MERGED: Questions for Catholics on how we got our Bible

[Hokomai]

There is nothing in scripture which clearly contradicts Catholic doctrine on this subject. There is also nothing in scripture which clearly shows Catholic doctrine to be right. If there were, the Church would not need to elaborate to the extent it does. While this indicates to me, an unbeliever, that scripture is either not inspired, or that God is not very good at inspiring in a clear way, it causes no difficulty to the Catholic believer, since they do not rely on scripture alone, but on the tradition of the Church and the Church has clearly believed something very like what the modern Church believes since the second century (at least). This, however, is of no use to the Bible-believing protestant, since only scripture will do as a source of belief, and on this issue there is no scripture which is clear. So around and around the argument goes . . .

 

[PJM]

=Hokomai;9266407]There is nothing in scripture which clearly contradicts Catholic doctrine on this subject. There is also nothing in scripture which clearly shows Catholic doctrine to be right. If there were, the Church would not need to elaborate to the extent it does. While this indicates to me, an unbeliever, that scripture is either not inspired, or that God is not very good at inspiring in a clear way, it causes no difficulty to the Catholic believer, since they do not rely on scripture alone, but on the tradition of the Church and the Church has clearly believed something very like what the modern Church believes since the second century (at least). This, however, is of no use to the Bible-believing protestant, since only scripture will do as a source of belief, and on this issue there is no scripture which is clear. So around and around the argument goes . . .

REALLY:shrug:

***Nothing except foe the very WORDS and Promises of Christ ***[God] and FIVE NT authors; and complete acceptance and immediate acceptance AND application by the Apostles and the Early Church.

Before it was called “Mass” it was known as the “Breaking of the Bread”

Acts.2: 46 “And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts,”

My dear freind; its NOT that the truth is NOT in the Bible; it is that God’s own words are denined:blush:

Jn. 6: 35-56 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst; The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” ;GODS REPLY: Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life; This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."; 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “**How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” **GOD REPLIES:So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him”
Matthew 26: 26-28

And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body

MARK 14: 22-24
And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body

Luke 22: 19-21
And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you

JOHN quoted above

Paul: Paul 1 Cor.11: 23-29
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: [to be worthy of the privilege] and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself

THE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING ID NOT THAT THE TRTUH IS NOT IN THE BIBLE. IT CLEARLY IS WHAT IS LACKING IS TRUE FAITH IN GODS OWN WORDS AND PROMISE AND UNDERSTANDING THAT IT IS HIS NOW GLORIFIED AND RISEN BOD; NOT HIS CARDINAL BODY. AMEN.

God Bless,
Pat /PJM

 

[Makko52]

Thank you all for the valuable information you have given me. I greatly appreciate it and i recieve it with a humble heart.

I do have another question.
If the partaking of the Eucharist is essential for eternal life, along with the other seven sacraments “The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.” Pg. 292, #1129

and “There are seven sacraments in the Church: Baptism, Confirmation or Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony.” Pg. 289, #1113 these are quotes from the catechism.

Is their scripture to show when the apostles/believers partook of the eucharist? when i look through the scriputes i see repeatedly when the diciples came in contact with non believers, when the non-believers heard the Gospel of Christ they became believers. i dont ever see them specifically partaking of the eucharist and then recieving eternal life. Now i may be wrong on this becuase i not that smart, but if partaking of the Eucharist is so essential for salvation, how come i do not see anyone partaking of it in the scripture, beside from the Catholic point of view of 1corinthians 11 (which is the only scripture i think i was given that is happenign after Christ was actually crucified.) Can somone please help me out on that?
Thank you all!

 

[dal61]

REALLY:shrug:

***Nothing except foe the very WORDS and Promises of Christ ***[God] and FIVE NT authors; and complete acceptance and immediate acceptance AND application by the Apostles and the Early Church.

Before it was called “Mass” it was known as the “Breaking of the Bread”

Acts.2: 46 “And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts,”

My dear freind; its NOT that the truth is NOT in the Bible; it is that God’s own words are denined:blush:

Jn. 6: 35-56 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst; The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” ;GODS REPLY: Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life; This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."; 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “**How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” **GOD REPLIES:So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him”
Matthew 26: 26-28

And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body

MARK 14: 22-24
And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body

Luke 22: 19-21
And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you

JOHN quoted above

Paul: Paul 1 Cor.11: 23-29
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: [to be worthy of the privilege] and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself

THE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING ID NOT THAT THE TRTUH IS NOT IN THE BIBLE. IT CLEARLY IS WHAT IS LACKING IS TRUE FAITH IN GODS OWN WORDS AND PROMISE AND UNDERSTANDING THAT IT IS HIS NOW GLORIFIED AND RISEN BOD; NOT HIS CARDINAL BODY. AMEN.

