Is this really what the Catholic Church teaches?

[rpp]

This thread has been hijacked. Th4is thread is NOT about whether Catholic Church teachings are correct, but what those teaching are.

I have not seen a post in a very long that is on te topic of this thread.

This thread has no longer serves a reasonable purpose. If a person wants to debate some specific aspect of Church teaching then start a thread.

 

[Annie_B]

This thread has been hijacked. Th4is thread is NOT about whether Catholic Church teachings are correct, but what those teaching are.

I have not seen a post in a very long that is on te topic of this thread.

This thread has no longer serves a reasonable purpose. If a person wants to debate some specific aspect of Church teaching then start a thread.

When I started the thread I was hoping for some good answers - I actually got some But sadly it has gone way off topic…Thanks to all who did at least try to answer my original questions!

Annie

 

[reteeks21]

But they did understand that he was speaking about eating his body and blood … they just did not know where else to turn because they recognized that his teachings were the teachings of everlasting life, they recognized [Peter’s confession] that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah …

Of course the female children were people of the covenant … the parallel to baptism still holds … Abraham was given the command to circumsize his entire household including servants and captives, children and infants … from that time the male children were circumsized on the eigth day … The marks of faith are not withheld from the children of God …Jesus commanded that the children be allowed to come…

I made no referene to immersion or sprinkling in te OT … and Scripoture tells us that John was baptizing at the Jordan … No mention is made whether these people entered the Jordan [proper], whether they we fully clothed, naked or partioally clothed … in many places th Jordan River is only inches deep, not deep enough for “full immersion” … One thing I am sure of, the container was not a porcelin bath tub … Persoanlly I was baptized in a River … [not the Jordan … but a river in Oregon God’s County - don’t you know!] Lack of copius quantities of water aside … it is an action of the Holy Spirit which is not limited by precise measuments of H2O

This is a fantastic explanation. Thank you for helping me to understand on a much deeper level. Bravo.

 

[elvisman]

My friend the very same scripture you claim is literal is in fact speaking of spitual concepts not physical reality. It is in light of the metaphors throughout the book of John that you can understand John 6.

You still haven’t answered my question. Oh, you’ve dodged it pretty well, but it remains unanswered. All you did was copy and paste the passage.

****This is the only time in **ALL of the Gospels that Jesus’ disciples left him for doctrinal reasons. When pressed, Jesus usually explained what he meant when speaking metaphorically. Not this time. WHY? Because he was serious.

**
The Protestant position on John 6 has always been based on verse 63. But, what does he say right before this in verse 62? He says:
“Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?”

Was his ascension a metaphor? Was his resurrection merely a symbol? What about his death? Was it just a parable?

The revelation of Jesus’ giving us his flesh and blood is INDEED spiritual. It is also LITERAL. Jesus’ resurrection was spiritual – also literal. His ascension was spiritual – also literal.

The Protestant position goes over the edge by expecting us to believe that Jesus tells his disciples the following (paraphrased):
"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. Oh, and by the way, this is all just spiritual, so don’t get bent out of shape!”
**No. Jesus says, **“Does this shock you?”

Do you recall what Jesus did when he cured the blind man? He made mud from some dirt and his saliva and rubbed it in the blind man’s eyes? Did he HAVE to do this to cure him? Couldn’t he have just said some words? After all, he IS God. Jesus used tangible means because, being God, he is smart enough to realize that we are humans in need of tangible means to relate. All through the Old Testament, God used tangible means to reveal himself to his people.

Being Protestant, you reject Tradition as being on par with Scripture. Why? You need something tangible – written down – even thought St. Paul CLEARLY states in 2 Thess. 3:15:
**Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

I eagerly await your ANSWER to my earlier question.

 

[Hisalone]

You still haven’t answered my question. Oh, you’ve dodged it pretty well, but it remains unanswered. All you did was copy and paste the passage.

****This is the only time in ****ALL of the Gospels that Jesus’ disciples left him for doctrinal reasons. When pressed, Jesus usually explained what he meant when speaking metaphorically. Not this time. WHY? Because he was serious.

**The Protestant position on **John 6 has always been based on verse 63. But, what does he say right before this in verse 62? He says:
“Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?”

