Protestants: If the Eucharist is merely a symbol, explain this!

[Radical]

Hello Holly, I know that I have provided the reasons why I don’t agree with the RC understanding of John 6 and of 1 Cor 11 elsewhere, but since you asked, I’ll do it again.
First, regarding John 6

It is my impression that neither of us actually understand the passage literally, but it seems from your post (when you say, "Look at how Jesus responds when many of His disciples turned away and left. He did not say “Now wait a moment. You were taking me too literally.”) that you might believe that you do understand the passage literally.
Wrt to your non-literal understanding:

(a) In the passage Jesus states that he is bread (v. 35, 41, 48, 51). In your view of the Eucharist you believe that the bread becomes Christ’s body and so in your Eucharist his body is not bread, but rather what starts out as the substance of bread becomes the substance of his body (the bread ceases to be present and so the body is never bread). As such, if Christ was describing the alleged miracle of the Eucharist in John 6, he should have said have said that bread will become (future tense as the Lord’s Supper had yet to be instituted) his body and not that he is (present tense) bread. What Christ said in John 6 is the converse of what you would need him to say in order to describe transubstantiation.

(b) In the passage Jesus states that:

i) unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;

ii) I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty;

iii) For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him; and .

iv) Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.

Obviously, Jesus wasn’t speaking about a physical reality or about the RC Eucharist b/c people who don’t eat Jesus’s flesh have physical life, Christians that believe in Jesus are physically thirsty, RCs that eat the Eucharistic bread do go hungry, do suffer a physical death and they don’t actually physically reside inside of Christ’s physical body. Therefore, it would seem that Jesus was speaking about a spiritual reality…which is why belief (a spiritual thing) is interchanged with eating as the thing that gives eternal life (v. 35, 40, 47,). This understanding is also reinforced by Christ’s clarification when he said, " It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

(c) Regarding the interpretation of this passage Augustine wrote: * “If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.”* As such, Augustine argued against a literal interpretation of “eating Jesus’s flesh”. Augustine recognized that to literally eat Jesus’s flesh would require one to commit the crime of cannibalism. In a literal eating of flesh one would actually gnaw at Jesus’s flesh with one’s teeth…but of course, RCs don’t believe that any gnawing of flesh actually takes place at their Eucharist. So when you observe: " Look at how Jesus responds when many of His disciples turned away and left. He did not say “Now wait a moment. You were taking me too literally. What I meant was this…” I can only wonder what point you think you are making. What is it going to be? Do you hold to a literal interpretation that would have you gnawing at Christ’s flesh or do you hold to a figurative interpretation (like Augustine and I)?

…Look at how Jesus responds when many of His disciples turned away and left. He did not say …

Do you really want to play this game? Please note that Jesus also didn’t say, “I know it sounds crazy, but there is a way for me to be bodily present w/o being physically present. By that presence you can eat my flesh w/o being cannibalistic. You see there are things called accidents and things called substances…”

But notice in particular how he does not tell the many disciples who left him to come back and that he meant something else! No, he does not clarify what he means because they understood him properly!

I think it is important to note that Jesus had earlier said, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.” So obviously Jesus’s graphic words never drove anyone away (who had actually come to him). Would any clarification have brought any of them back if the Father wasn’t bringing them to Christ?

…and Peter, speaking for the group as he was the leader of the group spoke up and said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

Right, words of eternal life. Christ’s words are spirit and they are life.

 

[elvisman]

Holly this is an untrue statement. In the early 19th century Roman Catholic theologians within the Vatican interpreted scripture differently than the current doctrine of transubstantiation. They proposed focusing on the meaning of the supper as opposed to the change in the elements. They did not see support within scripture to justify transubstantiation but rather wanted the church to preach when one participates in communion what does it mean. The pope at the time decided to side with the council of trent and it’s proposed definition of communion hence transubstantiation remained.

