M
- Status
R
RonaldH
Guest
There you go making that Catholic jump again making me out to be a “Protestant”. Yes, it does, “seem pretty literal to you.” THAT does not mean it’s so. The ones that walked away from Jesus then took it SO literal they could not believe it. There’s the crux, you have the phenomenal ability to believe it literally when it is not literal but do not have the ability to simply place your trust in the living Christ alone. In your belief of transubstantiation you literally eat the body (in the wafer) and drink His literal blood in the wine. The catholic minister is called a “priest” and the place he stand up at is the “alter”, what he does is perform a rite whereby he claims to change the wafer and wine into the literal and actual body and blood of Christ. Then he takes this, and offers them to the congregation to eat, to actually sacrifice Jesus Christ afresh to you to consume. Am I correct? And if I am you are saying that is what Jesus Christ intended when the Savior spoke those words?
T
Tomster
Guest
I see from your bio that you are a Protestant. Fine. You have to be aware that Protestantism is so divided over doctrinal issues (e.g. infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist, salvation, divorce and remarriage, etc.). The way we Catholics see it is that each Protestant believes that he has embraced the “correct” interpretation of Scriptures, but believing so includes the implicit assertion that all the other denominations do not have the correct interpretation on all things. If they did, why the need for denominations?
H
Howie01
Guest
Luther didn’t remove any books from the OT. See Here.
The early church was very anti-semitic, herself. That came from her error of “replacement theology.”
The subject is ably handled in this book: Israel and the Church, Ronald Diprose.
Diprose relates that the early church treated Jews with much contempt, as Professor Will Varner, states in his review of the book:According to Diprose, “In spite of the fact that Israel’s status as an elect people is confirmed by Paul in Romans 9 - 11, the view that the Church had completely replaced Israel in God’s plan became the dominant opinion in post-Apostolic Christendom.” He illustrates how “some church fathers went further when they affirmed that the Church had always been the true Israel of which the physical Israelites were but the visible sign” (169). The logic of replacement theology required that much of the Old Testament be allegorized. Only in this way could the Church be made the subject of passages in which the nation of Israel is addressed. This, according to Diprose, led to the virtual abandoning of the Hebrew world view and concept of God and the adoption of a framework of thought which had roots in Greek philosophy. ***All of this then led to an attitude of contempt toward ethnic Jews and led to the exclusion of Israel as a subject of theological reflection. Our author provides an abundance of quotes from fathers, both ancient and medieval, to illustrate these attitudes in Chapter Three (69-98).***Anti-Semitism is part and parcel of the RCC.
T
Tomster
Guest
M
MrS
Guest
The “need” for the One Church is because their is One Jesus.
The “need” for many denominations is because there are many who don’t handle authority very well… unless it is their own.
.
R
RonaldH
Guest
I certainly did not say I am “infallible”. And I am sorry it offends you that I am saved. I am not telling you I think I’m saved nor that I hope “to be saved”, I am declaring I am saved. You come across very judgemental, and it is a little thing for you to judge me. I am not infallible, fact is I deplore my sinfulness, it humbles me that Jesus Christ would come to earth to die for me. The FACT that He did shows that I am a sinner. Now you tell me that I’m not saved, Tomster you are NOT God, and you do not know what is in my heart! The Apostle John stated and it is written "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life." Ah, but the Catholic church does not teach that, it is called the sin of presumption. Ephesians 2:8,9, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” Not “will be”, “you have been”. I know I’m saved, I’m just a sinner saved by grace and as Paul confidently stated, “For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.” He “knew”, and I know also. You can too! Jesus said, “he that comes to me I will not cast out” John 6:37
M
MrS
Guest
Hhmmmmm … The founder of the Catholic Church was a Jew. And our theology and beliefs are rooted in Judism.
The New Covenant, and the only covenant coming from Jesus is found in the Real Presence of the Eucharist.
The New and Eternal Covenant… does not sound like it was a one-time thing only symbolized at the Last Supper.
By the way, the Covenant is a one-way promise from God. We need only to believe. If you choose not to believe, that does not cancel the covenant… or reduce it to symbolism.
.
T
Tomster
Guest
You are not correct. Jesus died once for all. The Catholic Church does not “sacrifice Jesus afresh.” Who have you been listening to?
M
MrS
Guest
Exactly… “… as often as you do (offer) this, do this in memory of Me…”
Christ is God and is outside of time restraints. His Sacrifice is Eternal, and is a constant appeasment to the Father. Revelations notes the Lamb on the Altar in an on-going sacrifice.