**Was his ascension a **metaphor? Was his resurrection merely a symbol? What about his death? Was it just a parable?

**The revelation of Jesus’ giving us his flesh and blood is **INDEED spiritual. It is also LITERAL. Jesus’ resurrection was spiritual – also literal. His ascension was spiritual – also literal.

The Protestant position goes over the edge by expecting us to believe that Jesus tells his disciples the following (paraphrased):
"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.*** Oh, and by the way, this is all just spiritual***, so don’t get bent out of shape!”
**No. Jesus says, **“Does this shock you?”

**Do you recall what Jesus did when he cured the **blind man? He made mud from some dirt and his saliva and rubbed it in the blind man’s eyes? Did he HAVE to do this to cure him? Couldn’t he have just said some words? After all, he IS God. Jesus used tangible means because, being God, he is smart enough to realize that we are humans in need of tangible means to relate. All through the Old Testament, God used tangible means to reveal himself to his people.

**Being Protestant, you reject Tradition as being on par with Scripture. Why? You need something **tangible – written down – even thought St. Paul CLEARLY states in 2 Thess. 3:15:
***Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the ***traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

I eagerly await your ANSWER to my earlier question.

If you want further discussion start another thread. As you have seen we have taken this one outside the lmits.

 

[elvisman]

**

If you want further discussion start another thread. As you have seen we have taken this one outside the lmits.

**
Okay - here it is:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=226341

 

[Della]

I am the original poster. And you are right; I am LDS. Formerly Catholic. STILL trying to sort them both out . I am, however, not a “cookie cutter” Christian; my relationship with Jesus cannot be defined by ANY organized religion’s set of rules. I have found no organized church (LDS, Catholic, Baptist etc. etc) that makes more sense to me than what I read in the Bible. ALL these churches go beyond the Bible and this is where we all need to choose what is right for us. The Catholic church and the LDS church both seem to have their own agendas And no, I will not get more specific than that).

Annie

Seeing your post here, and wishing to help you and others with this dilemma, I started a new thread on the topic of the Bible, to whom does it belong, and why: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=226356. I hope you’ll drop by–and everyone else, too.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Thank you to all those who took their seperate topics to new threads.

Now back to the topic of THIS thread.

 

[YADA]

reteeks21:
This is a fantastic explanation. Thank you for helping me to understand on a much deeper level. Bravo.

Gee, my mind always races faster than I type [and my keyboard is not skilled at correcting typos for me ] If I was able to articlate something you found beneficial, some might claim that was a ‘miracle’

Any way, thank you for your kind words …

and you are most welcome

 

[peary]

Hello!
I saw the following two posts in another thread and I was really surprized. Is this really what the Catholic church teaches? I would really like to know . I was Catholic, converted to LDS , but never heard this before. Thanks so much! (This may have been better posted in another category, but since the original quotes were in this one, I left it here…
Annie

**<<< #6 Jan 31, '08, 1:57 pm
cradlecathlic26
Re: Is Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church the only way to salvation?

-----Yes you must have jesus to have salvation, but you do not have to be catholic to get it. Thats what we catholics believe.

cradlecathlic26
#7 Jan 31, '08, 2:16 pm
jmcrae
Re: Is Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church the only way to salvation?​

Quote:
Originally Posted by cradlecathlic26
Yes you must have jesus to have salvation, but you do not have to be catholic to get it. Thats what we catholics believe.

If you know Jesus, then you will become a Catholic before you are saved - either here in this life, or else in Purgatory. >>>**

The Church teaches that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. The Church also teaches that a person MAY be saved if he or she suffers from “invincible ignorance” and lacks the knowledge that the Catholic Church is the true Church established by Christ on earth. The Church also teaches that those, who lack such such understanding, may also be saved if, in good conscience, practice their religion to the best of their ability. The Church does NOT teach that if you know Jesus, then you will become Catholic before you are saved - either in this life or else in Purgatory.

 

[distracted]

I I am, however, not a “cookie cutter” Christian;

What does this mean?

my relationship with Jesus cannot be defined by ANY organized religion’s set of rules.

I used to feel the same way until i found out what all the “rules” are for & why we have them…

Obviously, without rules, society would be in chaos (anarchy). Why do peple expect the Church to be any different… ?

A lot of "churches’ that put down the Catholic’s “rules” just don’t have the wherewithal to “see beyond” the rules…