Jesus denied transubstantiation

[gardenswithkids]

Actually, my brother, we, as Catholics, do not refuse to entertain spiritual interpretations! We wholly acknowledge the importance and power of all things spiritual.

Let us not be so quick to defend so as to misrepresent our position. We do not take the “either/or” route. We do not limit our God. We know that throughout salvation history He has worked faithfully to nourish us spirit AND body.

His Life, Death on the Cross and Resurrection have attained for us new life in Him. We are not merely spiritual beings, but whole human persons made from His hands.

As our God became Man, the Son renewed and fulfilled the Father’s covenant with his people. We share, as His children, His Body AND His Spirit. We do not deny one in favor of the other.

Mr. Bibleapologist’s arguement depends upon his misconception that we would deny the spiritual. We do not. We acknowledge it and accept it entirely. This is the nature of Sacrament. . .where the spiritual and the physical meet.

JaneFrances, you stated that so beautifully! :clapping:

When I first read Bibleapologist’s original link, one statement stood out to me because it appeared his interpretation saw a disconnect between the spiritual and the physical. Forgive me, John, if you thought that I suggested you abandon the spiritual when suggesting a literal interpretation. As Jane wrote so well, we embrace both.

 

[bibleapologist]

visavismeyou,

Well… I think we are at an in pass because at this juncture, because you are saying that Jesus is attempting to “test their faith” by giving them a false teaching “You must literally eat my flesh” to make them leave yet Jesus did not actually mean it… sort of Jesus: “Eat my flesh… SIKE!”

Not at all, I am not asserting that Jesus tested thier faith… or gave them a false teaching.

I will try to explain this as briefly as I can…

We can all agree that the Jews required a sign. That we Jesus purpose for certain miracles. But I ask, why didn’t Jesus do something incredibly magnificent to prove who He was? He could have darkened the sun, anhilated the Romans with one look, in fact… because He was God, He could have done anything He wanted to prove that He was in fact the Son of God… but He didn’t.

The truth is, the fact that the Jews required a sign was the very reason He didn’t give them one. The Jews in John 6 were seeking a sign from Jesus…

Joh 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

These Jews were desiring to see some magnificent miracle… in fact many of the Jews in that day were expecting a Messiah that would liberate them as an earthly kingdom. These Jews wanted to believe Jesus (John 6:30), but they were desirous of a sign.

Jesus refused to give them what they were desirous of.

Joh 6:62 [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

So, I think it is crucial question of “why” did Jesus refuse to give them that sign.

Jesus did not give them the sign they were asking for, because although they would have followed Him, they would have followed Him for the wrong reasons… because He was more powerful than they were. The Jews in that day were no different than we are today… people follow Sylvia Brown because she can tell people what their dead relatives are saying, people follow Dr. Phil because He seems to have great wisdom, people have followed tricksters because they seemed to have great power… it’s a security issue… people find security in a power greater than they are. How about the New age movement? They (using devils) proclaim mysticism, and give people signs of insight to the spirit world… and people follow them.

Jesus was trying to prove to the Jews that He was the sign they were looking for.

Joh 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
Joh 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

Here Jesus tells them that He IS that bread from heaven… spiritual bread, not meant for the flesh “because the flesh profiteth nothing”.

Jesus, using the illustration of Himself as bread, reiterated Himself later in that same chapter…

Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Joh 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?

Since they were stuck on desiring some great sign from Jesus so they could continue to follow Him, and as Jesus continued to tell them to “believe”… He worded the illustration strongly so they would have to make a decision… believe in Him, or not.

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Again, this was illustrative only… and He qualified that by the next verse…

Joh 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

The Jews couldn’t hear this teaching because it wasn’t the sign they were looking for. But, if they had only believed in Jesus and the spiritual application of what He taught, that would have been sufficient.

They chose not to believe so the only thing left for them to do was leave. I think those Jews probably found a false prophet, or a necromancer that showed them some sign that they could follow.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

ssejllenrad,

Questioning your credibility is an integral part of the debate. You know why? Because you say that your interpratation is guided by the Holy Spirit. You must first prove your credibility in this so that your arguments could be accepted as premise to the ongoing debate.

