Protestants, how can this be possible?

[mpjw2]

Originally Posted by Seeker100

I have the Holy Spirit in me. I have the life of God in me. I have the joy of God. I see Jesus in everyone I meet. I am a Quaker and we do not even have communion at all. I don’t have Catholic communion or even Protestant communion but I do have the life!!

Praise the Lord!!

JRKH
Are you sure, when you,
a) do not obey Christ’s command to Eat his Body and Drink His Blood.

Hi Seeker and JRKH

In due respect for your solid faith in the catholic church JRKH, I can relate to Seekers’ heart and the joy of the Lord He feels within.

As far as taking communion, I do not believe, Jesus’ desire for us when we eat the "bread’ and drink the “wine” was intended to be a physical one…rather a spiritual one.

In our church, we pray to Him spiritually and at communion the emplems (wafer and juice) we use is to spiritually recall the sacrifice Jesus made for all of us and His words to his disciples at the last supper…

“This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
“This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you for the forgiveness of sins”

As in Seeker’s case, I believe one can receive communion with or without the emblems.

Is this unworthy manner as Paul warns in the following verse?

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:27

well lets see…

in 1 Corinthians…

They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same **spiritual **drink; for they drank from the ***spiritual rock ***that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:3-4

Recently I came across the following…

this is a letter by a catholic to a non-catholic christian …

…The Roman Catholic Church follows the words of Jesus. We eat his body and drink his blood because he said so. John 6:51, “I myself am the living bread come down from heaven. If anyone eats this bread he shall live forever; the bread I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” The bread is his body for us to eat for eternal life.

I will pray for your conversion. Jesus is the way the truth and the life.

I am sure catholics will agree with that letter. it is sure consistent with a lot of catholic posters here…

Here is the christian response which I also believe…I could not explain it any better …

The problem (name) is that you’ve taken John 6:51 out of context (which is no doubt what you have been taught by the Catholic religion). If you back up just a couple verses to John 6:47-48, you’ll find the context, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life.”

Jesus was speaking about salvation. To teach that Jesus meant for us to** literally **digest His body is not only absurd, but is also inconsistent with the rest of the Bible.

In John 10:9 Jesus claimed to be the “door.” How do we go through this “literal” door? Does the Catholic religion have a secret door somewhere that we must all walk through. The “door” which Jesus spoke of is NOT a literal concrete object, but abstract (cannot be perceived with the 5 senses). The Bible simply means that the door to heaven is THROUGH Jesus Christ!

If John 6:51 is to be taken as literal instead of spiritual in meaning, then John 10:9 would make no sense at all.

if and I say if this was true, then why would Jesus give us an abstract message in one place (door) and a literal message at another place (bread)?

Consider this as the christian continues…

When Jesus tried to explain to Nicodemus that he needed to be “born again” in John chapter three, Nicodemus took Jesus literally and was dumbfounded. Nicodemus was baffled, asking, how can I go back into my mother’s womb and be born again? He looked at Jesus like he was crazy. Nicodemus was not thinking on a spiritual plane, but earthly. Jesus was trying to teach Nicodemus a spiritual truth, but Nicodemus just didn’t get it. Just as Nicodemus FAILED to understand Jesus’ Words of Truth,

John 6:51 has nothing to do with eating Jesus’ flesh and blood, it simply means that we need to believe upon the Lord for salvation.

Believe in Him and trust Him and digest him into our hearts every day of our lives. When we do that His love will shine for the world to see.

And Jesus’ love did shine through a tragedy that happened on Oct. 3, 2006 near Lancaster Pa.

Seeker, a Quaker no doubt remembers.

I am also from Pa.

I can still recall the emotions that flowed within my being when I heard of the following…

Charles Carl Roberts IV entered an Amish schoolhouse (with gun in hand) and sprayed bullets all over the room and executed many young children.

Now if that happened to your child what would your initial response be?