The doctrine of transubstantiation is not a valid doctrine and if you carefully study Thomistic theses coupled with physics then it’s quite easy to see why it makes no sense. I no plenty of Catholics that are hardly cafeteria ones who see the Eucharist as purely symbolic. You simply cannot make the statement that all who don’t believe in transubstantiation are cafeteria catholics. Over 50% of those professing to be catholic do not believe in transubstantiation. That’s taken right from a study group that compiles data for the Vatican all the time.

Hey NDfan!!
**The Cathechism of the Catholic Church defines the Eucharist (and the Real Presence) “the source and summit of the Christian life”. **
(Lumen gentium, no. 11; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1324).

One who rejects this belief would certainly have to be considered a “Cafeteria Catholic” who should refrain from receiving. Receiving the Eucharist is a sign of one’s full communion with the Catholic Church.

PS - I’m going to the ND-USC game in South Bend October!

 

[Radical]

Continuing…Second regarding 1 Cor 11 : 27-29 it reads in the Douay-Rheims:

Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

Holly3278:

Again, tell me, how can one be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord by receiving the Eucharist unworthily if it is not truly His body, blood, soul, and divinity?

The same way one can be guilty of a crime against the state by burning a flag….the mere symbol of that state. In Hebrews 10: 26-29 it reads:

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Here we see that one can “trample” Jesus underfoot and treat his blood as an unholy thing w/o having any actual physical interaction with Christ’s body or with his blood….and so, obviously a real bodily presence is not required to sin against Christ’s body or his blood.

Eucharisted has claimed:

Literal translation (the words in brackets either do not exist in Latin or are implied):

Therefore, anyone [who] chews [the] bread or drinks [the] cup [of the] Lord poorly, [the] defendant will be [guilty of murdering the] flesh and blood [of the] Lord.

I am not sure why Eucharisted placed “guilty” in brackets as the word “enochos’” is in the text, but he is right that “murdering” is not to be found in the text.

Eucharisted:

Saint Paul combines the reception of the consecrated bread and wine (“Therefore, anyone who chews the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord”) with the law (“the defendant will be guilty of murdering the flesh and blood of the Lord”). “Defendant” implies the person is being tried, and the court sentence (“guilty of murdering”) is left out, because Paul assumes the Corinthians are familiar with what the law says.

What law or sentence concerning murder? James 2:10 reads: * For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. * The word “guilty” in James 2:10 is the same as in 1 Cor 11:27…neither has anything to do with murder. Someone who keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point isn’t guilty of murdering all of the law.

Eucharisted:

Paul gives very strong evidence that he believes the Eucharist is indeed a person: the Lord Jesus Christ. He uses the words “manducaverit” (to chew) and “biberit” (to drink), the same words which Jesus used when He spoke to the crowd about His Body and Blood (“he who eats (manducaverit) my flesh and drinks (biberit) my blood has eternal life”).

Here again we see the classic RC dilemma. When the RC wants to claim that a real bodily presence is in play he stresses the graphic nature of the word “chew” and claims that the use of that word proves a bodily presence. When faced, however, with an accusation of cannibalism, the RC denies that any actual or real chewing of flesh takes place. So again I ask, when the Bible speaks of chewing in respect to the Lord’s supper, is it speaking about 1)literally chewing flesh, 2)literally chewing bread or 3)is it speaking figuratively?

 

[JonNC]

*Now, this I’m not sure of, and I’d want to see some evidence. It is one thing to say that only clergy in Apostolic Succession, quite another to sat that the ECF’s limited it to those in communion with the Bishop of Rome and the Orthodox. And since presbyter ordination in the past, Cistercian abbots in the 15th century, for example, has been used by Rome, there is historic precedent for Lutheran ordination.

Jon*

Hi Jon, Here are some quotes from early church fathers:

• “The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth…If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Pope Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

• “Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate…” Pope Victor I [regn. A.D. 189-198], in Eusebius EH, 24:9 (A.D. 192).

• “Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid…Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter.” Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257], Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256).

• “It is therefore with due care and propriety that you consult the secrets of the Apostolic office that office, I mean, to which belongs, besides the things which are without, the care of all the Churches…Especially as often as a question of faith is discussed, I think that all our brothers and fellow bishops should refer to none other than to Peter, the author of their name and office.” Pope Innocent I [regn. A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Mileve, 2 (A.D. 417).

