Protestant Argument of the Eucharist

[mercygate]

Doreen:

I believe that the Body of Christ is all who follow Jesus(i.e. confess, repent, submit, believe, obey, worship) and that those who devote themselves to the Lord are “transformed by the renewing of their mind” that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth.

You’re saying I can’t have that. You’re telling me that only certain “man” …beginning with Peter, and the apostles… can have that.

I am telling you that you will have to explain to me how it is that the CRY OF MY HEART IS ANSWERED DIRECTLY EVERY TIME!!!
. . . . I’ll tell you to ask your Catholic friends about whether they have experienced this. And ask them if they can be sure it is the Spirit of Truth. (C’mon people, I know you’re out there! Speak up!)

We experience things like this all the time. This is not the same as making “definitive” interpretations of Scripture based on a personal revelation. You have wrenched the “guide you into all the truth” passage out of its context and personalized it to isolate yourself from the stream of living water . . .No one has said you can’t read Scripture and get a thrill out of it or receive Spirit inspired truth from it (somehow, praying in the Post Office isn’t quite the same thing).

All that we are saying is that Christ himself gave us his Church, and that same Church, through the working of “men” gave us the Scriptures.

Christ’s Church is nowhere in Scripture seen as an invisible entity of “true believers.” The Church then, as today, has its visible core in communion with the Apostles. The Apostles were men. So were the authors of the New Testament. Do we reject the human agency of divine grace?

Why do you distinguish between the authority of the men who wrote the epistle of Jude or James and the authority of the rest of the Apostolic teaching?

**Why do you trust the Bible at all? **

Can you honestly say that the “truth” that answers “the cry of your heart every single time” (with a hundred exclamation points) is “more” true, enlightening, fulfilling, authentic, beautiful and liberating than the fulness of the faith handed down – often on a river of martyrs blood – for two thousand shining years in faithful succession from Christ himself?

Can you really believe that when you admit that your knowledge of the Apostolic teaching is virtually nonexistent?

 

[Doreen]

Apology accepted. I was very much hoping you weren’t calling my Christianity into question, and I’m glad to see you weren’t.

Bygones! :tiphat:

Here’s the problem I have with that. Of course we can ask God. But what is His method of answering us?

IMHO…the Spirit of Truth.

If I’m praying to God for enlightenment (about scripture or anything else), and I seem to hear some “voice” in my head telling me something, how can I be sure it’s God’s voice? How can I be sure it’s not my own subconscious? How can I be sure it’s not something even worse–like a demon–telling me something?

I’ve been through that on some post or another…

1. check with the WORD through prayer
2. pray for discernment/wisdom
3. wait for confirmation --from the Word or another believer or circumstances that reveal themselves
4. the conviction of the heart which is a promise of the Spirit is always to be considered

Now, I’m not saying you’re hearing demons. And I’m not saying that if you’re getting a “message” that it’s wrong. It’s just that I don’t think waiting to hear God’s voice is a good method. If it were, wouldn’t all Christians who employ this method be united in their theology?

This is where our human fallibility can be a deficit…but it is also the way the LORD can insist that we keep our hearts and minds devoted to Him. We wander, stray, believe lies…we pay in our circumstances…“He disciplines those that He loves.”

Since they obviously aren’t, this method doesn’t seem reliable. If it were, I should believe the LDS missionaries who came to my door and told me Joseph Smith saw an angel of the Lord who told him all current religions were abominations to God.

If what they say does not line up with the Word of Truth and the Spirit of Truth, then you can be sure they are deceivers.

Now, Christ did not leave us orphans. What He left us was a Church, which St. Paul calls the pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Tim. 3:15). So, I’m going to look to that Church for the truth. I’m going to look at the early Christians who were taught by the apostles themselves.

John 14:18 “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.”
You can say that he is speaking to the “chosen apostles”…except that in the same paragraph he says, “Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and SHOW MYSELF to him.”…and read on and see how He describes the need to remain in Him.

