Protestants, how can this be possible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
These are good answers. Is it not true that the Church used to teach that only Roman Catholics could be saved though.
We still teach what we have always taught - that the Roman Catholic Church is the means of salvation, for all who are saved. In latter days we have come to a clearer recognition that someone can be saved by means of the Church, without being specifically aware of the Church, though. (For example, lots of people read the Bible and become saved, without ever realizing that the Bible comes from the Catholic Church.)
Aside from Protestants, surely the Church did not believe Non-Christians could be saved. What else could the doctrine of no salvation outside the Catholic Church mean?
It means that the Church produces the tools that people use to become saved, but the people using those tools (prayer, Scripture, etc.) may not be consciously aware of where those tools came from that they are using.
 
It means that the Church produces the tools that people use to become saved, but the people using those tools (prayer, Scripture, etc.) may not be consciously aware of where those tools came from that they are using.
That gave me a mental picture of a ship losing bits of timber, and people stranded at sea grabbing hold of them, not knowing where they came from. Well done. 👍
 
That gave me a mental picture of a ship losing bits of timber, and people stranded at sea grabbing hold of them, not knowing where they came from. Well done. 👍
Brilliant. 👍

Hopefully, they will eventually come within sight of St. Peter’s boat, and come aboard for a more comfortable journey. 😉
 
Simply reply, God decided to abandon the Roman Catholic Church as a denomination and is now turning on the denominations in general for a new model of practice. Simple Churches and Home Churches for examples of the new movement.

Not likely you will reply, how often did He allow harm to the Jewish People in the OT for going astray? You not suddenly think He can’t pass judgements after the NT - God is God we play by His rules not ours. If He decides to rip away His support He can. And can pour it out on others.
Yes God did allow His Chosen People to be punished. What He did not do was abandon them. In particular He did not abandon those who remained loyal to the temple. When the 10 tribes seperated from Judah and Benjamin it was those tribes who seperated from the temple who began accepting other gods and eventually were destroyed - Thus we have teh 10 lost tribes of Isreal. It is the tribes who remained faithful to the Temple in Jerusalem who survived, even after defeat and captivity.
God then sent His Son to redeem us and establish a new covenent. Who did He send The Son to? The Jews loyal to the Temple in Jerusalem.

In the New covenent Christ Promised the Church would be built on Peter and Peter’s confession. The Church would be led into the fullness of Truth. The Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit. That the Gates of Hell would not prevail againts it. That the Church would have the Authority to Bind and Loose. The He would be with His Church until the ending of the age.
That Church, built upon Peter and on the Promices of Christ still lives. In spite of the many attempts by the evil one to split it, distort it, subert it, and destroy it. The Gates of Hell have not prevailed and Christ will continue to protect her as He promised.

Peace
James
 
NO! And sincere thanks for asking.🙂

My point of confusion steems from my belief that the Bible is and has to be THE truth [yes I am aware that it may not always be facture] but no one verse can / may contradict another verse. Should this seem to happen, it is a matter of lack of understanding on those advocating such a position.

Catholic and Protestant Bible both quote 2 Tim. 3:16 and the fact the the entire Bible is Divinely Inspired. Such being the case I am deeply perplexed by the fact that Protestants dispite saying they are in agreement with this statement, have a Bible that is…

By many hundreds of years newer than the Catholic Bible

Seemingly ignores the issue of Divine Inspiration by removing Seven entire Books [yes I do know the history] but either the Bible is True or it is NOT true. It can’t be both. Additionally a large number of verses have been changed to accomidate the new found beliefs.

If the Bible is Divinely Inspired, which I am inclined to believe, how; and on what authority were these changes made:shrug:

What is it that I’m not understanding?