Hope that helps. God bless

Very interesting.
So, what of the PNCC and other Old Catholics? It is my understanding that their Eucharist is considered valid, but not licit.
And what about the Cistercian abbots? Was their presbyter ordination valid, even though outside AS, simply because Rome approved it?

Jon

 

[JeanneH]

(first of I agree with the Eucharist, and I’m not a protestant but I like being a devil advocate)

So God is dead? You can murder God?

If God is dead than what/who is holding all things together. The world would simply end if God were dead.

 

[JeanneH]

Here again we see the classic RC dilemma. When the RC wants to claim that a real bodily presence is in play he stresses the graphic nature of the word “chew” and claims that the use of that word proves a bodily presence. When faced, however, with an accusation of cannibalism, the RC denies that any actual or real chewing of flesh takes place. So again I ask, when the Bible speaks of chewing in respect to the Lord’s supper, is it speaking about 1)literally chewing flesh, 2)literally chewing bread or 3)is it speaking figuratively?

No this is not cannibalism. Jesus revealed at the Last Supper that the disciples would receive his true body and blood “sacramentally”.(present in a hidden way)
From Beginning Apologetics 3
Jeanne

 

[twohumble]

There is quite a bit wrong in your post, but first of all, it might help to get a more ‘word for word’ translation of the passage you quote.

The RSV is a transliteration, not a translation. It clearly shows the Roman Catholic bias.

Here is the verse in the ESV, a word for word translation:
Joh 6:58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."

Anyone who receives communion in a worthy manner is a Christian and hence will live forever. It does not say “eat me and live forever”, that is a poor rendering of this text.

 

[BILL_PICK53]

I was just tye the same question lets see if you get any answers.

1Corinthians 10:16, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”
Where is the symbolism found in this verse or anywhere in the context?

1Corinthians 11:29, “…he who eats and drinks unworthily, without distinguishing the body eats and drinks judgment to himself.” How could a mere symbolism be a cause of judgment?

 

[Holly3278]

I was just tye the same question lets see if you get any answers.

1Corinthians 10:16, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”
Where is the symbolism found in this verse or anywhere in the context?

1Corinthians 11:29, “…he who eats and drinks unworthily, without distinguishing the body eats and drinks judgment to himself.” How could a mere symbolism be a cause of judgment?

Great scriptures! Thanks!

 

[twohumble]

I was just tye the same question lets see if you get any answers.

1Corinthians 10:16, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”
Where is the symbolism found in this verse or anywhere in the context?

1Corinthians 11:29, “…he who eats and drinks unworthily, without distinguishing the body eats and drinks judgment to himself.” How could a mere symbolism be a cause of judgment?

These verses very clearly show just how bias and particular perspective clouds how we read scripture. I am amazed you don’t see the imagery and symbolism rife in these verses.

Note:
The 'cup of Blessings was one of the Chalices of wine on the table. The bread and wine were being refered to by Paul as explanations of what we do spiritually when we partake in communion. We ‘commune’ with one another and with God by the power of the Holy Spirit. We bless the ‘cup’; that is clearly a symbol.

The next verse is also very contextual, and needs to be understood in relation to what was going on in the churchs at the time it was written.
Wealthy people could come to the passover meal early, and they were not partaking in communion with others who came later, but rather they were getting drunk and celebrating in an unworthy manner. They did not work, so they could come to the celebration early. They were eating and drinking without ‘rememberance’ and no reverance. In fact if you read on in Corinthians it tells them if they are hungry, eat before they get there, so they could wait for the others who worked and could not come until later.
So, you asked “how could a symbol bring judgement?” Simply this: Its not the symbol that brings judgement, rather the unworthyness of those who corrupted the passover celebration, which was meant to be a reverant sacrament to Honor our Lord. There were those who made a mockery of it, and by doing so, they bring judgement.

Your interpretation of this is common, and I mean no offense when I say, Catholics interpet scripture all the time without a good contextual understanding of how to understand it. Rather, there is a tension between what you have been taught, and you read scripture through those glasses. If your doctrine is poor, your ability to understand scripture will be stunted. This is true, not only for transubstantiation, but other doctrines as well. Your very questions and proof texts are perfect examples of this.

 

[twohumble]

Tell me then, how do you interpret these verses:
1Co 10:3 and all ate the same spiritual food,
1Co 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

Now, Jesus was the rock in the desert was he literally in bodily form the water? He was the very water they drank. Is this literal? If so, then water is also to be considered ‘His Body’ since we ‘drink it’. But, there was a rock that gave water, Paul distinguishes and says “spiritual Rock”, playing on the symbol of the old test that Jesus would be the rock on which many would stumble, a rock that would be the cornerstone, a rock on which the foundation of your ‘house’ should be build. Again, this language is common and throughout the NT Paul uses it as does Jesus in the Gospels. Its so common as to be ‘prescriptive’ in how you look at scripture.

As I have noted, He calls himself living water, a gate, a rock, a lamb and other symbols of the covenant. Which are literal? Why do you think so? Could it be a bias from what you have been taught?

I am amazed that the Church considers Jonah a parable or not real, Genesis 1-13 symbolism and metaphorical writting, when it has NO such flavor, and then when the NT clearly speaks alagorically/metaphorically, its all of a sudden ‘literal’. Blows my mind since its all mental gymnastics to uphold a centuries old tradition that is not rooted well in scripture at all.

 

[Augie1530]

This is true. However, absolutely no Protestant denomination has the actual Eucharist. No Protestant tradition, not even Lutheran or Anglican/Episcopalian has valid apostolic succession and therefore they cannot have the actual valid Eucharist. WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE TO BACK UP THAT STATEMENT THAT PROTESTANTS ANGLICAN AND LUTHERANS DO NOT HAVE VALID APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION .There are Records of Episcopal Ordination in England and Germany that go back to the first missionaries sent from ROME ,Each Diocese is required to keep those Episcopal Ordinations as well as priests and decons that were ordained by the bishop of that diocese at the time

 

[BILL_PICK53]

These verses very clearly show just how bias and particular perspective clouds how we read scripture. I am amazed you don’t see the imagery and symbolism rife in these verses.

Note:
The 'cup of Blessings was one of the Chalices of wine on the table. The bread and wine were being refered to by Paul as explanations of what we do spiritually when we partake in communion. We ‘commune’ with one another and with God by the power of the Holy Spirit. We bless the ‘cup’; that is clearly a symbol.

The next verse is also very contextual, and needs to be understood in relation to what was going on in the churchs at the time it was written.
Wealthy people could come to the passover meal early, and they were not partaking in communion with others who came later, but rather they were getting drunk and celebrating in an unworthy manner. They did not work, so they could come to the celebration early. They were eating and drinking without ‘rememberance’ and no reverance. In fact if you read on in Corinthians it tells them if they are hungry, eat before they get there, so they could wait for the others who worked and could not come until later.
So, you asked “how could a symbol bring judgement?” Simply this: Its not the symbol that brings judgement, rather the unworthyness of those who corrupted the passover celebration, which was meant to be a reverant sacrament to Honor our Lord. There were those who made a mockery of it, and by doing so, they bring judgement.

Your interpretation of this is common, and I mean no offense when I say, Catholics interpet scripture all the time without a good contextual understanding of how to understand it. Rather, there is a tension between what you have been taught, and you read scripture through those glasses. If your doctrine is poor, your ability to understand scripture will be stunted. This is true, not only for transubstantiation, but other doctrines as well. Your very questions and proof texts are perfect examples of this.

WOW Cathloic wrote the book but they do not know the interpretation, non-cathloic learn in about 500 years and Cathloic have not learn in almost 2000 years.If it makes sence to you its OK with Me

 

[Holly3278]

Holly3278;5224663:

This is true. However, absolutely no Protestant denomination has the actual Eucharist. No Protestant tradition, not even Lutheran or Anglican/Episcopalian has valid apostolic succession and therefore they cannot have the actual valid Eucharist. WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE TO BACK UP THAT STATEMENT THAT PROTESTANTS ANGLICAN AND LUTHERANS DO NOT HAVE VALID APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION .There are Records of Episcopal Ordination in England and Germany that go back to the first missionaries sent from ROME ,Each Diocese is required to keep those Episcopal Ordinations as well as priests and decons that were ordained by the bishop of that diocese at the time

They had valid apostolic succession at one time. But then they changed the ordination rite and so the Anglicans and Episcopalians at least no longer have valid apostolic succession.

 

[twohumble]

WOW Cathloic wrote the book but they do not know the interpretation, non-cathloic learn in about 500 years and Cathloic have not learn in almost 2000 years.If it makes sence to you its OK with Me

Bill, Catholics did not write the book. The ‘Book’ was written over 2350 years before anyone called anyone a Catholic, and a few more before there was a Roman Catholic. Remember, the term “Catholic” ment, and still means “universal body” referring to the universal body of people who professed Christ. In large part in the early Church, it was Jews. Remember, except for Luke, the entire NT was written by JEWS, certainly NOT Roman Catholics.

Hence, you comments are not very well informed if you think a Roman Catholic ‘wrote’ the Bible. But, like you say, its your story, if you want to believe that, its ok with me too.

 

[Holly3278]

Bill, Catholics did not write the book. The ‘Book’ was written over 2350 years before anyone called anyone a Catholic, and a few more before there was a Roman Catholic. Remember, the term “Catholic” ment, and still means “universal body” referring to the universal body of people who professed Christ. In large part in the early Church, it was Jews. Remember, except for Luke, the entire NT was written by JEWS, certainly NOT Roman Catholics.

Hence, you comments are not very well informed if you think a Roman Catholic ‘wrote’ the Bible. But, like you say, its your story, if you want to believe that, its ok with me too.

Catholics may not have written the Old Testament but they most certainly did write the New Testament and the compiled the entire Bible canon. Jesus founded the Catholic Church and so the 12 disciples and all of the apostles including Paul and Matthias were Catholics in every sense of the word. They were the first Catholics. Peter was the first pope. So when a person says that Catholics gave us the Bible, they are telling the truth. Why? Because Catholics wrote the New Testament and came up with the entire Biblical canon.

 

[elvisman]

Bill, Catholics did not write the book. The ‘Book’ was written over 2350 years before anyone called anyone a Catholic, and a few more before there was a Roman Catholic. Remember, the term “Catholic” ment, and still means “universal body” referring to the universal body of people who professed Christ. In large part in the early Church, it was Jews. Remember, except for Luke, the entire NT was written by JEWS, certainly NOT Roman Catholics.

Hence, you comments are not very well informed if you think a Roman Catholic ‘wrote’ the Bible. But, like you say, its your story, if you want to believe that, its ok with me too.

And you don’t know your history.
The entire New Testament was indeed written by Catholics. Ignatius of Antioch mentions the name of the Church at the close of the first century in his letter to the Smyraneans right befor his death:
"Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church"
(Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

The term “Roman Catholic” didn’t come into existence until the Reformation when people in England were trying to distinguish which “Catholic” Church they belonged to. The “Catholic” church of England (started by Henry VIII) or the Catholic Church of Rome (started by Jesus). Hence, “Roman Catholic”. BUT the Catholic Church had existed since the beginning.

It was the Catholic Church who wrote the books of the New Testament and compiled the list of the canon at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage at the end of the 4th and beginning of the 5th centuries.

**Lastly - if you’re under the false impression the you’re part of the Catholic Church - think again. It does NOT simpley mean "the universal body" referring to the universal body of people who professed Christ". It mean those who belong to the ONE Church established by Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:15-19) to whom he gave FULL authority to (Matt. 16:19, Matt. 18:18, John 20:22-23).