As has been pointed out by others, we don’t check with “the man.” We check with the Church–after all, Jesus promised it would not be overcome by the gates of Hell. A Church that has spent two thousands years studying Christianity is a lot more reliable than I am.

This speaks volumes about WHO is thought of as mightiest…God/Jesus or “the church” …Who is the authority on earth? Jesus or the church?

As for “Jesus never went to Mass” I would argue that He’s there at every Mass. Even if you don’t believe He’s physically present in the Eucharist there, you must believe He is present where two or three are gathered in His name.

Totally agree that where two or more are gathered in His name, He is present. I shared what I understand “in His name” to mean in another post. I carry my husband’s name because I am united as one with him…I can pray “in Jesus’ name” because I am united as one with Him.

And now you are saying that Jesus ate His own flesh and blood?
Hmmm…not sure I can “swallow” that one.

I am challenged greatly by this dialogue. Thanks for continuing to hash it out with me.

Gotta go serve the family…I yield for now.
D.

 

[Doreen]

I love your questions, MercyGate. Thanks for working at this with me.

The Apostles were men. So were the authors of the New Testament. Do we reject the human agency of divine grace?

Not sure what you mean by “the human agency of divine grace” but if that means the work of the Spirit through men, NOPE, I don’t reject it at all. No rejection…in fact, that’s what all those exclamation points was about.

Why do you distinguish between the authority of the men who wrote the epistle of Jude or James and the authority of the rest of the Apostolic teaching?

Do I? I simply question the way the RCC has placed itself in a position where it calls its leaders “infallible” — that strikes me as dangerously close to idolatry in that NONE should place themselves in authority equal to the Lord–who is the only infallible one. Now, granted, if this leadership is totally submitted to the ONE authority of the ONE God and they are animated and motivated by the Holy Spirit, then I’d want to join forces with them.

This is how the RCC advertises the Pope and the Vatican Counsel, no? Holy Spirit led, I mean? But here’s the rift…some of the teachings that have come from that counsel have contradicted the Gospels —so though it may have been born in the truth, corruption has entered in. Now, don’t get your gander up just yet…hear me out.

What corruption? Well, I have to agree with some of Luther’s problems with the church of his day. And I have to wonder about the FRUIT of the church today. This is the ONLY basis for my rejection of the church, if that’s what you want to call it. I simply see far too many of it’s people who know very little about the God they are supposed to be worshiping and serving. The teaching has been lost on a whole generation. (MY generation!)

And that is the saddest thing. I am so glad to find there are some among you that DO know God and His ways, and they understand Grace. My opinion of the RCC has improved much from my dialogue with some of you out there! And I have renewed hope for my remaining Catholic friends and family.

But can I light a fire under you???

See next post…
D

 

[Doreen]

Do you see your fellowship at work? Are you spurring one another on…not just to love and good deeds (though that’s of great importance to your witness as followers of Christ)…but to stand before this ugly nation and say ENOUGH!

You have power in numbers. Imagine if you could start changing what a Catholic person looks like in our culture. To me, I am sorry, but I have seen quite a few of them bellied up to the bar on the Sabbath…smoking, drinking, gambling, cursing and having “the time of their lives”…now I know, it is not just Catholics that are living this way…but I’m grieving for my Catholic friends.

What would happen if Catholic churches suddenly decided that Bingo was actually gambling…and it outlawed it from the church? What if suddenly Catholic parishes suddenly outlawed beer fests (ie the parish picnic), and they decided that all church sanctioned events be non-alcoholic (not that alcohol is the sinful thing, but we’re promoting drunkenness and debauchery, aren’t we… to a culture where this is an obvious problem?) Imagine…the example the church would set for its children if these things were no longer a part of it!

Boy…I’m sorry. I could go on and on. Please don’t hear this as church bashing. I just want to see the fruit of the Spirit…I want to see Catholic dads becoming spiritual leaders of their families, and we just don’t see that much anymore.

I’ve strayed from the OP…sorry…maybe we ought to discuss this on a new thread sometime. I’ve had a lot of this pent-up in me for a LONG time. Thanks for listening.

