J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
When recieved worthily…ABSOLUTELY !!!
- Status
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
I have a question that has confused me and I have not gotten an answer in the past.
Jesus’s own words were that you have to eat my flesh and drink my blood to be saved(paraphrasing) right? So since catholics take this scripture literally then that would mean that the only way to get to heaven is if you receive the Eucharist worthily(of course)
So, if what Jesus was talking about to be literal, then why does the CC only require you to take the Eucharist once a year(which would also mean confessing once a year).
What about all those catholics who take the Eucharist once a year and obviously sin daily and what if they die within that year?
How long does the Eucharist last before you have to take it again to be saved–one year, one month, a week, a day, an hour?
Im not trying to be mean or sarcastic here, I really want to know because it doesnt make sense to me.
Jesus’s own words were that you have to eat my flesh and drink my blood to be saved(paraphrasing) right? So since catholics take this scripture literally then that would mean that the only way to get to heaven is if you receive the Eucharist worthily(of course)
So, if what Jesus was talking about to be literal, then why does the CC only require you to take the Eucharist once a year(which would also mean confessing once a year).
What about all those catholics who take the Eucharist once a year and obviously sin daily and what if they die within that year?
How long does the Eucharist last before you have to take it again to be saved–one year, one month, a week, a day, an hour?
Im not trying to be mean or sarcastic here, I really want to know because it doesnt make sense to me.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
REcieving the Eucharist worthily and devoutly is armor and resistance to sin. It is a miracle when received in that way. It strengthens the soul.I have a question that has confused me and I have not gotten an answer in the past.
Jesus’s own words were that you have to eat my flesh and drink my blood to be saved(paraphrasing) right? So since catholics take this scripture literally then that would mean that the only way to get to heaven is if you receive the Eucharist worthily(of course)
So, if what Jesus was talking about to be literal, then why does the CC only require you to take the Eucharist once a year(which would also mean confessing once a year).
What about all those catholics who take the Eucharist once a year and obviously sin daily and what if they die within that year?
How long does the Eucharist last before you have to take it again to be saved–one year, one month, a week, a day, an hour?
Im not trying to be mean or sarcastic here, I really want to know because it doesnt make sense to me.
Going through the motions even though receiving within the prescribed time frame and sinning afterwards…should one die outside the state of grace before confessing damnation is near at hand.
Other than receiving worthily is a mockery and as St. Paul put it, “…whosoever recieves the Body and Blood of Christ UNWORTHILY is guilty of the blood of Christ…” He is talking about SACRILEGE. And that is a ticket to Hell.
C
cheddarsox
Guest
Not to beat a dead horse, but just because I am tired of being misrepresented here. In my first post on this thread (#6), I stated that I believe in the Real Presence. I did try to make that clear from the start.
I often find that people argue with me even when I am “on their side” so to speak, merely because they do not actually read my posts, but seem to see what they want to see.
It would do us all well to read carefully before we respond. Sometimes we are quick to assume someone is wrong/against us/ attacking…whatever…when that is not the case.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Thank you for your speedy answer but then how does it save you? I understand the first part of your comment.The second paragraph confused me–maybe you left out some words because it didnt seem like a finished sentenceREcieving the Eucharist worthily and devoutly is armor and resistance to sin. It is a miracle when received in that way. It strengthens the soul.
Going through the motions even though receiving within the prescribed time frame and sinning afterwards…should one die outside the state of grace before confessing damnation is near at hand.
Other than receiving worthily is a mockery and as St. Paul put it, “…whosoever recieves the Body and Blood of Christ UNWORTHILY is guilty of the blood of Christ…” He is talking about SACRILEGE. And that is a ticket to Hell.
I totally agree with your last paragraph–we are taught the same thing:thumbsup: except the ticket to hell part
We consider it a mockery if you are taking communion and are not part of the body of believers because then you are receiving communion like you say above.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Is there a similar definition of the blood somewhere? In John 4, did Jesus say, “My blood is to…”? Is to what???
I mean, for your scriptures to be cobbled-together properly, you need to address the fact that Jesus said: “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you.”
Honestly, given how often Protestants point out that Jesus also claimed to be a vine and a door thus illustrating His fondness of using metaphors, it is ironic and amusing that you now seek to take a literal interpretation of an obvious metaphor like John 4:34. :tsktsk:
Well, you get brownie points for trying.