Would it be…“let me get my hands on that #%$^#@%#@ guy for killing my child”

or some other response similiar

I hope you would say what the Amish did…

Immediately after this tragedy, the Amish community all got together and announced to the public their sincere prayers for the families involved who lost a loved one and for the family of Charles Carl Roberts IV

But the “icing on the cake” if you will, the expression of their sincere outpouring of love and forgiveness towards Charles Carl Roberts IV.

What a witness to the love and forgiveness of Jesus Christ.

Steven M. Nolt in the South Bend (Ind.) Tribune
wrote…

…their decision to forgive set them on a path to emotional healing.
Clinical research shows that forgiveness improves the physical and mental health of those who offer it.

here is woderful Godly recap on the tragedy…
torchgrab.org/amish.htm

I believe in my heart of hearts, the Amish lead one of the ways if not the way, second to Jesus Christ, for all christians to follow.

I do very much agree with one thing the catholic said in the letter above and that is…

Jesus answered,

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. .John 14:6

God bless you

I look forward to seeing you all in heaven

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

mpjw2:

I am sure catholics will agree with that letter. it is sure consistent with a lot of catholic posters here…

Here is the christian response which I also believe…I could not explain it any better …

Consider this as the christian continues…

mpjw2,

I am hoping that you saying a “Christian response” to a Catholic was an unfortunate misprint. I will give you the benefit of the doubt but just in case you did not know; Catholics are Christian. So to see a statement along the lines of, “here is the Christian response to the Catholic argument” is puzzling. It gets further complicated when you consider that Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists all believe that Christ is truly and physically present in Communion (albeit they do not subscribe to Transubstantiation outside some Anglo-Catholics) so that you cannot even make this a *Catholic v. Protestant *issue. What it definitely not is a Catholic v. Christian issue as pitting Catholicism against Christianity is utterly ridiculous.

God bless you

 

[PJM]

=Seeker100-You missunderstand me. Sin does exist and so does heaven and hell. When I mean the Kingdom of God is for everyone I mean it is available to whomever wants to serve Jesus. As Jesus says, “Whoever wants to drink, let him drink!”

Life is for any who want it! Life is living in love. Life is being in the Father and the Son in us.

Jesus came and set up his Kingdom the Kingdom of God. We can all be part of this Kingdom by serving Jesus in everyone we meet. It is a mystical Kingdom. It is a mystical union between the servant and his Lord.

It is life and this life is available to anyone!!

In this union living waters flow out of one’s spirit!!! Denomination does not matter. Loving God does.

It is such a wonderful gift from God, we can do things for Him in others. With Jesus we can serve God in Jesus by doing things for Jesus in each person we meet.

As Mother Teresa says, “The poor are Christ in disguise.”

Jesus brought us such a gift. He brought us Himself. He brought us the Kingdom of God. He who wants drink, Let him drink!!

Thanks for the clairification:thumbsup:

Your reply shows great thought and spiritual maturity. However I must disagree that ones “Denominations does not matter.” This is a very improper understanding of the Divine Nature of God.

God is by God’s very Nature far more a Benolevent Dictator than He is ONLY a loving, caring, forgiving everyone for everything, everytime kind of God.

God’s Nature encompasses a great many wonderful attributes and because He is ALL - Loving, caring, forgiving, merciful its easy to gloss over that God is [and must be] all Just and completely and perfectely fair in His judgements.

Titus 1: 16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed

*2 Tim. 4: 14 Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will requite him for his deeds. *

*i Pet. 1: 17 And if you invoke as Father him who judges each one impartially according to his deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile. *

One must always be in search of the single truth. Faith is a gift, *Rom. 10: 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ. *

We are obligated to be associated in with and through Christ, in the manner and form that He Himself set up. And that friend in trhough His Catholic Church. To assume some ungiven right to be able to serve God is a way that pleases us, is very close to denying the Divine Diety Himself. Doctrine, and Dogma do matter to the salvation of souls. If they did not, why bother with seeing up His church? Wht bother with the Sacraments, why bother with the Commandments.