---

I’ll get back to your other questions —

Why do you trust the Bible at all?

It is the inspired Word of God. I don’t have trouble with it or any other inspired writings. And you can continue to ask me how I know what’s inspired and what’s not inspired by the Spirit. I can only say, I have to trust the ability given to me as a gift of God that I might know His voice. I am very careful to not follow just any voice. You can say, as some have…well, that’s just ridiculous…and give me the Joe Smith line again…but the fact is…it’s all I have. And it’s proven true for me thus far.

Can you honestly say that the “truth” that answers “the cry of your heart every single time” (with a hundred exclamation points) is “more” true, enlightening, fulfilling, authentic, beautiful and liberating than the fulness of the faith handed down – often on a river of martyrs blood – for two thousand shining years in faithful succession from Christ himself?

Friend, you have not been hearing me … It IS the fulness of the faith handed down! You don’t think common folk are worthy of Knowing God basically. And to me, that’s the devil talking. Don’t try to steal our greatest treasure.

Reminds me of the song “One Tin Soldier” – he wants to GIVE this treasure to us, but many want to get bloody over it…only to find it was theirs as a free gift in the first place. So sad.

Can you really believe that when you admit that your knowledge of the Apostolic teaching is virtually nonexistent?

Okay, I will admit that my knowledge of any teaching that was written beyond the Book of Revelation, that is, after the epistles, is relatively nil. But again, if you knew what I experience in my day to day devotions with the Lord, you’d not be so quick to question it. I know there are some out there who have an idea of what it is to frequently hear God’s voice as I did (not IN the post office, but in my mini-van, praying) outside the post office today.

I DID send the book by the way, and I appreciate your prayers for two young ladies who I pray will be open to hear that God wants to heal their broken hearts.

By the way, you used the word ‘more’ in that quote about how i compare my experience with the experience of the martyrs…and I have to clarify that NO, I don’t claim it to be more beautiful, but I imagine it to be certainly AS beautiful…

Wanna discuss that other stuff on another thread? About changing the practices of the church??? Anyone up for that?

I DO have a life outside this box, so I’ll likely have moments where I regret bringing it up…but I so wonder about these things.

<><
D.

 

[Milliardo]

Doreen:

John 4:34 Jesus says, “My food, is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.”

Food = doing God’s will and FINISH the work (says Christ)

Jesus says: “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent” vs. 29

Hence: God’s Work = Belief in Christ

Verse 33 “For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

Hence: God’s Bread = Christ

35…“I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.”

Hence: The Bread of Life/Christ + our seeking him + our belief = total satisfaction (Somebody please tell this to the Rolling Stones so they can retire! )

40 “For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Hence: God’s will = we look to the Son, believe and live

50 “But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

HERE IS (the bread) = I AM (the living bread)

This bread = flesh that will be given up
Eat this bread = Life

56 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.”

Eat = remaining in me and I in him
Eat = Abiding

57 “Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.”

Jesus lives because of the Father = We live because of the Son

58 " …he who feeds on this bread will live forever."

Feeds on = continual abiding

Which brings us back to an important preceding statement:

John 4:34 “My food, is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.”

Food = Work

That is if we are “fed” by Christ, on Christ, we’ll be able to work as Christ to fulfill the will of God which is that we look to Christ, believe and live…and pass it on.



Do you want my hypothesis/formula for the blood now?