However, Jesus’ teaching in John 4:34 was made on a separate occasion from the Bread of Life discourse given at Capernaum in John 6.
In John 4 He was speaking metaphorically about what sustained Him; namely, to do the will of God. Since Jesus was a real man, we know that he would have eaten real meat as part of a normal diet. After the resurrection, he ate a small piece of fish to prove to the disciples that he was not a ghost (cf. Luke 24:42). Therefore, doing the will of God was not literally his “meat”.
In John 6, Jesus is speaking literally about his own flesh which was given to sustain us. It is not appropriate to mix a metaphorical teaching with a literal one.
It seems kind of strange to interpret an obvious metaphor in a literal manner in order to explain away an obviously literal passage. This is what Peter is talking about when he says:
2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
This explanation is also a clear example of the fruit of *sola scriptura - *scripture is pretty much open to personal interpretation, twisting and distortion to make it fit a pre-determined theology. Eisegesis is the operative word, I think.
Sorry. :tiphat:
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
What is being said is that even though we receive the bare requirement of once a year we are more susceptible to sin when it is strung out that long inbetween. If the opportunities are there to receive frequently we should take them.Thank you for your speedy answer but then how does it save you? I understand the first part of your comment.The second paragraph confused me–maybe you left out some words because it didnt seem like a finished sentence
I totally agree with your last paragraph–we are taught the same thing:thumbsup: except the ticket to hell part
If we are overcome with temptation and act them out the result is Mortal Sin (provided it is a grievous matter). No one, not even one living a cloistered life, is exempt from temtations. Even Our Dear Lord was tempted, remember?
But resistance to temptation is found in frequent reception of the Eucharist. Doing this becomes a journey into spirituality so much so we can actually see clearly the folly of sin.
If this doesn’t clear up any confusion, I’ll keep trying.
A
ACbishop
Guest
The Bible says nothing about transubstantiation. It is totally fabricated by the Catholic church to say that they have Jesus in the real presence but nobody else does. It is just more rhetoric that can’t be proven by anything but what comes from Catholicism. Luther exclaimed exactly what scripture says in cosubstantiation that it is bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ. The bread which comes down from heaven is my flesh.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The Bible says nothing about consubstantiation, either. Like transubstantiation, it is a term used to describe a theological belief.
But since you opened this can of worms…
Questions for My Separated Brethren
Where does the Bible tell you that there are three co-substantial persons in the one triune God?
Where does the Bible tell you that Jesus proceeds from the Father but that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son?
Where does the Bible tell you that Jesus is fully God and fully man with two natures and two wills?
Where does the Bible tell you that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle?
Where does the Bible tell you which letters and books written by early Christians are to be considered “scripture”?
Where does the Bible tell you that it is the only infallible rule of faith for the believer (sola scriptura)?
Where does the Bible tell you that you are saved by faith alone (sola fide)?
Where does the Bible tell you to recite the sinner’s prayer and provide the precise words that you must say to do it correctly?
Where does the Bible tell you that once you are saved, you cannot lose your salvation?
Where does the Bible tell you not to baptize infants? Where does the Bible tell you to baptize only adults?
Where does the Bible tell you to baptize by sprinkling, pouring or immersion?
Where does the Bible tell you that the bread and wine used at the Last Supper were purely symbolic references to his “teaching” which we must “chew on” and “mull over” as “food for thought” in our minds?
Where does the Bible tell you to confess your sins to God alone? Where does the Bible tell you not to confess to a man?
Where does the Bible tell you that you should not respect, honor, and follow the example given by those Christians who have led holy lives before you?
Where does the Bible tell you that the faithful who have died in Christ and entered heaven cannot hear you and that you are prohibited from talking to them?
Where does the Bible tell you that there is not a place of purgation of sins that one must go through before entering heaven?
Where does the Bible tell you that dancing and drinking alcohol is prohibited?
Where does the Bible tell you to attend Wednesday night services?
Where does the Bible tell you to set up little “manger scenes” in places of honor at Christmas time with a “graven image” of the Baby Jesus surrounded by cows, sheep, wise men and angels?
Where does the Bible tell you that artificial birth control is acceptable to God?
