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

[benhur]

So which “one true church” has such authority? You say the Catholic Church and no doubt Cybophonia would say the Eastern Orthodox. Maybe there are two “one true churches”?

Hey wait, did not Luther say he had some authority, and maybe there are 3 "one true churches) ?

Good question.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

I am heartened to see you acknowledge your posting style.

But I wish to demur quite clearly: we are NOT alike in this. At all.

Hi PR’

Actually then my posting style that I posted is what others allege it is, including yourself.

Before we get to that discussion, we need to acknowledge that there is some great inconsistency being professed here by eazydoesit.

Either he gets to tell people what is the correct way to interpret Scripture…and so does the CC…

OR

He has no right to tell people what is the correct way to interpret Scripture…and Catholicism is free to interpret Scripture exactly as she has done. For 2000 years.

I reread his post and feels he was true to proper spirit on this forum .He stresses "Catholic’’ and its position and asks for more "proof’ /discussion on its stance. Sounds a lot like Luthers simple request, though eazy did not limit proof’s to just scripture or I did not see any stated no restriction.

Ummm…do you not think that it’s rather new to profess that Paul’s writings are not theopneustos?

Sorry , should have been more clear , or I clarified this two sentences down or so in the post . I was speaking of “us” as in “today” as those on this forum/thread , not coming up with anything new (that is, we take it upon someones teaching/magisterium.church etc.).

Nonsequitur, ben.

What eazy is stating is that his interpretation of Scripture is correct and that ours is incorrect.

That’s what the magisterium of the CC does…and yet eazy and all Protestants recoil at that.

No, totally sequitur .I say eazy sates a magisterium/teacher, in this case Thayer, and you say he is being his own magisterium/teacher.??

Again, we are all stating competing ideas/teachings/magisteriums/churches. You speak of as if if Trent and its decrees, which basically are claims and counter claims, with anathemas, was fiction.

We all be doing the same thing, and may it be fruitful.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

This quote from St. Cyprian seems to support what SalusaSecondus said, namely that Christ was not speaking literally and mostly that Christ could not have spoken of the Eucharist as the Eucharist was enacted only later.

HiCyb,

Thank you for info. Agree the fathers were not unanimous on everything.You state it is a myth, which means that at times some folks might be saying otherwise. I have read that it is so.

I have read a few historians say that on this topic of the eucharist they acknowledged some of the writings you posted and come away with the idea that varied views were recorded. There was not a consensus way of describing the rite/sacrament ( yet all Christians were unified by communion of one loaf).

So thank you

By the way, thanks for sharing your personal stuff, and hope you not be agnostic. How about the verse that says let every man be a liar but God is true? We are to follow Christ , not men. Nevertheless, Paul says do as I do. As an ol preacher once said, there is always an excuse for sin, but it won’t do you any good on judgement day. Sorry to here about the state of affairs of the churches in your area. Certainly there must be a remnant, a haven for Christian truth and spirit and love there somewhere.

Blessings

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR’

Actually then my posting style that I posted is what others allege it is, including yourself.

Sorry. I don’t know what this means.

I reread his post and feels he was true to proper spirit on this forum .

sigh

No one has accused him of being false to the proper spirit on this forum.

 

[PRmerger]

No, totally sequitur .I say eazy sates a magisterium/teacher, in this case Thayer, and you say he is being his own magisterium/teacher.??

Ok.

So we are to submit to the magisterium’s interpretation of a particular verse of Scripture, or are we free to read the Bible and make our own conclusions?

Please answer the above clearly, without any obfuscation, or nonsequiturs.

It’s a relatively simple question. There are no both/ands here as they are mutually exclusive.

Thanks, ben!

 

[simspt]

I just posted a few of them. So you are wrong.

Technically no, but as long as I keep giving my money to the Church all is good. I can believe and do whatever, and some priests will bless and consecrate mostly everything, if needed.

Let’s be honest, the majority of the masses don’t even know what their religion really teaches, or really believe deep down all that they say.

Personally, I am just being truthful… I am an agnostic fella.

The State Christian Church did a lot of crimes if you ask me, both West and East. The hands of the Church are not clean.

as good ol Walter Martin use to say better to be in church with a few hypocrites than in hell with all of them

 

[benhur]

I think one of your biggest problems in trying to understand the passage about Nicodemus is that you seem to be hung up on the hard break between the OT and NT, without considering the fact that the ministry and teachings of Jesus are the binder that slowly merges the two together, prior to the final break between them at Pentecost. While He walked the earth, there was a period of time where Judaeo-Christian beliefs were in a state of flux, or in a period of transition between the two Covenants. During the time of His ministry, Jesus was preparing the Jews to accept the New Covenant that He would offer to all mankind, and both Covenants were beginning to merge into the final stage.

Hi T

Don’t think I am hung up on it. In fact I acknowledge many or most of the works of the Spirit are in both testaments.Yes there was a state of flux in covenantal expression, but yet it was fullfilment. So it is both new and old. But we both kind of agree here.

You also try to interpret things differently according to who Jesus is talking to at the time

That is the crux between us.Of course one should consider whom Jesus is talking to, and not to interpret things differently. The discourse stands on its own. Of course we both acknowledge other discourses on the matter and harmonize accordingly. So if I interpret this discourse differently, it is not strictly because of whom He speaks to, but because I interpret all the discourses on this subject differently than you do.

While this might help in some circumstances, it can also tend to make you overthink what Jesus means because of who that person is. We have to remember that Jesus is always teaching about the New Covenant and the things to come in the future, even though they are based upon and meant to fulfill the Old.