Love and prayers,
This was the crux of the matter for me as well.
If the Holy Bible is the True inspired and complete Word of God then that Word must stand unchanged for all time. Yet it has been changed. The Protestants use a 66 book bible and the catholics have 72 books. Why - and which is correct since they can’t both be correct?
A quick check shows that the older of the two canons is the 72 book canon. Before the 72 book canon was established, there were two OT canons and various collections of NT wriings. The 72 book canon was established and held as sacred for 1000 years.
The next question for me was, did those who assembled the 72 book canon get it right? The only answer must be yes, for if the Bible is the complete Word of God then God would not allow The Church to get it wrong in the first place.
It logically follows then that, since God Word must be right from the beginning, those who changed the canon from 72 ot 66 books erred in doing so and did so against the Will of God. Then, after removing these books, these same people held up the Bible as the Word of God and that the Bible was all you needed. (SS)
These facts flat our destroyed any chance that I would join any protestant Church.

Peace
James
 
Hi Pat.

I was never aware that I had to belong to a sect at all. Although I do not call myself a “Protestant” (I prefer to avoid unnecessary labels), I have a feeling that most Catholics would consider me one. I am not a member of any church or affiliated with any particular group. I do, however, believe that I am a Christian and that is really all that matters.
First of all, Welcome to the forums.
Sometimes today, with so many splits and re-splits, it can be difficult to discern who is actually “protestant”. However, it cannot be denied that your church group is founded in the Protestant Tradition. That is the Tradition of Sola Scriptura or “Bible Alone”. so in this sense, yes many Catholics will consider you a protestant. I have taken to using the Abbreviation NCC (Non-Catholic Christian) to avoid the term protestant because some do take umbrage at it.
Since it is the Holy Spirit that ultimately gives us discernment and it is through Christ that we receive the Holy Spirit, it seems to me that theogical debates such as Protestant vs. Catholic and Baptist vs. Evangelical vs. Lutheran, etc. do not really matter. They do not define what is a “Christian.” What matters is that one accepts atonement through Christ’s sacrifice and continues to stand fast in their relationship with God.
This is indeed a good start. The danger though is to make sure that it truly IS the Holy Spirit that is leading you and it is Him at all times. After all we can readily see how easily even a great Apostle can be fooled. Peter, shortly after receiving the revelation from the Father about Jesus’ True nature, was called satan by Christ because he was not thinking properly.
To expect someone to bind themselves to an organization of fallible human beings who have proven themselves to be terrible sinners just as is the rest of the world seems bizarre to me. The Church is the body of believers. It is not “the body of Roman Catholic Church members who participate in certain rituals and believe in particular dogma.”
Yes the Church is composed of “the body of Believers” but it is also an Authoritative representative of Christ on Earth. I will give you one passage and ask you to prayerfully consider. It is Mt 18: 15-18. Note what Christ says in verse 17 about taking issues to the Church. How can the definition of "Body of Believers fulfill this command without a structure. To see this principle in action I refer you to Acts 15.
Protestant sects derive from Christians who have differences in higher levels of theology and prefer certain kinds of worship. But what all Protestants have in common is the belief that eternal salvation is through faith in Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection…and ultimately that is the most important thing.
Protestant sects derive from those who, in the 16th century rejected the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, Promptly Changed the Bible and Then said all you need is the Bible and the Holy Spirit(SS). The result has been confusion and Doctrinal conflict, not just between catholics and Protestants but between Protestants themselves.

Yes, we ALL accept that salvation comes through grace and faith in Christ as well as following His commands to Love one another.
But he also prayed tht we be one as He and The Father are One. He gave us “The Church”, the “Pillar and Foundation fo Truth”, to guide us, correct us, protect us, bless us, and to prepare us for all good works…

Peace
James
 
NO! And sincere thanks for asking.🙂

My point of confusion steems from my belief that the Bible is and has to be THE truth [yes I am aware that it may not always be facture] but no one verse can / may contradict another verse. Should this seem to happen, it is a matter of lack of understanding on those advocating such a position.

Catholic and Protestant Bible both quote 2 Tim. 3:16 and the fact the the entire Bible is Divinely Inspired. Such being the case I am deeply perplexed by the fact that Protestants dispite saying they are in agreement with this statement, have a Bible that is…

By many hundreds of years newer than the Catholic Bible

Seemingly ignores the issue of Divine Inspiration by removing Seven entire Books [yes I do know the history] but either the Bible is True or it is NOT true. It can’t be both. Additionally a large number of verses have been changed to accomidate the new found beliefs.