Where does the Bible tell you that divorce is acceptable to God?
A
ACbishop
Guest
My question to you is simple. Where in scripture does it claim that only a Catholic clergy can physically change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ? I would like to see it.The Bible says nothing about consubstantiation, either. Like transubstantiation, it is a term used to describe a theological belief.
But since you opened this can of worms…
Questions for My Separated Brethren
Where does the Bible tell you that there are three co-substantial persons in the one triune God?
Where does the Bible tell you that Jesus proceeds from the Father but that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son?
Where does the Bible tell you that Jesus is fully God and fully man with two natures and two wills?
Where does the Bible tell you that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle?
Where does the Bible tell you which letters and books written by early Christians are to be considered “scripture”?
Where does the Bible tell you that it is the only infallible rule of faith for the believer (sola scriptura)?
Where does the Bible tell you that you are saved by faith alone (sola fide)?
Where does the Bible tell you to recite the sinner’s prayer and provide the precise words that you must say to do it correctly?
Where does the Bible tell you that once you are saved, you cannot lose your salvation?
Where does the Bible tell you not to baptize infants? Where does the Bible tell you to baptize only adults?
Where does the Bible tell you to baptize by sprinkling, pouring or immersion?
Where does the Bible tell you that the bread and wine used at the Last Supper were purely symbolic references to his “teaching” which we must “chew on” and “mull over” as “food for thought” in our minds?
Where does the Bible tell you to confess your sins to God alone? Where does the Bible tell you not to confess to a man?
Where does the Bible tell you that you should not respect, honor, and follow the example given by those Christians who have led holy lives before you?
Where does the Bible tell you that the faithful who have died in Christ and entered heaven cannot hear you and that you are prohibited from talking to them?
Where does the Bible tell you that there is not a place of purgation of sins that one must go through before entering heaven?
Where does the Bible tell you that dancing and drinking alcohol is prohibited?
Where does the Bible tell you to attend Wednesday night services?
Where does the Bible tell you to set up little “manger scenes” in places of honor at Christmas time with a “graven image” of the Baby Jesus surrounded by cows, sheep, wise men and angels?
Where does the Bible tell you that artificial birth control is acceptable to God?
Where does the Bible tell you that divorce is acceptable to God?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
A few more…
Questions for “Bible Christians”
Scripture
Where in the Bible is God’s Word restricted only to what is written down?
Other than the specific command to John to pen the Revelation, where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?
Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?
The time interval between the Resurrection and the establishment of the New Testament canon in ad 382 is roughly the same as the interval between the arrival of the Mayflower in America and the present day; therefore, since the early Christians had no defined New Testament for almost four hundred years, how did they practice sola scriptura?
How could the Apostle Thomas establish the church in India that survives to this day (and is now in communion with the Catholic Church) without leaving them with one word of New Testament Scripture?
If Christianity is a “book religion,” how did it flourish during the first 1500 years of Church history when the vast majority of people were illiterate?
If Jesus intended for Christianity to be exclusively a “religion of the book,” why did He wait 1400 years before showing somebody how to build a printing press?
Oral Tradition
Some Protestants claim that Jesus condemned all oral tradition (e.g., Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8‑13). If so, why does He bind His listeners to oral tradition by telling them to obey the scribes and Pharisees when they “sit on Moses’ seat” (Matt 23:2)?
Some Protestants claim that St. Paul condemned all oral tradition (Col 2:8). If so, why does he tell the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thes 2:15) and praises the Corinthians because they “hold firmly to the traditions” (1 Cor 11:2)? (Why does the Protestant NIV change the word “tradition” to “teaching”?)
Sola Scriptura
Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals?
If the authors of the New Testament believed in sola scriptura, why did they sometimes draw on oral Tradition as authoritative and as God’s Word (Matt 2:23; 23:2; 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 3:19; Jude 9, 14 15)?
If the early Church believed in sola scriptura, why do the creeds of the early Church always say “we believe in the Holy Catholic Church,” and not “we believe in Holy Scripture”?
On what biblical basis do Protestants think that everything that the apostles taught is captured in the New Testament writings given that most of the books of the New Testament were written to address very specific problems in the early Church, and none of them are a systematic presentation of Christian faith and theology?
(cont.)
