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

[rcwitness]

Remember, the symbolism of His Eucharist still exists even though it is not ‘merely’ a symbol.

The original term of ‘symbol’ has the concept of two things clashing together. What comes together in the Eucharist, is bread/wine (which have symbols in themselves too) and the Holy Spirit of God’s Son.

 

[Telstar]

Generally, because he wasn’t holding a door, and saying this is me. While he was holding bread and saying this is my body.

GKC

Exactly! Thanks, GKC.

Jesus did use many metaphors, usually when He was preaching to all the people. But, the Last Supper was not a time for Him to use metaphors that He’d have to explain. He had already spent a good deal of time explaining it to them in His discourse about the Bread of Life, where He said, "John 6: [56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him."He was absolutely serious. His time on earth was growing very short, and His mission was almost finished. This was His last and most important lesson to all of us.

 

[Peter_J]

Maybe Lutherans do not believe in the “True Presence” but I have read along the way that Martin Luther, most definitely, did.

Forgive me for butting into this conversation, but I don’t even think anyone has claimed that Lutherans do not believe in the “True Presence”.

 

[benhur]

I also understand that this is a celebration of what Christ did for us, becoming our atoning sacrifice once and for all and causing me to remember what and why He did that for me and you.

Not withstanding your “also”, this part is what is a very powerful universal witness to the world. And that by any means of understanding Christ’s words. C.S Lewis mentions this and laments any further division over the matter.

As Augustine also mentions the one loaf (used back then) signifying the unity of the church, the Body of Christ.

They did not call it eucharist (thanksgiving ) for nothin. Amen

Blessings Rita

 

[rcwitness]

But Jesus is literally a door to heaven. Not physically, but in essence. Likewise, He is literally the vine of branches. again, not physically.

The bread and wine physical accident remain, yet transubstantiation occurs which means that God remembers His covenant sacrifice and applies it to the bread and wine. So, the Holy Spirit comes over the very substance of the bread and wine and so it is no longer mere bread and wine, but the power of the body and blood of Christ.

Also, I look at is as though Jesus becomes the bread and wine for our Communion, and not so much the bread and wine become Jesus.

Only genuine faith and knowledge of Him reveals this. The Church’s Teaching helps no more than Christ’s own words in John 6. It takes faith in His words and Spirit.

 

[benhur]

It took me a while to figure out what you were referring to (your words in bold), because it’s a bit off, and out of perspective. This is what I think you were referring to:the priest says:]

Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), that my sacrifice
and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.

the people rise and reply:]

May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands* for the praise and glory of his name, for our good and the good of all his holy Church.

***** (the “Lord” refers to the Father)This is the Prayer Over the Gifts, that’s said over the bread and wine before the Consecration. This is an explanation that I found:"The wording of the new translation makes clear the theological truth that there is only one sacrifice, and that that sacrifice belongs both to the priest and the people. The response of the people, made after they rise, since all responses to a prayer of the priest are made standing] makes clear that, while the sacrifice is that of priest and people, it is offered at the hands of the priest who stands in the person of Christ. This prayer, prayed as we move toward the Eucharistic Prayer, reinforces the truth that the sacrifice is offered to the praise and glory of the Father, for the salvation of all present and for the entire holy Church."That “one sacrifice” was offered by Jesus from the Cross. Catholics do not “reenact” the Sacrifice of Calvary, like people around the US reenact revolutionary war, or civil war battles. But by the power of the Holy Spirit, in the Presence of the Father, we are actually spiritually present with Jesus as He hangs on the cross. We are surrounded in spirit by the Church Militant (the entire Church on earth), the Church Suffering (the Holy Souls in Purgatory) and the Church Triumphant (all the Saints in Heaven), along with all of the holy angels of Heaven. We have to remember that God is not subject to time as we know it. For God, everything that we might think about happening at a specific ‘time’, is happening now.

(all emphasis mine)

Yes, those are the words that I find unbiblical, and the only words of the Mass not found in scripture,if I am correct. But words have meaning and unfortunately those words separate the remembrance from what others practice.

I am afraid it is very close to an re-enactment, as one brother here said ," like we are right there at the Cross". It is ok to be there, but it is wrong to be there in the same time perspective of the moment, setting aside the Resurrection and Ascension , the known “acceptance”’ of the sacrifice. I do not think loved ones were being “thankful” right there at the cross , at that moment. Our perspective is to be different , and totally thankful, with no worry or hoping for acceptance.