If the Bible is Divinely Inspired, which I am inclined to believe, how; and on what authority were these changes made:shrug:

What is it that I’m not understanding?

Love and prayers,
Well, I can’t speak for all protestants, so I’ll just speak for myself. First, on the question not so much of interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16, but more its application. To what is Paul referring when he writes: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”? Somehow I don’t think that Paul was including the letter he was at the time penning in what he meant by scripture as he wrote to Timothy. Today, we might affirm that what Paul said was true, and that since what we know define as scripture includes his letter to Timothy that is applies there as well. But the issue of defining scripture remains something that is left to the church to do.

I recognize that the first century New Testament generation (and many succeeding generations) would have accepted the books Catholic canon as scripture in their day. But if the people of the old covenant (the Jews) don’t include as part of the canon of their sacred scripture certain books, then how is it that one should say that they are? There were many other books that were part of the scrolls used by both the Hebrew community at the time of the NT Church and the early Church that are not a part of anyone’s sacred canon today. If I was doing it from scratch, I’m not sure whether I would include 3 John and might want to include Clement’s letters or the Shepherd of Hermes. But I am willing to accept what has been passed on to me, and if that had included Tobit and the books of the Maccabees I probably wouldn’t have questioned it. Might I ask why just 1 & 2 Maccabees, and not 3 &4 as well? They also were used by the NT Church.

However, from my perspective, the issue of what is and is not in the canon is NOT the primary issue between the Catholic church and what is known as protestantism. It is at best illustrative of our differences, which have to do with the extent (or limits) of ecclesiastical authority. I recognize that individual conscience has a much greater role than I believe it plays in Catholic teaching today. I don’t think that we protestants always get it right – the point of 30,000 (or whatever the real number might be) differences of opinions is well taken – but I also don’t believe that the Catholic church is the sole arbitrater of what is and is not truth, for I don’t believe that such an understanding is even close to what Jesus meant when he talked about establishing his Church. It seems to be a case of self-definition on the part of the Catholic church, and not a role that Jesus intended for it or any other Christian community.
 
Well, I can’t speak for all protestants, so I’ll just speak for myself. First, on the question not so much of interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16, but more its application. To what is Paul referring when he writes: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”? Somehow I don’t think that Paul was including the letter he was at the time penning in what he meant by scripture as he wrote to Timothy. Today, we might affirm that what Paul said was true, and that since what we know define as scripture includes his letter to Timothy that is applies there as well. But the issue of defining scripture remains something that is left to the church to do.

I recognize that the first century New Testament generation (and many succeeding generations) would have accepted the books Catholic canon as scripture in their day. But if the people of the old covenant (the Jews) don’t include as part of the canon of their sacred scripture certain books, then how is it that one should say that they are? There were many other books that were part of the scrolls used by both the Hebrew community at the time of the NT Church and the early Church that are not a part of anyone’s sacred canon today. If I was doing it from scratch, I’m not sure whether I would include 3 John and might want to include Clement’s letters or the Shepherd of Hermes. But I am willing to accept what has been passed on to me, and if that had included Tobit and the books of the Maccabees I probably wouldn’t have questioned it. Might I ask why just 1 & 2 Maccabees, and not 3 &4 as well? They also were used by the NT Church.

However, from my perspective, the issue of what is and is not in the canon is NOT the primary issue between the Catholic church and what is known as protestantism. It is at best illustrative of our differences, which have to do with the extent (or limits) of ecclesiastical authority. I recognize that individual conscience has a much greater role than I believe it plays in Catholic teaching today. I don’t think that we protestants always get it right – the point of 30,000 (or whatever the real number might be) differences of opinions is well taken – but I also don’t believe that the Catholic church is the sole arbitrater of what is and is not truth, for I don’t believe that such an understanding is even close to what Jesus meant when he talked about establishing his Church. It seems to be a case of self-definition on the part of the Catholic church, and not a role that Jesus intended for it or any other Christian community.
This is a well written post and I think we can agree on several points.
I too cannot speak for the Catholic Church for I am not educated enough. I can only speak to what led me back home TO the Church and how the points you make above effected this journey.
First, as relating the “All Scripture” quote, I have no problem with including the NT writings in this just as you say. However NCC’s tend to use this verse as a proof of Sola Scriptura trmping the Church which it clearly does not do. It says that Scripture is useful and Paul also says that it is The Church which is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth. So in order to see the fullness of Truth one must look at BOTH of these quotes as well as many others in the NT. In fact one must look at the NT as a whole and not just select pieces.