Questions for “Bible Christians”
Scripture
Where in the Bible is God’s Word restricted only to what is written down?
Other than the specific command to John to pen the Revelation, where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?
Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?
The time interval between the Resurrection and the establishment of the New Testament canon in ad 382 is roughly the same as the interval between the arrival of the Mayflower in America and the present day; therefore, since the early Christians had no defined New Testament for almost four hundred years, how did they practice sola scriptura?
How could the Apostle Thomas establish the church in India that survives to this day (and is now in communion with the Catholic Church) without leaving them with one word of New Testament Scripture?
If Christianity is a “book religion,” how did it flourish during the first 1500 years of Church history when the vast majority of people were illiterate?
If Jesus intended for Christianity to be exclusively a “religion of the book,” why did He wait 1400 years before showing somebody how to build a printing press?
Oral Tradition
Some Protestants claim that Jesus condemned all oral tradition (e.g., Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8‑13). If so, why does He bind His listeners to oral tradition by telling them to obey the scribes and Pharisees when they “sit on Moses’ seat” (Matt 23:2)?
Some Protestants claim that St. Paul condemned all oral tradition (Col 2:8). If so, why does he tell the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thes 2:15) and praises the Corinthians because they “hold firmly to the traditions” (1 Cor 11:2)? (Why does the Protestant NIV change the word “tradition” to “teaching”?)
Sola Scriptura
Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals?
If the authors of the New Testament believed in sola scriptura, why did they sometimes draw on oral Tradition as authoritative and as God’s Word (Matt 2:23; 23:2; 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 3:19; Jude 9, 14 15)?
If the early Church believed in sola scriptura, why do the creeds of the early Church always say “we believe in the Holy Catholic Church,” and not “we believe in Holy Scripture”?
On what biblical basis do Protestants think that everything that the apostles taught is captured in the New Testament writings given that most of the books of the New Testament were written to address very specific problems in the early Church, and none of them are a systematic presentation of Christian faith and theology?
(cont.)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Canon
Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible, and is the Bible’s Table of Contents inspired?)
How did the early Church evangelize and overthrow the Roman Empire, survive and prosper almost 350 years, without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon of Scripture?
How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the individual books of the New Testament are inspired, even when they make no claim to be inspired?
How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John?
On what authority or on what principle, would we accept as Scripture books that we know were not written by one of the twelve apostles?
How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the letters of St. Paul, who wrote to first-century congregations and individuals, are meant to be read by us as Scripture 2000 years later?
Who in the Church had the authority to determine which books belonged in the New Testament canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians? If nobody has this authority, then can I remove or add books to the canon on my own authority?
How were the bishops at Hippo and Carthage able to determine the correct canon of Scripture, in spite of the fact that they believed all the distinctively Catholic doctrines such as the apostolic succession of bishops, the sacrifice of the Mass, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, etc?
Why do Protestant scholars recognize the early Church councils at Hippo and Carthage as the first instances in which the New Testament canon was officially ratified, but ignore the fact that those same councils ratified the Old Testament canon used by the Catholic Church today but abandoned by Protestants at the Reformation?
Why do Protestants follow post‑apostolic Jewish decisions on the boundaries of the Old Testament canon, rather than the decision of the Church founded by Jesus Christ?
If the books of the New Testament are “self-authenticating” through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to each individual, then why was there confusion in the early Church over which books were inspired, with some books being rejected by the majority?
The Koran explicitly claims divine inspiration, but the New Testament books do not. How do you know that the New Testament books are nevertheless inspired, but the Koran is not?
(cont.)
Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible, and is the Bible’s Table of Contents inspired?)
How did the early Church evangelize and overthrow the Roman Empire, survive and prosper almost 350 years, without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon of Scripture?
How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the individual books of the New Testament are inspired, even when they make no claim to be inspired?
How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John?
On what authority or on what principle, would we accept as Scripture books that we know were not written by one of the twelve apostles?
How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the letters of St. Paul, who wrote to first-century congregations and individuals, are meant to be read by us as Scripture 2000 years later?
Who in the Church had the authority to determine which books belonged in the New Testament canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians? If nobody has this authority, then can I remove or add books to the canon on my own authority?