Understanding John 6 is quite complicated, in that Jesus spoke in a very literal way. One has to understand in this Discourse that Jesus unveiled Himself as the Bread of Life gradually–that is, that He first spoke in a metaphorical sense, and gradually worked His way towards a literal sense. This is most seen when Jesus finally said His flesh is real food, and His blood real drink. The Jews were scandalized at such a saying. But not only them, but 60 of His disciples were scandalized by it as well. If Jesus is speaking in a metaphorical sense, then He is morally obliged to explain it to the 60 who left Him–for after all, He is the way, the truth, and the life. But he never did such a thing. Instead, He turned to the 12 and asked, “Would you go as well?” This is crucial, since Jesus would often take the 12 aside to explain to them what He taught them as He did so with His parables. But that day He didn’t speak any parable–He pointedly asked them if they’re willing to go as well, and He was perfectly content in letting them go. He didn’t offer any excuses, any clarification at all. He stood His ground. Peter spoke up for them, “To whom shall we go? Your word is truth and life” They didn’t fully grasp yet what He said, but they realized and accepted it nonetheless. So, was Jesus speaking only figuratively? As demonstrated here, the answer is clearly not. To summarize: Jesus gradually unveiled the Bread of Life, moving from a metaphor towards a literal approach. In so doing, He scandalized not only Jewish authorities, but His Disciples as well. Many of the Disciples were so scandalized as to leave Him. Jesus should be morally obliged to go after them about it if He was speaking in symbolic terms, but He did not. He stood firmly and even turned to ask the 12 if they would leave as well. He clearly didn’t budge on this issue, and in the Last Supper when He said “This is my body…this is my blood” no one questioned Him about it; all present understood what He was saying.

 

[Doreen]

Milliardo,
Here’s the thing. Jesus knows the hearts of men. He knew what the disciples were thinking – this is clearly stated many times. Oh, and…He knew which hearts were going to follow Him and which weren’t …I can consider then that those 60 were hopeless in His sight or He knew they’d come around later. Who knows? Only He does.

So…this doesn’t help the argument imho.

I’ve still got some reading to do…don’t give up on the case yet!

D.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

SolaChristo:

And we eat His flesh by chewing on His word.

HE is the Word. HE did not come to write a book. HE came to leave a Church, a communion, a community of believers who believed one doctrine. You realize you just admitted to believing in the Eucharist?

Jesus Christ is the ONLY Word, the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Logos. 3 translations agree about this:

Jn 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (KJV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NAB)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (DRV)

Will you answer me why Jesus would let so many of His followers leave Him for a simple misunderstanding? He could have said, “Hey guys, I didn’t really mean you had to eat my physical flesh and drink my physical blood, come back!!!” But yet many Jews did leave Him when He said that. He would not have let them leave unless He was speaking literally.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

THE DIDACHE

The Didache or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” is a manuscript which was used by 2nd century bishops and priests for the instruction of catechumens. Many early Christian writers have referenced it making this document relatively easy to date.

“Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’”.

-Ch. 9:5

“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.’”

-Ch 14
​

ST. CLEMENT OF ROME

St. Clement was the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome; otherwise known as the third Pope. “Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity.”

Source: St. Clement, bishop of Rome, 80 A.D., to the Corinthians

“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.”

Source: Letter to the Corinthians, [44,4]
​

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH

St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

“Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”

-“Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

-“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

“Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.
​

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

ST. JUSTIN MARTYR

St. Justin Martyr was born a pagan but converted to Christianity after studying philosophy. He was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest apologist or defender of the faith from the 2nd century. He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D.

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

" First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

“God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him.”

“Dialogue with Trypho”, Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as follows: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean offering: for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.’ It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the gentiles, that is, of the Bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it."

-“Dialogue with Trypho”, [41: 8-10]

​

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS

St. Irenaeus succeeded St. Pothinus to become the second bishop of Lyons in 177 A.D. Earlier in his life he studied under St. Polycarp. Considered, one of the greatest theologians of the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus is best known for refuting the Gnostic heresies.

[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies."

Source: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:

“So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ’s Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, ‘For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones’ (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of ‘spiritual’ and ‘invisible’ man, ‘for a spirit does not have flesh an bones’ (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and ‘the grain of wheat falls into the earth’ (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ.”

-"Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely

Named Gnosis". Book 5:2, 2-3, circa 180 A.D. “For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection.”

-“Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis”. Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D.​

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

For the rest of the writings of the Early Church Fathers check here:

therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Doreen:

KayCee,
Have you read the book of Revelations? Would you say the things written therein are symbolic or literal? My point: there’s a lot of figurative speech, parables, in the Word of God.