Second as relates to the NT Canon. This was a Big deal for me when I was away from the Church. For many years I just assumed that all bibles contained the same books. Thus the Protestants were teaching from the same “Word of God” as the Catholics were. Then I discovered that the canons were different. How could this Be if the Bible contains the “God Breathed” Scripture?? Protestants claimed that the catholics added books at Trent, but a quick check showed that the Older Bibles had the “Deuteros” in them so the protestant claim was false. And since Christ, who promised to lead His Church into All Truth" would not permit the Church to assemble and use an incorrect canon for 1000 years it is obvious that, if one accepts the Bible AT ALL, one needs to accept the larger canon. The final related aspect to this is that, any group who would, at the same time, Declare the Doctrine of SS and Change the long established Canon of the Bible, cannot be of God.

As to Authority. Let us allow Christ to speak for himself. Christ founded a “Church” with Keys and authority to bind and loose. (Mt 16). He told us to take our disputes to “The Church” and to Listen to The Church or face excommunication (Mt 18:15-18). Christ Prayed that we be “…One as the Father and I are One…” (Jn 17:20-23)

The Catholic Church, following this idea from the beginning has remained intact with the exception of the one split, east and west.

The Reformation Church(es) casting off authority split within themselves almost immediately, and have continued to split until there are thousands of “independent” Churches.

Which displays the hallmark of doctrinal unity??

This is what led me away from the Protestant Churches and back home to the Catholic Church.

Peace
James
 
=Vimy Ridge;5754891]Are you saying that they did not leave in good conscience? I think many did. In the end we are not saved by doctrine, dogma, belief in the bible or institutions. We are only saved by grace.
The Church and the Bible point to God but neither are God. I’ve been both a Protestant and a Catholic and I know how quickly we can turn either the Bible or the Church into idols.
So we “saved by Grace”🤷

So friend, just what is “grace”?

What is the source of “grace”?

What is the purpose / function of “grace”?

How does one “get grace”?

Why is “grace necessary”?

In a very real sense both His Catholic Church and His Catholic Bible “are God” in that they make God’s plans, demands and Teachings, AND HIS GRACE available to us. Much more so trhough His Catholic Church, than outside Her embrace.

Love and prayers friends,
 
=JRKH;5755819]This was the crux of the matter for me as well.
If the Holy Bible is the True inspired and complete Word of God then that Word must stand unchanged for all time. Yet it has been changed. The Protestants use a 66 book bible and the catholics have 72 books. Why - and which is correct since they can’t both be correct?
A quick check shows that the older of the two canons is the 72 book canon. Before the 72 book canon was established, there were two OT canons and various collections of NT wriings. The 72 book canon was established and held as sacred for 1000 years.
The next question for me was, did those who assembled the 72 book canon get it right? The only answer must be yes, for if the Bible is the complete Word of God then God would not allow The Church to get it wrong in the first place.
It logically follows then that, since God Word must be right from the beginning, those who changed the canon from 72 ot 66 books erred in doing so and did so against the Will of God. Then, after removing these books, these same people held up the Bible as the Word of God and that the Bible was all you needed. (SS)
These facts flat our destroyed any chance that I would join any protestant Church.
Peace
James
Well done James, I agree completely:thumbsup:

Thanks, and prayers,
Pat
 
James and PJM, I know you aren’t arguing in the sense of trying to stir up trouble. You are just being prepared to present a defense for the faith that is in you. I respect that. However, I would also ask that if you are sincere in seeking to understand how it is that Protestants think on these things and where we come from, that you respect that this is how we (or at least one) Protestants arrive at it. You said that you were seeking to understand, not enter into a debate nor correct our errors. Normally I would be glad to actually dialog on these points, but I’ve learned that on CAF it isn’t genuine dialong, it isn’t even debate because there is very little listening done. That’s why I so seldom bother to post on, or even read, CAF anymore. I find very little point in being part of such one-sided “conversations.” Now, if there is something that remains confusing, please, share that with me and I’ll do my best to better explain where I am coming from.
 
hi all

i just wanted to add that there are never 30K+ protestantal churches.