God Bless,
Pat /PJM

Thanks Pat…as somebody just starting my journey towards truth, this whole thread has been great…but seeing this post has given me a little extra peace. As a 51 yr old life long Protestant, this has been hard for me to wrap my head around…but Paul’s words speak volumes to me.

Blessings.

 

[snarflemike]

There is nothing in scripture which clearly contradicts Catholic doctrine on this subject. There is also nothing in scripture which clearly shows Catholic doctrine to be right. If there were, the Church would not need to elaborate to the extent it does. While this indicates to me, an unbeliever, that scripture is either not inspired, or that God is not very good at inspiring in a clear way, it causes no difficulty to the Catholic believer, since they do not rely on scripture alone, but on the tradition of the Church and the Church has clearly believed something very like what the modern Church believes since the second century (at least). This, however, is of no use to the Bible-believing protestant, since only scripture will do as a source of belief, and on this issue there is no scripture which is clear. So around and around the argument goes . . .

Yes, the Catholic Church does not find her beliefs in the bible. What she does do is find confirmation for her beliefs in the bible. Her beliefs come directly from Jesus through the Apostles. The Church already knew those beliefs when the New Testament books were written. If they were not written as precise textbooks, that is because they were never intended to be precise textbooks. And you are quite right that sola Scriptura Protestants have huge problems in determining what the bible teaches for this reason.

 

[Makko52]

Yes, the Catholic Church does not find her beliefs in the bible. What she does do is find confirmation for her beliefs in the bible. Her beliefs come directly from Jesus through the Apostles. The Church already knew those beliefs when the New Testament books were written. If they were not written as precise textbooks, that is because they were never intended to be precise textbooks. And you are quite right that sola Scriptura Protestants have huge problems in determining what the bible teaches for this reason.

If the Catholic Church does not find her beliefs in the bible, where does she get her authority from? To me God’s Word has the final authority on everything. I used to be in a pagan religion, God led me to His word, When i started reading his word i saw that my own beliefs contradicted Gods word! When i was faced with that i realized that I needed Jesus and recieved his gift of eternal life! Thank you Lord.:extrahappy:

 

[po18guy]

There is nothing in scripture which clearly contradicts Catholic doctrine on this subject. There is also nothing in scripture which clearly shows Catholic doctrine to be right. If there were, the Church would not need to elaborate to the extent it does. While this indicates to me, an unbeliever, that scripture is either not inspired, or that God is not very good at inspiring in a clear way, it causes no difficulty to the Catholic believer, since they do not rely on scripture alone, but on the tradition of the Church and the Church has clearly believed something very like what the modern Church believes since the second century (at least). This, however, is of no use to the Bible-believing protestant, since only scripture will do as a source of belief, and on this issue there is no scripture which is clear. So around and around the argument goes . . .

Well, thank you so very much - I think…

 

[in_servitude]

When people make this claim that we’re doing something unthinkable by “Eating His Flesh, drinking His Blood,” I point out that John 6:60-66 answers this directly. If I’m wrong on this, please let me know.

60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” 61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?

It is shocking when thinking of it strictly in the carnal sense.

62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. 65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”

66As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

When Jesus says, “…while the flesh is of no avail,” the word “flesh” is used, but this time, he does not say, “**my **flesh”. He says, “**the **flesh.” Big difference!

The word “betray” does not show up very often in the NT. It shows up here, and also figures quite prominently after the Last Supper. Why mention the one who would betray him at this point??

 

[po18guy]

If the Catholic Church does not find her beliefs in the bible, where does she get her authority from? To me God’s Word has the final authority on everything. I used to be in a pagan religion, God led me to His word, When i started reading his word i saw that my own beliefs contradicted Gods word! When i was faced with that i realized that I needed Jesus and recieved his gift of eternal life! Thank you Lord.:extrahappy:

Scripture as “supreme” is a 495 year old idea. It occurred nowhere in Christianity within the first 1,500 years. Read the prologue of Luke’s Gospel (Luke 1:1-2). “Theophilus” learned nothing from Luke’s Gospel. Zip. Zero. Nada. Luke’s Gospel was written only to confirm the oral Apostolic teaching that Theophilus had already received. Christ made Apostles, opened their minds to understand the (Old Testament) scriptures, gave them the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit, and sent them to teach orally. That is how Theophilus was catechized. That is how the Church was founded, and that is how it grew. That is how Christ intended. Christ did not intend that men, by their own authority, would misinterpret scripture and cause division in His Body.