How were the bishops at Hippo and Carthage able to determine the correct canon of Scripture, in spite of the fact that they believed all the distinctively Catholic doctrines such as the apostolic succession of bishops, the sacrifice of the Mass, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, etc?
Why do Protestant scholars recognize the early Church councils at Hippo and Carthage as the first instances in which the New Testament canon was officially ratified, but ignore the fact that those same councils ratified the Old Testament canon used by the Catholic Church today but abandoned by Protestants at the Reformation?
Why do Protestants follow post‑apostolic Jewish decisions on the boundaries of the Old Testament canon, rather than the decision of the Church founded by Jesus Christ?
If the books of the New Testament are “self-authenticating” through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to each individual, then why was there confusion in the early Church over which books were inspired, with some books being rejected by the majority?
The Koran explicitly claims divine inspiration, but the New Testament books do not. How do you know that the New Testament books are nevertheless inspired, but the Koran is not?
(cont.)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Perspicuity
If the Bible is as clear as Martin Luther claimed, why was he the first one to interpret it the way he did and why was he frustrated at the end of his life that “there are now as many doctrines as there are heads”?
If the meaning of the Bible is so clear—so easily interpreted—and if the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to interpret it for themselves, then why are there over 33,000 Protestant denominations, and millions of individual Protestants, all interpreting the Bible differently?
Problems created by sola scriptura
If the Bible is the only foundation and basis of Christian truth, why does the Bible itself say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)?
Jesus said that the unity of Christians would be objective evidence to the world that He had been sent by God (John 17:20-23). How can the world see an invisible “unity” that exists only in the hearts of believers?
If the unity of Christians was meant to convince the world that Jesus was sent by God, what does the ever-increasing fragmentation of Protestantism say to the world?
Who may authoritatively arbitrate between Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into mutually contradictory interpretations of the Bible?
What is one to believe when one Protestant says infants should be baptized (e.g., Luther and Calvin) and another says it is wrong and unbiblical (e.g., Baptists and Evangelicals)?
Since each Protestant must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible, how can any Protestant in good conscience call anything heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief?
Protestants usually claim that they all agree “on the important things.” Who is able to decide authoritatively what is important in the Christian faith and what is not?
How does a Protestant know for sure what God thinks about moral issues such as abortion, masturbation, contraceptives, eugenics, euthanasia, etc.?
Hebrews 13:17 says, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.” What is the expiration date of this verse, and when did it become okay not only to disobey the Church’s leaders, but to rebel against them and set up rival churches?
:tiphat:
If the Bible is as clear as Martin Luther claimed, why was he the first one to interpret it the way he did and why was he frustrated at the end of his life that “there are now as many doctrines as there are heads”?
If the meaning of the Bible is so clear—so easily interpreted—and if the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to interpret it for themselves, then why are there over 33,000 Protestant denominations, and millions of individual Protestants, all interpreting the Bible differently?
Problems created by sola scriptura
If the Bible is the only foundation and basis of Christian truth, why does the Bible itself say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)?
Jesus said that the unity of Christians would be objective evidence to the world that He had been sent by God (John 17:20-23). How can the world see an invisible “unity” that exists only in the hearts of believers?
If the unity of Christians was meant to convince the world that Jesus was sent by God, what does the ever-increasing fragmentation of Protestantism say to the world?
Who may authoritatively arbitrate between Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into mutually contradictory interpretations of the Bible?
What is one to believe when one Protestant says infants should be baptized (e.g., Luther and Calvin) and another says it is wrong and unbiblical (e.g., Baptists and Evangelicals)?
Since each Protestant must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible, how can any Protestant in good conscience call anything heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief?
Protestants usually claim that they all agree “on the important things.” Who is able to decide authoritatively what is important in the Christian faith and what is not?
How does a Protestant know for sure what God thinks about moral issues such as abortion, masturbation, contraceptives, eugenics, euthanasia, etc.?
Hebrews 13:17 says, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.” What is the expiration date of this verse, and when did it become okay not only to disobey the Church’s leaders, but to rebel against them and set up rival churches?
:tiphat:
A
ACbishop
Guest
This is an abject lie.
G
GKC
Guest
B
believers
Guest
That means judge yourself and don’t be like Judas.REcieving the Eucharist worthily and devoutly is armor and resistance to sin. It is a miracle when received in that way. It strengthens the soul.