There are only 2, well 3, if you count the Anglican Church as one: Lutherian Evangelical A.C. (Augsburger Confession) and H.C. (Helvetican Confession)

What you mean, by saying protestantal sect, dear PJM, are the so called Free Churches. And in fact, as a good friend of mine said today (she is by the way in a charismatic movement), there are only 2 types of Free Churches: the charismatic ones and the non charismatic ones, which are hereticans by the way, because you can’t understand the Holy Scriptures without the Holy Spirit. Yes, it’s true there are many different types of charismatic and non-charismatic Churches in the US and all over the world. But each of them can be clear classified in one of the above groups. And in my opinion these two groups are not enemies at all. I just today saw, when a browsed the internet, that there are even ecumenical services between them (which really astoned me to be honest - but anyway…) Also most of them are in the evangelical alliance, even the lutherian protestantal churches…

I live in a traditional catholic country, Austria. Especially my county, the Tyrol, is very catholic.
But i studied the Holy Scriptures and there i got to know how important the Holy Spirit is. Shortly after that i got to know my friend i mentioned before and this was the first time i prayed for the Holy Ghost and invited Jesus to come into my life. Since that day He leads me and He told me, yeah, believe me or not, to leave the Catholic Church when the time is there…
And i must tell you all the years i attended Catholic Services, and i attended really a lot in the beginning unforced, later on even a while forced by the parents, i never felt a bit of the Holy Ghost. This is the reason why i am searching at the moment a new Church, as the Holy Ghost urges me to do, see above. I am considering a pentecostal church in Innsbruck, the Capital of the Tyrol. But until i am sure which church to choose i will remain in the catholic church. HE will tell me when the time is there and which church to consider. I trust him for He is my god.

To finish i’d like to citate one of my favorite psalms in the Holy Bible:

1 The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. 2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. 3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’ sake. 4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. 5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. 6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.
(Out of the KJV; Psalm 23)

Best wishes and god may bless you all,
Esdra
Statistics show the number of Protestant secs at well in excess of 30,000!

I am befuddled, confused, bewildered how this can be a fact [a rapidly growing fact] and yet it does not seem to register with non-Catholics that something is obviously wrong.

I am very sincere in not being able to comprehend the lack of concern that seems to indicate that this is fine, it’s somehow God’s Will. There can only be ONE truth on any particular issue. So how can this be:shrug:

I do not mean this as a disparagement of any type. I simply am confounded that this does not raise a “red flag” and questions? Can you enlighten me?

I have been faithfully answeing your questions for more more than a year. Help me out here:rolleyes:

Love and prayers,
Pat
 
hi all

i just wanted to add that there are never 30K+ protestantal churches.

There are only 2, well 3, if you count the Anglican Church as one: Lutherian Evangelical A.C. (Augsburger Confession) and H.C. (Helvetican Confession)
It’s interesting how these few Confessions have been so variously interpreted, so as to arrive at so many different forms of religion, all from the same “spirit”. (Which I suspect is not the Holy Spirit, but some other kind of spirit.)
5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. 6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.
Did you know that the Early Church Fathers considered these lines to be a prophecy about the Sacraments and Priesthood of the Catholic Church? 🙂

Remember that, as you consider leaving the Sacraments of Jesus Christ for the excited feelings that are generated by loud music, shouting, and rhythmic pounding.
 