 

[Cake_or_Death]

Counter question OP: How do you know the assumption actually happened? Don’t show me Matthew or a cherrypicked quote from the Church Fathers about the Popes infalliability, I’d like to see some verifiable proof that she rose bodily into heaven.

Don’t we have any photographs of a flying woman in 1st century Palestine? So we take this claim on faith?

It’s not that much of a stretch, if one at all. I take the words of Jesus to be true because of all of the “prophets” I have read about; Joseph Smith, the Bab, Vivekananda, Muhammed, Krishna and so on I simply find Jesus to be the greatest and highest moral exemplar and I trust he wasn’t a madman.

Joseph Smith was a con artist, Bahá’u’lláh seemed delusional to me and Krishna advocated to Arjuna practices such as deceit. Of all of the claims to divinity or divine inspiration he’s the one I find most likely to actually be true to his word.

 

[rcwitness]

Counter question OP: How do you know the assumption actually happened? Don’t show me Matthew or a cherrypicked quote from the Church Fathers about the Popes infalliability, I’d like to see some verifiable proof that she rose bodily into heaven.

I think the point of the OP is that the Church should be trusted as a pillar of Truth.

Don’t we have any photographs of a flying woman in 1st century Palestine? So we take this claim on faith?

Not any faith, but orthodox, Catholic faith.

It’s not that much of a stretch, if one at all. I take the words of Jesus to be true because of all of the “prophets” I have read about; Joseph Smith, the Bab, Vivekananda, Muhammed, Krishna and so on I simply find Jesus to be the greatest and highest moral exemplar and I trust he wasn’t a madman.

The point of the question is how are you able to know for sure that those are the words of Jesus, not whether you believe the words of Jesus. You must accept that the Church, at least at this time (at gathering and pronouncing a canon sometime in the late 4th century), was used by God to Confirm what was His Holy Word and revelation.

 

[Abu]

Peter J #419
I don’t even think anyone has claimed that Lutherans do not believe in the “True Presence”.

The reality is that the Lutheran Orders are not valid – the Catholic Church does not recognize Anglican or Lutheran orders as valid.
tinyurl.com/l5l6pm6

Thus there can be no “True Presence”.

 

[benhur]

Jesus was seeking a profession of faith and he did receive it as detailed in the end of the discourse.

Right, faith in Him with no explanation of what eating is beyond that.

However, this was intended to prepare the apostles for the Last Supper where He did indeed give them His Body and Blood to eat. No one at the Last Supper refused.

Agreed that the Last Supper was the next step. However, still not sure you can say the apostles understood any kind of transubstantiation at this time either. Could have just as easily been a spiritual or symbolic eating.

God always prepares us for an event. He just doesn’t spring something on us. The Old Testament is full of God’s preparing Israel for His Son’s coming. Remember, they were expecting the Messiah. Even non-Jews knew of the Messiah’s pending arrival.

Yes, but the trouble is we have two versions of the Messiah (Isaiah’s suffereing Lamb, and a Davidic King). Who knew back then that the Son of Man was to come “twice” ? They were expecting the Davidic kingdom to be reestablished. Hence false disciples that Christ had to separate out, for their own sakes, so that they might later on accept the Isaiah Lamb Messiah.

 

[Cake_or_Death]

Not any faith, but orthodox, Catholic faith.

Can we test the quality of Catholic faith as opposed to Orthodox faith? Is there some sort of litmus test we could apply to contrast the quality of your faith to that of the Ethiopian Orthodox?

Faith is faith regardless of how you dress it up.

The point of the question is how are you able to know for sure that those are the words of Jesus, not whether you believe the words of Jesus. You must accept that the Church, at least at this time (at gathering and pronouncing a canon sometime in the late 4th century), was used by God to Confirm what was His Holy Word and revelation.

Not really, I do not believe the Roman Catholic Church to be the Early Church. It was a part of it undoubtedly, but an assessment of history proves there has never been full union at any point in Christian history short of the apostles evangelical mission, and even then the history sounds a bit shaky there. Coptics, Assyrian Church of the East, Orthodoxy, St. Thomas Christians…I personally think the early church was all of Christianity, which is not quite the same as Roman Catholicism. The very latest I personally would trace the early church to would be the great schism between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but as I’ve already said with the many breaks before then such as with the non-chalcedonian churches even that is a stretch.

As for the words, that is a simple enterprise. Thanks to the findings at Nag Hammandi we now have a vast trove of gospels that suggest the early Christians prior to the compilation of the bible used a wide variety of different scriptures. Some were from the new testament yes, others we know that were in wide circulation like the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Truth were not.

