Non-Catholics: How do you know that the words of Jesus are true?

[PRmerger]

I don’t think that it is an extreme at all and if anything I think that the “why” of the Eucharist is more important to ponder that the “how”.

Well, I think Catholics are big enough and capable enough to ponder both.

 

[PRmerger]

I happen to believe that God created us and I believe that God knows that we have limitations so I, most definitely, believe that God knows that some things are beyond our understanding.

You are quite correct when you assert that some things are beyond our understanding.

But it’s odd to me that someone who has an inquisitive mind in all other areas would simply give up and say, “I have no interest in apprehending the truth of this mystery”.

As I said before, good parents wouldn’t accept a shrug from their children on any academic matter. God wouldn’t do it for us either.

If someone said, “It’s beyond our understanding to ponder the mystery of the stars”, we wouldn’t have the space program.

If someone said, “It’s beyond our understanding to ponder the mystery of the human body”, we wouldn’t have medicine.

If someone said, “It’s beyond our understanding to ponder the mystery of other languages”, we wouldn’t have linguistics.

 

[Tom_Baum]

This post prompts the response by Dave Armstrong:

THE RADICAL AND BIZARRE ALL-TOO-COMMON PROTESTANT “QUEST FOR UNCERTAINTY”
Some Protestants make such a big stinking deal about how Catholics like to have “certainty” and how silly and foolish – almost “infantile” – that supposedly is (as if it were some foreign concept in Scripture). It’s not at all! One anti-Catholic tonight even ridiculously compared this to being nearly mentally ill, or on the path to same, anyway.
I flip that canard around and talk about how many Protestants are on a “quest for uncertainty” that never ends. I have many papers along those lines, because it’s a very common theme. They glory in it. They think it’s great (rather than a tragic scandal) that they can’t figure lots of things out in Christianity and that their sects endlessly contradict each other.
They are forever searching (i.e., those who think like this). I like the treasure hunt as much as the next guy (and I joyously found the pearl of great price in 1990), but God wants us to know the truth, so we can fully live by it, not to spend our whole lives searching, as if faith and spirituality were mere philosophy or a sort of “whodunit” where the (lifelong?) search is for the fullness of Christian truth rather than the murderer.

Do you know what the “fullness of Christian truth” is?

Quite simple, one could say that it could be summed up in three letters, one could say that it could be summed up in four letters.

Those three letters are GOD.

And those four letters are LOVE.

Of course those three letters and those four letters are the SAME, at least in what we are speaking of here.

Also, quite simply, one could spend their whole life and basically not get past the “surface” of either of the three and four letter identical words but than again just because Something is simple does not mean that it is all knowable by us even if we are all knowable by this Something.

Isn’t it something that God told us how best to be able to approach God and that is as “little children”, not as someone who has God all figured out and has all of the “right theological terminology” to prove it.

There is a difference, a big difference, between child-like and childish.

Could be that some of those who have quite a bit of Christianity figured-out only have their own “conception” of Christianity figured out.

I happen to believe that God became One of us for ALL of us and not just because it says this in different places.

 

[Peter_J]

Well quoted.

Thanks. . shaw:

 

[PRmerger]

Do you know what the “fullness of Christian truth” is?

Quite simple, one could say that it could be summed up in three letters, one could say that it could be summed up in four letters.

Those three letters are GOD.

And those four letters are LOVE.

Of course those three letters and those four letters are the SAME, at least in what we are speaking of here.

Also, quite simply, one could spend their whole life and basically not get past the “surface” of either of the three and four letter identical words but than again just because Something is simple does not mean that it is all knowable by us even if we are all knowable by this Something.

Isn’t it something that God told us how best to be able to approach God and that is as “little children”, not as someone who has God all figured out and has all of the “right theological terminology” to prove it.

There is a difference, a big difference, between child-like and childish.

Could be that some of those who have quite a bit of Christianity figured-out only have their own “conception” of Christianity figured out.

I happen to believe that God became One of us for ALL of us and not just because it says this in different places.

All of the above: I have nothing to which I would disagree.

It’s interesting, though, that you permitted yourself to ponder the above, instead of saying, “I simply accept my beliefs and don’t need to explain them to you.”

 

[rcwitness]

I am simply saying that it’s odd to me that any human being would not try to apprehend the mystery of the Eucharist and to be simply ok with, “I have no idea how it happens.”

To try to apprehend the mystery, which is what I try to do, is NOT the same as saying, "So I know

I don’t get the guy who says, “I don’t understand and I don’t care to understand.”