James and PJM, I know you aren’t arguing in the sense of trying to stir up trouble. You are just being prepared to present a defense for the faith that is in you. I respect that. However, I would also ask that if you are sincere in seeking to understand how it is that Protestants think on these things and where we come from, that you respect that this is how we (or at least one) Protestants arrive at it. You said that you were seeking to understand, not enter into a debate nor correct our errors. Normally I would be glad to actually dialog on these points, but I’ve learned that on CAF it isn’t genuine dialong, it isn’t even debate because there is very little listening done. That’s why I so seldom bother to post on, or even read, CAF anymore. I find very little point in being part of such one-sided “conversations.” Now, if there is something that remains confusing, please, share that with me and I’ll do my best to better explain where I am coming from.
Not trying to answer for James but it seems to me that this statement:
“This is what led me away from the Protestant Churches and back home to the Catholic Church.”
This statement qualifies James to say a great number of things from the Protestant viewpoint.

I hate to be assuming, uncharitable or sarcastic but I have been following this thread for many days and this whole site is built on its members being prepared to present a defense for their faith. You seem to be using the site to get to know our position to use it against us.

I guess I would ask what the motive of your dialogue is - not necessarily calling it disengenuine - and wonder what the sincerity of your heart is. James, maybe better than anyone commenting here, has seen both sides but you call him and everyone insincere. I really haven’t heard anything offensive or rude (wait - I think I was guilty of that in that weakness comment I made a few posts ago…) but all in all, I think this site rocks and I have seen nothing insincere from any of these lads. In particular PJM who’s about as cordial as all get out. I am like a porcupine compared to this guy.

Now, I can verify that if you let yourself be blinded by judgementalistic (is this even a word?) discrimination and resentment, then you will be close minded/hearted to anything anyone has to say here. Sincerely pray to the Holy Spirit - and I can promise you, you will come to the understanding of why we believe what we believe. If it never makes you join the Church - you will at least appreciate our viewpoint. And THATS genuine dialogue. The problem is, most protestants are guilty of telling Catholics WHAT they believe - and then never care to hear what it is, nor see, WHAT we really believe or WHY we believe it. Their judgement of the hearsay makes communication projects itself into the dialogue and makes it so challenging, that it’s near impossible. We don’t have a problem clearing the air, but can the air be cleared if people keep saying - NO - you don’t believe this and you believe that - without ever listening to the evidence of what we really believe?

To be honest, I felt hopeless at one time and almost became non-denominationalist. But the logic of realizing that there is One God - with order and design in the Universe - communicated One Truth to His One Chosen People. He established One Religion among them to worship this One God. This was all in the Old Testament. Then His Chosen of the Chosen - His only begotten Son - and even though being the unchangeable fixed point in the Universe that Truth is - all of a sudden mixes it all up and says - Church is generic - religion doesn’t matter?

In the Old Testament, then all those sacrificed lambs that had to be consumed, died in vain - because some jew somewhere could have said all that didn’t matter because all of a sudden he was more inspired than the rest of the Chosen People.

In the New Testament, then the Lamb of God, that had to be consumed - as well died in vain because after 1500 years all of a sudden some guy thought he was more inspired and said it didn’t matter.

There’s only one Church giving the Holy Eucharist to the world - because there’s One Church with a valid priesthood and an appropriate altar to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which believes that we consume the literal Lamb of God - as is called for in the Old Testament by God the Father and echoed, by God the Son in the New Testament.
“Unless you eat my Body and drink my Blood, you cannot have my Life within you.”

Once I had that logic from God the Father shown to me - the good Father and God of order and design - then I began answering the doubts I had with the truth of only being One Church. Digging into the Bible as a whole - and the Church Fathers was the best thing I ever did.

God bless,
luke1_28
 
hi all

i simply don’t believe that the Holy Eucharisty is that important as you keep saying.
By the Way: Not only the Catholic Church, but also all Orthodox Churches have the Holy Eucharisty. Just reminding. ² luke128

Jesus Christ only tells us in Matthew 26, 26 ff: “26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

He doesn’t tell us that a priest should “bewitch” bread and wine to His flesh and blood.

God is against sorceres as he says in Malachi 3, 5: “5 And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right , and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts.”