Doreen, the book of Revelation, or the Apocolypse of St. John is a Catholic book, and a liturgical book. It is literally the Mass in Heaven meeting the Mass on Earth. Good listen: play.rbn.com/?url=ewtn/g2ewtn/g2demand/odaudio/lamb01.ra&proto=rtsp

 

[Milliardo]

Doreen:

Milliardo,
Here’s the thing. Jesus knows the hearts of men. He knew what the disciples were thinking – this is clearly stated many times.

Yes, He did know what they were thinking; that’s even clear in John 6 itself. However, that doesn’t mean He is still not obliged to tell them everything. After all, 60 of them left, and He was willing to let the 12 go as well over this. That doesn’t help the case at all? It does–and very much! Like what we know, He is the truth, and as such, if He was merely speaking about a symbol, then He is morally obliged to go after them because He has said Himself that He is the fullness of truth. That is clear among His Disciples. If someone makes that claim to you, then somehow conceals something that would make you doubt, wouldn’t it be reasonable to think then that the person is less than what he says he is? The point is, then, that as the truth Himself, Jesus should go after those 60 who left Him, and as well clarify His stance with the 12 on that matter, if He is speaking in symbolic terms. However, it is clear He is not, as He stood His ground firmly, let the 60 go, and is willing even to let go of the 12 on that matter. Anything other than that, then you would have to say that Jesus somehow hid something from the Disciples. But then that is not what we Christians believe, right?

 

[mercygate]

Doreen:

I love your questions, MercyGate. Thanks for working at this with me.

Not sure what you mean by “the human agency of divine grace” but if that means the work of the Spirit through men, NOPE, I don’t reject it at all. No rejection…in fact, that’s what all those exclamation points was about.
Do I? I simply question the way the RCC has placed itself in a position where it calls its leaders “infallible” — that strikes me as dangerously close to idolatry in that NONE should place themselves in authority equal to the Lord–who is the only infallible one. Now, granted, if this leadership is totally submitted to the ONE authority of the ONE God and they are animated and motivated by the Holy Spirit, then I’d want to join forces with them.

You’re close. But I wonder if you haven’t slightly confused “infallibility” concerning official, authentic, doctrinal teaching with individual authority, or perhaps you might be thinking of impeccabilitiy – the inability to sin – which, of course, is not Catholic teaching at all. In any event the Catholic Church did not"place itself" anywhere. If Christ is “building his Church” then HE is the one who is in charge and anyone at the helm is subject to him.

This is how the RCC advertises the Pope and the Vatican Counsel, no? Holy Spirit led, I mean? But here’s the rift…some of the teachings that have come from that counsel have contradicted the Gospels

Any Catholic would say "WAAAAIIIIITTTTT a minute! and ask you to tell us which teachings contradict the gospels.

What corruption? Well, I have to agree with some of Luther’s problems with the church of his day.

So do we all. The problem, as Catholics see it, was that the Church was already self-reforming from within at the time – as it continually reforms itself from within. Perhaps the most visible examples are the Franciscan and Dominican Orders, and today, the energetic evangelization and teaching efforts being put forward by things like EWTN, Catholic Answers, St. Joseph’s Communications, the St. Paul Center for Scriptural Studies – ALL of them under lay direction.

And I have to wonder about the FRUIT of the church today. This is the ONLY basis for my rejection of the church, if that’s what you want to call it.

As for other “fruit” – I don’t want to start a score card, but who d’ya think is gradually dismantling Roe v. Wade? We have a lot of help from Evangelicals these days, but they’re johnny-come-latelys to that effort. And other social efforts are strong as well.

I simply see far too many of it’s people who know very little about the God they are supposed to be worshiping and serving. The teaching has been lost on a whole generation. (MY generation!)

Don’t get me started on what your generation didn’t get in catechesis, in spiritual development, in the Holy Word and Sacraments! Sizzles my grits to see so many people your age absolutely dumb-blind-stupid about Jesus Christ and his holy Church because of the “perfect storm” that came together with 1) the need for updating things in the Church (Vatican 2), women’s “liberation” and 3) the sexual revolution.

