Protestants: how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is the right one?

[christian1]

you said: * Although they were in fact capable of sinning, some of the saints did not sin during their lives, and so were assumed into heaven (“raptured” in Protestant parlance) at their deaths. Mary and Elijah for starters, there may have been more.

The bible offers proof of Elijah’s rapture…where is it for Mary’s?

Are you the same person I asked about what sins Christ is speaking about His true church? And is he speaking to individuals or to the Church?
Tell me, who is Christ speaking to when He speaks to the churches about their error?

 

[christian1]

you said: You seem to be expecting the true Church to be impeccable (not capable of sin). And so you are nondenominational because you are trying to find the impeccable church. But no one is impeccable*, so your search is in vain. 1 John 1:8.

I’m not searching for an impeccable church. I’m asking you to tell me who was Christ referring to when he confronted the church about their error in revelation. If you are indeed the true church, then it is clear it is in error. You say it is the people who are in error not the church. It has already been established that the people ARE the church and Christ is the head of it. Who then is He speaking to and what grievance in the church is He referring?

you said: However, the Catholic Church is infallible (not capable of teaching error).

According to the words of Christ in revelation to the Churches, their IS INDEED error in the church. Whether or not the church IS TEACHING it may not be the point Christ is referring, but that it IS EMBRACING AND ALLOWING whatever it is Christ is speaking about. He tells the churches TO REPENT. Again…is he speaking to the people, to the authorities of the church…or perhaps to both.

 

[christian1]

you said: First of all, as DavidCatechumen has already pointed out, some of the sacraments ARE necessary for salvation - Reconciliation (in some cases), Confirmation, Matrimony, Holy Orders, Annointing of the Sick are not.
The Church has never claimed that ALL 7 were necessary for salvation.

so if I join the catholic church I am not required to do all 7?

you said: Secondly, there ARE some who twist the scriptures to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16). The thousands of Protestant denominations are a testament to this sad fact.

You are correct, as I have said the same thing. What you are not willing to admit, is that the Catholic Church is guilty as well, or else Christ wouldn’t be calling 6 of the seven churches to repent or else lose their place in His body.

you said: Lastly - contrary to what you claim, the fact is, most Protestants (not all) DON’T believe that they are eating the Flesh of Jesus and drinking his blood. Most believe it to be merely symbolic.

The catholic church is full of symbolism. The pouring of the water upon the babies head for instance. Does it being a symbol of something make it any less true in essence? We believe that the bread and fruit juice we drink are symbols for the actual thing. What did you think we thought? Are you saying that you believe the bread and drink you have are literally his flesh and blood, or symbols of his literal flesh and blood?

 

[Always_For_Him]

The catholic church is full of symbolism. The pouring of the water upon the babies head for instance. Does it being a symbol of something make it any less true in essence? We believe that the bread and fruit juice we drink are symbols for the actual thing. What did you think we thought? Are you saying that you believe the bread and drink you have are literally his flesh and blood, or symbols of his literal flesh and blood?

The Church evolved over time. Protestant churches do as well. You can see how they have evolved and changed teachings over the last 500 years. That is prideful man making every single change away from original Apostolic teaching. Over the course of time, teaching change/morph within the same church. Christ’s Truth does not change, no matter what year we live in. Christ founded a Church as stated in Scripture to be the vehicle by which His Truth and His Way are to be taught. His Ways are difficult to live by, but that is OUR responsibility to make the right choices to stay IN CHRIST, and not separated from Christ in sin. Actions, choices, whether good or bad, these are something we DO.

If you don’t believe that the Catholic Church IS Christ’s Church, then why do you use our Bible? Every bit of information that you have was originally provided by the Catholic Church. Luther and the other reformers made their errant changes and interpretations to it and taught THAT as Truth. The Church has ALWAYS believed/taught/practiced the Real Presence of the Eucharist. It is NOT and has NEVER been symbolic. There are some fantastic threads on the subject of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Never did Christ repeat a teaching as He did in regards to this subject. Never did anyone leave Him because a teaching was so difficult either. Those who left Jesus KNEW EXACTLY what He was saying and didn’t like it. The apostles though, knew that Jesus would eventually reveal what He meant by it, and He did. Non-Catholic Churches have really had to butcher this teaching to make it into what non-Catholics tell us it really means today. Just read the ECF’s. They have written plenty to tell you what the belief on the Real Presence was to the Church at the time of these writings. It still is the same.