Even clearer Paul states the sence of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11, 23 ff: “23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Well the explanation is like above. We should do the Lord’s Supper in Christ’s remembrance and shouldn’t make a “conjurer’s performance” out of it, like the Roman Catholic and The Orthodox Churches do.

All bible citates are out of the KJV from the internet-site: Bible Server.(a very good bible portal in many languages. very recommendable! :))

Best wishes and god bless you all,
Esdra
 
Well the explanation is like above. We should do the Lord’s Supper in Christ’s remembrance and shouldn’t make a “conjurer’s performance” out of it, like the Roman Catholic and The Orthodox Churches do.
I will pray that you become one with Jesus Christ our Lord and receive His knowledge and Wisdom so that even you can see God in the Eucharist. In this way maybe you will know His sacrifice on the Cross.
 
“Remain firmly attached to the traditional doctrine that you have been taught, so that you can preach according to right doctrine and refute those who contradict it”
 
Well the explanation is like above. We should do the Lord’s Supper in Christ’s remembrance and shouldn’t make a “conjurer’s performance” out of it, like the Roman Catholic and The Orthodox Churches do.

All bible citates are out of the KJV from the internet-site: Bible Server.(a very good bible portal in many languages. very recommendable! :))

Best wishes and god bless you all,
Esdra
This ‘catholic’ that you claim to be - isn’t catholic at all. For anyone knowledgeable of history at all would know that the one thing held highest in the UNIVERSAL Church for the first 1500 years before it was important to differentiate with the title ‘Catholic’- was the Holy Eucharist. It is the source and summit of our Faith - It is the Manna - the Bread from heaven. You underscore and underestimate the value of it. Orthodox Churches do have valid Sacraments - and the Holy Eucharist is no exception. Even then, in taking the Orthodox Churches and Roman Catholic titles out of the Christian faith - what was the faith of the Early Church Fathers in regards to the Holy Eucharist:

St. Ignatius:

*“I am God’s grain, and I am being ground by the teeth of wild beasts in order that I may be found [to be] pure bread for Christ. My love has been crucified, and there is in me no fire of material love, but rather a living water, speaking in me and saying within me, ‘Come to the Father.’ I take no pleasure in corruptible food or in the delights of this life. I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who is the seed of David; and for drink I want his Blood which is incorruptible love.”

*“Charity is no concern to them, nor are widows and orphans or the oppressed . . .They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness, the Father raised . . .”

*“Be careful to observe [only] one Eucharist; for there is only one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup of union with his Blood, one altar of sacrifice, as [there is] one bishop with the presbyters and my fellow-servants the deacons.”

St. Justin Martyr:

*“For we do not receive these as common bread and common drink; but just as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have learned that the food over which thanks has been given by the prayer of the word which comes from him, [see 1 Cor 11: 23-26; Lk 22; 19] and by which are blood and flesh are nourished through a change, is the Flesh and Blood of the same incarnate Jesus.”

*"“The fact that there are such men confessing themselves to be Christians, and admitting the crucified Jesus to be both Lord and Christ, yet not teaching His doctrines, but those of the spirits of error, causes us who are disciples of the true and pure doctrine of Jesus Christ, to be more faithful and stedfast in the hope announced by Him. For what things He predicted would take place in His name, these we do see being actually accomplished in our sight. For he said, 'Many shall come in My name, clothed outwardly in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” And, ‘There shall be schisms and heresies.’ And, ‘Beware of false prophets, who shall come to you clothed outwardly in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.’ And, ‘Many false Christs and false apostles shall arise, and shall deceive many of the faithful.’ There are, therefore, and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things; …"

*""Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world (signifies the Universal nature), bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him. But He utterly rejects those presented by you and by those priests of yours, saying, ‘And I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles (He says); but ye profane it.’ Yet even now, in your love of contention, you assert that God does not accept the sacrifices of those who dwelt then in Jerusalem, and were called Israelites; "

Those are just a few of the very Early Church Fathers - and not even the earliest to mention and understand the Holy Eucharist as the True Church of Christ understands it today by way of Apostolic Succession!