I see some of your “issues” as basically fueled by the pervasive secularism of our culture, despite the fact that you are strongly drawn to the life of the spirit. Paul VI said that “the smoke is in the Church.” The devil hates the Church. Nother whole discussion.

And that is the saddest thing. I am so glad to find there are some among you that DO know God and His ways, and they understand Grace. My opinion of the RCC has improved much from my dialogue with some of you out there! And I have renewed hope for my remaining Catholic friends and family.

You ain’t seen nuthin’ yet!

 

[mercygate]

Doreen:

Do you see your fellowship at work? . . .

Just to be personal for a moment, my parish has 12,000 members. We have many ministries and small groups for prayer and mutual help. We work a homeless shelter & soup kitchen, a home for unwed moms, another for abused women & children. DH spent January 23 from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. with 50 men in DC at the March for Life.

You have power in numbers. Imagine if you could start changing what a Catholic person looks like in our culture. To me, I am sorry, but I have seen quite a few of them bellied up to the bar on the Sabbath…now I know, it is not just Catholics that are living this way…but I’m grieving for my Catholic friends.

Well, change is happening. In my experience, the drinking/gambling/cussin’ Catholic ain’t the guy next to me in Church, any more than the equivalent “Baptist” is in HIS church. They’re not IN church.

What would happen if Catholic churches suddenly decided that Bingo was actually gambling…and it outlawed it from the churWhat if suddenly Catholic parishes suddenly outlawed beer fests . . .

I just messed up your paragraph, and can’t go back to fix it but these side issues have nothing to do with Who the Church is. All of this is up for change. It is NOT Catholic teaching that Bingo and beer must be a part of parish life.

Boy…I’m sorry. I could go on and on. Please don’t hear this as church bashing. I just want to see the fruit of the Spirit…I want to see Catholic dads becoming spiritual leaders of their families, and we just don’t see that much anymore.

Tell that to Steve Wood of www.dads.org! This is not a “Catholic” problem; it is pervasive in the U.S.

I’ll get back to your other questions — It is the inspired Word of God. I don’t have trouble with it or any other inspired writings.

Ahhh. The Catholic Church does not recognize other writings as inspired. Only Scripture.

And you can continue to ask me how I know what’s inspired and what’s not inspired by the Spirit. I can only say, I have to trust the ability given to me as a gift of God that I might know His voice. . . you can . . . give me the Joe Smith line again…but the fact is…it’s all I have. And it’s proven true for me thus far.

Basically, you have given the “Joseph Smith” line. Catholics KNOW why they believe that Scripture is the inspired and inerrant Word of God – and it isn’t simply because “the Church says so!” IActually, if you believe that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God, then you believe in the Catholic Church.

Friend, you have not been hearing me … It IS the fulness of the faith handed down!

B’loved, it CANNOT be the fullness of the faith handed down if it excludes the means of grace instituted by Christ and handed on through the agency of his Body, the Church.

You don’t think common folk are worthy of Knowing God basically. And to me, that’s the devil talking. Don’t try to steal our greatest treasure.

Many people who do not love the Body of Christ “know God” and know him very well. The Holy Spirit is not a proprietary item owned by the Church. I know how hard it is for Protestants to come to grips with the idea that anything that looks so ordinary and “institutional” as the Church could possibly be God-given, God-privileged, and God-protected. It takes time.

Okay, I will admit that my knowledge of any teaching that was written beyond the Book of Revelation, that is, after the epistles, is relatively nil.

I would even challenge your overall knowledge of Scripture altogether. Not as a put-down in any way but because you seem to be unfamiliar with much that many of us take for granted.

But again, if you knew what I experience in my day to day devotions with the Lord, you’d not be so quick to question it. I know there are some out there who have an idea of what it is to frequently hear God’s voice as I did (not IN the post office, but in my mini-van, praying) outside the post office today.

None of this is being questioned. Not at all.