Yes it is about personal choices, BUT personal choices that AGREE with what God wants, what God demands and what God teaches through the Bible [the entire bible.]

May God continue to bless you! And you are right… LOVE is the answer

 

[wmscott]

Originally Posted by Seeker100

As far as taking communion, I do not believe, Jesus’ desire for us when we eat the "bread’ and drink the “wine” was intended to be a physical one…rather a spiritual one.

This is the problem with everyone applying his or her own fallible and personal interpretations of Sacred Scripture. This happens repeatedly by some Protestants who error so grievously against Sacred Scripture. To say that you believe that the Eucharist was not “intended to be a physical one…rather a spiritual one” is a complete disregard for what Christ commanded. Just what scriptural evidence do you have to suggest it is a spiritual act? It certainly is not in John 6.

Taken in context John 6:52-62 is as follows:

Ver. 52. The bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world.[2] In most Greek copies we read, is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world. Christ here promised what he afterwards instituted, and gave at his last supper. He promiseth to give his body and blood to be eaten; the same body (though the manner be different) which he would give on the cross for the redemption of the world. The Jews of Capharnaum were presently scandalized. How (said they) can this man give us his flesh to eat? But notwithstanding their murmuring, and the offence which his words had given, even to many of his disciples, he was so far from revoking, or expounding what he had said of any figurative or metaphorical sense, that he confirmed the same truth in the clearest and strongest terms. Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat, &c. And again, (ver. 56.) For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. I cannot omit taking notice of what St. Chrysostom and St. Cyril, in their commentaries on this place, have left us on these words, How can this man do this? These words which call in question the almighty and incomprehensible power of God, which hinder them, says St. Chrysostom, from believing all other mysteries and miracles: they might as well have said: How could he with five loaves feed five thousand men? This question, How can he do this? Is a question of infidels and unbelievers. St. Cyril says that How, or, How can he do this? cannot, without folly, be applied to God. 2ndly, he calls it a question of blasphemy. 3rdly, a Jewish word, for which these Capharnaites deserved the severest punishments. 4thly, He confutes them by the saying of the prophet Isaias, (lv. 9.) that God’s thoughts and ways are as much above those of men, as the heavens are above the earth. But if these Capharnaites, who knew not who Jesus was, were justly blamed for their incredulous, foolish, blasphemous, Jewish saying, how can he give us his flesh to eat? much more blameable are those Christians, who, against the words of the Scripture, against the unanimous consent and authority of all Christian Churches in all parts of the world, refuse to believe his real presence, and have nothing to say, but with the obstinate Capharnaites, how can this be done? Their answers are the same, or no better, when they tell us that the real presence contradicts their senses, their reason, that they know it to be false. We may also observe, with divers interpreters, that if Christians are not to believe that Jesus Christ is one and the same God with the eternal Father, and that he is truly and really present in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, it will be hard to deny but that Christ himself led men into these errors, which is blasphemy. For it is evident, and past all dispute, that the Jews murmured, complained, and understood that Christ several times made himself God, and equal to the Father of all. 2ndly, When in this chapter, he told them he would give them his flesh to eat, &c. they were shocked to the highest degree: they cried out, this could not be, that these words and this speech was hard and harsh, and on this very account many that had been his disciples till that time, withdrew themselves from him, and left him and his doctrine. Was it not then at least high time to set his complaining hearers right, to prevent the blasphemous and idolatrous opinions of the following ages, nay even of all Christian Churches, by telling his disciples at least, that he was only a nominal God, in a metaphorical and improper sense; that he spoke only of his body being present in a figurative and metaphorical sense in the holy Eucharist? If we are deceived, who was it that deceived us but Christ himself, who so often repeated the same points of our belief? His apostles must be esteemed no less guilty in affirming the very same, both as to Christ’s divinity, and his real presence in the holy sacrament, as hereafter will appear. (Witham) — Compare the words here spoken with those he delivered at his last supper, and you will see that what he promises here was then fulfilled: “this is my body given for you.” Hence, the holy Fathers have always explained this chapter of St. John, as spoken of the blessed sacrament. See the concluding reflexions, below.