You really know your church’s teaching well, but some of it is errant teaching that began when the reformers separated from Christ’s Church to teach their own errant interpretation of what THEY believed/wanted NT Scripture to mean. That is what man does, over and over again led by his own pride/ego. The NT Scripture IS Catholic teaching written down, so no one outside of the Catholic magisterium is going to be able to teach the actual context of any verse, especially when it is separated from the other verses that help give it it’s context.

 

[DavidCatechumen]

so if I join the catholic church I am not required to do all 7 [sacraments]?

Not unless you want to be a married deacon

What you are not willing to admit, is that the Catholic Church is guilty as well, or else Christ wouldn’t be calling 6 of the seven churches to repent or else lose their place in His body.

I could answer this, if you could tell me where it is in the Bible?

The Church did not exist until Pentecost (some time after Jesus ascended into Heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father), so I am not sure what you are talking about.

The catholic church is full of symbolism. The pouring of the water upon the babies head for instance. Does it being a symbol of something make it any less true in essence?

That depends on whether the symbolic rite actually does what it symbolizes. Sacraments are efficacious signs. They do what they are supposed to do, not because of the symbols, but because God promised to give His grace to those who used the symbols in the way that He prescribed.

Protestants generally do not accept that God uses material symbols to convey grace. Their view is unbiblical, as God actually used something as profane as Paul’s used booger rag to heal people. The Protestant rejection of the Sacraments is based on their acceptance of teachings from two non-Christian religions: Gnosticism (which teaches that matter is evil) and Islam (which teaches iconoclasm).

 

[DavidCatechumen]

The bible offers proof of Elijah’s rapture…where is it for Mary’s?

Revelation 12 shows that she is in Heaven.

The Bible does not specify how she got there, but the Early Church Fathers provided two different accounts:

• Mary died, and on the third day, she was resurrected by the power of her Son, and then she was raptured
• Mary did not die and was simply raptured, ala Elijah

The Church permits Catholics to accept either view. The first view is also held by the Orthodox.

Before you say “I refuse to believe that Mary was raptured because it is not explicitly stated in the Bible,” you need to read 2 Thess. 2:15.

 

[SteveGC]

christian1,

I think you need to define for us what “error” is to you…and also what you think it means to Christ to be in “error”.

I will reiterate what others have said. Members of Christ’s Body (us) are certainly capable of error - through negligence, apathy, disobedience, disbelief…etc. This includes the men entrusted to Her care, and to shepherding the other members.

The error of faulty teaching on faith and morals is guarded against by the Holy Spirit. The Church has not, can not, will not, teach error in faith and morals - although Her members may not follow these matters.

God Bless

 

[elvisman]

you said: First of all, as DavidCatechumen has already pointed out, some of the sacraments ARE necessary for salvation - Reconciliation (in some cases), Confirmation, Matrimony, Holy Orders, Annointing of the Sick are not.
The Church has never claimed that ALL 7 were necessary for salvation.

so if I join the catholic church I am not required to do all 7?

No.
You don’t have to be Confirmed
You don’t have to get married.
You don’t have to become a Priest.
You don’t have to receive Anointing of the Sick

you said: Secondly, there ARE some who twist the scriptures to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16). The thousands of Protestant denominations are a testament to this sad fact.

You are correct, as I have said the same thing. What you are not willing to admit, is that the Catholic Church is guilty as well, or else Christ wouldn’t be calling 6 of the seven churches to repent or else lose their place in His body.

Again - you’re not reading my posts and I’m having to explain some things over and over again.
I already explained that the 7 Churches do not represent ALL of the parishes at the time. There were some communities that needed warning. That doesn’t make the entire Catholic Church corrupt.

you said: Lastly - contrary to what you claim, the fact is, most Protestants (not all) DON’T believe that they are eating the Flesh of Jesus and drinking his blood. Most believe it to be merely symbolic.

The catholic church is full of symbolism. The pouring of the water upon the babies head for instance. Does it being a symbol of something make it any less true in essence? We believe that the bread and fruit juice we drink are symbols for the actual thing. What did you think we thought? Are you saying that you believe the bread and drink you have are literally his flesh and blood, or symbols of his literal flesh and blood?

The Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
It is NOT a mere symbol. Your “bread and fruit juice” is just that - bread and fruit juice and nothing more.

In the Bread of Life Discourse (John 6:25-71), Jesus emphatically states that unless we eat his flesh and drink his Blood, we have no life within us. He goes on to say “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”

Later, John 6:66, goes on to say, “As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.”
This marks the only time in Scripture where Jesus’ disciples left him for doctrinal reasons. This was a forshadowing of Protestant rebellion, rejection and factions (denominations).

