Protestants: Why don't you follow his command? "Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood"

  • Thread starter Thread starter St.Eric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
JSmitty2005:
No, it can’t. Catholics haven’t re-interpreted anything. We believe in the age-old literal interpretation that the Church has always taught forever and will always.
You got me. Ok, take out the prefix “re-”

And I don’t care what the church of Rome taught for 1900 years. I only care about what Jesus taught and MEANT. That is where we part opinions.

-Pax vobiscum
 
40.png
ruzz:
You got me. Ok, take out the prefix “re-”

And I don’t care what the church of Rome taught for 1900 years. I only care about what Jesus taught and MEANT. That is where we part opinions.

-Pax vobiscum
It certainly is where we part. The Church is the Bride of Christ and can only teach His truths. It is the only Church that teaches infallibly on matters of faith and morals. Does your church claim to teach infallibly?
 
40.png
ruzz:
Many have given good reasons and they are not without justification. But when I look at this scripture without the lens of The Church, meditate on it, I see something completely different.
That’s what the Swedish reformer Ulrich Zwingli did too. And he arrived at the same conclusion as yourself.
40.png
ruzz:
So we simply disagree. This won’t be resolved on a message forum.
Agreed.
40.png
ruzz:
I am free to think for myself.
We all have freewill.
40.png
ruzz:
Then that is it. You believe a man 1900 years ago understood exactly what Christ meant without flaws or influence of the culture or environment of the day.
Wrong. I believe the clear teaching of the Scriptures. It happens to be corroborated by the writings of the earliest Christian Doctors and Saints of the Church. And no…I do not believe for one instance that the Apostle John gave information to Ignatius that he misunderstood.
40.png
ruzz:
So I see no reason to believe St. Ignatius couldn’t have made the same honest mistakes of any man and gotten it wrong.
Let me put it this way. I am confident that Scripture teaches the Real Presence. The earliest Christians, (who were Catholic), believed in the Real Presence. Disciples of the Apostles believed in the Real Presence. This I know in my heart of hearts to be the truth. I could never accept an alternate interpretation as set forth by Zwingli and ruzz.

May peace and understanding be with you,
Mickey
 
And I don’t care what the church of Rome taught for 1900 years. I only care about what Jesus taught and MEANT. That is where we part opinions.
Are you so sure that what Rome teaches in not what Christ taught and MEANT? Are you infallible? Should your interpretation which is only a few years young be considered over an interpretation that has stood the test of time, nearly 2000 years?
 
40.png
ruzz:
And I don’t care what the church of Rome taught for 1900 years. I only care about what Jesus taught and MEANT. That is where we part opinions.
This can be re-worded:

The Catholic Church has always taught what Jesus taught and MEANT.

That is where we part on understanding.
 
Eden,

Your comment that only the church can teach His truths contradicts 1John 2:27 “But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”

JSmitty2005,

Regarding Acts 2:42

I do get together with other believers and break bread. Perhaps, not the literal bread but the bread from heaven is truth and his name is called The Word of God." That is the bread we “chew” on and “eat.” As He gives us understanding.

1Corinthians 5:8 “therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, niether with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” I am taking Christ’s advice that he gave in Matthew 16:11-12 “How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.”
 
40.png
Eden:
Do you think praying done daily loses its value as well? Does your church have a tradition of praying only every 12 weeks? Of having services every 12 weeks?

Can you show me where it says in the Bible that we must not receive Communion daily and where it says we must receive Communion only every 12 weeks. (12 weeks specifically - otherwise, this is an “Adventist tradition” not the Word of God).
You will find neither a command to do communion daily, nor a command to do it every 12 weeks. It says to be devoted. If you devote yourself to your job for instance, must you then go in on your days off? Or must you be devoted in your heart to remember the importances of it?
And no, we do not pray only every 12 weeks. Why be confrontational? I was just stating our practive, not telling others how to be.
 