Ver. 53. Because the Jews said it was impossible to give them his flesh to eat, Christ answers them by telling them, that so far from being impossible, it is very necessary that they should eat it. “Unless you eat,” &c. (St. Chrysostom) — It is not the flesh of merely a man, but it is the flesh of a God, able to make man divine, inebriating him, as it were, with the divinity. (Theophylactus) See Maldonatus.

CONTINUED…

 

[wmscott]

Ver. 54. Unless you eat … and drink, &c. To receive both the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both the body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind: (ver. 52.) If any man eat of this bread he shall life for ever: and the bread which I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world: (ver. 58.) He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me: (ver. 59.) He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. (Challoner)

Ver. 55. Jesus Christ, to confirm the notion his disciples had formed of a real eating of his body, and to remove all metaphorical interpretation of his words, immediately adds, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. … For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed;” which could not be so, if, as sectarists pretend, what he gives us in the blessed sacrament is nothing but a bit of bread; and if a figure, certainly not so striking as the manna.

Ver. 58. As the living Father hath sent me, his only, his true Son, to become man; and I live by the Father, proceeding always from him; so he that eateth me, first by faith only, by believing in me; and secondly, he that eateth my body and blood, truly made meat and drink, though after a spiritual manner, (not in that visible, bloody manner as the Capharnaites fancied to themselves) shall live by me, and live for ever, happy in the kingdom of my glory. (Witham)

Ver. 61. If Christ had wished to say nothing else than that his disciples should be filled with his doctrine, that being his flesh and blood, it would not have been a hard saying; neither would it have shocked the Jews. He had already said as much in the former part of his discourse: but he goes on in still stronger terms, notwithstanding their complaints; and, as they were ignorant how he would fulfil his promise, they left him, (Calmet) and followed the example of the other unbelieving Jews, as all future sectarists have, saying: how can this be done?

Ver. 62. If you cannot believe that I can give you my flesh to eat, now that I am living amongst you, how will you believe, that, after my ascension, I can give you to eat my glorified and immortal flesh, seated on the right hand of the majesty of God? (Bible de Vence)
Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary

 

[jmcrae]

Hi Seeker and JRKH

In due respect for your solid faith in the catholic church JRKH, I can relate to Seekers’ heart and the joy of the Lord He feels within.

As far as taking communion, I do not believe, Jesus’ desire for us when we eat the "bread’ and drink the “wine” was intended to be a physical one…rather a spiritual one.

If the Sacrifice, and our partaking of it, is only supposed to be symbolic or spiritual, then why did Jesus have to die physically on the Cross? Why couldn’t He have just done so in a spiritual and/or symbolic manner, without actually mutilating His flesh, or experiencing actual death?

 

[JRKH]

Hi Seeker and JRKH
In due respect for your solid faith in the catholic church JRKH, I can relate to Seekers’ heart and the joy of the Lord He feels within.

Have I given the impression that I do not? If so then I apologize.
My heart is full of Christ’s Love. Sometimes it is the only thing that gets me through my day for my Dear Wife has Alzheimers and our struggles continue to mount.
I’m not complaining in this, rather I even thank God for this Trial and sorrow, though naturally I also pray for healing. In the time of my wifes illness I have learned more about Godly Love, Patience, Endurance, and care than I could ever have learned any other way.
My concern is not that Seeker, or yourself for that matter are necessary wrong, but rather that you are missing out on so much more that is available to you.
I have heard many conversions stories here and on EWTN, and in each case the convert says that they really didn’t have to leave anything behind in their conversion. Becoming Catholic does not, in most cases, require rejection of basic beliefs, but rather an embracing of the fullness available through Christ’s Bride, The Church.

As far as taking communion, I do not believe, Jesus’ desire for us when we eat the "bread’ and drink the “wine” was intended to be a physical one…rather a spiritual one.