 

[DavidCatechumen]

christian1,

I think you need to define for us what “error” is to you…and also what you think it means to Christ to be in “error”.

I think Christian1 is having some trouble distinguishing error in teaching Sacred Scripture and Tradition from sin. Christian1 is also not citing the Bible which makes it difficult to answer these concerns. I assume that the assertions come from Revelation since that book is latest in time.

Revelation 2-3 are warnings to the churches to repent of sin. The lampstands being extinguished is the loss of the grace of God (i.e. mortal sin) and thus, loss of the Holy Spirit. This is further evidence for the Catholic/Orthodox soteriology and against the Protestant understanding of “say the sinner’s prayer and you are eternally secure.”

The Church has always consisted of sinners and saints, so I do not see how this is evidence against the catholicity and authority of the Church. After all, John is a Catholic bishop (and an Apostle) and he is acting in that capacity when he is making his oracles.

And I think that brings up the kernel of the debate. Christian1, can you answer, with citation to Scripture:

1. 
   *]Is the Bible free of errors?
   *]Who has authority to interpret the Bible?

 

[christian1]

First of all, as DavidCatechumen has already pointed out, some of the sacraments ARE necessary for salvation - Reconciliation (in some cases), Confirmation, Matrimony, Holy Orders, Annointing of the Sick are not.
The Church has never claimed that ALL 7 were necessary for salvation.

Say the Rosary every day…
Pray, pray a lot and offer sacrifices for sinners…
I’m Our Lady of the Rosary.
Only I will be able to help you.
…In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph."

Our Lady at Fatima

With the Hail Mary we invite Her to pray for us. Our Lady always grants our request. She joins Her prayer to ours. Therefore it becomes ever more useful, because what Mary asks She always receives, Jesus can never say no to whatever His Mother asks for

some of the promises of the rosary:

Whoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall receive powerful graces.

I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the Rosary.

The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall not perish.

I shall deliver from purgatory those who have been devoted to the Rosary.

The faithful children of the Rosary shall merit a high degree of glory in Heaven

You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the Rosary.

All those who propagate the Holy Rosary shall be aided by me in their necessities

…now, to anybody who adhere’s to the word of God has a real problem with stuff like this. You asked for proof, here it is. What in God’s name are we to do with this kind of stuff?

you said: Secondly, there ARE some who twist the scriptures to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16). The thousands of Protestant denominations are a testament to this sad fact.

Show me what scripture I have twisted and I will show you which ones you have to support the doctrine of Mary.

you said: Lastly - contrary to what you claim, the fact is, most Protestants (not all) DON’T believe that they are eating the Flesh of Jesus and drinking his blood. Most believe it to be merely symbolic.

you of all people should have no problem with symbolism. The bread we use and the grap juice we drink, we believe are symbolic of the real flesh and the real blood of Christ. We are not dellusional to think they are the literal thing that we are putting into our mouths, just as it wasn’t at the last supper. He used literal bread and literal wine, as a symbol of his flesh and blood as well. Was He wrong?

 

[christian1]

The previous post concerning the topic of Mary wasn’t properly introduced. It was put in with the sacrements and I didn’t mean it to as I know they have nothing to do with each other.

 

[Graubo3]

Protestants generally do not accept that God uses material symbols to convey grace. Their view is unbiblical, as God actually used something as profane as Paul’s used booger rag to heal people.

David,

Welcome Home! I can not stop laughing at your terminology. You have made my weekend. God bless you on your journey. The Easter Vigil is most beautiful and I will be praying for you. It is very apparent that you have done a great deal of work to understand the Catholic faith. I think I will ever be impacted by you and the thought of Paul blowing his nose.

Peace, Graubo

 

[christian1]

you said: The Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
It is NOT a mere symbol.

Then why did Jesus use bread and wine at the last supper of which was our example???

you said: Your “bread and fruit juice” is just that - bread and fruit juice and nothing more.

you are wrong.

you said: In the Bread of Life Discourse (John 6:25-71), Jesus emphatically states that unless we eat his flesh and drink his Blood, we have no life within us. He goes on to say “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”

Do you think I have fallen away on account of this??? How naive. I have no problem with drinking his blood and eating his flesh. But again, your religion stands before the doorway to heaven, preventing our passage unless we enter your churches domain. Don’t you see how your again claiming that the only way to God is not through His son, but through your church?

you said: Later, John 6:66, goes on to say, “As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.”
This marks the only time in Scripture where Jesus’ disciples left him for doctrinal reasons. This was a forshadowing of Protestant rebellion, rejection and factions (denominations).

wow! is this what the church has taught you? Or did you come by this on your own interpretation of which you have no right to do?