It’s a far simpler affair in our day than it was back then to set all these documents together and work out which statements show up the most. Rather like how in Biblical studies one can determine which scriptures drew information from earlier documents/Q we can determine what the oldest actual sayings are.

We can’t guarantee to be 100% right, but we can be more accurate now today with our multitude of examination/comparison methods available than at any other point in our history.

I don’t actually have any problem with not knowing for sure, no religious believer knows for sure. It wouldn’t be called faith if we actually knew it for a fact nor would there be any virtue in holding it .

 

[rcwitness]

Can we test the quality of Catholic faith as opposed to Orthodox faith? Is there some sort of litmus test we could apply to contrast the quality of your faith to that of the Ethiopian Orthodox?

I meant orthodox as an adjective. The Catholic Church has very little which separates complete unity of faith with the Orthodox Churches

Faith is faith regardless of how you dress it up.

But it is not relativism.

Not really, I do not believe the Roman Catholic Church to be the Early Church. It was a part of it undoubtedly, but an assessment of history proves there has never been full union at any point in Christian history. Coptics, Assyrian Church of the East, Orthodoxy, St. Thomas Christians…I personally think the early church was all of Christianity, which is not quite the same as Roman Catholicism. The very latest I personally would trace the early church to would be the great schism between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but as I’ve already said with the many breaks before then such as with the non-chalcedonian churches even that is a stretch.

As for the words, that is a simple enterprise. Thanks to the findings at Nag Hammandi we now have a vast trove of gospels that suggest the early Christians prior to the compilation of the bible used a wide variety of different scriptures. Some were from the new testament yes, others we know that were in wide circulation like the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Truth were not.

We arent talking about all the writings the Church ‘used’ but what constitutes Sacred Scripture, and more specifically, the claim in them that are the direct words of Christ.

 

[Cake_or_Death]

I meant orthodox as an adjective. The Catholic Church has very little which separates complete unity of faith with the Orthodox Churches

You have a man who claims to be supreme over his brother bishops. The Patriarch of Constantinople has taken many slaps to his dignity over history, but he’s not going to bow to Rome anytime soon. Even you must surely acknowledge that if his predecessors were not going to do it when they were being oppressed by the Ottoman Sultans they sure aren’t going to do it when they’ve less pressure upon them.

Orthodoxy is thriving and growing in Eastern Europe, why would they want to compromise with you guys when they’re going strong and Catholicism is on the wane in the west?

But it is not relativism.

No more relativistic than what the Catholic Church got up to with say Ursury in my eyes. One moment it’s a sin, the next the Vatican opens a bank. Bit of a tangent here.

We arent talking about all the writings the Church ‘used’ but what constitutes Sacred Scripture, and more specifically, the claim in them that are the direct words of Christ.

And as I’ve just said, we can quite easily determine what phrases and events are likely the oldest and most widely repeated throughout this collection of scripture used by the earliest Christians to deepen their faith.

I don’t see how a few men with the likes of Constantine and Athanasius breathing down their necks could work out what Jesus “really said” any more successfully (or in that scenario necessarily truthfully to what they actually might have thought) than we can today; especially considering our highly advanced analysis technologies which have already cleared up many of our misconceptions regarding the provenance of the Old Testament.

 

[GKC]

The reality is that the Lutheran Orders are not valid – the Catholic Church does not recognize Anglican or Lutheran orders as valid.
tinyurl.com/l5l6pm6

Thus there can be no “True Presence”.

Which all RCs should affirm, at the appropriate level of theological certainty, without reservation.

Though you understand that Anglicans and Lutherans may differ on the point.

 

[benhur]

I think I understand what you are asking on some of your statements.

Are you referring to the Eucharist? Yes, we Catholics who receive the Eucharist do die.

I know but can you see how you switch your mode of interpreting ? You read eat my flesh and think physical eating yet when Christ says you won’t die, like your forefathers, you switch to spiritual and not physical.

Our bodies die. Jesus assured us that we will live eternally with Him because of the Eucharist and all that consuming His flesh requires.

Yes, Christ later clarifies this “not dying” to spiritual,eternal. You are right if you say then why did not Christ clarify the “eating”? I say because the former dealt with the warning of unbelief, meeting people where they are at. He wanted them to depart for they had false views and unbelief in the right view of Messiah The latter was "hidden manna’’, almost like a parable, to be understood only by those with "spiritual " ears

I don’t understand your last question. Please clarify.