The problem is, you accept your arguments as premises, saying others believe a lie and all that stuff. Truth is, you cannot do that on debates. Something that is yet to be proven should not be used to prove an argument.

Here should be the flow. Prove you’re guided by the Holy Spirit (not by your interpreations since those are yet to be proven) so you can prove your interpretations are correct. Then your arguments woulde be accepted. THAT IS LOGIC! Not going in a loop.

I’m sorry if I’m a bit offensive. I’m just tired of you making your arguments as your premises.

What would you suggest I do, maybe fax you a letter from God proving that I am His child? Maybe I should ask the Holy Spirit to post an affirmation of my obedience.

The only way I can prove my credibility is to convince you that I am speaking the truth. If you are led by the Spirit of God and not your presuppositions you will know whether I am speaking the truth.

Your “flow” might work fine if I were giving a lecture on quantum string theory, and I had a masters degree in theoretical physics, but when debating theology and doctrine the only credentials relevant is the indwelling Holy Spirit, and personal study (otherwise most of us wouldn’t have any authority to be here).

BTW - I do have a degree in theology if that carries any weight with you.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[RevDrNorth]

ssejllenrad,

BTW - I do have a degree in theology if that carries any weight with you.

John
www.gideonsword.net

What is the name of the school you graduated from and what degree do you possess?

North

 

[PaulDupre]

I don’t see anywhere in the article where you even claim that Jesus denied transubstantiation. You give His words another meaning, but all you are actually refuting is the (rather silly) RC argument that Jesus’ words *must *be referring to transubstantiation.

And I find it ironic that your signature says “intellectualism is over-rated” when your theology is so radically intellectualist. You appear to define saving faith as a change in one’s thinking about justification (an intellectualized definition if I ever heard one), and you reduce the meaning of Jesus’ mystical language to simply hearing His words. No Christians I know of deny that this is one level of what it means to feed on Christ, so insofar as you’re making a valid point, the point is completely uncontroversial. But you don’t seem able to consider the possibility that actual physical reception of the Eucharist may also be intended in John 6. What is this but sheer intellectualism? For you Jesus is received by the mind only. For orthodox Christians Jesus is received by the whole person.

Edwin

Well spoken, sir.

 

[visavismeyou]

I do appreciate what you are saying John and you and I were in perfect agreement through most of what you just said, the problem is, again, put yourself in their shoes, or sandles or barefoot or whatever, they were looking for some sign, agreed, however, and Christ was trying to convey to them what they needed to know in order to be able to understand him. He was conveying that he was the sign they were looking for (the messiah they were looking for) but that is not all that was said in John 6 and Cor 10/11, Jesus’ teaching was sort of a prelude to the last supper and the formation of the eventual tradition of Euchrist.

Everything Christ said was important and had a point, things he spoke of more than once are particularly important and ought to be clear. He wanted those Jews to have faith in him, not because he could smite the Romans, but because he was the path to righteous living and the way to the father; the bread of life. Thus he instructs us that unless we eat of his flesh (the bread of life) and drink of his blood (the wine of life) we will not see the father. and I think where we differ is that I believe Christ ment this as 100% of himself. That this bread/wine was 100% of himself, both spiritual as well as the physical and thus at the last supper Christ passed on to his believers a tradition where we would be continually supported by 100% of Jesus in the Bread and Wine.

 

[bibleapologist]

adrift,

Do THIS in memeory of me requires an honest answer that is a truthfull answer of what this is? Jesus has said THIS IS MY BODY. THIS IS MY BLOOD. You will find no scripture that Jesus denied transubstntiation. If you have such scriputre, provide it. Not an interpretation but a direct quote.