40.png
Eden:
It certainly is where we part. The Church is the Bride of Christ and can only teach His truths. It is the only Church that teaches infallibly on matters of faith and morals. Does your church claim to teach infallibly?
This is off the subject of this thread regarding the Eucharist. But I’ll oblige to the tangent.

I believe “The Church” is not a corporation, but the followers and believers of Christ. Jesus Christ is the center of Christianity and the leader of His church.

God’s word is infailable and it is what we turn to for teaching. We differ in believing that a man can be infailable in teaching. When I have a question about matters of faith and morals, I turn to Jesus Christ not a pope, bishop or priest.

This is where we differ. Despite the fact that I disagree, I do, however, respect your beliefs.

-Pax vobiscum
 
JoshuaJ said:
1John 2:27

The quote you provided is in harmony with the annointing of teachers in His Church - this is the apostolic succession that our bishops (and the teaching office of the Magisterium) have inherited.

Authority is Transferred by the Sacrament of Ordination

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.

Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”

Acts 1:22 - literally, “one must be ordained” to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority.

Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.

Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.

Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.

Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.

Acts 15:22-27 - preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.

2 Cor. 1:21-22 - Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.

Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine “office.” An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.

1 Tim. 3:1 - Paul uses the word “episcopoi” (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul’s use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.

1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).

1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.

2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.

2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul’s life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop.

2 Tim. 2:2 - this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.

Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1 - the elders of the Church are appointed and hold authority. God has His children participate in Christ’s work.

1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).

Exodus 18:25-26 - Moses appoints various heads over the people of God. We see a hierarchy, a transfer of authority and succession.

Exodus 40:15 - the physical anointing shows that God intended a perpetual priesthood with an identifiable unbroken succession.

Numbers 3:3 - the sons of Aaron were formally “anointed” priests in “ordination” to minister in the priests’ “office.”

Numbers 16:40 - shows God’s intention of unbroken succession within His kingdom on earth. Unless a priest was ordained by Aaron and his descendants, he had no authority.

Numbers 27:18-20 - shows God’s intention that, through the “laying on of hands,” one is commissioned and has authority.

Deut. 34:9 - Moses laid hands upon Joshua, and because of this, Joshua was obeyed as successor, full of the spirit of wisdom.

www.scripturecatholic.com
 
40.png
JoeyWarren:
SDAgirl, you opened yourself up to that one.
I welcome any questions or comments, if they can be done in a CHRISTIAN way, and not in a CONFRONTATIONAL way.
 
This last one did not fit in my original post:

Sirach 45:15 - Moses ordains Aaron and anoints him with oil. There is a transfer of authority through formal ordination.

Ordained Leaders Share in Jesus’ Ministry and Authority

Matt. 10:1,40 - Jesus declares to His apostles, “he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me.” Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - the apostles are given Christ’s authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all. Without a central authority in the Church, there would be chaos (as there is in Protestantism).

Luke 9:1; 10:19 - Jesus gives the apostles authority over the natural and the supernatural (diseases, demons, serpents, and scorpions).

Luke 10:16 - Jesus tells His apostles, “he who hears you, hears Me.” When we hear the bishops’ teaching on the faith, we hear Christ Himself.

Luke 22:29 - the Father gives the kingdom to the Son, and the Son gives the kingdom to the apostles. The gift is transferred from the Father to the Son to the apostles.

Num 16:28 - the Father’s authority is transferred to Moses. Moses does not speak on his own. This is a real transfer of authority.

John 5:30 - similarly, Jesus as man does nothing of His own authority, but He acts under the authority of the Father.

John 7:16-17 - Jesus as man states that His authority is not His own, but from God. He will transfer this authority to other men.

John 8:28 - Jesus says He does nothing on His own authority. Similarly, the apostles will do nothing on their own authority. Their authority comes from God.

John 12:49 - The father’s authority is transferred to the Son. The Son does not speak on his own. This is a transfer of divine authority.

John 13:20 - Jesus says, “he who receives anyone who I send, receives Me.” He who receives the apostles, receives Christ Himself. He who rejects the apostles and their successors, rejects Christ.