I can appreciate this. Its our hearts desire to know in as much as we are capable of receiving.

His incarnation and Eucharist is a treasure filled with all wisdom!

My post here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12976252&postcount=370 shows a little of how I understand the mystery. We should be able to explain what our faith reveals to us personally when sharing for others about Communion in Him.

 

[PRmerger]

I can appreciate this. Its our hearts desire to know in as much as we are capable of receiving.

His incarnation and Eucharist is a treasure filled with all wisdom!

My post here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12976252&postcount=370 shows a little of how I understand the mystery. We should be able to explain what our faith reveals to us personally when sharing for others about Communion in Him.

Yes. It is an imperative in Scripture to always have a reason for the hope that is in us.

It’s not reasonable to simply shrug and say, “I don’t know why I believe it. I don’t know how it happens. And I don’t really care, frankly.”

Nor is it a very helpful means of evangelization, which is another imperative directed in Scripture.

Come, let us REASON together–Isaiah 1:18

 

[MaryT777]

No, we Lutherans do not believe that Holy Communion is purely symbolic. We know that Christ is fully there but Luther used the words “in, with and under.” We just do not teach or call it transubstantiation…

Hard to keep track of us, I know…

God bless!!

Rita

The words “in with and under” are not Scriptural though. The bible does not say “in with and under” it says IS.

Mary.

 

[Thorolfr]

The words “in with and under” are not Scriptural though. The bible does not say “in with and under” it says IS.

Mary.

Transubstantiation is also not Scriptural since there is nothing there about “substance” and “accidents”.

 

[spedteacherita]

The words “in with and under” are not Scriptural though. The bible does not say “in with and under” it says IS.

Mary.

You are correct, Mary. The Bible doesn’t say a lot of words so we attempt to describe our understanding.

The “in, with, and under,” simply means that He is present in the Eucharist. We believe in the Real Presence - This IS my body, This IS my blood…

I have this debate with my family members who believe Holy Communion is done simply to remember His death. I do the same as you just did - it IS** **.

God bless, Mary!

Rita

 

[Abu]

The following looks at the reality of Lutheran “Orders”.

David Schütz
Melbourne, Australia
‘Why are so many Lutheran pastors becoming Roman Catholic?’
‘I would also add that a growing understanding of the AUTHORITY of the Catholic Church led me to question the validity of my call to act as a public minister of word and sacrament. A Lutheran pastor who becomes Catholic does so in part because he recognises the invalidity of his Lutheran ordination, that is he comes to question the authority of the Lutheran Church to confer holy orders in the first place. As a result, he comes to see precisely that he is exercising a ministry TO WHICH HE HAS NOT BEEN CALLED by Christ. If you wish to compare this to a marriage, it is as if a man has discovered that he has been living in an invalidly contracted marriage – which is hence no marriage at all, but a form of adultery or fornication. Certainly, once I became convinced of this, I could no longer declare absolution “as a called and ordained servant of the Word” or take bread and wine and say “This is my Body”, “This is my Blood.” ‘
scecclesia.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/why-are-so-many-lutheran-pastors-becoming-roman-catholic/

The great Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote of Luther’s contempt for the Sacrament of Holy Orders: “all the bitterness of the young reformer against the existing priesthood in such shocking exclamations” as the following; “O you princes, not of the Catholic Church, but of the synagogue of Satan, yes of darkness.” [Cited in *Principles of Catholic Theology, Ignatius, 1987, p 261, from Luther’s Babylonian Captivity].

 

[Peter_J]

Transubstantiation is also not Scriptural since there is nothing there about “substance” and “accidents”.

Just so. We and you both us provide explanations that elaborate on the words in the Gospels … but it is worth noting that those who speak of “substance” and “accidents” generally don’t also profess “sola scriptura”.

 

[PRmerger]

If Assemblies of God were 2000 years old I’d buy it.

But where did AOG get there assurance from that the Bible was inerrant?

Indeed.

Each and every time someone says, “Well, the Gospel of Matthew says that we should [fill in the blank]” he is saying, “I trust in the authority of the CC which discerned that the Gospel of Matthew is the inspired Word of God”.

And each and every time someone says, “Well, the Shepherd of Hermas is NOT the inspired Word of God” she is saying “I trust in the authority of the CC which discerned that the SofH is NOT the inspired Word of God.”

For you would not know it any other way.

 

[benhur]

You say it far more eloquently than myself, thank you I think along those lines myself.

