Questions for any Protestants

[joe371]

=Tommy999;12618984]Hi Joe,
I don’t think it is ignored by non-Catholics but it is interpreted differently.

I’m not saying that the Catholic interpretation is wrong because I really don’t know and I am open to it because it seems readily apparent that it is addressed to the disciples (and assumed to mean those who take over for them when they die).

Seems like the most reasonable interpretation.

I’m just saying that passage is interpreted differently.

Right. What did Jesus leave the world with, in terms of discerning truth via His ineffable guidance, when people cannot resolve differences such as people embracing different interpretations, in your opinion?

 

[joe371]

=benhur;12617866]As others have said, christian authority is justified when it is right,

That makes sense to you? So, Christian authority is justified when it is right: How do we know when it is right; be specific?

not necessarily dependent on its form or conveyance. No ones authority is “alone”. It comes from above, and down to us thru the church.

Maybe we are getting somewhere: which church, keeping in mind that different churches teach different things when it comes to certain things; please be specific?

Things can be "checked out’’ (prayer, bible, tradition,history, brethren). This can be done one on one, or two on one, or with the whole congregation, or a bunch of congregations.

Doctrinal truth is knowable via the invisible church comprised of all churches - yes or no? If yes please explain; if no please explain?

 

[Mystophilus]

We’re not meant to be put on a diagram.

Scattergrams work quite well for Anglicans.

 

[GKC]

Scattergrams work quite well for Anglicans.

I’ll buy that …more or less.
GKC

 

[Mystophilus]

I’ll buy that …more or less.
GKC

Figured you would.

Admittedly, a multidimensional scattergram would work best, but they tend to be hard to read.

 

[GKC]

Figured you would.

Admittedly, a multidimensional scattergram would work best, but they tend to be hard to read.

And the scale required for representing in detail might include only a portion of the possible points, without becoming unwieldy.

GKC

 

[benhur]

That makes sense to you? So, Christian authority is justified when it is right: How do we know when it is right; be specific?

Well it has authority. Certainly you have read some folks (Greek scholars) saying that the "binding’’ discourse is top down. That is, in Greek understanding, what is bound in heaven shall be bound on earth, thru us, the church. It is what is understood when it reads as what the church binds is bound in heaven. The point is it must be right (already bound in heaven) for “binding”. I think we have already discussed discernment then on what is right. Any ones answer could be seen as putting the cart before the horse.

Maybe we are getting somewhere: which church, keeping in mind that different churches teach different things when it comes to certain things; please be specific?

Why do I need to be specific ? Does it matter what church preaches things universal to us all ? For instance, does it matter which church says Christ was incarnated, died and rose again, and is coming again etc ? After that it could be said we have “denominationalism” and it matters which church to look into Peter’s chair or “confession” as a sacrament etc.

Doctrinal truth is knowable via the invisible church comprised of all churches - yes or no? If yes please explain; if no please explain?

Yes and no. The HS is invisible, yet He works visibly thru the individual, or two, or a congregation, or a multitude of congregations (council). All lean on the HS.

 

[dcana]

Well,you miss some other "sense’. Like something we offer up to God thru an intermediary (priest). Does a “Mass” sacrifice save you where an OT sacrifice didn’t ?

The One Sacrifice of the Mass is the very Sacrifice that saves YOU, if indeed, you are “saved” (that is to say, in a state of grace) or that will save you if you are not and will in the future be open to being saved by Jesus Christ, through His once-and-for-all self-Sacrifice on the Cross, which is the SAME Sacrifice that is offered at every Holy Mass. It is THE SACRIFICE of Calvary being offered by Jesus Christ to the Father.

God Bless

 

[dcana]

And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mt 26:27-28

Wait a minute! What is Jesus talking about here? He calls the contents of the cup His Blood and says this Blood is the “Blood of the Covenant” and that it is “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” But didn’t Jesus pour out His Blood “for the forgiveness of sins” on the NEXT DAY, i.e. on the Cross on Calvary? What’s going on here? Hmm…

Moreover, how are we “saved” by something that Jesus did 2,000 years ago? And how does His Sacrifice forgive my sins at all? It is because the One who is doing the Sacrifice is a Divine Person, so the Sacrifice is Divine and not like any other sacrifice that can be named or imagined. The effects of the Sacrifice can apply to souls: in the past relative to the Sacrifice on Calvary 2,000 years ago, to those who were living at the time of His Crucifixion, and to those in the future, even to you and me, benhur. How exactly does that happen? I don’t know. But I know that it does happen because it is a Divine Sacrifice, of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity to the First Person of the Blessed Trinity, in the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. It happens because God wills it, And what if He were so kind and loving as to have me share in that Sacrifice 2,000 years in the future in Holy Mass as He did with the Apostles 2,000 years ago at the first Holy Mass?

“Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’”

“What shall I render to the LORD
for all his bounty to me?
I will lift up the cup of salvation
and call on the name of the LORD.”

Since He is so kind, that is what I will do: I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord and give Him thanks and praise for his kindness to me. I pray that you may soon share with us in His once-and-for-all Sacrifice in all the ways He has designed and intended and wills for all Christians to do.

 

[joe371]

benhur;12634535]Well it has authority. Certainly you have read some folks (Greek scholars) saying that the "binding’’ discourse is top down. That is, in Greek understanding, what is bound in heaven shall be bound on earth, thru us, the church. It is what is understood when it reads as what the church binds is bound in heaven. The point is it must be right (already bound in heaven) for “binding”. I think we have already discussed discernment then on what is right. Any ones answer could be seen as putting the cart before the horse.

OK. I am still not clear on who or what has authority, as far as you are concerned, when doctrinal disagreement arise and need to be addressed, between Christians…simply suggesting that it is “thru the individual, or two, or a congregation, or a multitude of congregations (council)” does not answer the question.

Why do I need to be specific ? Does it matter what church preaches things universal to us all ? For instance, does it matter which church says Christ was incarnated, died and rose again, and is coming again etc ? After that it could be said we have “denominationalism” and it matters which church to look into Peter’s chair or “confession” as a sacrament etc.

Well, no, you don’t need to be specific If doctrinal truth does not matter… if it does not matter who is right and who is wrong. Based on what you have said there is no way, for say a new person considering the Christian faith, to know definitively the truth about doctrines that divide Christianity. For example, my sisters pastor tells her the Catholic Church is wrong about the Eucharist and a whole bunch of other things. How can I know he is right? You seem to be suggesting that he is right and the Catholic Church is right about this teaching; that’s impossible.

Yes and no. The HS is invisible, yet He works visibly thru the individual, or two, or a congregation, or a multitude of congregations (council). All lean on the HS.

OK, I guess… I don’t think the Holy Spirit is guiding individuals, or two, or several congregations, or a multitude of congregations, to believe different things regarding important doctrines, and it is a fact that different individuals, congregations, or a multitude of congregations, have different beliefs about important doctrinal matters. Who is right and who is wrong…who knows…

 

[joe371]

Well,you miss some other "sense’. Like something we offer up to God thru an intermediary (priest). Does a “Mass” sacrifice save you where an OT sacrifice didn’t ?

You are saved by Jesus’ once-and-for-all atoning sacrifice on the cross. The sacraments, such as the Eucharist (the source and summit of the Mass) impart God’s grace that draws us closer to Jesus, empowering us to live a Christ-like life. After all the NT says “for it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God…”

In light of that, thank God the Mass makes present that once-and-for-all sacrifice so that we can receive Jesus’ body and blood, the crux of the new covenant - "this is my blood of the new covenant that is being poured out for many people for the forgiveness of sins.

What about Jesus’ body and blood of this new covenant: For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgement on themselves.

 

[benhur]

The One Sacrifice of the Mass is the very Sacrifice that saves YOU, if indeed, you are “saved” (that is to say, in a state of grace) or that will save you if you are not and will in the future be open to being saved by Jesus Christ, through His once-and-for-all self-Sacrifice on the Cross, which is the SAME Sacrifice that is offered at every Holy Mass. It is THE SACRIFICE of Calvary being offered by Jesus Christ to the Father.

God Bless

The One Sacrifice of Calvary is the very Sacrifice that saves for whosever, by Jesus Christ, through His once-and-for-all sacrifice on the Cross, which is the SAME Sacrifice that we Remember and give Thanks for at every Eucharist. It is The Sacrifice of Calvary we Remember and give an Offering of Thanks to God.

 

[joe371]

The One Sacrifice of Calvary is the very Sacrifice that saves for whosever, by Jesus Christ, through His once-and-for-all sacrifice on the Cross, which is the SAME Sacrifice that we Remember and give Thanks for at every Eucharist. It is The Sacrifice of Calvary we Remember and give an Offering of Thanks to God.

 

[benhur]

Well, no, you don’t need to be specific If doctrinal truth does not matter…

Or if you don’t believe in any universality or catholicity. I in no way implied that doctrines don’t matter.

Based on what you have said there is no way, for say a new person considering the Christian faith, to know definitively the truth about doctrines that divide Christianity.

Well what I said is that it was discussed before. I suppose that the same way a person chooses universal Christianity is the same way one might choose a particular denomination within Christianity. But yes, we would both agree that choosing univeralism (Christ), then choosing within that are two steps sometimes.

OK, I guess… I don’t think the Holy Spirit is guiding individuals, or two, or several congregations, or a multitude of congregations, to believe different things regarding important doctrines,

That is right. Truth is absolute and maybe why he has a brother in Wisdom.

 

[joe371]

benhur;12634877]Or if you don’t believe in any universality or catholicity. I in no way implied that doctrines don’t matter.