John 14:10 - Jesus says the Word He speaks is not His own authority, but from the Father. The gift is from the Father to Jesus to the apostles.

John 16:14-15 - what the Father has, the Son has, and the Son gives it to the apostles. The authority is not lessened or mitigated.

John 17:18; 20:21 - as the Father sends the Son, the Son sends the apostles. The apostles have divinely appointed authority.

Acts 20:28 - the apostles are shepherds and guardians appointed by the Holy Spirit / 1 Peter 2:25 - Jesus is the Shepherd and Guardian. The apostles, by the power of the Spirit, share Christ’s ministry and authority.

Jer. 23:1-8; Ezek. 34:1-10 - the shepherds must shepherd the sheep, or they will be held accountable by God.

Eph. 2:20 - the Christian faith is built upon the foundation of the apostles. The word “foundation” proves that it does not die with apostles, but carries on through succession.
Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:9,14 - the words “household,” “Bride of the Lamb,” the “new Jerusalem” are all metaphors for the Church whose foundation is the apostles.

Only the Catholic Church has the authority and protection of the Holy Spirit to teach His truths infallibly.
 
40.png
ruzz:
God’s word is infailable and it is what we turn to for teaching. We differ in believing that a man can be infailable in teaching. When I have a question about matters of faith and morals, I turn to Jesus Christ not a pope, bishop or priest.
God’s Word is infallible, but if you can not interpret His Word infallibly, you are capable of making errors on matters of faith and morals.

That is why the Holy Spirit gives the pope the gift of teaching infallibly on matters of faith and morals. In other words, the pope is not an infallible person but he is protected from teaching error in matters of faith and morals because Jesus promised He would lead His Church into “all truth”. Any church that cannot make the claim that they lead their followers “into all truth” is not His Church.

You have the infallible Word of God in the Bible but you have no one in your church to infallibly teach what it means. This is why, from a Catholic point of view, Protestantism is such a tragedy.
 
40.png
Mickey:
The earliest Christians, (who were Catholic), believed in the Real Presence. Disciples of the Apostles believed in the Real Presence. This I know in my heart of hearts to be the truth. I could never accept an alternate interpretation as set forth by Zwingli and ruzz.

May peace and understanding be with you,
Mickey
With all due respect, any early Christian who believed the in the metaphor of Christ in the bread was labeled a heretic and driven underground. Even today, I’m sure there are those on this forum who would label me that way. Fortunately, I do not have to fear the label.

I have never heard of Zwingli and therefore he/she has no influence on my interpretation of scripture. However, you likely had teachers who explained this to you at some point to mean real presence.
It has been said that a person can use scripture to prove aliens are coming to beam us up one day. I can certainly read John 6 and if my mind is predispositioned to think literally, believe literally. So I don’t think you are crazy to believe what you do.
I just don’t come to the same conclusion and a billion of us who have never heard of zwigli or Ignatius see the symbolism in John 6. We aren’t protesting Rome. In fact, for the most part, we really don’t care what Roman Catholics believe. A billion people who are unrelated with no central leader read John 6 and don’t come to the same conclusion the early Roman church did 1900 years ago. We read Christ’s words directly with fresh minds and are labeled as following Luther or some zwigli person.

-Pax vobiscum
 
40.png
Eden:
God’s Word is infallible, but if you can not interpret His Word infallibly, you are capable of making errors on matters of faith and morals.

That is why the Holy Spirit gives the pope the gift of teaching infallibly on matters of faith and morals. In other words, the pope is not an infallible person but he is protected from teaching error in matters of faith and morals because Jesus promised He would lead His Church into “all truth”. Any church that cannot make the claim that they lead their followers “into all truth” is not His Church.

You have the infallible Word of God in the Bible but you have no one in your church to infallibly teach what it means. This is why, from a Catholic point of view, Protestantism is such a tragedy.
And where does the Bible say that ANY man is infallible other than Jesus? The pope pronounces that he is speaking infallibly and everyone listens, accepting as doctrine the commandments of men. Protestants only became protesters when there is something worth losing your life over, like doctrine.
 