The fact of the matter is, Esdras, the Early Church Fathers understood that Christ Himself MADE ‘conjurers’ out of the Apostles in the tradition of His Father making ‘conjurers’ of the Levites. Christ being the High Priest - was guilty of being a ‘Conjurer’ Himself then as the bread and wine was turned into His Body and Blood. Are the other works of the Apostles to be called BEWITCHING and they are CONJURERS as well when God gave them the power to raise the dead, heal the sick, cast demons out?

Anyone familiar with Old Testament knows that for man to atone for his sins, the Father made covenants and man’s part was to sacrifice and consume the sacrifice as the sealing of the covenant. The requirement changes not in the New Testament but only is perfected and this ‘conjured’ Sacrifice too was prophesied in the Old Testament.

Esdras, please read the WHOLE Bible - even the KJV if you so choose…not just the pick and choose reading plan. For the confusion of this can be seen in the world around you with all the denominations to choose from.

May God the Father forgive the blasphemous ramblings of those who ignore or deny the reality of the Sacrifice of His Son. Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.

God bless you,
luke1_28
 
Old Testament quotes for Esdras:

From the Real Presence website:

**God Raises His Covenant Children **

Jesus introduced the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist. It did not exist during the days of the Old Testament. However, our Father in heaven gradually prepared us to receive it. These Old Testament accounts describe pre-figurations of the Holy Eucharist.

**Abel **

The earliest shadow of the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood was Abel, the younger son of Adam and Eve. Cain murdered the good shepherd Abel. The Lord told Cain, Gn 4:10 “The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to Me from the ground.” The Book of Hebrews reminds us of, Heb 12:24 “… [Christ’s] sprinkled Blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel.”

**Melchizedek **

Melchizedek pre-figured Christ. When Abram returned from his victory over Chedorlaomer, Gn 14:18 “Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High …” to bless Abram, pre-figuring the bread and wine consecrated by a priest at Mass. The Book of Hebrews tells us, Heb 7:2 “[Melchizedek] is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem [shalom], that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever.”

Moses

Moses, the first Israelite priest, read the Torah to all of the six hundred thousand Israelite people assembled at the foot of Mt. Sinai, and threw the blood of sacrificed oxen on the people, saying Ex 24:8 “Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you.” Jesus said at the Last Supper, Mt 26:28 “This is my blood of the covenant.”

Ex 34:29 “When Moses came down from Mount Sinai, with the two tables of the testimony in his hand as he came down from the mountain … the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God … he put a veil on his face.” Jesus comes to us veiled, under the appearance of bread and wine. We could not stand the superbrilliant light of His full glory compared to our own souls darkened by sin.

**The Harvest **

In ancient Israel, the Spring harvest consisted of grain or wheat. Bread has long been the symbol of the Spring harvest. The Autumn harvest was mostly grapes and olives. Grape wine and olive oil were symbols of the Autumn harvest. Bread and wine. God commanded, Lv 23:12-13 “You shall offer a male lamb a year old without blemish as a burnt offering to the Lord. And the cereal offering with it shall be two tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil … and the drink offering with it shall be of wine.” Priests anoint with oil. Torah unites bread and wine, and the priest, with the sacrifice of the lamb.

**Tabernacle Sacrifice **

**Bread of the Presence **

The Bread of the Presence, in the ancient Tabernacle and later in the Temple, 1 Kgs 7:48 prefigured Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.

In the Tabernacle God commanded Moses, Ex 25:8 “Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst.” In the sanctuary, in the ark of the covenant, God told Moses, Ex 25:22 “There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you…” God added, Ex 25:30 “You shall set the bread of the Presence on the table before me always.” Jesus told us, Mt 28:20 “I am with you always.”

Abimelech the priest gave David this sacred bread. 1 Sam 21:6 “So the priest gave him the holy bread; for there was no bread there but the bread of the Presence.” Jesus taught us that it was for all His disciples. Mt 12:1 “At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck ears of grain and to eat. … [Jesus] said to them, 'Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence … I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.”

Jesus showed us what was greater than the Temple. Lk 22:19 “He took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’”

God bless you,
luke1_28
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top