If I were going on a long trip, and in an effort to console her… I gave my wife a single rose, and said “This is my love for you, when you look at it, remember me”. Would that actually make that single rose my love? Of course not, but it would “symbolize” my love for her…

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[visavismeyou]

I really think this discussion ought not digress into “I am speaking from the holy spirit” for the same conundrum will arise as I had in High School football. I went to a Christian High School and we would pray before each game… so would the other team… Could God make both of our teams win? Of course not, could the holy spirit be inspiring the entire Catholic Church to be wrong? I think not John. This route is fallacious.

 

[RevDrNorth]

ssejllenrad,

BTW - I do have a degree in theology if that carries any weight with you.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Since your brought it up and are offering it as a way of adding weight to your argument, if you don’t mind…where did you get your degree from (school) and what level.

I understand if you chose not to answer and I only bring it up since you brought it up and I will not mention it again.

North

 

[bibleapologist]

visavismeyou,

I really think this discussion ought not digress into “I am speaking from the holy spirit” for the same conundrum will arise as I had in High School football. I went to a Christian High School and we would pray before each game… so would the other team… Could God make both of our teams win? Of course not, could the holy spirit be inspiring the entire Catholic Church to be wrong? I think not John. This route is fallacious.

I never said that was the case. Anyway, I agree with you that that is not a fruitful subject to discuss. I was asked by what authority I taught the things I taught, I just answered the question from my perspective… I am also aware everyone else on this thread has a differing perspective.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[visavismeyou]

visavismeyou,

I really think this discussion ought not digress into “I am speaking from the holy spirit” for the same conundrum will arise as I had in High School football. I went to a Christian High School and we would pray before each game… so would the other team… Could God make both of our teams win? Of course not, could the holy spirit be inspiring the entire Catholic Church to be wrong? I think not John. This route is fallacious.

I never said that was the case. Anyway, I agree with you that that is not a fruitful subject to discuss. I was asked by what authority I taught the things I taught, I just answered the question from my perspective… I am also aware everyone else on this thread has a differing perspective.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Understood and agreed.

 

[DianJo]

adrift,

If I were going on a long trip, and in an effort to console her… I gave my wife a single rose, and said “This is my love for you, when you look at it, remember me”. Would that actually make that single rose my love? Of course not, but it would “symbolize” my love for her…

John
www.gideonsword.net

I understand your point but this analogy doesn’t float becasue your love is not a past event.

“Do this in remembrance of me,” I’m sure you know the word for remembrance is “anamnesis(sp?).” It not only means to remember but also has sacrificial overtones. This word is used in the OT in connection with sacrifices.

When the Jews celebrate Passover they use the English word remember. Our English words are very inadequate in translation so alot of the meaning is lost. This word means to actually make a past event present. The Jews are actually present again at the original Passover. God commanded that they celebrate Passover for all time.

We do the same at Mass. When the priest says, “Do this in remembrance of me,” that very sacrifice on Calvary actually becomes present to us - we participate in that very sacrifice. We give praise, thanksgiving and the sacrifice is offered for our salvation just as it was 2000 years ago. The Mass, too, will be and is celebrated for all eternity, even in heaven as described in the book of Revelation. It was the Passover they were celebrating when Jesus instituted the Eucharist.

So, it’s not simply us remembering - it is actually making the sacrifice present to us now just like the Jews do with Passover as commanded by God. The Sacrifice of the Mass was also commanded by God when He (Jesus) fulfilled the old covenant with the New - the Eucharist - Jesus the Paschal Lamb who is the victim as well as our High Priest whose blood is shed for us in the cup.

You really should attend a Seder meal at Easter time - it’s a real eye opener!

 

[bibleapologist]

visavismeyou,

That this bread/wine was 100% of himself, both spiritual as well as the physical and thus at the last supper Christ passed on to his believers a tradition where we would be continually supported by 100% of Jesus in the Bread and Wine.

Thank you for acknowledging some of what I said. And I acknowledge what you said… up to this point.

To partake of the “eucharist” in such a way as to “experience” Jesus in the flesh would mean that we would be able to walk with, talk with, wash the feet of, behold Jesus in the same way we would as if we were one of the Apostles. When you eat the bread and drink the wine you are only experiencing bread and wine physically.