It does NOT include all of the tens of thousands of bickering, splintering sects that separated from the Church and continue to split today. This is the tragic legacy of Protestantism to which you belong.

 

[JonNC]

It does NOT include all of the tens of thousands of bickering, splintering sects that separated from the Church and continue to split today. This is the tragic legacy of Protestantism to which you belong.

*And that goes for you Orthodox, too!!! *

Jon

 

[twohumble]

**And you **don’t know your history.
The entire New Testament was indeed written by Catholics. Ignatius of Antioch mentions the name of the Church at the close of the first century in his letter to the Smyraneans right befor his death:
"Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church"
(Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

The term "Roman Catholic" didn’t come into existence until the Reformation when people in England were trying to distinguish which “Catholic” Church they belonged to. The “Catholic” church of England (started by Henry VIII) or the Catholic Church of Rome (started by Jesus). Hence, “Roman Catholic”. BUT the Catholic Church had existed since the beginning.

It was the Catholic Church who wrote the books of the New Testament and compiled the list of the canon at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage at the end of the 4th and beginning of the 5th centuries.

Lastly - if you’re under the false impression the you’re part of the Catholic Church - think again. It does NOT simpley mean *"the *universal body" referring to the universal body of people who professed Christ". It mean those who belong to the ONE Church established by Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:15-19) to whom he gave FULL authority to (Matt. 16:19, Matt. 18:18, John 20:22-23).

It does NOT include all of the tens of thousands of bickering, splintering sects that separated from the Church and continue to split today. This is the tragic legacy of Protestantism to which you belong.

Elvis, is Elvis in Graceland? What you wrote is that absurd. The term catholic never meant an organized denominational group until well into the 3rd century. Please be up on your history. The term definately was around, but was only denoting all believes in Christ, or Christ followers.
You have, in this post, shown your pride, and arogance in your theological snobbery by implying that only Roman Catholics can be saved. Thats foolishness and I hope you reconsider. Persistant reading of scripture with prayer and asking for wisdom should cure this delusion.
The catholic’s did in fact write the bible if your using that term to mean those who follow Christ. Any other supposition is anathema to Truth. If your using it like this, then even the OT writers were ‘Catholic’. M
My goodness man, your post was so full of self-righteousness based in your ‘religion’ you cannot see the forest for the trees.
Good luck with that.

 

[judechild]

Elvis, is Elvis in Graceland? What you wrote is that absurd. The term catholic never meant an organized denominational group until well into the 3rd century. Please be up on your history. The term definately was around, but was only denoting all believes in Christ, or Christ followers.
You have, in this post, shown your pride, and arogance in your theological snobbery by implying that only Roman Catholics can be saved. Thats foolishness and I hope you reconsider. Persistant reading of scripture with prayer and asking for wisdom should cure this delusion.
My goodness man, your post was so full of self-righteousness based in your ‘religion’ you cannot see the forest for the trees.
Good luck with that.

Or maybe not so absurd. There were no “organized denominational groups” in the third century, there was only the Catholic Church. I fail to see the “theological snobbery” and “self-righeousness” in the previous post, the poster was merely explaining that the Canon of the Bible was compiled and closed at Catholic ecumenical councils; implying that God gave this Church and her councils the authority to make such a compilation.

As to that only Catholics can be saved, we believe that too, but its not quite as exclusive as it may seem at first. All baptized believers are in some way, no matter how imperfect, members of the Catholic Church which is the body of Christ.

As you said before, your interpretation of Scripture can cloud your judgement; we in the Catholic Church do not trust ourselves enough to form our own dogma. If the Catholic Church is just another “denomination”, then yes, it will cloud our judgement. If, however, the Catholic Church has the charism and authority to form dogma and the Canon of Scripture, then she is the fullness of Revelation. This Church has for 2000 years believed in the True Presence of the Eucharist, and that truth is something I would die for. There are millions who are more intelligent than I am who could out-argue me by virtue of their better knowledge of Greek or Arabic or history, but I know enough to see that the Catholic Church is **the **Church, and that the Eucharist is no symbol.