In our church, we pray to Him spiritually and at communion the emplems (wafer and juice) we use is to spiritually recall the sacrifice Jesus made for all of us and His words to his disciples at the last supper…

As I expressed to seeker, The Early Church does not agree with this position. From Apostolic times right on through the Church has taught the doctrine of the Real Presence. It is from the Protestant reformation that we get the “symbolic or spiritual” presence.
As for bible verses indicating the spiritual aspect, I would say that, if anything is clear on this board, it is that there is a Bible verse to support very position if one looks long enough.
That is why The Church is so important. The historical record from the Apostles to the ECF’s right down the line supports the truth of the real presence in the Eucharist as confected by the Catholic Church. Nearly 2000 years of Consistant Church teaching trumps 500 years of Protestant indicision on the matter.

As in Seeker’s case, I believe one can receive communion with or without the emblems.

I do not say that one cannot or does not receive grace, but that is the grace from the reverence for God and not for the receiving of His Body and Blood.

Is this unworthy manner as Paul warns in the following verse?
well lets see…
in 1 Corinthians…
Recently I came across the following…
this is a letter by a catholic to a non-catholic christian …
I am sure catholics will agree with that letter. it is sure consistent with a lot of catholic posters here…
Here is the christian response which I also believe…I could not explain it any better …
if and I say if this was true, then why would Jesus give us an abstract message in one place (door) and a literal message at another place (bread)?
Consider this as the christian continues…
Believe in Him and trust Him and digest him into our hearts every day of our lives. When we do that His love will shine for the world to see.

The issues that you raise here, in the light of Protestant thinking, which started with the rejection of Universal Church Authority is, in fact, rehashing and reraising a question that was long settled within the Church. In fact it never WAS a question that I am aware of.

Why do protestants feel the need to rehash all of this long after Chrisitans had already settled the matter?

And Jesus’ love did shine through a tragedy that happened on Oct. 3, 2006 near Lancaster Pa.
Seeker, a Quaker no doubt remembers.
I am also from Pa.
I can still recall the emotions that flowed within my being when I heard of the following…
Charles Carl Roberts IV entered an Amish schoolhouse (with gun in hand) and sprayed bullets all over the room and executed many young children.
Now if that happened to your child what would your initial response be?
Would it be…“let me get my hands on that #%$^#@%#@ guy for killing my child”
or some other response similiar
I hope you would say what the Amish did…
Immediately after this tragedy, the Amish community all got together and announced to the public their sincere prayers for the families involved who lost a loved one and for the family of Charles Carl Roberts IV
But the “icing on the cake” if you will, the expression of their sincere outpouring of love and forgiveness towards Charles Carl Roberts IV.
What a witness to the love and forgiveness of Jesus Christ.
Steven M. Nolt in the South Bend (Ind.) Tribune
wrote…
here is woderful Godly recap on the tragedy…
torchgrab.org/amish.htm
I believe in my heart of hearts, the Amish lead one of the ways if not the way, second to Jesus Christ, for all christians to follow.
I do very much agree with one thing the catholic said in the letter above and that is…
Jesus answered,
God bless you
I look forward to seeing you all in heaven

I’m not sure what the purpose is of relating the incident with the Amish, but
If you somehow have the impression that Great Love is not at work in the Catholic Church please be assured that it is.

I too, as I stated earlier, admire the Quakers and the Amish as well. I admire all who demonstrate God’s great Love to the world.
Theirs was a deed very worthy of Chrisitans everywhere.

Indeed it is an act on par with Pope John Paul II who forgave and visited the man who tried to assassinate him.
It is on par with St Maria Goretti, who even after being stabbed multiple times by one who attempted to rape her, forgave him with her dying breath. Later He did have a conversion experience (explained on the link) and was even present at the Vatican beside Maria’s mother when Maria was declared a Saint of the Catholic Church.
It is on par with the Catholic Priest, (who’s name escapes me now) who took the place of another in a Nazi Concentration camp and died.