Others on this thread have described this “experience” as only a spiritual experience and not a physical experience at all (except for the traditional mass items which represent spiritual visions).

Could it be that to experience the “presence” in the bread and the wine is no different than the Jews of John 6 who were seeking a sign? What I mean is; could it be that the “mystical” experience that one seeks through the eucharist is a sort of sign seeking in itself? To just “believe” as Jesus said doesn’t seem as exciting as the experience the eucharist claims.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

DianJo,

We do the same at Mass. When the priest says, “Do this in remembrance of me,” that very sacrifice on Calvary actually becomes present to us - we participate in that very sacrifice. We give praise, thanksgiving and the sacrifice is offered for our salvation just as it was 2000 years ago. The Mass, too, will be and is celebrated for all eternity, even in heaven as described in the book of Revelation.

I completely understand your reasoning here. But it seems that you are claiming that the Mass replaces salvation. The Bible is completely clear that salvation is “belief” in Christ, and acceptance of His death on Calvary for your sins. To use a sybolism of that death, and claim it “becomes present to you” is not the same as believing in Christ, and accepting His payment for your sins.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[visavismeyou]

visavismeyou,

Thank you for acknowledging some of what I said. And I acknowledge what you said… up to this point.

Thank you as well.

To partake of the “eucharist” in such a way as to “experience” Jesus in the flesh would mean that we would be able to walk with, talk with, wash the feet of, behold Jesus in the same way we would as if we were one of the Apostles. When you eat the bread and drink the wine you are only experiencing bread and wine physically.

I think here is where we are getting to the real crux of our dichotomy. Even when I was taking bread and wine in my mother’s Episcopalian church when I was younger I always felt that there was more to this experience than just the bread and the wine. But to continue:

Could it be that to experience the “presence” in the bread and the wine is no different than the Jews of John 6 who were seeking a sign? What I mean is; could it be that the “mystical” experience that one seeks through the eucharist is a sort of sign seeking in itself? To just “believe” as Jesus said doesn’t seem as exciting as the experience the eucharist claims.

John
www.gideonsword.net

I understand your point and a friend of mine and I talk often of “Hocus-pocus Christians” who think that they ought to play around with rattle snakes and drink cyanide to display their faith, others are less hocus-pocus but still look for the magician Jesus.

I tend to be a more pragmatic Catholic and I believe that this reception of the bread and the wine in Euchrist is a great devotion for my life. I look forward to reception of it and when I feel I ought not receive the Euchrist but cannot get to confessional, I stay in the pew and actually miss being able to receive it. Is this “hocus-pocus”?? Not at all! It is spiritual!

However, just as this Man said that he was 100% God and 100% Man, he said that we ought to carry on the tradition of his last supper meal and in that meal, he said that this bread is his body and this wine his blood. I cannot fully understand this, nor will I try to anymore, I only know that He could not have been figureative, and he did not make a separation between his spiritual body and physical body, rather, he sounded as if he was talking about his whole body, not just his God-part (spiritual) thus he was talking about his physical as well and some how that bread and wine I eat/drink, hopefully, each Sunday, are whatever he spoke about when he called them his flesh and his blood.

 

[Church_Militant]

Church Militant,
Although It is fairly unrealistic that an ECF might have fallen into apostacy, it is not out of the question. There have been many throughout history who (according to the Catholic Church) were heretics that were martyred for their beliefs. I might have used the wrong word there… Apostacy might have been a strong word, I should have used heresy, or “submitted to false teaching”.

However, if what they taught had been considered heresy, (as someone else has pointed out) they would have been called on it, and in the case of St. Ignatius of Antioch, there is no such case to be made.

The fact that other ECF who did fall into some error were corrected and we have record of that in those cases makes my case all the stronger, and refutes yours.

I agree with your study habits, I too study scripture and many times check other sources against my interpretation. But, when I find that another source differs in their interpretation I do not by default accept that interpretation on the grounds of their credentials. I do however see that kind of discrepancy as a topic that is in need of extensive study; and before I reach a conclusion in the matter I pray, read other sources, and study the scripture (sometimes for hours at a time).