… and you have to eat the Lamb…
.
T
Tomster
Guest
Don’t be sorry. There are millions of sorry people in this world. But by proclaiming yourself to be saved you have attempted to make an infallible statement which we both agree you cannot make.
As for me, I am with the Apostle St. Paul on this one. I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling and hopefully at the end of the race I will win my crown.
And you are correct. I am not God.
T
Tomster
Guest
Exactly… “… as often as you do (offer) this, do this in memory of Me…”
Christ is God and is outside of time restraints. His Sacrifice is Eternal, and is a constant appeasment to the Father. Revelations notes the Lamb on the Altar in an on-going sacrifice.
… and you have to eat the Lamb…
.
Holy, Holy, Holy
H
Howie01
Guest
Augustine uses “eating flesh and drinking blood” as a typical example of a metaphor.
He states:“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us” (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, III).So much for “universal agreement” of the fathers.
R
reteeks21
Guest
ST. AUGUSTINE (c. 354 - 430 A.D.)Augustine uses “eating flesh and drinking blood” as a typical example of a metaphor.
He states:“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us” (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, III).So much for “universal agreement” of the fathers.
“That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” (Sermons 227)
“The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.” (Sermons 234:2)
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)
“How this ‘And he was carried in his own hands’] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.” (Psalms 33:1:10)
S
Shannon9791
Guest
So Jesus says something twice, 2 times, but just means is as something that is not supposed to be taken literally? Yes, those who left him took it so literally that they left him, and it is a shame they did so. And it would seem that there is a long history of people who think that Jesus was speaking quite literally about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and myriad of others though that same way.
P
Pixie_Dust
Guest
If you’re not a member of the Church founded by Christ and His Apostles, the Catholic Church mentioned in the book of Acts, then you are Protestant. Any attempt to link Baptists to the early Church falls flat when you read the writings of the Early Church Fathers, or the beliefs of the groups allegedly linked to the modern-day Baptists. I used to buy that Trail of Blood/Landmark nonsense, so I know what you’re trying to put forth but it just isn’t reality.
I ask again, if they were walking away due to a misunderstanding, why did Jesus not explain what He meant as he had at other times when his followers were confused about something He was teaching them?
The Eucharist IS the Living Christ.
No, you’re way off here.
- Nowhere and by no one in the Church founded by Christ is the Host called a “wafer” ever.
- The word priest is a shortened form of presbyter, which is found in the NT, and they are also called pastors and ministers.
- The place is called that “altar” not the “alter” where we are present once again at the once for all sacrifice of God Incarnate for our sins. That is what is meant my “in remembrance” or anamnesis in the Greek. It is not another sacrifice, it is the same sacrifice being made present for us. Ever hear the old spiritual “Were You There?”? Ever read the text used when Jews today celebrate the Passover?
- The priest himself does not change anything, that would be witchcraft and an abomination. He asks that the Holy Spirit come upon the bread and wine so that they become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
- It is God who makes the change, not the priest.
Well, you’re not correct.
T
Tomster
Guest
I think we are reaching the point at which the “rubber” of sola scriptura meets the “road” of everyday life. The final question we should ask the Protestant is this: “Can you show us where in history sola scriptura has worked.” In other words, where, throughout Protestantism’s relatively brief life span, can we find examples (just one will do) of sola scriptura actually working, functioning in such a way that it brings doctrinal certitude and unity of doctrine among Christians? The answer is nowhere.The “need” for the One Church is because their is One Jesus.
The “need” for many denominations is because there are many who don’t handle authority very well… unless it is their own.
.
As a rule of faith that, without recourse to Sacred Tradition and an infallible Magisterium, promises doctrinal certitude and a unity of faith, sola scriptura fails miserably.
T
Tomster
Guest
DY-NO-MITE
T
Tomster
Guest
The Canon of the New Testament was established by the Catholic Church some thirteen hundred years before Martin Luther appeared on the scene.
Without recognizing the trustworthiness of the Magisterium, which is endowed with Christ’s own teaching authority (cf. Matthew 16:18-19, 18:18; Luke 10:16) guided by the Holy Spirit (cf. John 14:25-26; 16:13), and the living Apostolic Tradition of the Church (cf. Luke 1:3-4; 1 Corinthians 11:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Timothy 2:2), there is no way to know for certain which books belong in Scripture and which do not. As soon as Protestants begin to appeal to the canons drawn up by this or that Father, or this or that council, they inadvertently concede defeat, since they are forced to appeal to the very “testimony of man and Church” that they claim not to need. :hey_bud:
- Status