Yes, great acts of Love take place wherever sincere Christians are, whether as a group or individually. That does not change the issue discussed here though.
Protestants rejected the Authority of The Church -
The result has been confusion and an erosion of the Spiritual Gifts.
Chief among this in erosion is the Gift of Christ in the Eucharist.
As seeker said, Churches point toward God.
As the Catachism says, all Christian communites contain some truth within them by their very nature.

Peace
James

 

[PJM]

=Seeker100-I have the Holy Spirit in me. I have the life of God in me. I have the joy of God. I see Jesus in everyone I meet. I am a Quaker and we do not even have communion at all. I don’t have Catholic communion or even Protestant communion but I do have the life!!

Praise the Lord!!

Praise the Lord! Indeed!

Firend, not only do informed, practicing Catholics “have the life” we friend also have “The Way, the Truth and the Life” Jesus Chrsit Himself, not simply in our Churches, and not only in our minds and hearts, but in our very bodies.

It has been wisely stated that one becomes what one eats. Catholic through the Sacred Liturgy of The Mass, and special graces and gifts from God. make the Glorified Body [nevertheless the very same Jesus now in an unblodied Sacrifice, because Christ too can only die once] present to us in the ordinary form of Bread and Wine, but what mysteruiously, miracously and lovingly are transformed in the very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinety of Jesus Himself.

We know that God is a God of unlimited power and unlimited Love. In Eucharist these two natures of God are made manifest, “FULL of GRACES” for our Spiritual assiatance.

Indeed let us praise and thank Almighty God. Amen!

 

[jmcrae]

Oh my goodness!!! I am not taking about sexual arousal. Why do you keep changing the subject?

I’m not. You were saying, to follow the heart is to follow God. But, sometimes the heart is full of lust and sin. If my heart is full of lust and sin, should I say that it is God telling me to do these things, and go ahead with them?

This* isn’t* a stupid question - people do this every day. How many stories do we hear all the time about women and men who destroy their families and destroy their careers because their heart was telling them to commit sin - and they sincerely believed that it was God speaking to them, telling them to do these things?

In Canada, more than 50% of marriages end in divorce, and I am betting that a huge number of those people think they are getting “Biblical divorces,” or else that God told them to start a romantic relationship with someone other than their spouse - or to do some other thing that caused their spouse to believe that a “Biblical divorce” was the only solution.

The wreckage in children’s lives who no longer have the opportunity for secondary education because their college funds are spent on lawyers’ fees for the divorce, and the skyrocketing number of single women with children living in poverty is destroying our society - values and customs are not being taught to the children because there is simply no time and not enough energy to be able to do much more than keep food on the table and a roof over their heads - all because everyone is following their hearts.

I am talking about joy. Do you feel the joy of God in your heart?

All the time, yes.

 

[mpjw2]

Have I given the impression that I do not?

James no apologies necessary. I have no doubt for your love of Jesus…
especially because of your post in the “Jesus church of love thread”

Thank you again for your post, I have been blessed by your message

I am sorry I was not clear

I quoted the following opening statements…

by seeker

I have the joy of God. I see Jesus in everyone I meet. I am a Quaker and we do not even have communion at all. I don’t have Catholic communion or even Protestant communion but I do have the life!!
Praise the Lord!!

JRKH

Are you sure, when you,
a) do not obey Christ’s command to Eat his Body and Drink His Blood.

When I said,

In due respect for your solid faith in the catholic church JRKH, I can relate to Seekers’ heart and the joy of the Lord He feels within.

the impression you gave me was you questioning seeker’s heart when you asked…
“Are you sure…”

If I am wrong … I apologize

Why do protestants feel the need to rehash all of this long after Chrisitans had already settled the matter?

Good question…could some of them be true

I’m not sure what the purpose is of relating the incident with the Amish,

To illustrate the overwhelming amount of love and forgiveness they so unconditionally are willing to give…even when tragedy strikes

If you somehow have the impression that Great Love is not at work in the Catholic Church please be assured that it is.