Why thank you very much. That is encouraging to me. Alleluia

I’ll admit I’m a bit more sceptical about some of the books of the NT, there’s a fair bit of biblical scholarship going around that suggests some of the Pauline epistles are much later innovations and are not actually written by Paul. Same goes with the Gospels in that there is some points to suggest the evangelists did not actually write them as claimed.

I generally don’t linger too long on those topics myself, all accounts of the teachings of Christ deserve reading, if indeed some do end up telling us more about the writer than what Christ actually really said.

I am not skeptical. I am a King James’er.

For the most part the bible is accurate, and certainly more accurate in it’s reproduction than any other writing .

I was more than skeptical once. I will admit I had to be given faith in this area (actually all good areas). I knew it was not me when I came to believe Jonah was really swallowed by a whale, and and Adam lived 900 years, and that not so long ago, etc., etc. I was flying high like a kite, even as when a new babe in Christ.:extrahappy:

Of course the OT is a whole other messy kettle of fish that few groups of Christians have ever managed to agree on, even the Catholic Church and their “sister” Orthodox Church doesn’t!

What helps me with the OT is the fact that Jesus never critiqued it’s authenticity and but rather quoted it quite authoritatively . Believe me, if there was something messed up with it He would have been all over the scribes and pharisees for it. After all, He certainly criticized them for any altering of Writ’s *intent *with bad doctrine and practice.

Oh I don’t mind a recommendation either, a useful bit of information is always appreciated but I don’t assume all is at it seems until I’ve examined it myself these days.

A good Berean. honors forefathers by desiring their best, and that truthfully and accurately, and that by the spirit of understanding that God puts in a man (from Job ,Elihu).

Blessings

 

[GKC]

Thanks. . shaw:

I have no problem with transubstantiation as the best explanation of how the wheels go around with respect to the real presence (which I also have no problem with). But it is an explanation that does not explain much, save that it happens. OTOH, I don’t think we mortals can grasp any explanation that did.

 

[Thorolfr]

Each and every time someone says, “Well, the Gospel of Matthew says that we should [fill in the blank]” he is saying, “I trust in the authority of the CC which discerned that the Gospel of Matthew is the inspired Word of God”.

So only what is now the Roman Catholic Church was responsible for all this? What about what is now the Eastern Orthodox Church? One of our best early Greek texts of the whole New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus, was discovered at Saint Catherine’s Monastery in the 19th century and Saint Catherine’s is a Greek Orthodox monastery and Codex Sinaiticus is an Alexandrian text-type manuscript and was therefore produced in the East, not in the West. It seems that the whole early Christian church was responsible, not just what is now the Roman Catholic Church

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps for the same reason you believe that the Catholic Church has the authority to teach God’s truth infallibly: I trust that the New Testament documents and the writings of the Early Church Fathers (i.e. the traditions of the early Church) are reliable and accurate accounts of the teachings of Christ.

The NT documents are reliable? But not the inspired Word of God?

 

[PRmerger]

So only what is now the Roman Catholic Church was responsible for all this? What about what is now the Eastern Orthodox Church? One of our best early Greek texts of the whole New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus, was discovered at Saint Catherine’s Monastery in the 19th century and Saint Catherine’s is a Greek Orthodox monastery and Codex Sinaiticus is an Alexandrian text-type manuscript and was therefore produced in the East, not in the West. It seems that the whole early Christian church was responsible, not just what is now the Roman Catholic Church

I make no distinction between the RCC or the EOC in this discussion.

The Church made the decision, infallibly, for you and me. Each and every Christian who believes in the NT as the inspired Word of God can simply NOT hold to be a Sola Scriptura advocate.

 

[Thorolfr]

I make no distinction between the RCC or the EOC in this discussion.

The Church made the decision, infallibly, for you and me. Each and every Christian who believes in the NT as the inspired Word of God can simply NOT hold to be a Sola Scriptura advocate.

I’m not sure about infallibly. There are other books that I think could also have been included such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Shepherd of Hermas and some that could easily have been excluded such as Revelation. I personally don’t believe that all the books in the New Testament are equally inspired. As an article in Wikipedia points out, “The Eastern Churches had, in general, a weaker feeling than those in the West for the necessity of making a sharp delineation with regard to the canon. They were more conscious of the gradation of spiritual quality among the books that they accepted.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_biblical_canons

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure about infallibly. There are other books that I think could also have been included such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Shepherd of Hermas and some that could easily have been excluded such as Revelation.

Based on what?

You would have to have some sort of Master Plan of Revelation to which you could compare the Gospel of Thomas and the Shepherd of Hermas to, to see if they are coherent expressions of this Master Plan.

What’s the Master Plan that you’re using?