Going through the motions even though receiving within the prescribed time frame and sinning afterwards…should one die outside the state of grace before confessing damnation is near at hand.
Other than receiving worthily is a mockery and as St. Paul put it, “…whosoever recieves the Body and Blood of Christ UNWORTHILY is guilty of the blood of Christ…” He is talking about SACRILEGE. And that is a ticket to Hell.
B
believers
Guest
Sorry… but your religion’s very carnal definition of the body and blood are way off. Jesus said… they are spirit and they are life.
In regards to His blood is DRINK indeed… I believe Jesus explained this too in Chapters 4 and 7 (now, I’m open to reproof if anyone cares to correct me, with the Word of God). I believe Jesus was referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. When a sinner believes on Him… he/she is baptized with the Holy Spirit.
1Cr 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Chapter 4
Jhn 4:10
Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
Jhn 4:11
The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
Jhn 4:12
Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?
Jhn 4:13
Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
Jhn 4:14
But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
Jhn 4:15
The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.
Chapter 7
Jhn 7:37
In the last day, that great [day] of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
Jhn 7:38
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Jhn 7:39
(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
1Cr 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
M
MarisStella
Guest
"there are now as many doctrines as there are heads”?
Randy, where can I find this quote from Martin Luther?
Randy, where can I find this quote from Martin Luther?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
My question back would be, “Where did the early Christian Church teach anything other than this?”
But first, Jesus gave the authority to consecrate the Eucharist to the Apostles at the Last Supper. This is evident from his instructions to those present to whom He said, “Do this in remembrance of me.”
Those Apostles in turn layed hands on (ordaining) other men as the scriptures declare thus bestowing upon them the same authority to confect the Eucharist, to forgive sins and so forth.
Since you have rejected the authority that Jesus gave to the Church and its teaching which is passed on orally, you are left with your translations (not the infallible autographs, mind you) of the Bible which you seek to interpret for yourself without the gift of infallibility.
However, the “Bible alone” is not what Jesus gave to His church; He left behind living men who had authority as well as knowledge of all that Jesus said and did before he returned to Heaven.
You might want to review the passage from the book of Jude which speaks of Korah’s rebellion. You do rememeber Korah, don’t you? He and a group of 250 or so men wanted to claim the priesthood for themselves…well, here…take a look:
1 Korah son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and certain Reubenites—Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth—became insolent 2 and rose up against Moses. With them were 250 Israelite men, well-known community leaders who had been appointed members of the council. 3 They came as a group to oppose Moses and Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the LORD’s assembly?”
This addresses that whole “priesthood of all believers” thing. Catholics agree with that but also understand that God has established a NT priesthood, also. Just as Korah and his followers were destroyed by God for trying to take on the role of the priesthood improperly, so Jude notes that there were some within the early Church who had rejected the authority of the Bishops and Priests, and he links their error directly to that of Korah and his followers who rebelled against God and the authority of the leaders He had placed over His people, Israel.
Today, there are Christians who refuse to accept the authority of the Catholic Church and the Bishops who have been established as its leaders. They believe that the “priesthood of all believers” replaces the ministerial priesthood in Christ’s church, and they reject the episcopate completely. The unfortunate incidents of the 15th century began in “protest” and rebellion against authority – not true reform, and that same rebellious spirit continues to proclaim a message that promotes denominational division.
Oh, then there’s that bit about the Holy Spirit who would remind the Apostles of everything that Jesus had told them as well as lead them into all truth. Now, since you personally never heard Jesus give any teaching (publicly or privately), the Holy Spirit cannot remind you personally of anything.
We can also recall that Jesus told the Apostles that He would remain with them “always to the end of the age”. Since Jesus knew full well that these men were mortal, his words can only mean that he would remain with them and their successors, the bishops of the Church until the end of the age.
Finally, you might take note of the very basic passage in Matthew 16:18 where Jesus conveys authority on Peter personally. You’re familiar with it already, so I won’t quote it again, but note that Jesus said, “whatever you loose on earth is also loosed in heaven…”
Authority to forgive sins and consecrate the Eucharist
Succession by laying on of hands
The scriptures speak of these things and the Early Church taught and expanded its understanding of them.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
- Status