By the way, you used the word ‘more’ in that quote about how i compare my experience with the experience of the martyrs…and I have to clarify that NO, I don’t claim it to be more beautiful, but I imagine it to be certainly AS beautiful…

Ahhhh. But that would be because you do not personally know the difference. One of my favorite images about critics of the Catholic Church is that these people are looking at the stained glass windows of Chartres by matchlight from the outside on a dark night and wondering why people say they are so beautiful . . . The beauty is revealed in the intimacy of “inside” personal knowledge.

I’ll be off line for the next 4 days. Catch up with you next week.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Ive been thinking about things and reading here and other threads. Everytime something is said about the Eucharist I cannot find anything I disagree on. Except 1 thing and I dont know if its disagreement or that catholics and protestants just dont hear each other. The Flesh and Blood.

If one speaks to a non believer in God about this their impression is we (BOTH groups) are eating and drinking blood. If I was “accused” of drinking Christs blood I would say yes He is my Lord, I identify with Him.

So if I say this to a non believer (and have) I have this feeling there is a prejudiced something or other stopping some kind of understanding between everyone. It cant be this hard to resolve, can it?

 

[Kay_Cee]

Doreen:

I’ve been through that on some post or another…

1. check with the WORD through prayer
2. pray for discernment/wisdom
3. wait for confirmation --from the Word or another believer or circumstances that reveal themselves
4. the conviction of the heart which is a promise of the Spirit is always to be considered

But if somebody else employs this same method and comes up with a different answer than yours, how can the two of you determine which one is the right answer?

This is where our human fallibility can be a deficit…but it is also the way the LORD can insist that we keep our hearts and minds devoted to Him. We wander, stray, believe lies…we pay in our circumstances…“He disciplines those that He loves.”

This doesn’t answer the question. How can you know the “voice” you hear is telling you the truth?

If what they say does not line up with the Word of Truth and the Spirit of Truth, then you can be sure they are deceivers.

And how do you know what they say does not line up with the Word of Truth? If you say “If it doesn’t line up with the Bible, it’s false,” how do you know your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one? If they tell you they employed the method you outlined above, aren’t you just left with saying “I’ve got the truth and you don’t”? And aren’t they just left with saying “I’ve got the truth and you don’t”?

John 14:18 “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.”
You can say that he is speaking to the “chosen apostles”…except that in the same paragraph he says, “Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and SHOW MYSELF to him.”…and read on and see how He describes the need to remain in Him.

And how does Jesus go about showing Himself to us?

This speaks volumes about WHO is thought of as mightiest…God/Jesus or “the church” …Who is the authority on earth? Jesus or the church?

This is a false dichotomy. It’s not either Jesus or the church. Jesus is the Head of the Church. We are members of His Body. Jesus is the Bridegroom and the Church is His bride. As you point out below, you are united with your husband. So is Christ with His bride, the Church.

Totally agree that where two or more are gathered in His name, He is present. I shared what I understand “in His name” to mean in another post. I carry my husband’s name because I am united as one with him…I can pray “in Jesus’ name” because I am united as one with Him.

And now you are saying that Jesus ate His own flesh and blood?
Hmmm…not sure I can “swallow” that one.

I don’t see anywhere in the gospel where Jesus consumed Communion. He *gave it to his disciples *and said, “Take and eat.”

I am challenged greatly by this dialogue. Thanks for continuing to hash it out with me.

Thank you. I’m very much enjoying it too and learning a lot from you.

 

[Doreen]

Milliardo:

if He was merely speaking about a symbol, then He is morally obliged to go after them because He has said Himself that He is the fullness of truth. That is clear among His Disciples. If someone makes that claim to you, then somehow conceals something that would make you doubt, wouldn’t it be reasonable to think then that the person is less than what he says he is?

Milliardo,
I don’t think we can say the Christ is obliged to do anything. He knows so much more than He tells the disciples…He evens says so: John 16:12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.” As I said, He knows the hearts of men. He’d not bother to explain to those who are not ready to hear.