I know the feeling. I had a close encounter of the heretical kind just yesterday when two Jehovah’s Witnesses caught me taking out the garbage and engaged me with their “witnessing”. They had no success, since I knew they’d eventually get around to attacking the Trinity and the diety of Jesus and can refute the socks off of that. I suspect they’ll return and when they do they will be buried in refutation. I accepted their pet booklet attacking the Trinity and the margins are now filling up with notes on refutation. They will also receive several pages of notes on the ECF (that they cited out of context) that will refute their case as well. It’s not that hard, but I saw their eye gleam when I said I was Catholic and I know they thought I’m just some dumb, Bible-ignorant, pew-warmer. They were surprised when I refuted their interpretation of Deuteronomy 6:4 with a Hebrew word study that they apparently were unaware of. (I admit I had to hide a smile… ) But it’s been even more study since then. (Hey, I like being well prepared and when it comes to my faith, I’m like a K-Mart radio…I don’t play…)

I have not taken this topic lightly, nor do I believe I have failed to study the topic extensively. I have read some of the ECF’s, commentaries, books on the subject… and in light of the scripture I cannot morally accept that Jesus taught transubstantiation… or consubstantiation.

I agree with you here, and I’m glad of our reasonable and patient discourse, regardless of the disagreement. BTW John, Catholics do not believe in consubstantiation. It’s all or nothing.

I do appreciate your reasoning ability, and your logic… and it sounds like we both take the same approach to studying the truth. We just need to figure out why we disagree .

I have to assert here that I think we disagree because, although you consider your theology on this issue to be strictly Bible based, that I believe that you actually base it upon what you have been taught that these passages mean. (Hey…I could well be wrong, and I realize that you do your own homework.) I just think that it reflects a denominational coloring instead of a straight up acceptance of what the passages in question say.

I know that you might also assert the same essential point concerning me, but I have to assure you that I studied the Bible and then other sources, both Catholic and non) before concluding that the Word of God supported the Catholic teaching. So many years in “Bible only” churches certainly has made me about as “Berean” as any non-Catholic on the planet, but again…I have found that the Catholic teachings are more in line with the Bible than anyone else’s. (Many n-Cs have asserted that that is impossible, but they cannot refute me either…they just disagree, and I have no problem with that.) Conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit as is guiding people into the truth.
May the peace of the Lord be always with you.
CM

 

[bibleapologist]

DianJo,

When the Jews celebrate Passover they use the English word remember. Our English words are very inadequate in translation so alot of the meaning is lost. This word means to actually make a past event present. The Jews are actually present again at the original Passover. God commanded that they celebrate Passover for all time.

Are you saying that the actual Passover occurs every year at the Jewish Passover? That original passover was again, a “symbolism” of the coming passover Lamb, which was Jesus.

Joh 19:14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

How could the Jews remember something that had not happened yet?

Exo 12:13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye [are]: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy [you], when I smite the land of Egypt.

It was symbolic of judgement. In the New Testament, every day of your life is the passover… in that if you are not covered by the Blood of the Lamb you are already condemned.

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Pax]

visavismeyou,

Not at all, I am not asserting that Jesus tested thier faith… or gave them a false teaching.

I will try to explain this as briefly as I can…

We can all agree that the Jews required a sign. That we Jesus purpose for certain miracles. But I ask, why didn’t Jesus do something incredibly magnificent to prove who He was? He could have darkened the sun, anhilated the Romans with one look, in fact… because He was God, He could have done anything He wanted to prove that He was in fact the Son of God… but He didn’t.

The truth is, the fact that the Jews required a sign was the very reason He didn’t give them one. The Jews in John 6 were seeking a sign from Jesus…

These Jews were desiring to see some magnificent miracle… in fact many of the Jews in that day were expecting a Messiah that would liberate them as an earthly kingdom. These Jews wanted to believe Jesus (John 6:30), but they were desirous of a sign.

Jesus refused to give them what they were desirous of.

So, I think it is crucial question of “why” did Jesus refuse to give them that sign.