I am sorry I gave that impression to you…shame on me

catholics do realize the love of God and illustrate that love towards others

I too, as I stated earlier, admire the Quakers and the Amish as well. I admire all who demonstrate God’s great Love to the world.
Theirs was a deed very worthy of Chrisitans everywhere.

yes it was

Indeed it is an act on par with Pope John Paul II who forgave and visited the man who tried to assassinate him.
It is on par with St Maria Goretti, who even after being stabbed multiple times by one who attempted to rape her, forgave him with her dying breath. Later He did have a conversion experience (explained on the link) and was even present at the Vatican beside Maria’s mother when Maria was declared a Saint of the Catholic Church.
It is on par with the Catholic Priest, (who’s name escapes me now) who took the place of another in a Nazi Concentration camp and died.

Yes, great acts of Love take place wherever sincere Christians are, whether as a group or individually.

all great stories…thank you for sharing

That does not change the issue discussed here though.

the debates will never cease and may I use a quote from the Jesus love thread

Posted by tweetymom

I wish we would act like Christ would have us act me included in love and charity. We will never all agree until we see Jesus face to face and I believe it will be so glorious that we won’t care if we agree or not…

This is the reason I braught up the Amish story.

I believe the Amish are aware of the different churches around including the RCC

what a shame it is to think that there might be someone in the RCC who may believe

the Amish, as unconditional God loving, forgiving people as they are today… will not mean a blessed thing when they face their death.

Why?

because they may believe the amish person would have died knowing about the RCC but died as a non Roman catholic and because of that…they will spend eternity in hell…

what a shame.

When I pray for all of you I pray that God keep you all strong in your faith

When you say you will pray for us “protestants”, just curious,

are you also praying for the same

or

that we will come home to the RCC because you fear we will not be saved if we die where we are today?

thank you and God bless

 

[PRmerger]

because they may believe the amish person would have died **knowing about **the RCC but died as a non Roman catholic and because of that…they will spend eternity in hell…

what a shame.

I think I finally understand your intense interest in this subject, mpjw. You are misunderstanding the CC’s teaching “outside the Church there is no salvation.” You have interpreted, I think, it to mean that if you die “knowing *about *the RCC” but don’t convert to Catholicism, you will go to hell.

That is not the CC’s teaching.

Simply "knowing about" the CC but not being Catholic does not mean you go to hell.

You have to obstinately reject the Church’s teaching, knowing that it was the Church that Christ established, and still say, “Nope, I dig my heels in and I will not submit.”

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

because they may believe the amish person would have died knowing about the RCC but died as a non Roman catholic and because of that…they will spend eternity in hell…

mpjw2,

Please take the time to read what the church actually teaches in this regard because, “…died as a non Roman catholic and because of that…they will spend eternity in hell” is not true of the Catholic teaching.

God bless you

 

[wmscott]

If the Sacrifice, and our partaking of it, is only supposed to be symbolic or spiritual, then why did Jesus have to die physically on the Cross? Why couldn’t He have just done so in a spiritual and/or symbolic manner, without actually mutilating His flesh, or experiencing actual death?

Good point, and if we wanted to expand on this a little regarding the actual Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ being actually physically present in the Holy Eucharist, why do Satanists or anyone who wants to defile Christ always go after the Holy Eucharist once it is consecrated from a Catholic Church? Why not just go to a Protestant church? Could it be because in John 6 Jesus is not speaking figuratively or symbolically about the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ being actually physically present in the Holy Eucharist? Once you grasp this, then it stands to reason that Apostolic succession and Holy Orders are valid. The point is that even Satan recognizes that the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church Christ established on earth and that the Holy Eucharist is not just symbolic.

 

[wmscott]

I think I finally understand your intense interest in this subject, mpjw. You are misunderstanding the CC’s teaching “outside the Church there is no salvation.” You have interpreted, I think, it to mean that if you die “knowing *about *the RCC” but don’t convert to Catholicism, you will go to hell.

That is not the CC’s teaching.

Simply "knowing about" the CC but not being Catholic does not mean you go to hell.

You have to obstinately reject the Church’s teaching, knowing that it was the Church that Christ established, and still say, “Nope, I dig my heels in and I will not submit.”

This is a good point, but correct me if I am wrong, when we say outside the CC we are not saying RCC or any of the other rites, we are saying the Universal Church. Our separated brothers and sisters are still a part of the CC “Universal” church whether they know it or not.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

This is a good point, but correct me if I am wrong, when we say outside the CC we are not saying RCC or any of the other rites, we are saying the Universal Church. Our separated brothers and sisters are still a part of the CC “Universal” church whether they know it or not.

You are correct wmscott. From the CCC:

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

God bless you

 

[wmscott]

You are correct wmscott. From the CCC:

God bless you

Thanks, very informative. I guess this puzzles me a bit as to why so many bash the CCC. Go figure.

 

[jmcrae]

This is a good point, but correct me if I am wrong, when we say outside the CC we are not saying RCC or any of the other rites, we are saying the Universal Church. Our separated brothers and sisters are still a part of the CC “Universal” church whether they know it or not.

In a partial manner, only, keep in mind. If a baptized person with no post-baptismal sin dies, he goes straight to Heaven, even if the person who baptized him was not a Catholic. However, since they don’t have access to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, it seems that it would less easy to stay out of Hell if they did happen to sin after baptism.

 

[mpjw2]

I think I finally understand your intense interest in this subject, mpjw. You are misunderstanding the CC’s teaching “outside the Church there is no salvation.” You have interpreted, I think, it to mean that if you die “knowing *about *the RCC” but don’t convert to Catholicism, you will go to hell.

That is not the CC’s teaching.

Simply "knowing about" the CC but not being Catholic does not mean you go to hell.

You have to obstinately reject the Church’s teaching, knowing that it was the Church that Christ established, and still say, “Nope, I dig my heels in and I will not submit.”

thank you PRmerger…let me say this using your words…

I am digging my heels in, as a former member and participant of the RCC,

and

I am willingly choosing NOT to submit to the belief that the RCC was and is the only One True Church Jesus Christ founded in 33 A.D. when He declared to Peter…“on this Rock I build my church”

I will go to my grave believing Jesus, in fact, founded His church in 33A.D…His christian church not just catholics, and He built His church on a Rock, and that Rock is TRUTH of His Word.

what does the RCC teach about me now?

btw, if Peter was solid as a rock, so much so to build on,

Peter did deny Jesus…not once but three times

another reason Peter could not be the Rock

God bless

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

thank you PRmerger…let me say this using your words…

I am digging my heels in, as a former member and participant of the RCC,

and

I am willingly choosing NOT to submit to the belief that the RCC was and is the only One True Church Jesus Christ founded in 33 A.D. when He declared to Peter…“on this Rock I build my church”

I will go to my grave believing Jesus, in fact, founded His church in 33A.D…His christian church not just catholics, and He built His church on a Rock, and that Rock is TRUTH of His Word.

what does the RCC teach about me now?

btw, if Peter was solid as a rock, so much so to build on,

Peter did deny Jesus…not once but three times

another reason Peter could not be the Rock

God bless

You didn’t read what PRmerger wrote to you:

You have to obstinately reject the Church’s teaching, knowing that it was the Church that Christ established, and still say, “Nope, I dig my heels in and I will not submit.”

what does the RCC teach about me now?

The same thing it always has. It calls you home and, “with good reason” you are still accepted as a brother or sister in the Lord,* “by the children of the Catholic Church.”*

God bless

 

[mpjw2]

ok i will try once more…

turn the clock back

at age 30 there about, I believed the RCC was the one only true church founded by Jesus and built on Peter, the rock,
I submitted to this then

I reject that belief today…

to that you say?