40.png
ruzz:
With all due respect, any early Christian who believed the in the metaphor of Christ in the bread was labeled a heretic and driven underground. Even today, I’m sure there are those on this forum who would label me that way. Fortunately, I do not have to fear the label.

I have never heard of Zwingli and therefore he/she has no influence on my interpretation of scripture. However, you likely had teachers who explained this to you at some point to mean real presence.
It has been said that a person can use scripture to prove aliens are coming to beam us up one day. I can certainly read John 6 and if my mind is predispositioned to think literally, believe literally. So I don’t think you are crazy to believe what you do.
I just don’t come to the same conclusion and a billion of us who have never heard of zwigli or Ignatius see the symbolism in John 6. We aren’t protesting Rome. In fact, for the most part, we really don’t care what Roman Catholics believe. A billion people who are unrelated with no central leader read John 6 and don’t come to the same conclusion the early Roman church did 1900 years ago. We read Christ’s words directly with fresh minds and are labeled as following Luther or some zwigli person.

-Pax vobiscum
Luther was a just an Augustinian monk… He didn’t have the authority to break away from the Church. Where in the Bible did it say that it was ok to split with Church of Christ, which is the Catholic Church?

If you look at all the Councils from Jerusalem to Second Vatican, all the authority came down from bishops, and popes. When it comes with morals and faith, the Catholic Church in infallible. This include the True Presence of the Eucharist.
 
40.png
ruzz:
It has been said that a person can use scripture to prove aliens are coming to beam us up one day.
Exactly. 👍 God did not leave us wandering aimlessly in the dark with the confusion that “Sola Scriptura” generates. We were given a visible Church to lead us so that false teachers would not lead us into confusion about His Word.
 
40.png
Eden:
God’s Word is infallible, but if you can not interpret His Word infallibly, you are capable of making errors on matters of faith and morals.

That is why the Holy Spirit gives the pope the gift of teaching infallibly on matters of faith and morals. In other words, the pope is not an infallible person but he is protected from teaching error in matters of faith and morals because Jesus promised He would lead His Church into “all truth”. Any church that cannot make the claim that they lead their followers “into all truth” is not His Church.

You have the infallible Word of God in the Bible but you have no one in your church to infallibly teach what it means. This is why, from a Catholic point of view, Protestantism is such a tragedy.
Thank you for the simple laymans explaination. I fully understand the papal infailable status.
However, I don’t believe it.
If I saw evidence that the Apostles were infailable, it might (repeat might) be easier to accept.

When I read John 6, it makes perfect sense. Yet, I’m told I’m wrong and I am incapable of interpretting it correctly. For that I need the pope.

I do not think God’s word is coded and that hard to figure out.

We see following a man’s interpretation as extremely dangerous. Because if that man IS failable, the error perpetuates forever. An error could be passed down for 2000 years.

Again, my intent on posting in this thread was to defend our position, not debate the authority of The Church.

I appreciate the mature Christian dialog of this forum.

-Pax vobiscum
 
40.png
ruzz:
Thank you for the simple laymans explaination. I fully understand the papal infailable status.
However, I don’t believe it.
If I saw evidence that the Apostles were infailable, it might (repeat might) be easier to accept.

When I read John 6, it makes perfect sense. Yet, I’m told I’m wrong and I am incapable of interpretting it correctly. For that I need the pope.

I do not think God’s word is coded and that hard to figure out.

We see following a man’s interpretation as extremely dangerous. Because if that man IS failable, the error perpetuates forever. An error could be passed down for 2000 years.

Again, my intent on posting in this thread was to defend our position, not debate the authority of The Church.

I appreciate the mature Christian dialog of this forum.

-Pax vobiscum
Well said.
 
40.png
Mannyfit75:
If you look at all the Councils from Jerusalem to Second Vatican, all the authority came down from bishops, and popes. When it comes with morals and faith, the Catholic Church in infallible. This include the True Presence of the Eucharist.
It seems that every thread topic must lead towards the authority and infailablity of The Church. Staying on topic never seems to happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top