Jesus did not give them the sign they were asking for, because although they would have followed Him, they would have followed Him for the wrong reasons… because He was more powerful than they were. The Jews in that day were no different than we are today… people follow Sylvia Brown because she can tell people what their dead relatives are saying, people follow Dr. Phil because He seems to have great wisdom, people have followed tricksters because they seemed to have great power… it’s a security issue… people find security in a power greater than they are. How about the New age movement? They (using devils) proclaim mysticism, and give people signs of insight to the spirit world… and people follow them.

Jesus was trying to prove to the Jews that He was the sign they were looking for.

Here Jesus tells them that He IS that bread from heaven… spiritual bread, not meant for the flesh “because the flesh profiteth nothing”.

Jesus, using the illustration of Himself as bread, reiterated Himself later in that same chapter…

Since they were stuck on desiring some great sign from Jesus so they could continue to follow Him, and as Jesus continued to tell them to “believe”… He worded the illustration strongly so they would have to make a decision… believe in Him, or not.

Again, this was illustrative only… and He qualified that by the next verse…

The Jews couldn’t hear this teaching because it wasn’t the sign they were looking for. But, if they had only believed in Jesus and the spiritual application of what He taught, that would have been sufficient.

They chose not to believe so the only thing left for them to do was leave. I think those Jews probably found a false prophet, or a necromancer that showed them some sign that they could follow.

John
www.gideonsword.net

You are way off target on this. You have made a substantial production out of your belief that the Jews “required” a sign. While verse 30 does show that they asked Jesus what sign he would perform, this demand is the product of a limited faith on the part of those who made the request. We know this because in verse 26, " Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves."

These people had already witnessed many signs that should have provided ample witness to the fact that Jesus was the messiah. They followed him not because they wanted to see more signs per se. They followed him because of the food he had provided by the miracle of the loaves and fishes. They witnessed that miracle and others while they had been following Jesus.

We know that they believed in Jesus because in John 6:14-15 it says, "When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, “This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!” Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself." The people believed in him.

They had all the signs they needed for belief, and they did in fact believe in Jesus until he told them that he would literally give them his flesh and blood as true food and true drink. This is what they could not accept or believe. That brought home the limit of their faith even though Jesus told them that without eating his flesh and blood that they would have no life within them.

Catholics believe and follow Jesus and the level of our faith includes believing that He gives us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink as true food and true drink. All of the apostles with the exception of Judas also believed what he said because they knew that these were the words of eternal life.

 

[alexaustralia]

YEAH!!! Finally made it to the end of the thread!!!

John, as many have already said…it is admirable that you have stuck around and defend your convictions.

That said, here are 2 issues:

1. Although you claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit you would not declare your interpretation infallible. As such you admit the possibility of error and consequently admit you have no authority to bind my conscience to your beliefs. So if I disagree…how can you state that it is I who is in error when you cannot proclaim with certainty that your own beliefs are correct?
2. The testimony of the Holy Spirit heard for 1,500 years through the voices/writtings of fellow Christians contradict your own testimony. However you declare their testimony incorrect even though you cannot state with full conviction (as you are not infallible) that your interpretation is correct.

I don’t know about you John, but I would start questioning things when in order to uphold my beliefs I need to disregard every one else’s…even the disciples of the apostles!..to do so is to declare that for 1500 years the Holy Spirit was inactive in God’s Church.

 

[visavismeyou]

I hope I do not step on DianJo’s toes but I do not think that is what was meant. DianJo was talking about our participation in what Christ passed on to us in the last supper tradition. And through participating in that tradition we are following Christ’s commandment of “Do this in rememberance of me” the alternative as you project it John of:

DianJo,

believing in Christ, and accepting His payment for your sins.

John
www.gideonsword.net

leaves no room to practice as Christ instructed us to practice. DianJo never said that we are saved because we go to the mass, rather, we are informed at the mass as to how to be saved and we give thanks to Jesus for doing the act which are able to believe in which allows us to be saved, all at the mass. (sorry that last sentance would not come out of me any simpler)