I will try. It has been said that “I” am like those that departed and do not want to eat His flesh. I flip that around and say “you” are more like them for you both understand it as flesh eating, but how is it that the unbelievers , the carnal disciples, have your view of His words ? Another words, I do eat but not as the unbelievers thought (flesh). You eat as the unbelievers thought (flesh).

As for the apostles, who have spiritual eyes and believe, we can not conclude on their thoughts of what eating is, except that they were going to do it, by any understanding within Judaic understanding (probably not flesh eating).

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

And as I’ve just said, we can quite easily determine what phrases and events are likely the oldest and most widely repeated throughout this collection of scripture used by the earliest Christians to deepen their faith.

But again, we arent talking about what is likely, but what is declared as divine revalation. What good is using Scripture if its not authoratative? Sacred Scripture must be in a class of its own, with divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, THEN it can be used to form and support one’s faith and belief.

I don’t see how a few men with the likes of Constantine and Athanasius breathing down their necks could work out what Jesus “really said” any more successfully (or in that scenario necessarily truthfully to what they actually might have thought) than we can today; especially considering our highly advanced analysis technologies which have already cleared up many of our misconceptions regarding the provenance of the Old Testament.

Its not so important ‘when’ Sacred Scripture was worked out, but that it was worked out and Confirmed, AND who had the authority to canonize it.

 

[Peter_J]

Which all RCs should affirm, at the appropriate level of theological certainty, without reservation.

And we do.

 

[benhur]

God ‘remembers’ His covenant through Jesus’ death and resurrection in the sacrifice of the Mass.

RC, would He forget otherwise ? I think eucharisting is strictly for our benefit from remembrance.

Exodus 2

23 In the course of those many days the king of Egypt died. And the people of Israel groaned under their bondage, and cried out for help, and their cry under bondage came up to God. 24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. 25 And God saw the people of Israel, and God knew their condition.

Sorry, but these are pre calvary conditions. Post Calvary conditions call for Thanksgiving for deliverance out of bondage.

Now there is a time and place for everything , for we also remember His second coming and final deliverance, but even that is a thanksgiving,eucharisting in faith of future fulfillment.

Blessings

 

[Cake_or_Death]

But again, we arent talking about what is likely, but what is declared as divine revalation. What good is using Scripture if its not authoratative? Sacred Scripture must be in a class of its own, with divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, THEN it can be used to form and support one’s faith and belief.

Why must it be authoritative? The very earliest Christians operated quite well enough with an open canon and were willing to assess many accounts of Jesus’ life, as did the Jews have an open canon for much of their history. Had the temple not been destroyed it might have remained open.

What proof do you have the canon you use is endorsed by the Holy spirit any more than the much larger tomes used by the Oriental Orthodox? Yes the Catholic Church tells you it is, but does that come with a certificate I can check? Perhaps one of those snazzy holographic labels we get on DVD boxes as a sign of authenticity?

I think both you and I take the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to be very different things, I have found much inspiration and pause for thought while reading the canon Catholic scriptures, I didn’t feel any need for a certificate of authenticity or feel any sense that it would make them any more profound. Likewise I have also found just as deeply insightful, indeed inspirational words when reading the Ethiopian Orthodox Canon.

God did give us a revelation, but I don’t automatically assume what we have received on paper is divine itself. It accounts it as best it can, as can all fallible things. Some parts as we know aren’t even intended to be literal history, particularly in the old testament, but evoke a transformation in the reader through a variety of literary techniques.

Its not so important as ‘when’ Sacred Scripture was worked out, but that it was worked out and Confirmed, AND who had the authority to canonize it.

Again, why must it be worked out and confirmed, and why does it require a certificate of legitimacy? Many of these demands seem rather unnecessary and the level of certainty you seem to desire seems to me to diminish the virtue of faith.

 

[Peter_J]

You have a man who claims to be supreme over his brother bishops. The Patriarch of Constantinople has taken many slaps to his dignity over history, but he’s not going to bow to Rome anytime soon. Even you must surely acknowledge that if his predecessors were not going to do it when they were being oppressed by the Ottoman Sultans they sure aren’t going to do it when they’ve less pressure upon them.

Cake or Death, if I may be so bold, you ought to read some of the threads on Catholic-Orthodox (or Orthodox-Catholic) relations … in particular, relating to the fact that the Catholic attitude toward Orthodox is much different now than it used to be.

Or, if you don’t mind reading something off-forum, I might suggest the Balamand Agreement, Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion.