the holy name of Jesus!

In the true spirit of love and kindess, what does this quote from St. Ignatius of Antioch mean to you?

“Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism *, he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine *, he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons” (*Letter to the Philadelphians ***3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).

To me, it’s a great testimony to the trueness of the faith in the Holy Roman Catholic Church. What other church (other than Eastern Orthodoxy) would agree with St Ignatius? If you think another one does, then how?

I really appreciate all of you, and your feedback.

Peace.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Can someone answer this?

Ozzie:

We eat and drink in “remembrance of Him”…

Ozzie:

Physically eating anything can do nothing.

Does physically eating the bread do something or not? I see two contradictory statements. Why is it neccessary to eat anything to remember Jesus? How can eating be necessary and at the same time “eating can do nothing”?

Greg

 

[Cubby]

Some more to think about from St. Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (*Letter to the Romans *7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

 

[JesusFreak16]

Greg_McPherran:

Can someone answer this?

Does physically eating the bread do something or not? I see two contradictory statements. Why is it neccessary to eat anything to remember Jesus? How can eating be necessary and at the same time “eating can do nothing”?

Greg

Ozzie said that PHYSICALLY eating does nothing. We do this in remembrance of Him. Ozzie didn’t contradict himself. PHYSICALLY eating does nothing PHYSICALLY to our bodies. The symbol and action of eating is what “does something.”
~Lisa

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Jesus says the flesh profits nothing (John 6:63).

JesusFreak16:

PHYSICALLY eating does nothing PHYSICALLY to our bodies.

JesusFreak16:

The symbol and action of eating is what “does something.”

So you are saying that physically eating does nothing physically and then you say the symbol and ***action of eating ***does something?

JesusFreak16:

PHYSICALLY eating does nothing PHYSICALLY to our bodies.

So you are saying that it does something spiritual to you? Just what is the purpose of the physical eating? How can this physical eating have a purpose when Ozzie says it does nothing?

 

[JesusFreak16]

Hey!
Ozzie, Greg, Cubby…
Feel free to send me a private message. I have to go and I am so busy w/ school I don’t think I will be able to come back on until maybe Sunday or Monday. I will try but I don’t know. Anyway, talk to you later!

~Lisa

 

[WBB]

Greg_McPherran:

So you are saying that physically eating does nothing physically and then you say the symbol and ***action of eating ***does something?

So you are saying that it does something spiritual to you? Just what is the purpose of the eating?

Greg,

This is dualism…the idea that there is a separation of the flesh and spirit and that the flesh is bad and the spirit is good. It is the old Manichean and Gnostic heresy. The Catholic Church being sacramental rightly rejects this.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie and JesusFreak16,

Since you claim that our works have nothing to do with salvation whatsoever, I would like you to explain why Jesus says in Revelation 2:7, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.”

The term to “conquer” in this verse and in others speaks of the believer as the one who conquers. Now if your doctrine is correct than verses like this have no place in scripture because they directly deny what you contend to be true. This entire thread is inundated with scripture verses that completely refute your doctrinal errors. Yet, you insist that your teaching is correct in spite of scripture, historical church teaching, logic, and common sense.

We believe that everything is by the grace of God. God’s grace, however, is not an inert gift that simply imputes righteousness as you contend. Perhaps that is the limit of grace that is available outside the Catholic Church, but within the Church God’s grace abounds. It is as St. Paul says in Eph 1:19-20, “…and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power in us who believe, according to the working of his great might which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places,” Also in Eph 3:16-20, Paul says, " that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with might through his Spirit in the inner man, and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have power to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fulness of God. Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think,"

These verses say a lot about the nature of grace and the fact that when we live by faith we have power. Your teaching does not recognize this because it denies this power working within us. It is because of the power that is working within us that James tells us that we are “saved by works and not by faith alone.” If we don’t have the power of God’s grace working in us in the abundance described in Ephesians then we have a dead faith which is “faith alone” and it cannot save you.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

WBB:

Greg,

This is dualism…the idea that there is a separation of the flesh and spirit and that the flesh is bad and the spirit is good. It is the old Manichean and Gnostic heresy. The Catholic Church being sacramental rightly rejects this.

I am simply tring to show Ozzie and other non-Catholic Christians the illogic of what they say.