If John 6 is speaking of the eucharist, how can non Catholics be saved?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chaddicus_Finch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LaughingBoy1503 said:
Because it is not a denomination. It is The Church. Historically recorded whether people like it or not and Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against it. No such promise is extended to any man made denomination. End of story.
Click to expand...
How did you come to that conclusion without using your private interpretation, since many churches make the same claim.
 
JMM1957 said:
Private interpretations, really? Are you against all authority, or just the Catholic Church authority?
Click to expand...
Neither, I simply want to know how I would ever go about establishing that the RC can denomination is the true one without relying at least in part on the very faculty the denomination tells folks they shouldn’t be using.
 
Isn’t that a dispute? Are you a convert into Lutheranism?

We have to fall back on the traditions of the early Church…I think now of St. Justin the Martyr, who described the Mass in how it was said throughout the entire Christian world, in 153 AD.

I have read some books on the early Mass…and they did not have such disputes…about the Eucharist. There were those who received unworthily and became sick and one or two who actually died on the spot from not receiving the Lord properly with faith…St. Paul instructs the proper behavior in receiving the sacred meal…
 
SalusaSecondus said:
How did you come to that conclusion without using your private interpretation, since many churches make the same claim.
Click to expand...
With not trying to sound flippant, I refer you to when I wrote historically recorded. All modern denominations (protestant) came hundreds of years later. It is fact. Nothing to do with a private interpretation of mine. Why people could read The ECFs and history and come to a conclusion that primitive Baptists where first or Jws or whatever is beyond me
 
SalusaSecondus said:
Neither, I simply want to know how I would ever go about establishing that the RC can denomination is the true one without relying at least in part on the very faculty the denomination tells folks they shouldn’t be using.
Click to expand...
I thought St. Peter said that.
 
SalusaSecondus said:
Deal with the one I posed.
Click to expand...
Ah. I see.

You can’t produce 10.

You need to retract what you wrote then, about “many” early Christians professing that the correct interpretation of John 6 is that it is about faith.
SalusaSecondus said:
John 6 is about appropriating Jesus by faith, not about the Eucharist that didn’t exist at the time, and that is corroborated by many in the early church.
Click to expand...
#notasinglesourceprovidedyet
 
PRmerger said:
Ah. I see.

You can’t produce 10.

You need to retract what you wrote then, about “many” early Christians professing that the correct interpretation of John 6 is that it is about faith.

#notasinglesourceprovidedyet
Click to expand...
I am waiting to see the miracle of the loaves and fishes repeated and see the one iffy quote turned into many.
 
Duane1966 said:
I am waiting to see the miracle of the loaves and fishes repeated and see the one iffy quote turned into many.
Click to expand...
I am still waiting for someone to deal with the one I posed and not just dismiss it. But I think my wait is going to be in vain. I am familiar with the game, I played it too when I was crossing swords with Protestants as a RC apologist.
 
My take on John 6.

If I had heard Jesus’ bread of life discourse, and walked up to Him and said give me this food so I may eat of it, He would not say I can’t after just talking about it. He would not say I am talking about my words, after just calling His flesh true food. He would have performed a miracle and given me His flesh to gnaw on.
 
SalusaSecondus said:
I am still waiting for someone to deal with the one I posed and not just dismiss it. But I think my wait is going to be in vain. I am familiar with the game, I played it too when I was crossing swords with Protestants as a RC apologist.
Click to expand...
Before posting the one, YOU said many. You never said you would post just one and then ask for a reply to that. Since when is one quote many?
 
Duane1966 said:
My take on John 6.

If I had heard Jesus’ bread of life discourse, and walked up to Him and said give me this food so I may eat of it, He would not say I can’t after just talking about it. He would not say I am talking about my words, after just calling His flesh true food. He would have performed a miracle and given me His flesh to gnaw on.
Click to expand...
👍 It really is very obvious by how some of His disciples reacted in John 6:60, “This saying is hard, who can accept it?” They did not know how He was going to make good on His pledge to give them His body and blood, real flesh and blood.
 
Horton said:
I disagree. Jesus often spoke of things to come during His public ministry. He spoke of His crucifixion, His resurrection. He didn’t leave then to understand it on their own. There was the last supper and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
Click to expand...
SalusaSecondus said:
Can you point to something in scripture where Jesus asked people to do something that was at the time impossible?
Click to expand...
The feeding of the five thousand, the wedding feast at Cana, asking the crippled man to take up his mat & walk, should I go on?
 
Unless I missed it somewhere, I don’t think that the OP question was ever really answered here, the discussion got a bit off track. As “believer’s” (Catholics) we are bound to accept the Church’s teaching regarding the sacrament of the Eucharist, that it is the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. Our salvation does hinge on our believing it and receiving communion at least once a year. Non-believers (non-Catholics) can still be saved without the Catholic Eucharist based on graces that are given to everyone outside the sacraments.

If I am presenting the Catholic teaching on this incorrectly please clarify it, but to the best of my knowledge this is what the CCC teaches.
 
JMM1957 said:
Unless I missed it somewhere, I don’t think that the OP question was ever really answered here, the discussion got a bit off track. As “believer’s” (Catholics) we are bound to accept the Church’s teaching regarding the sacrament of the Eucharist, that it is the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. Our salvation does hinge on our believing it and receiving communion at least once a year. Non-believers (non-Catholics) can still be saved without the Catholic Eucharist based on graces that are given to everyone outside the sacraments.

If I am presenting the Catholic teaching on this incorrectly please clarify it, but to the best of my knowledge this is what the CCC teaches.
Click to expand...
Yeah… we kinda got side tracked there.

I believe The Church teaches that others can be saved by “invincible ignorance” We are bound by The Sacraments, not God. That is how one can in the last moments of their life, even after being in mortal sin for years, repent and somehow have perfect contrition and still be saved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top