You simply haven’t made a convincing argument here because if what you’re saying were true, then Jesus would have sat and beat His point into EVERYONE’s head the whole 33 years He walked the planet. Right?

And I, again, cite (maybe I cited this on the Eucharist thread, so maybe I haven’t shared this with folks here) Christ said Himself that He was speaking figuratively.

John 16:25 “Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father.”

I appreciate your efforts to set me straight. Keep chipping away!
D.

 

[TPJCatholic]

I feel the critical passage is John 6:44, in which we receive the “clue” as to why some believe and some do not believe:

***No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. ***

 

[Pryority7]

If I may Doreen…

In John 16 when Jesus said He was speaking figuratively, I’m sure He wasn’t speaking about EVERY SINGLE thing He had ever said to His disciples, let alone written in Scripture. There were things He spoke figuratively about, and there were things He spoke literal about. John 6 is literal. The formula here is different from the other passages where He was speaking figuratively. He repeated, emphasised and did not correct when He stated that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Not only did the 12 disciples understand this after the ressurection but it was the teaching of the early Church Fathers…those who were disciples of the apostle John. I mean…that’s a reliable source. If taking this literally was really wrong, why are there no records in that time speaking against it? It speaks for it and confirms it if anything.
Facinating subject. Lets keep exploring this.

 

[Doreen]

Pryority7:

If I may Doreen…

In John 16 when Jesus said He was speaking figuratively, I’m sure He wasn’t speaking about EVERY SINGLE thing He had ever said to His disciples, let alone written in Scripture. There were things He spoke figuratively about, and there were things He spoke literal about. John 6 is literal. The formula here is different from the other passages where He was speaking figuratively. He repeated, emphasised and did not correct when He stated that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Not only did the 12 disciples understand this after the ressurection but it was the teaching of the early Church Fathers…those who were disciples of the apostle John. I mean…that’s a reliable source. If taking this literally was really wrong, why are there no records in that time speaking against it? It speaks for it and confirms it if anything.
Facinating subject. Lets keep exploring this.

Hi Pry’,
Here’s the SLIVER of difference in understanding that I think is the basis for this entire discussion.

We all agree that Christ meant it when He said “DO THIS in REMEMBRANCE of ME.” I have not often come across Bible-based fellowships that argue that point in the least (not saying there aren’t some who veer completely away from the performance of it)…

So the SLIVER of difference is the Church of Rome interprets this literally and have expressed this as a supernatural transfiguration that happens EVERY time at the Mass of the Eucharist.

Meanwhile, those who broke away from the Church of Rome have determined that there is a supernatural transfiguration that is given to all who believe, and the Lord’s Supper is a ceremony meant to remember this truth…but they look at it as a SPIRITUAL transfiguration of our hearts as we “accept” Christ’s indwelling prescence…The Church of Rome is basically saying the same thing only taking it a step further in believing the host to be a literal element of Christ’s personhood.

Would you agree that this is the crux of the debate?

So…the fact is, then, that we are all SO close in our thinking, that we are almost on the same page! Think of it. We are SO close…yet wars have been fought over this…lives have been lost, and people have completely walked away from the faith altogether because they could not land on a truth that was certain enough for them.

Now, if we consider how the serpent works…Does this not all seem like his doing? Tearing us apart, when we are SO close to being fully united?

But here’s the catch…we know who reigns. We know the Lord is allowing this debate to bring minds and hearts to a point of hunger for truth. I feel like we are on the brink of a major revival on this planet like none other in history. The devil wants me to see all that’s happening in the world and be afraid…but I see it as all part of God’s plan to wake us up and get our attention.

We have hope, because we have searched the Scriptures Old and New, and we see how God has never failed His people.

I am grateful for the freedom of speech, and the fact that we can openly discuss this. That, alone, is a gift of God. We should not take it for granted, since we know a day will come when our voices for Christ the True King will be unlawful when the Tribulation begins.

We are witnessing the birth pains…we must take advantage of this opportunity to bring the brothers and sisters together and help those who have turned away.

“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit…”
<><
D.