 

[DavidCatechumen]

…now, to anybody who adhere’s to the word of God has a real problem with stuff like this. You asked for proof, here it is. What in God’s name are we to do with this kind of stuff?

Since you were raised a Protestant, this sets off a ton of alarm bells. But take a deeeeeeep breath and stay cool.

The Bible commands us to pray for one another to the Lord our God. 1 Timothy 2.1. This duty does not end at death, as the Bible itself shows intercessory prayers offered as incense to God. Revelation 5.8. The prayers of righteous people (i.e. saints) are more effective than ours on account of their righteousness. James 5:16.

That explains the “Jesus can never say no to His Mother” part. Mary is immaculate and sinless, and now that she is in Heaven, she cannot sin even if she wanted to. A sin is a derogation of the will of God, and Jesus is God, so Mary cannot will that which God does not will. Mary is not imposing her will on God when she offers this kind of intercession–it is the opposite, for Mary has totally submitted to God and His will.

If you have a problem with this, cite the Bible and show us any verse that says praying to the Saints to pray for you to the Lord is wrong. (The Bible does say not to worship saints or angels, but no Catholic does that anyway.)

He used literal bread and literal wine, as a symbol of his flesh and blood as well. Was He wrong?

He did not do that. He said, “THIS IS MY BODY,” and He meant it. He is GOD, okay? He is NOT subject to His own laws of nature–if he wants the bread to be His Body, then the bread is His Body. This is hard to accept, but read John chapter 6 (which says so )

 

[christian1]

To davidcatecumen:

you said: I could answer this, if you could tell me where it is in the Bible?

That would be the book of Revelation starting at chapter 2 where Jesus your Lord addresses the Church.

you said: The Church did not exist until Pentecost (some time after Jesus ascended into Heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father), so I am not sure what you are talking about.

I guess now you know.

you said: Protestants generally do not accept that God uses material symbols to convey grace.

That’s not my protestant view. Maybe there are some protestants that might know the real truth and don’t use the word to make up a religion that suits their lusts.

you said: Their view is unbiblical, as God actually used something as profane as Paul’s used booger rag to heal people.

no duh dude. There isn’t anything in scripture that I have a problem with. My problem lies with your doctrines that aren’t found in it. The assumption of Mary. The evervirginity of Mary, the adoration and devotion to praying her rosary.

you said: The Protestant rejection of the Sacraments is based on their acceptance of teachings from two non-Christian religions: Gnosticism (which teaches that matter is evil) and Islam (which teaches iconoclasm).

wow. I’ve never even heard of that before. Seems like just like there are many different beliefs in the protestant religion as their are in the degrees of participation in the many devotions in catholocism.

---

 

[DavidCatechumen]

Then why did Jesus use bread and wine at the last supper of which was our example???

His highest priest under the old law, Melchizedek, used bread and wine as an offering to God. But God sent His Son to become an even more perfect offering, after the order of Melchizedek. Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 6:20. He did that by replacing the bread and wine with His Body and Blood. Why? He’s God.

Read the whole Bible. Stop cherry-picking verses. Then it will start to make sense.

Do you think I have fallen away on account of this??? How naive. I have no problem with drinking his blood and eating his flesh.

Yes you do, since you denied that the Eucharist is His Blood and Flesh.

But again, your religion stands before the doorway to heaven, preventing our passage unless we enter your churches domain. Don’t you see how your again claiming that the only way to God is not through His son, but through your church?

That is not what the Church teaches.

After you get done reading the whole Bible, why don’t you read the Catechism and see what the Church actually teaches?

The Church is not in anyone’s way; she is there to help sanctify people by administering Christ’s ministry of forgiveness (i.e. the Sacraments) before they pass from this world and into the judgement of Our Lord. John 20:22-23. See, the Church actually has authority from God to do these things…

wow! is this what the church has taught you? Or did you come by this on your own interpretation of which you have no right to do?

That is the question we would like for you to answer.

 

[Always_For_Him]

Christian1,
So, you KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 2,000 year-old Catholic teaching/interpretation/practice of John 6 is wrong? How do you KNOW that? Were you around then? What about in the 1,500’s when the reformers started a new Church? You are following some church’s teaching/interpretation of Scripture that resulted from the Reformation, so why isn’t the Real Presence still taught in your church? That belief was brought through the Reformation. Martin Luther himself affirmed the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Orthodox, Coptic and Armenian churches still believe in the Real Presence. All of the ECF’s and all of Christianity believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist for over 1,500 years up to the time and through the Reformation. So, why has man changed that teaching over the last 500 years to teach that it is only symbolic now?

 

[josie_L]

so you as a catholic believe that the church teaches that salvation comes by Christ alone?
out of your catechism:

1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation(there are 7 sacraments and play a part in salvation).

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation(is this true?).
**John 6:28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
**

this dialogue takes place after Christ tells them about food that leads to eternal life and before Christ talks of the bread of life. the people want to know ‘the works of God’ and the answer is simple: ‘believe in him whom he has sent.’

a couple of points to look at it is a before and after picture here:

before: this took place Jesus had already been baptized so the people are asking the question of what must be done? why wouldn’t he answer, believe in the one he sent and be baptized?

after: this took place Jesus talks about being the bread of life again the people’s question of food that leads to eternal life, why wouldn’t Jesus answer, believe in the one he sent and eat of his flesh and drink of his blood?

catholic teaches a lot on keeping the commandments so please my friends look at this from the word of God: 1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.

that’s all for now folks

God bless

**Why did Jesus choose to be baptized? **

 

[Always_For_Him]

I am copying over three posts from another thread on the Real Presence that are really full of wonderful information.

This one is by guanophore:

I don’t think it is possible to grasp the import of the institution of the Eucharist without an understanding of the amanesis.

The Jewish tradition shared by Jesus and the Apostles had a far broader view of “remembrance” than our contemporary understanding. The Greek word translated as remembrance is amanesis (in Hebrew ZKR), a nearly sacred term in Judaism. American Protestants usually understand remembering to be a solitary act utilizing mental recall. The early Church understood remembering to be a far greater act, “…a corporate act in which the event remembered was experienced anew through ritual repetition.”6 This obviously places the primary emphasis of the Eucharist not on thought or contemplation, but on the corporate act of the Church; in the liturgy, “do this” is as important as “in remembrance of me.” The act of God through the Church was therefore a primary emphasis of the early Church.

If you think about the Passover, you will realize that the ritual surrounding it is very strict, and is intended for the rememberance to be participative, and brings those doing it into that which it commemorates. Each year they gathered according to the tradition, using certain prayers, assigned roles, and having prepared the spotless male lamb. They ate the lamb, and became present under the covered lintels. All this is a prefigurment of Eucharist, where we, through amanesis, become present at the foot of the cross. As often as we do this, He makes it real.

 

[Always_For_Him]

This one is by ncgolf:

Maybe it is a good idea to set the context of John 6 … this writing is written for Jews … so put yourself in John 6 as a first century Jew, not a modern day Christian … as those did not exist in way we understand Christians. This was not written specifically for the Gentiles so at the time if a Gentile would have read this … he would not have understood John’s imagery as a devout Jew would.

In the beginning are 2 details that are important … 1. John writes the time of Passover is nearing in John 6:4 and 2. Jesus walks across the water in John 6:21.

These 2 details would not have been overlooked by Jews at the time. They speak of Passover and of the exodus … reminding them of their deliverance from captivity. Moses parting of the sea, so they could cross would have come to mind in point 2.

Given that then the context of John 6 is in light of the Passover … the eating of the lamb required and the posting of blood on the door lentils. Jesus’s command to eat His flesh for it evokes the imagery of eating the Passover sacrificial lamb … but this is a man who makes this command to eat His flesh and this is confusing. They would have known the Passover sacrifice had to be eaten … if you don’t believe me go back and read the Passover passages in Exodus.

John, IMO, wants to evoke the imagery necessary to tie Jesus to the Passover … to the sacrifice that Passover is … John wants his audience to see this connection. Eventually the early Jewish Christians saw this and made this connection.

This imagery ties the Passion and death of Jesus to the Passover sacrifice … reminding us of John the Baptist’s claim …“Behold the Lamb of God” and even to Revelation 5:6 image of a “Lamb that seemed to be slain.”

Go back and read the Passover passages in Exodus … re-read Jesus’s words in the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper … both have commands … to eat the fruits of the sacrifice and commands to keep doing this.

God says in Exodus 12:24 “You shall observe this as a perpetual ordinance for yourselves and your descendents.” Jesus in Luke 22:19, “Do this in memory of me.”

Reading John 6 standalone does not work … reading John 6 with the Last Supper accounts doesn’t work … but reading John 6, the Last Supper accounts and understanding the Passover … ties this together making the case for Jesus meaning what He said about the eating of His body much more understandable for we can see in the Jewish context of sacrifice.