The Bereans? Oh, they searched the scriptures alrught, but from the existing scriptures, they could never have determined Jesus of Nazareth was the One spoken of by the prophets. So, how did they learn? Paul taught them orally, using the oral Apostolic Tradition. When they heard Paul, they went back to the prophets and saw that it confirmed what Paul was teaching.

We know that man lives on every word that issues from the mouth of God, right? (Deuternomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4). Yet, the bible tells us that every word of God is not in it! See Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34 and many others. Where then, is it?

We know from Isaiah 55:11 that God’s word does not return to Him void. Yet, we also know that all of God’s word is not all in the bible. It has to be somewhere. God’s word is living, and not merely printed. It is stored in a living, breathing authority - the Church.

I know this sounds revolutionary to you, but it is actually the Church as Christ founded it. Our Lord wrote not a single word of scripture. He did not command the Apostles to write a single word. He said “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16).

If God’s written word was supreme, then why didn’t our Lord write anything? If the written word is the final rule, how come virtually no one agrees on what it means? God gave us a living word, and entrusted it to the Church that His Son founded.

On the other hand, God’s word must be interpreted with authority from above, correct? I mean, the devil quoted scripture to tempt our Lord in the desert (Matthew 4). Was the devil correct in his interpretation? Of course not.

Read Nehemiah 8:5-8 and Acts 8:26-35. Scripture must be interpreted by those in authority - authority from above and not the authority of the self - before it is correctly understood.

 

[jlhargus]

Thank you all for the valuable information you have given me. I greatly appreciate it and i recieve it with a humble heart. I do have another question.
If the partaking of the Eucharist is essential for eternal life, along with the other seven sacraments “The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.” Pg. 292, #1129

and “There are seven sacraments in the Church: Baptism, Confirmation or Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony.” Pg. 289, #1113 these are quotes from the catechism.

JL: Sacraments are necessary but not an ABSOLUTE necessity. Christ tells us in [Jn3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, **EXCEPT a man be BORN OF water AND OF the Spirit, he CANNOT ENTER into THE KINGDOM of God.]

There is a necessary way to be born in the natural way, yet it is not an ABSOLUTE necessity. In emergencies the physician can birth the child by cesarean. Our Lord, the Great Physician, can act outside of Sacraments if necessary as he did with the thief on the cross.

Although the Sacrament are necessary everyone does not receive all seven sacraments. For instance not everyone is ordained or married.

 

[jlhargus]

Now i may be wrong on this becuase i not that smart, but if partaking of the Eucharist is so essential for salvation, how come i do not see anyone partaking of it in the scripture, beside from the Catholic point of view of 1corinthians 11 (which is the only scripture i think i was given that is happenign after Christ was actually crucified.) Can somone please help me out on that? Thank you all!

JL: 1Cor11:23-34 Also notice Paul speaks of only two ways to discern the eucharist. Those who discern it IS the body or those who discern it isn’t the body (symbol) of Christ. [1Cor11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, **NOT DISCERNING THE LORD’S BODY.] It is those who do NOT discern the body that are wrong.

[Act2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and **BREAKING BREAD from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,]

Lk24:30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. 32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? 33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, 34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. 35 And they told what things were done in the way, AND HOW HE WAS KNOWN OF THEM IN BREAKING OF BREAD.

Acts2:38 Then Peter said unto them, REPENT, and BE BAPTIZED EVERY ONE OF YOU in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the REMISSION OF SINS, and ye shall RECEIVE the gift of THE HOLY GHOST. 39 For the promise is unto you, AND to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, SAVE YOURSELVES from this untoward generation. 41 Then THEY THAT gladly RECEIVED HIS WORD WERE BAPTIZED: and the same day there were ADDED UNTO THEM about three thousand souls. 42 And THEY CONTINUED stedfastly IN the APOSTLES’ DOCTRINE and FELLOWSHIP, and IN BREADKING OF BREAD, and IN PRAYERS.

[Eph5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 **That he might SANCTIFY and CLEANSE it WITH THE WASHING OF WATER BY THE WORD]

They were saved and added to the body of Christ at baptism and continued in ONE VISIBLE FELLOWSHIP gathered around the Apostles. Breading of Bread=Eucharist or Mass. As Catholics we also continue stedfastly gathered around the successors of the Apostles, our Bishops, in ONE visible fellowship and apostolic doctrine, breaking bread=mass,worship and prayers.

[Acts20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. 8 And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together. 9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. 10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. 11 ** When he therefore was come up again, and had BROKEN BREAD bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.]

See also NLT biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2020:7-11&version=NLT

 

[Makko52]

“Scripture as “supreme” is a 495 year old idea. It occurred nowhere in Christianity within the first 1,500 years. Read the prologue of Luke’s Gospel (Luke 1:1-2). “Theophilus” learned nothing from Luke’s Gospel. Zip. Zero. Nada. Luke’s Gospel was written only to confirm the oral Apostolic teaching that Theophilus had already received. Christ made Apostles, opened their minds to understand the (Old Testament) scriptures, gave them the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit, and sent them to teach orally. That is how Theophilus was catechized. That is how the Church was founded, and that is how it grew. That is how Christ intended. Christ did not intend that men, by their own authority, would misinterpret scripture and cause division in His Body”

We know from Isaiah 55:11 that God’s word does not return to Him void. Yet, we also know that all of God’s word is not all in the bible. It has to be somewhere. God’s word is living, and not merely printed. It is stored in a living, breathing authority - the Church.

“I know this sounds revolutionary to you, but it is actually the Church as Christ founded it. Our Lord wrote not a single word of scripture. He did not command the Apostles to write a single word. He said “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16).”

“If God’s written word was supreme, then why didn’t our Lord write anything? If the written word is the final rule, how come virtually no one agrees on what it means? God gave us a living word, and entrusted it to the Church that His Son founded”
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man
of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
He’s already interpreted it by many quotations He interprets the Bible. Right? We have something in the New Testament that’s quoting an Old Testament passage and interpreting what it means. So by quotation doesn’t He interpret the Bible? Sure He does. So God’s already interpreted that Bible.

Number two, not only by quotations but by direct statement. Jesus said, the entire
Bible is “concerning himself.” Luke 24:27 Now, did He interpret the entire Old Testament in that one slot? Yeah, He sure did. He said, “It is all about Me.”

God indicates that His written Word would be a complete
and final revelation!

Exodus 20:1; Deuteronomy 4:2; 8:3; Psalm 19:7; 119:89,152,160;
Proverbs 30:5-6; Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 5:18; 24:35; Luke 16:31; John
10:35; 16:13; Romans 10:17; 1 Corinthians 14:37; 15:1; Galatians 1:9
Hebrews 1:1-2; 2:2-4; Jude 3; Revelation 1:1; 22:18-19
I do not believe in progressive revalation.

 

[snarflemike]

If the Catholic Church does not find her beliefs in the bible, where does she get her authority from?

From Jesus Christ, her founder and head, given to the Apostles and passed down through the ages.

To me God’s Word has the final authority on everything.

But you, and every Christian, rely on the final authority of the Church to even know what writings are in the bible.

 

[Makko52]

From Jesus Christ, her founder and head, given to the Apostles and passed down through the ages.

But you, and every Christian, rely on the final authority of the Church to even know what writings are in the bible.

I do not rely on the Church for the interpretation of the word. The scriptures speak for themselves. I look at the interpretation of the Church, and see if it contradicts the Bible.
I believe the Bible interprets itself.

 

[po18guy]

He’s already interpreted it by many quotations He interprets the Bible. Right?

No! He inspired it, but men with authority must then interpret. Otherwise, we may be hearing the devil - who also interprets. Did you completely ignore God’s teaching in Nehemiah 8 and Acts 8? It appears that you did.

We have something in the New Testament that’s quoting an Old Testament passage and interpreting what it means. So by quotation doesn’t He interpret the Bible? Sure He does. So God’s already interpreted that Bible.

30,000 disagreeing denominations. Each has the same exact bible! It is the demon’s lie that scripture interprets itself.

Number two, not only by quotations but by direct statement. Jesus said, the entire Bible is “concerning himself.” Luke 24:27 Now, did He interpret the entire Old Testament in that one slot? Yeah, He sure did. He said, “It is all about Me.”

Sure! But HOW is it about Him? Either you listen to His Church, or you are making things up.