Yes, but you are slightly misapplying that here in my opinion, though it fits your (CC) total understanding. Not sure there is prophecy that water baptism would bew a sign for rebirth. Not sure Jesus was speaking about future, but the then and there of Nicodemus’s problem.

I believe that Jesus asks him how he can be in his elevated position in the Temple and still not understand how God does things through the actions of His Priests. It’s through the actions of the Jewish Priesthood that sacrifices are made for the forgiveness of sins, and their sons are circumcised to be brought into the family of God through His Covenant with them.

Partly agree, though Jesus mentions no rites nor institutionalizes the Wind of God. I think we both throw our current views of priesthood and sacraments/ rites in here. Certainly one was not “regenerated” at circumcision, but was a sign , in my opinion

This foreshadows the way the Priesthood of Christ will also continue to offer His one and only sacrifice to the Father (through celebrating the Holy Eucharist at Mass), and will bring all Christians into the family of God through their rebirth in the Spirit, in Baptism.

yes, CC view, thank you.

In this part, Jesus goes on to explain that Nicodemus doesn’t understand it because he doesn’t accept or understand what Jesus has been teaching about “earthly things”, so that’s why he can’t understand the “heavenly things” that He teaches, like how men can be “reborn in the Spirit” through Baptism.

Well thanks but I come away with something different. Jesus is telling Nicodemus he does not understand because he is not born of the spirit. Nicodemus is not born again by any means (OT/NT) (even though circumcised, barmitzvahed and a rabbi etc etc.). The spiritual leader is not even at first base himself.

Again,it comes down to whether you think rites/sacraments are effectual, or are they a sign for what has been affected. This is why Peter says why put the yolk of circumcision on gentiles if the Jews were not able to bear it. That is, it was effectual only for those truly born of God and not for all who did the rite or took the sign.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

No one has accused him of being false to the proper spirit on this forum.

Ok good.He is being fair.

 

[benhur]

Ok.

So we are to submit to the magisterium’s interpretation of a particular verse of Scripture, or are we free to read the Bible and make our own conclusions?

Please answer the above clearly, without any obfuscation, or nonsequiturs.

It’s a relatively simple question. There are no both/ands here as they are mutually exclusive.

Thanks, ben!

Well, we are all free to submit to any magisterium, teaching, church, interpretation.

Last I heard we are all free to read the bible and make our own conclusions also. This has been happening since the Garden of Eden (well, beginning with oral Word).

Having said that, we are to pray and strive to conclude and submit to the proper interpretation, the proper magisterium, teacher, leader, church, etc…

Blessings

 

[benhur]

as good ol Walter Martin use to say better to be in church with a few hypocrites than in hell with all of them

Hi sim,

Is this the Martin from Laugh In tv show or the author on books about cults ?

But so true. Blessings

 

[eazyduzit]

Here’s a couple other Clement quotes that should clear up your confusion over his beliefs.

“The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.”,

-“The Instructor of the Children”. [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,

“The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. ‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!”,

-“The Instructor of the Children” [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D… ,

What Clement is claiming seems questionable or even heretical to my ears. Of course we have the Holy Spirit within us now, but not as a mixture. According to the bible, we are the pot and God is the treasure, there is no mixture or confusion.

Also, as to our nourishment, it is always the word of God first and doctrine in the epistles.

 

[eazyduzit]

This is the answer to the question of why Nicodemus should have known what Jesus was referring to by being baptized of water. This was not a foreign thing.

Why does everyone assume Jesus was speaking of baptism when it is not mentioned?

 

[PRmerger]

Last I heard we are all free to read the bible and make our own conclusions also.

If you really believe this, then you ought not be posting here, nor should you be defending eazy, who is telling us that our conclusions are…wrong.

See how your position is so untenable, ben?

You don’t even really believe what it is you’re espousing. You DON’T believe that each of us can read the Bible and come to our own conclusions. You want folks to reach YOUR conclusions.

 

[PRmerger]

Why does everyone assume Jesus was speaking of baptism when it is not mentioned?

Because we interpret the Scriptures through the lens of the faith which gave us these Scriptures–the Catholic Church.

 

[simspt]

Can one be alive and still dead in trespasses and sin ? Has not the Holy Spirit indwelt even gifted some before any water ? Baptism =confession but confession does not always equal baptism. In the early church baptism was usually immediate, unlike today.

In the early church Baptism was usually preceded by some kind of catechesis albeit not as involved as later centuries. It was not immediate.

 

[Harystolho]

Non Catholics can’t be saved, this is a teaching from the Council of Trent

 

[Michael68]

If you really believe this, then you ought not be posting here, nor should you be defending eazy, who is telling us that our conclusions are…wrong.

See how your position is so untenable, ben?

You don’t even really believe what it is you’re espousing. You DON’T believe that each of us can read the Bible and come to our own conclusions. You want folks to reach YOUR conclusions.

This is how you get over 30,000 Protestant denominations all claiming the truth according to their personal interpreting.

 

[eazyduzit]

If you really believe this, then you ought not be posting here, nor should you be defending eazy, who is telling us that our conclusions are…wrong.

See how your position is so untenable, ben?

You don’t even really believe what it is you’re espousing. You DON’T believe that each of us can read the Bible and come to our own conclusions. You want folks to reach YOUR conclusions.

Your interpretations are not wrong if you show how they are consistent with the balance of scripture. This is systematic theology.

 

[Harystolho]

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”

You are right, there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church

 

[PRmerger]

Your interpretations are not wrong if you show how they are consistent with the balance of scripture. This is systematic theology.

JW’s, Mormons, and the rest of the tens of thousands of differing Christian denominations all claim that their interpretations are consistent with the balance of Scripture.

Yet you also say that they are wrong.

#untenable
#inconsistent