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

[elvisman]

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.

Wrong again.

**First of all - prove to me that the term Catholic didn’t mean an organized Church until the 3rd century. And don’t iclude any anti-Catholic rubbish about Constantine setting himself up as the first pope either, because that is very easily debunked. **
Oh, by the way - the Catholic Church has never been and never will be a mere “denomination”. That category is reserved for all of the Protestant sects who broke away and continue to splinter. Different names for different groups who practice a different Christianity. That’s where you get the “nom” in denominations.

Secondly, "all believers in Christ" or "Christ followers" during those first centuries were either part of the Catholic Church or they were heretics. Case in point - the Arian heresy which denied the diety of Christ was an offshoot of Christianity. They were indeed "Christ followers" - but they perverted the teachings of Christ - as many Protestant denominations do.**

Then were the Donatists who believed in multiple baptisms who were also followers of Christ but perverted his teachings. This practice is still alive in many Protestant churches today.

Lastly, the New Testament - as I already pointed out - was written by Catholics. Nobody is even implying that the Old Testament wasn’t written by the Israelites. If the truth causes you to accuse me of being self-righteous, then you are more blind than I thought.

 

[twohumble]

Wrong again.

First of all - prove to me that the term Catholic didn’t mean an organized Church until the 3rd century. And don’t iclude any anti-Catholic rubbish about Constantine setting himself up as the first pope either, because that is very easily debunked.

I am not going to do your homework here elvis, the formal Church as in Roman Catholic Church did not form until late in the 3rd century. The Council of Nicea was not officially the ‘Catholic’ church, but rather the clergy of the day who had not organized with ‘bishops, cardinals, and pope’ as you see the heirarchy of the church today. It was NOT the Catholic church you know. Catholic was a term for the Body of Believers, period. There are many parts of a Body elvis, and no part is more important than another. Read Acts where differences of opinion were ok as long as not devisive, and did not move to ‘heresy’ by mistaking the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Area’s of controversy were, and still are, things like ‘tougues’, and many other ‘non-salvation’ based disputes. One is still part of the body whether their opinion is right or wrong on these issues. If one denies Christ, His sufficiency, the Trinity, our sinfulness, Gods perfection, then they are outside of orthodoxy and should no longer be considered part of the “One Church” or the Catholic Church.
Your idea that the Roman Catholic church is the only depository of Truth is foolish, and ignores great amounts of history. Sounds a lot like the LDS. In fact it is like the LDS. Be real careful with that line of thought.

Secondly, "all believers in Christ" or "Christ followers" during those first centuries were either part of the Catholic Church or they were heretics. Case in point - the Arian heresy which denied the diety of Christ was an offshoot of Christianity. They were indeed* “Christ followers*” - but they perverted the teachings of Christ - as many Protestant denominations do.

I agree there were apostate teaching, nostics and others outside of orthodox Christianity. The rest certainly were in the catholic (universal) church. However, they were by and large, Jewish for the first decade or more, and some protestant denominations have gotten far astray (episcople, methodist, liberal Lutheran, and others for sure), but there is a great repository of Truth, called Holy Scripture, that is useful for teaching, reproach, and uncovering these very untruths we see. Everything needed to know God, know about our Salvation, know Jesus, know Gods plan for our life and mankind, is all within scripture.

Clearly over the centuries, the Roman Catholic Church also has perverted teachings, gotten corrupt and did things its not proud of, but in the end, it has held to the core belief in the Trinity, Jesus as the Son of God and mankinds need for a Savior. It still is stuck with some bad doctrine from poor scholarship in early centuries, poor doctrine from ego centric Popes in the 1400’s and other issues. The central dogma still is protected by God and His Holy Word.

Lastly, the New Testament - as I already pointed out - was written by Catholics. Nobody is even implying that the Old Testament wasn’t written by the Israelites. If the truth causes you to accuse me of being self-righteous, then you are more blind than I thought.

Again elvis, if you are saying, even for a second that the 1st century Jews (except Luke) were actually considered ‘Roman Catholic’, then, my friend, you are deluded. The New Testament like the Old Testament both were written by Jews or the Israelites (with the exception of Luke). Your assertion here is nonsense and you should be humble enough to see this foolishness for just that. You include your rolling eyes icon, yet believe me, anyone with any common sense are the ones rolling their eyes at the suggestion that Roman Catholics wrote the New Testament. Dont’ be silly, or in your words, “blind”.

 

[elvisman]

I am not going to do your homework here elvis, the formal Church as in Roman Catholic Church did not form until late in the 3rd century. The Council of Nicea was not officially the ‘Catholic’ church, but rather the clergy of the day who had not organized with ‘bishops, cardinals, and pope’ as you see the heirarchy of the church today. It was NOT the Catholic church you know. Catholic was a term for the Body of Believers, period. There are many parts of a Body elvis, and no part is more important than another. Read Acts where differences of opinion were ok as long as not devisive, and did not move to ‘heresy’ by mistaking the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Area’s of controversy were, and still are, things like ‘tougues’, and many other ‘non-salvation’ based disputes. One is still part of the body whether their opinion is right or wrong on these issues. If one denies Christ, His sufficiency, the Trinity, our sinfulness, Gods perfection, then they are outside of orthodoxy and should no longer be considered part of the “One Church” or the Catholic Church.
Your idea that the Roman Catholic church is the only depository of Truth is foolish, and ignores great amounts of history. Sounds a lot like the LDS. In fact it is like the LDS. Be real careful with that line of thought.

I agree there were apostate teaching, nostics and others outside of orthodox Christianity. The rest certainly were in the catholic (universal) church. However, they were by and large, Jewish for the first decade or more, and some protestant denominations have gotten far astray (episcople, methodist, liberal Lutheran, and others for sure), but there is a great repository of Truth, called Holy Scripture, that is useful for teaching, reproach, and uncovering these very untruths we see. Everything needed to know God, know about our Salvation, know Jesus, know Gods plan for our life and mankind, is all within scripture.

Clearly over the centuries, the Roman Catholic Church also has perverted teachings, gotten corrupt and did things its not proud of, but in the end, it has held to the core belief in the Trinity, Jesus as the Son of God and mankinds need for a Savior. It still is stuck with some bad doctrine from poor scholarship in early centuries, poor doctrine from ego centric Popes in the 1400’s and other issues. The central dogma still is protected by God and His Holy Word.

Again elvis, if you are saying, even for a second that the 1st century Jews (except Luke) were actually considered ‘Roman Catholic’, then, my friend, you are deluded. The New Testament like the Old Testament both were written by Jews or the Israelites (with the exception of Luke). Your assertion here is nonsense and you should be humble enough to see this foolishness for just that. You include your rolling eyes icon, yet believe me, anyone with any common sense are the ones rolling their eyes at the suggestion that Roman Catholics wrote the New Testament. Dont’ be silly, or in your words, “blind”.

Go back a few posts where I educated you on the origin of the term “Roman Catholic”. I never said that the Catholic Church was called the “Roman” Catholic Church in the early Church. As a matter of fact, I showed you that this term was born in the 16th century as a result of Henry VIII’s split with the Church.
You have employed a rather sophomoric tactic used by anti-Catholics (such as yourself) in an attempt to twist the words of Catholics.

We have writings from the Early Church Fathers about:
1. The Catholic Church. They never defined it as you do. they defined it as the only Church where truth resides.
2. A complete list of Popes (although the word, “pope” came later. It is a loose translation of the word for “Father”)

**These are indisputable and - as a matter of fact - supported by most Protestant theologians today. Not sure where you’re getting your information but it is up to YOU to prove it. I have the Scriptures, Early Church Fathers and secular history to prove my points. All you have is heresay and arrogance. **

If the Church has “perverted” a teaching - it is up to you to prove this.

 

[judechild]

I am not going to do your homework here elvis, the formal Church as in Roman Catholic Church did not form until late in the 3rd century. The Council of Nicea was not officially the ‘Catholic’ church, but rather the clergy of the day who had not organized with ‘bishops, cardinals, and pope’ as you see the heirarchy of the church today.

I would like to point out a few problems with this. First, St. Irenaeus says:
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]);
you may look up more at the “faith” section of Catholic.com.

Second, even if the claim that the Catholic Church didn’t come into existance until the “late third century” was true, the Council of Nicea not being Catholic would be false, because Nicea was held in the fourth century (315).

Read Acts where differences of opinion were ok as long as not devisive, and did not move to ‘heresy’ by mistaking the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

I think St. Paul would disagree, he was quite agressive against anyone who had a difference of opinion (Galacians, 1 Corinthians, etc, have some pretty strong condemnations).

Area’s of controversy were, and still are, things like ‘tougues’, and many other ‘non-salvation’ based disputes. One is still part of the body whether their opinion is right or wrong on these issues. If one denies Christ, His sufficiency, the Trinity, our sinfulness, Gods perfection, then they are outside of orthodoxy and should no longer be considered part of the “One Church” or the Catholic Church.
Your idea that the Roman Catholic church is the only depository of Truth is foolish, and ignores great amounts of history. Sounds a lot like the LDS. In fact it is like the LDS. Be real careful with that line of thought.

I do not understand, and, forgive me, but why should I trust you (or me, or paster John Doe) to communicate what is orthodox? Is it alright for believers to disagree on abortion, a “non-salvation based dispute”? Or same-sex marriage? Or the Canon of Scripture? Where will you direct me to if I say there are 405 books in the Bible? … If I was my own authority I would feel very, very afraid.

Please do not accuse us of being arrogant, we are trying our best to stay humble but sometimes we might slip up a bit. As for being foolish, very well, if it makes you feel better, I am foolish; I’ll gladly wear that stigma. Now the question is: Are we right?

 

[twohumble]

Go back a few posts where I educated you on the origin of the term "Roman Catholic". I never said that the Catholic Church was called the “Roman” Catholic Church in the early Church. As a matter of fact, I showed you that this term was born in the 16th century as a result of Henry VIII’s split with the Church.
You have employed a rather sophomoric tactic used by anti-Catholics (such as yourself) in an attempt to twist the words of Catholics.

Elvis, you must quite using ad hominem and inflammatory language, or our conversation is over (sophmoric tactic etc.) I am far from “anti-catholic” am have a great passion for Catholics and the Catholic Church. I meet with my ex-parish council members on a regular basis for Bible study, and I defend the Roman Catholic Church from frequent misunderstandings that protestants have (and there are many). So, stop with the tude dude…

We have writings from the Early Church Fathers about:
1. The Catholic Church. They never defined it as you do. they defined it as the only Church where truth resides.
2. A complete list of Popes (although the word, “pope” came later. It is a loose translation of the word for “Father”)

The True Church is, in fact where Truth resides. You arrogantly assume thats “only the Roman Catholic Church” and we differ here. There are many parts to the Body of Christ, as I said before. I believe the RCC is one part, but not the whole body.

As far as how the ‘church is defined’ you claim that ‘they never defined it as I do’?? Really? Scripture is pretty plain on the definition of the church, its believers in Jesus Christ. Not an intellectual assent to His existance (satan does that), rather a life giving belief, or trust that entails giving control of your life over to His will, rather than our own. Acknowledging that your a sinner who cannot save himself and in desperate need of a Savior. That is ‘believing on His Name’, and anyone who does that is “The Church”. That is right from Scripture, and has long been the definition of ‘The Catholic Church’ until the time where schisms occured and there were fractionated divisions within the Body. Note, that even happened at the time just after Christ, and not all were heretics, some were just disagreeing on minor issues that did not take them away from the core beliefs (you know, major on the majors don’t major on the minors?)

These are indisputable and - as a matter of fact - supported by most Protestant theologians today. Not sure where you’re getting your information but it is up to YOU to prove it. I have the Scriptures, Early Church Fathers and secular history to prove my points. All you have is heresay and arrogance.

You have only stated factual information that we both agee on (defining the church), we have differed on how thats interpreted. I have pointed out that the Jews and Israelites are the same thing and they wrote both the new and OT…you have not refuted that yet claim that 'your version of the Cathoic church " wrote the bible?? Come on elvis please lift the blinders. Be reasonable. The Scriptures and Early Church Fathers you referenced have done nothing to disprove a single point I have made. I think you just have not followed my argument well, and maybe thats my fault for not communicating well. Either way, we are really just butting heads at this point.

If the Church has "perverted" a teaching - it is up to you to prove this.

Do you dispute that fact that in the 1100’s-1600’s there was great corruption in the Church? Do you really ignore this history? Do you ignore the Churchs acknowledgement of its past mistakes? I don’t need to prove what is common knowledge elvis. You can choose to ignore it, but remember denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.

 

[twohumble]

I would like to point out a few problems with this. First, St. Irenaeus says:
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]);
you may look up more at the “faith” section of Catholic.com.

Second, even if the claim that the Catholic Church didn’t come into existance until the “late third century” was true, the Council of Nicea not being Catholic would be false, because Nicea was held in the fourth century (315).

Judechild;
Thank you for the reasoned response. I have erred in stating 3rd century, actually it was more like the 6th, but I was refering to the 300’s in general when I made that statement.
Now to your points:
The Irenaeus quote must be dissected to discuss properly, but let me deal with a few points in it. First; ‘has been made known to us throughout the whole world’ deals with the entire world of Christianity at the time…not the whole Earth. Next, the word for Bishop was ‘Presbuterous’ and meant ‘Elder or Leader’, it generally was a person who was a disciple with great learning and character who helped the local house churches with understanding scripture. Remember, the Apostles had only been dead a couple of generations, and some of their disciples only 1 generation. Their writtings were well disseminated to the house churches in all the developed civilized area’s of the mideast and mesopotamia. The heresies which he discusses are those from the gnostics, judeizers and others who denied Jesus’s diety, and His work on the Cross. They denied he was the Son of God, and they denied the bodily resurrection. This is true heresy.
You were here, responding to my comment that the Church was not formally formed until much later than the writting and compiling of the Bible. I think you will agree that my point still stands. The ‘Catholic Church’ as elvis was implying, did not write the Bible. However, the ‘catholic Church’ did. (notice the little c denoting followers of Jesus, as there were no other fractions at that point besides those who denied Jesus in some way, but called themselves Christians to other Christians).

I think St. Paul would disagree, he was quite agressive against anyone who had a difference of opinion (Galacians, 1 Corinthians, etc, have some pretty strong condemnations).

Please excuse any indication that I think Paul would condone anti-scriptural teaching. May it never be. Paul is very strong in pointing out where Christians started to depart from the central understanding of the Cross/Jesus. In Galations he said 'even if an Angel should preach a different Gospel"…what is Paul talking about?? Simply this; The Judeizers were preaching Christ plus. Christ plus circumcision, plus plus. Paul gives his strongest rebuke! He says you have ‘perverted’, and in Greek this word actually means ‘a reversal’ of the Gospel. Putting anything in place or in addition to Christ reverses the good news. Paul was very firm in the core teaching of the Gospel, and let no one mistake it. I agree with you 100%
Area’s where we can agree to disagree and not reverse or threaten the good news of the Cross:

1. Tongues
2. Sabbath questions (Saturday/Sunday
3. Should we use modern conveniences? (Amish)
4. Miraculous Spiritual gifts other than tongues.
   and many more ‘minor’ points that do not put the core Gospel message in danger. He says in these area’s ‘grace and charity’ should be the calling card, not self-righteous ‘my way is right and your wrong’ attitudes.

I do not understand, and, forgive me, but why should I trust you (or me, or paster John Doe) to communicate what is orthodox? Is it alright for believers to disagree on abortion, a “non-salvation based dispute”? Or same-sex marriage? Or the Canon of Scripture? Where will you direct me to if I say there are 405 books in the Bible? … If I was my own authority I would feel very, very afraid.

Again, we totally agree. You should not trust me, or you, or your priest, or even your denomination. You first should trust Scripture and ‘test all things, and hold on to what is good’ as our brother Paul says. But, you must also be transparent, and open to authority. So I agree, we need men around us and overseers that are wise in the Word and high in character to help us remain firm. We must be humble enough to be corrected, and wise enough to battle Satans incursions into our hearts and his perversion of Gods word.
You bring up abortion; you cannot remain in sin and say your saved. How can you kill children and believe you know God? Or, live in sin such as homosexuals do and claim to know Truth? As John says, there is no Truth in you (if this be the case). If someone claimed more scripture, then I say, test all things, hold onto what is good. Wise men had a great criteria for deciding scripture. Interestingly, most of all the texts were circulated and well known in all dialects and languages of the day. These were the texted being read and used and they were not ‘mysterious’ to anyone. Today if someone did that, we would have an easy time deciding fakes. Modern scholarship would rule most out easily (Thomas, Mary Magdalene’s supposed gospels). I would rely on reason, knowledge and scripture, and the men who demonstrated knowledge and character in line with scriptural knowledge.

 

[twohumble]

Please do not accuse us of being arrogant, we are trying our best to stay humble but sometimes we might slip up a bit. As for being foolish, very well, if it makes you feel better, I am foolish; I’ll gladly wear that stigma. Now the question is: Are we right?

Now, that is the question isn’t it. Its great to discuss, debate that question. It gets ‘over the line’ when one of us tells the other they cannot claim to be a Christian or part of the Body of Christ, just because we disagree on issues that are not central to the Gospel message. In fact, its by discussion and debate that much learning and growth occurs in us as individuals, and in the Church at large as we grow to know God more. Elvis has made claims that are foolish, and refuses to back them up. He claims to have ‘facts’ yet none he has elicited are on point to the issues I have raised. Do you acknowledge a church history rife with periods of corruption, bad decision making and poor wisdom at times? (Galilaeo as an example)
I don’t at all suggest that at these times there were godly men who held fast to the Truth through it all, but do you acknowledge that all the 'Church cannot be said to have faired so well?

 

[elvisman]

Elvis, you must quite using ad hominem and inflammatory language, or our conversation is over (sophmoric tactic etc.) I am far from “anti-catholic” am have a great passion for Catholics and the Catholic Church. I meet with my ex-parish council members on a regular basis for Bible study, and I defend the Roman Catholic Church from frequent misunderstandings that protestants have (and there are many). So, stop with the tude dude…

The True Church is, in fact where Truth resides. You arrogantly assume thats “only the Roman Catholic Church” and we differ here. There are many parts to the Body of Christ, as I said before. I believe the RCC is one part, but not the whole body.

As far as how the ‘church is defined’ you claim that ‘they never defined it as I do’?? Really? Scripture is pretty plain on the definition of the church, its believers in Jesus Christ. Note, that even happened at the time just after Christ, and not all were heretics, some were just disagreeing on minor issues that did not take them away from the core beliefs (you know, major on the majors don’t major on the minors?)

Come on elvis please lift the blinders. Be reasonable. The Scriptures and Early Church Fathers you referenced have done nothing to disprove a single point I have made. I think you just have not followed my argument well, and maybe thats my fault for not communicating well. Either way, we are really just butting heads at this point.

Do you dispute that fact that in the 1100’s-1600’s there was great corruption in the Church? Do you really ignore this history? Do you ignore the Churchs acknowledgement of its past mistakes? I don’t need to prove what is common knowledge elvis. You can choose to ignore it, but remember denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.

No “tude”** here, pal. Your anti-Catholic remarks speak for themselves and your accusations are sophomoric.**

The plain fact is that the Early Church Fathers all believed in One Church, One Baptism, One Eucharist (Eph.4:5) which they believed to be the actual body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Your** definition of “church” is a very loose one in that all of its members can disagree on doctrinal issues.**
Some** Protestant denominations believe in infant baptism – some don’t. Some believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist – some don’t. Some believe in Soul Sleep – some don’t. Some believe in divorce – some don’t. **
These are MAJOR issues in which you** CANNOT **differ from one another. Read Jesus’ prayer for the UNITY of his Body in John 17 and tell me that division is okay. Talk about living in denial . . .

As for past sins of corruption of some of the leaders in the Church –** who**** is denying it? It’s a historical fact that there were corrupt leaders but that doesn’t nullify Christ’s Church which he promised that not even the gates of Hell would prevail against (Matt. 15:19).
It also has nothing to do with what we’re discussing. It’s just an immature, sophomoric ad hominem attack that sheds no light whatsoever.**

Lastly - getting back to the topic of the thread:
The early Christians and Church Fathers were accused of cannabalism by the Jews and Romans because of their belief that it was the actual body and blood of Jesus. Many died violently for this believe. Those who believe that the Eucharist is merely symbolic, I would say:
"For what mere symbol would you be willing to be fed to a lion?"

My guess would be, “None”.

 

[twohumble]

**The plain fact is that the Early Church Fathers all believed in **One Church, One Baptism, One Eucharist (Eph.4:5)which they believed to be the actual body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Your** definition of “church” is a very loose one in that all of its members can disagree on doctrinal issues.**
Some** Protestant denominations believe in infant baptism – some don’t. Some believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist – some don’t. Some believe in Soul Sleep – some don’t. Some believe in divorce – some don’t. **
These are MAJOR issues in which you** CANNOT **differ from one another.

elvis, I don’t think you get it, so I will leave our conversation on these points:

1. My definition of Church comes right out of scripture.
2. Infant baptism, real presence vs purely symbolic, soul sleep…you could go on, and the point is all of these are tangential to the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is this The Son of God became man, suffered died and was buried for our sins, He rose again, and ascended to the Father, He will come again to judge the living and the dead. We cannot access the Father except through the Son, and God exists in The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The good news is simply put, Jesus died for our sins, so that we do not have to be judged. We are sinful, and unworthy, and without Jesus we would be forever doomed. It is by His work on the Cross that we are saved, by our Faith in Him, and not by our efforts.
   This is good news pal, and anything you add to it, or require out side of it is exactly what Paul was pissed about in Galations, its a perversion of the Gospel.
3. In our Church we baptize infants, but you can join our church (you cannot be ordained or put in leadership) if you don’t believe this. Why? Because this is NOT central to the Gospel which is Jesus died so you don’t have to. In our Church you don’t have to believe in any specific about the Eucharist, because regardless of what you believe, God will correct your poor undertanding when you get to heaven. ** In the end, Jesus died on the Cross so you don’t have to. Thats the Gospel, thats the Good News.**

So, yes, there are issues we can differ on and still be Christians together, despite what you may think.

1. and Lastly, on the topic of this Thread…again you show a lack of understanding:
   The Martyers died for their belief in Jesus as God incarnate, the Lord of their life. He is not a symbol, He is a Living God, Who, with Gods help, I would die for. If I was persecuted for taking communion to commemorate Jesus death, and by doing so I was asked to renounce Jesus, then Yes, I would die for that too.

You try to distill the ‘symbol’ down to meaninglessness, but if the symbol represents our core belief in God and His preeminance in our lives, then we ought to die for what we believe and if the symbol represents that belief, and we are asked to renounce it, then we should die, not for the symbol, but for what it represents (Jesus).
I know of NO Martyer who died specifically because they claimed the bread became flesh and wine became real blood. I know of many who died because they proclaimed Jesus as God and would not renounce Him.

PS. your use of bold, colors and tiddly winks makes it near impossible to quote your response and read it. Its quite annoying, and another reason I won’t be responding to any more of your nonsensical posts.
My guess is you just don’t get it, but God willing, you will someday. Major on the Majors (the Cross of Jesus and what He did for you) and not on the minors. If any doctrine undermines this core value, then it should be adamently opposed, as Paul certainly did. Interesting study in Galations…maybe you should read that one.

 

[elvisman]

elvis, I don’t think you get it, so I will leave our conversation on these points:

1. My definition of Church comes right out of scripture.
2. Infant baptism, real presence vs purely symbolic, soul sleep…you could go on, and the point is all of these are tangential to the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is this The Son of God became man, suffered died and was buried for our sins, He rose again, and ascended to the Father, He will come again to judge the living and the dead. We cannot access the Father except through the Son, and God exists in The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The good news is simply put, Jesus died for our sins, so that we do not have to be judged. We are sinful, and unworthy, and without Jesus we would be forever doomed. It is by His work on the Cross that we are saved, by our Faith in Him, and not by our efforts.
   This is good news pal, and anything you add to it, or require out side of it is exactly what Paul was pissed about in Galations, its a perversion of the Gospel.
3. In our Church we baptize infants, but you can join our church (you cannot be ordained or put in leadership) if you don’t believe this. Why? Because this is NOT central to the Gospel which is Jesus died so you don’t have to. In our Church you don’t have to believe in any specific about the Eucharist, because regardless of what you believe, God will correct your poor undertanding when you get to heaven. In the end, Jesus died on the Cross so you don’t have to. Thats the Gospel, thats the Good News.

So, yes, there are issues we can differ on and still be Christians together, despite what you may think.

1. and Lastly, on the topic of this Thread…again you show a lack of understanding:
   The Martyers died for their belief in Jesus as God incarnate, the Lord of their life. He is not a symbol, He is a Living God, Who, with Gods help, I would die for. If I was persecuted for taking communion to commemorate Jesus death, and by doing so I was asked to renounce Jesus, then Yes, I would die for that too.

You try to distill the ‘symbol’ down to meaninglessness, but if the symbol represents our core belief in God and His preeminance in our lives, then we ought to die for what we believe and if the symbol represents that belief, and we are asked to renounce it, then we should die, not for the symbol, but for what it represents (Jesus).
I know of NO Martyer who died specifically because they claimed the bread became flesh and wine became real blood. I know of many who died because they proclaimed Jesus as God and would not renounce Him.

PS. your use of bold, colors and tiddly winks makes it near impossible to quote your response and read it. Its quite annoying, and another reason I won’t be responding to any more of your nonsensical posts.
My guess is you just don’t get it, but God willing, you will someday. Major on the Majors (the Cross of Jesus and what He did for you) and not on the minors. If any doctrine undermines this core value, then it should be adamently opposed, as Paul certainly did. Interesting study in Galations…maybe you should read that one.

**That’s funny. **
Whenever somebody cannot come up with a good explanation for their beliefs or are unable to stay focused on the conversation - they ALWAYS attack the use of color and bold fonts. Not sometimes - but ALWAYS. It never comes up early on in the conversation - just when they’re up against the wall with nothing left to say.

If you consider baptism, divorce, the Real Presence and other doctrinal issues, to be “minor” issues - you can’t really proclaim the true Gospel. Jesus didn’t take these things lightly and neither should you.

You have foresaken Jesus’ teaching on the Eucharist, so I will have to lump you in with those who left him in John 6:66 because they just couldn’t handle what he was telling them about the Eucharist. They also had a severe lack of faith.

This is what Jesus had to say about them:
John 6:63
"It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

---

They didn’t get it because of the lack of faith - it wasn’t relvealed to them (you).

 

[Jrush]

(Joh 6:48 RSV) I am the bread of life.
Joh 6:49 RSV) Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
(Joh 6:50 RSV) This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. /quote] Same as the first; it’s symbolic.
(Joh 6:51 RSV) I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." /quote Symb
(Joh 6:52 RSV) The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
(Joh 6:53 RSV) So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
(Joh 6:54 RSV) he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
(Joh 6:55 RSV) For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
(Joh 6:56 RSV) He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
(Joh 6:57 RSV) As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
(Joh 6:58 RSV) This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
(Joh 6:59 RSV) This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caperna-um.
(Joh 6:60 RSV) Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
(Joh 6:61 RSV) But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
(Joh 6:62 RSV) Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
(Joh 6:63 RSV) 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.
(Joh 6:64 RSV) But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
(Joh 6:65 RSV) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
(Joh 6:66 RSV) After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
(Joh 6:67 RSV) Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
(Joh 6:68 RSV) Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
(Joh 6:69 RSV) and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
(Joh 6:70 RSV) Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?”
(Joh 6:71 RSV) He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.

I need to stop you here at your first list of Bible verses. First of all, what in the world kinda Bible version are you reading from? Forgive my cluelessness - I’ve read KJV, NIV, the Message, and I thought that Catholics had a Bible called the New American version. So, I take it this is another Catholic bible???

Other than that, I have to say Catholics and Protestants (or at least the Protestants I’m familiar with) interpret the Bible very differently. Catholic apparently take the Eucharist very seriously and very literally. Protestants take the Eucharist/Communion seriously too, but consider it symbolic; when Jesus said to “Take, eat. This is my body…”, he didn’t mean to actually eat Him - just to remember via that practice of what He did on the cross.

But in the end, I’m starting to wonder if it all even matters in the scheme of things. Is getting the Eucarist/Communion things straight half as important as one’s relationship with God?
I’m not so sure anymore if that is so…

 

[elvisman]

I need to stop you here at your first list of Bible verses. First of all, what in the world kinda Bible version are you reading from? Forgive my cluelessness - I’ve read KJV, NIV, the Message, and I thought that Catholics had a Bible called the New American version. So, I take it this is another Catholic bible???

Other than that, I have to say Catholics and Protestants (or at least the Protestants I’m familiar with) interpret the Bible very differently. Catholic apparently take the Eucharist very seriously and very literally. Protestants take the Eucharist/Communion seriously too, but consider it symbolic; when Jesus said to “Take, eat. This is my body…”, he didn’t mean to actually eat Him - just to remember via that practice of what He did on the cross.

But in the end, I’m starting to wonder if it all even matters in the scheme of things. Is getting the Eucarist/Communion things straight half as important as one’s relationship with God?
I’m not so sure anymore if that is so…

The Eucharist is the ULTIMATE relationship with God, my friend. It was important enough to Jesus to drive the point home several times in nthe same discourse.

I keep hearing from Protestants what Jesus meant at the Last supper and in John 6 as opposed to what he actually said.
Which part of the following words of Jesus do you not understand?:
John 6:53-56
*Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. *
*Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my bloodhas eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. *
*For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. *
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

PS - The verses listed by Holly3278 were from the RSV (Revised Standard Version). She included this information with every verse she listed.

 

[judechild]

Now, that is the question isn’t it. Its great to discuss, debate that question. It gets ‘over the line’ when one of us tells the other they cannot claim to be a Christian or part of the Body of Christ, just because we disagree on issues that are not central to the Gospel message. In fact, its by discussion and debate that much learning and growth occurs in us as individuals, and in the Church at large as we grow to know God more. Elvis has made claims that are foolish, and refuses to back them up. He claims to have ‘facts’ yet none he has elicited are on point to the issues I have raised. Do you acknowledge a church history rife with periods of corruption, bad decision making and poor wisdom at times? (Galilaeo as an example)
I don’t at all suggest that at these times there were godly men who held fast to the Truth through it all, but do you acknowledge that all the 'Church cannot be said to have faired so well?

Yes, there were times when people in the Church - bishops, priests, and laity - did hideous things (Galileo, though, is more complex than most realize), but catholics don’t claim an individual bishop or even the pope himself is “impeccable” (totally unable to sin), only that he and the council of bishops teach infalliably by virtue of a special charism by the Holy Spirit. We like to point to Judas when making this point; he was a bishop, his office had to be filled by the Apostles in the book of Acts, but his office and its authority remained intact. Formal cooperation with deicide is the worst of **all **sins, so the fact that some scoundrels were/are in the Church should not hurt our view of the authority of the bishop’s office.

You were here, responding to my comment that the Church was not formally formed until much later than the writting and compiling of the Bible. I think you will agree that my point still stands.

Unfortuantly I must disagree. It seems apparent to me that the Church was founded by Jesus in the first century, even before the books of the Bible were written. Let’s note that, for example, that all the letters are written by Christian - St. Paul, St. Peter, St. John - and were written **to **Christians - Timothy, the Corinthians; they were Christian even before the New Testament was written, let alone compiled. I know we both agree that Jesus is the ultimate Revelation, but why wouldn’t Jesus have written the Bible while he was here, if it was to be the only source of Revelation for the future generations? Why would he leave us without giving it to, or at least give us some sort of Table of Contents? I think that by looking at the Bible (the letters especially) we can see that the Sacred Tradition was in fact at work already in this Church founded on the Rock of St. Peter (Matt. 16), and that this Church operated by an oral tradition similar to the Jewish one. I can give specific verses if you would like them.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Hello Jrush and welcome to the fourms.

I need to stop you here at your first list of Bible verses. First of all, what in the world kinda Bible version are you reading from? Forgive my cluelessness - I’ve read KJV, NIV, the Message, and I thought that Catholics had a Bible called the New American version. So, I take it this is another Catholic bible???

Actually Holly is quoting from the RSV, which is a Protestant Bible:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version

I use the RSV-CE which was adapted for Catholic use and love it.

Other than that, I have to say Catholics and Protestants (or at least the Protestants I’m familiar with) interpret the Bible very differently.

This is an understatement. There are Protestants who interpret the Bible differently than other Protestants as well though so you really can’t hold that against us Catholics.

Catholic apparently take the Eucharist very seriously and very literally.

As do some Protestants.

Protestants take the Eucharist/Communion seriously too, but consider it symbolic

No, Protestants don’t take the Eucharist as symbolic. Some do that is for sure but it does not follow that by simply being Protestant some one is going to reject the Real Presence.

But in the end, I’m starting to wonder if it all even matters in the scheme of things. Is getting the Eucarist/Communion things straight half as important as one’s relationship with God?

That is a fair point. Let me ask you in a different way; does truth matter to you?

God bless you and welcome to the forums.

 

[twohumble]

**That’s funny. **
**Whenever somebody cannot come up with a good explanation for their beliefs or are unable to stay focused on the conversation - they ALWAYS **attack the use of color and bold fonts. Not sometimes - but ALWAYS. It never comes up early on in the conversation - just when they’re up against the wall with nothing left to say.

If you consider baptism, divorce, the Real Presence and other doctrinal issues, to be "minor" issues - you can’t really proclaim the true Gospel. Jesus didn’t take these things lightly and neither should you.

You have foresaken Jesus’ teaching on the Eucharist, so I will have to lump you in with those who left him in John 6:66 because they just couldn’t handle what he was telling them about the Eucharist. They also had a severe lack of faith.

This is what Jesus had to say about them:
John 6:63
"It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

---

**They didn’t get it because of the lack **of faith - it wasn’t relvealed to them (you).

Thanks Elvis, I can tell your concerned for my soul and my salvation, I can tell (by your understanding and humility) that your always willing to humble yourself, as Paul said and be all things to all people, just by the way you changed your posting techniques to be less irritating.

I really appreciate your willingness to be open and charitable in all things during our enjoyable conversation. I am just an apostate soul who is lost for all eternity, and you my good catholic are rightous and so wise (at least in your eyes)

Have a blessed life.

 

[twohumble]

Yes, there were times when people in the Church - bishops, priests, and laity - did hideous things (Galileo, though, is more complex than most realize), but catholics don’t claim an individual bishop or even the pope himself is “impeccable” (totally unable to sin), only that he and the council of bishops teach infalliably by virtue of a special charism by the Holy Spirit. We like to point to Judas when making this point; he was a bishop, his office had to be filled by the Apostles in the book of Acts, but his office and its authority remained intact. Formal cooperation with deicide is the worst of **all **sins, so the fact that some scoundrels were/are in the Church should not hurt our view of the authority of the bishop’s office.

I understand your point, but as fallen and sinful humans, we ought never trust individuals, or an individual in an office. I agree that a government system to keep abuse, ego and sin, in check is the best way to go. However, my point about the RCChurch was that there were periods than a large number of people in offices were corrupt and the system of Government had gotten too powerful and too susceptible to corruption. It really does not seem we disagree here. I agree we need to hold authority in high regard overall.

Unfortuantly I must disagree. It seems apparent to me that the Church was founded by Jesus in the first century, even before the books of the Bible were written. Let’s note that, for example, that all the letters are written by Christian - St. Paul, St. Peter, St. John - and were written **to **Christians - Timothy, the Corinthians; they were Christian even before the New Testament was written, let alone compiled. I know we both agree that Jesus is the ultimate Revelation, but why wouldn’t Jesus have written the Bible while he was here, if it was to be the only source of Revelation for the future generations? Why would he leave us without giving it to, or at least give us some sort of Table of Contents? I think that by looking at the Bible (the letters especially) we can see that the Sacred Tradition was in fact at work already in this Church founded on the Rock of St. Peter (Matt. 16), and that this Church operated by an oral tradition similar to the Jewish one. I can give specific verses if you would like them.

Two points here in this quote above:

1. You miss my point and sematically we are crossed up. Let me clarify. When I spoke in the prior post that you are ‘disagreeing with’ I was speaking of the RCChurch, NOT the Body of Believers that Scripture refers to as the Body of Christ or ‘The Church’, which I agree was founded on Christ, by Christ and for Christ.

I also note you said the bible was written by “Christians” and I totally agree. But that seems to state the obvious. Elvis was opining the bible was written by Catholics, not in a manner that allows for Christians as you have, since the formal 'catholic church did not come about for 4.5 centuries or so. That was the crux of my comments to elvis. I don’t think we disagree here either. Clearly the NT was written by Christians. I would say so was the OT, they just didn’t know the term yet.

Point 2:
Certainly the Jews had a keen sense of oral tradition. Very important in the OT times and even in the early 1st and 2nd centuries. However, the culture changed, that was lost, and oral tradition became suspect by the 3rd century. Today, God protects His word from corruption, and scripture is clear in telling us it contains all the info need for us to know God, know His plan, and nothingn needs added or subtracted (Revelation). I don’t know why Jesus didn’t write it while he was here, or give us a table of contents. He chose not to for His reasons. He knew the HS would handle it I guess.

 

[elvisman]

I also note you said the bible was written by “Christians” and I totally agree. But that seems to state the obvious. Elvis was opining the bible was written by Catholics, not in a manner that allows for Christians as you have, since the formal 'catholic church did not come about for 4.5 centuries or so. That was the crux of my comments to elvis. I don’t think we disagree here either. Clearly the NT was written by Christians. I would say so was the OT, they just didn’t know the term yet.

Point 2:
Certainly the Jews had a keen sense of oral tradition. Very important in the OT times and even in the early 1st and 2nd centuries. However, the culture changed, that was lost, and oral tradition became suspect by the 3rd century. Today, God protects His word from corruption, and scripture is clear in telling us it contains all the info need for us to know God, know His plan, and nothingn needs added or subtracted (Revelation). I don’t know why Jesus didn’t write it while he was here, or give us a table of contents. He chose not to for His reasons. He knew the HS would handle it I guess.

WHERE do you get your information from?
Because - as far as I can tell - you’re making it up as you go along.
Prove to me and everybody else reading this thread that the Catholic Church didn’t offially come about until the middle of the 5th century.

Prove also that oral tradition became suspect in the 3rd century.

These claims are ludicrous and historically unfounded but since you’re fairly new here, I’ll educate you:
Most Catholics on this forum are far too educated to accept this sort of rubbish as the truth simply because an anti-Catholic Protestant deemed it so.
Most of us will not stand by and allow anti-Catholics spew whatever lies they’ve conjured up about the Catholic Church.

Either prove your points or admit that you’ve done no research - have no credible source.
If you can’t do that - then you’re just another bitter anti-Catholic blowing a lot of hot wind . . .

 

[judechild]

Two points here in this quote above:

1. You miss my point and sematically we are crossed up. Let me clarify. When I spoke in the prior post that you are ‘disagreeing with’ I was speaking of the RCChurch, NOT the Body of Believers that Scripture refers to as the Body of Christ or ‘The Church’, which I agree was founded on Christ, by Christ and for Christ.

I also note you said the bible was written by “Christians” and I totally agree. But that seems to state the obvious. Elvis was opining the bible was written by Catholics, not in a manner that allows for Christians as you have, since the formal 'catholic church did not come about for 4.5 centuries or so. That was the crux of my comments to elvis. I don’t think we disagree here either. Clearly the NT was written by Christians. I would say so was the OT, they just didn’t know the term yet.

I realize I’ve successfully derailed the thread. Would you like to continue this discussion on a separate thread?

In the meantime, back to the Eucharist. The evidence for the Real Presence is overwhelming, especially in that the Church Fathers are unanimous in upholding its belief. Add to that all of the prefiguarements in the old testament that are ultimately fulfilled by the truth in the words of consecration (such as the pascal lamb), and taking Jesus’ own words into account and we can see that the Eucharist is the greatest miracle of them all, truely the “living bread that came down from heaven” (John 6:51).

 

[judechild]

hehehehe you ruined my fun, I was asking him. hehehehe Yes a nature cant die but Christ did die, what kind of death, and was the murder of christ actually a bad thing? Also how is anyone ever worthy of taking the body of christ? Who is worthy of God?

(Apologetics can not be limted in a real conversation these are all natural connections that are made in any conversation )

I’m sorry Polaris, I missed this post; hope you’re still around. What kind of death? Well, the usual I suppose…
Yes, the murder of Christ is “actually a bad thing”. In fact, *deicide *is the worst sin of all time. This actually poses a problem for me. I hear some people saying that Good Friday is a celebration; I do not see it as such. Sure, I know good came out of it (it’s **GOOD **Friday), but when I’m on the fifth sorrowful mystery contemplating my Abba and Lord hanging in agony on a splentered piece of wood, I get shocked when people think of it as something to celebrate. I wouldn’t celebrate anyone’s death, especially Jesus’.

I got off a bit there. But finally, **I’m **certainly not “worthy of taking the body of Christ”; I’m not even worthy to live! Like you said, who is worthy of God? Despite that, God’s love for His sickly child is so great that He gives Himself to me, and for about fifteen minutes as the form of bread deteriorates inside of me, He is in me phyically. This is a True miracle, but it is attested to by everything I hold sacred; both Scripture and Tradition. God is my father, I pray He will help us **all **to believe!

 

[Arandur]

I’d also like to get back on the topic of the Eucharist. There are plenty of other threads for dealing with the authority of the Catholic Church.

I am finding it too hard to resist pointing out a couple of things related to that conversation, though.

It seems to me that Elvis and Twohumble have talked across each other without directly confronting one of the major points of their disagreement. Twohumble is refusing to accept Elvis’s premise that the Catholic Church is the same Church, whole and entire, that Jesus founded. If Elvis’s premise is true, then so is his assertion that the Catholic Church did indeed write and canonize the NT, and thus is the group to have the longest and likely greatest familiarity with it (sidenote: the Orthodox were of the same group until the Great Schism). Twohumble keeps trying to redefine Elvisman’s argument as meaning Twohumble’s perception of the Roman Catholic Church as being something different from the original Church Christ founded. Argue the premise, gentlemen, but on a different thread. Speaking of the group responsible for authorship and canonization of the NT will go nowhere if you continue to operate on different definitions and are unwilling to accept the definition of the other.

On another note:

Point 2:
Certainly the Jews had a keen sense of oral tradition. Very important in the OT times and even in the early 1st and 2nd centuries. However, the culture changed, that was lost, and oral tradition became suspect by the 3rd century. Today, God protects His word from corruption, and scripture is clear in telling us it contains all the info need for us to know God, know His plan, and nothingn needs added or subtracted (Revelation). I don’t know why Jesus didn’t write it while he was here, or give us a table of contents. He chose not to for His reasons. He knew the HS would handle it I guess.

I hear lots of assertions with very little backup from you, twohumble. Such as oral tradition being suspect (not that I think it’s relevant, really), or that you are speaking of what Scripture clearly states–when Scripture is so heavily debated. For you seem to accept Sola Scriptura, and yet the Bible in several places directs people pretty clearly to the Church rather than to Scripture for various things, and defines the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth, not the text of Scripture.

What I find more interesting about that quote are the parts that I bolded. If God can protect a text from corruption, why can’t He protect His Church from corruption of the Truth? Seems that Jesus prayed for the unity and holiness of his Church, not of some words on parchment. Seems that, as you acknowledge, Jesus knew the Advocate/Comforter/Holy Spirit that he was sending would take care of that, through the Church that Jesus did directly found, since he chose to found a Church rather than write a book. On what basis do you place more importance on a text and very little by comparison on the Church when Christ did exactly the opposite?

Which brings me to the Eucharist. Scripture regarding the Eucharist must be interpreted in the context of the Church, of Tradition, since Jesus placed his emphasis on the Church and promised the Holy Spirit to IT, not to a text. Others here and many places on these forums have illustrated that Traditional context to varying degrees. I bring up another that is also spoken of in Scripture. Do you believe in Christophanies? Appearances/manifestations of Christ prior to his Incarnation?

If it is possible for the Son, as God, to manifest himself in many other ways besides his singular physical body, can he not choose to manifest himself physically in bread and wine? What evidence is there that he did not do just that? Seems the references in Scripture testify more to direct physical presence and manifestation in the very food used in the Communion Supper rather than to some vague spiritual symbolism, by the mere language being used as well as the frequent repetition of the themes.

So if the Son can manifest himself beyond his human body, then he can manifest himself in the physical bread and wine of the communion meal. In this way he more completely fulfills the Passover meal; fulfills his promise to be with us not just spiritually, but physically; becomes physically incorporated into us as we digest the bread and wine, truly being IN us as we are in him. For if Jesus meets us only spiritually and not physically, then he ignores the very physicality of us that he showed he would NOT ignore by becoming physically human. If Jesus meets us only spiritually and not physically, then the Incarnation meant very little, did not dignify our physical being, does not testify to a bodily resurrection, and suggests that the physical aspect of our existence truly is understood better in the Gnostic vision of a despicable, contemptible thing, a prison only fit to be left behind in death.

That Jesus remains with us physically in the Eucharist is extremely important. The bread and wine are physically HIM, and thus are his flesh and blood. But since he has made it so, and since he has taken the form of bread and wine as he makes it his flesh and blood, it is not cannibalism. For it still has the physical properties of bread and wine.