God indicates that His written Word would be a complete
and final revelation!

Where?

I thought you were here to learn something. My bad.

 

[Makko52]

No! He inspired it, but men with authority must then interpret. Otherwise, we may be hearing the devil - who also interprets.

30,000 disagreeing denominations. Each has the same exact bible! It is the demon’s lie that scripture interprets itself. It is not alive! Only God is alive.
Sure! But HOW is it about Him?
It doesn’t say this.

I thought you were here to learn, and not simply to regurgitate man-made error that you currently believe. My bad.

I am here to learn what The catholic church believe, but i would like to see how it defends what it believes as well. Is that wrong of me to do? If that offends anyone, well i am sorry that was not what i wanted to do. It is sometimes difficult to translate somones intentions from what they write especially if they are not a very good writer I realize this is a very, very, strong subject and it is essential to the Catholic church. Maybe it would be better if I not continue the thought. i believe i recieved a great deal of information and i really appreciate all of it. May God richly Bless you.
In great respect and love, signing off :tiphat:

 

[po18guy]

From Jesus Christ, her founder and head, given to the Apostles and passed down through the ages.

But you, and every Christian, rely on the final authority of the Church to even know what writings are in the bible.

Sadly, it appears that he is not willing to listen or learn, but only to put forth his opinion as truth. In addition to the mountain of other scriptures he chooses to ignore, he also apparently ignores James 3:1. Funny that the untested spirit that leads him also invariably leads him to oppose the Catholic Church. Something to ponder there…

 

[po18guy]

I am here to learn what The catholic church believe, but i would like to see how it defends what it believes as well. Is that wrong of me to do? If that offends anyone, well i am sorry that was not what i wanted to do. It is sometimes difficult to translate somones intentions from what they write especially if they are not a very good writer I realize this is a very, very, strong subject and it is essential to the Catholic church. Maybe it would be better if I not continue the thought. i believe i recieved a great deal of information and i really appreciate all of it. May God richly Bless you.
In great respect and love, signing off :tiphat:

My apologies for being less than charitable. However, if you are here to learn, then it is best to set your personal beliefs aside and study what you are hoping to learn, no?

Simply put: If scripture interprets itself, it has a psychological disorder, as it leads in different directions.

The bible says that the word of God must be properly interpreted. That means that I must listen to the authority that God has placed over me.

30,000 denominations cannot all disagree if scripture is clear without interpretation.

What is missing here?

 

[JonNC]

One other thing. The priest told me about the verse in John 6. where it states that it is his body and blood. Are we to take it litterly? What about when He said He was the door in John 10:7 “Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.” Does that mean that Jesus is Litery a door made of wood?(or other material?) or could it possibly be symbolic stating that He(Jesus) is the only way into Heaven? I would appreciate any clarification on it!
Thank you in advance

Just a comment on this, if I may.

As a preface, Lutherans believe every bit as much as Catholics that the Lord’s Supper is the true and substantial body and blood of Christ. We just don’t use Transubstantiation or consubstantiation, which are metaphysical terms, to describe it.

There is quite a difference in the language Christ uses when He tells us that the bread and wine are His body and blood. When He says He is the door, this is clearly a metaphor - the way to salvation. But with the supper, He holds the bread and says, “This (bread) is me”. He says the bread is His body. He never held a door and said the door is Him.

So, we have a difference here. Obviously, no door is Him, but the bread IS his body. He says so.

Jon

 

[snarflemike]

I do not rely on the Church for the interpretation of the word. The scriptures speak for themselves. I look at the interpretation of the Church, and see if it contradicts the Bible.
I believe the Bible interprets itself.

The bible alone can’t even tell us if Jesus is Divine or just human.
The bible alone can’t tell us if God is Triune.
The bible alone can’t tell us if the Eucharist is only symbolic, or the actual body and blood of Christ.
The bible alone can’t tell us if baptism is only symbolic, or if it truly washes away all sin and enters us into a covenant with God.
The bible alone can’t tell us if double predestination is true or false.
The bible alone can’t tell us if the earth is a few thousand years old, or a few billion.

There are self-proclaimed Christians who claim that the bible teaches both sides (and who knows how many others) of each of those issues, and countless others.

Having the bible as one’s chief authority means having no authority. Or, if you like, it means having the reader and his particular church and his particular pastor and the particular books he finds most convincing as his chief authority. This doesn’t work, and can’t work, as witness the countless “bible alone” beliefs one finds in Protestant Christianity.