OK. So, (leaving the Catholic Church out of the discussion for the moment) within Christendom, how can I know who is right and who is wrong, when it comes to doctrines that create division?

Well what I said is that it was discussed before. I suppose that the same way a person chooses universal Christianity is the same way one might choose a particular denomination within Christianity. But yes, we would both agree that choosing univeralism (Christ), then choosing within that are two steps.

That is the way an individual can know definitively the truth about doctrines that divide Christianity?

That is right. Truth is absolute and maybe why he has a brother in Wisdom.

We both agree that the Holy Spirit is not guiding individuals, or two, or several congregations, or a multitude of congregations, to believe different things regarding important doctrines?

 

[benhur]

That is the way an individual can know definitively the truth about doctrines that divide Christianity?

I believe so. Don’t believe in partial diesm, where the Godhead regenerates new life, baptizes you into His body, the church , then abandons you, well, leaves you to be guided by the one true church (a particular denomination) as God takes a backseat. That is does God begin with a personal revelation of Himself (thru the church universal), then backs off and will then only deal indirectly in subsequent matters (thru a specific church) ?

We both agree that the Holy Spirit is not guiding individuals, or two, or several congregations, or a multitude of congregations, to believe different things regarding important doctrines?

Correct. In His wisdom He even allows the tares to mingle with the wheat. He allows doctrinal differences within His Body. Nothing new under the sun, just as in OT (Pharisees and Saducees, which was right ?).

 

[joe371]

I believe so. Don’t believe in partial diesm, where the Godhead regenerates new life, baptizes you into His body, the church , then abandons you, well, leaves you to be guided by the one true church (a particular denomination) as God takes a backseat. That is does God begin with a personal revelation of Himself (thru the church universal), then backs off and will then only deal indirectly in subsequent matters (thru a specific church) ?

Correct. In His wisdom He even allows the tares to mingle with the wheat. He allows doctrinal differences within His Body. Nothing new under the sun, just as in OT (Pharisees and Saducees, which was right ?).

OK.

How can an individual know definitively the truth about certain doctrines that divide Christianity?

 

[dcana]

The One Sacrifice of Calvary is the very Sacrifice that saves for whosever, by Jesus Christ, through His once-and-for-all sacrifice on the Cross, which is the SAME Sacrifice that we Remember and give Thanks for at every Eucharist. It is The Sacrifice of Calvary we Remember and give an Offering of Thanks to God.

You are correct. It is the One Sacrifice of Calvary that you remember, in whatever way your particular church does it. However, in the Catholic Church at Holy Mass that Sacrifice is being offered by the Son to the Father. We participate in it by offering our prayers and sacrifices along with Christ’s Sacrifice of his body and then by receiving His Body and Blood poured out that we may be “raised up on the last day” according to His own words, without which one has no life within himself, according to His own words. If you don’t believe it, take it up with Him.

A bit of a difference, wouldn’t you say?

In the one instance is an action according to the will and design of Christ, in the other is an action in some fashion imitating that - commonly, eating some bread and drinking some wine or grape juice and having a pleasant memory of Christ, not at all according His will and design.

Did He say “Take and eat. This is by body” or “Take and eat. This is bread which represents my body?” Did He say “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” or “This cup which is poured out for you is wine which represents my blood which, as of tomorrow, will be poured out as the new covenant?” It’s really and truly as simple as that. Why would He deceive us? How could He deceive us? He wouldn’t and didn’t. It would be impossible for Him to do so. He means what He says and says what He means. I know you must believe at least that.

So when He then said, “Do THIS in remembrance of me,” we do what He did (that is to say, the priest acting in persona Christi) and then had the Apostles do, eat His flesh and drink His blood in receiving Holy Communion. THAT is what they did. They DID NOT drink some wine and eat some bread and have a pleasant memory of Christ dying on the Cross for their sins, which hadn’t even taken place yet. The Apostles (Disciples, to be more specific) didn’t even know what was going to happen the next day. So, according to Christ’s command, we do what they did, in remembrance of Him.

God bless

 

[benhur]

However, in the Catholic Church at Holy Mass that **Sacrifice **is being offered by the Son to the Father.

Why ? Does it need to be re-encated, re-presented for it to be once and for all, to be eternal, continual ?

We participate in it by offering** our **prayers and sacrifices along with Christ’s Sacrifice of his body

Reminds me of Fury, the new tank movie. The foot soldiers would follow behind the protection and power of the Tank. That is OK for fighting the enemy of our souls but not for approaching the Father (for the battle has already been won, and we are already seated in heavenly places).
As an early Father writes ,“He is in need of nothing, even from us, save the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving”. Eucharist =Thanksgiving, for what He offered for us, and not vice versa.

and then by receiving His Body and Blood poured out that we may be “raised up on the last day” according to His own words, without which one has no life within himself, according to His own words. If you don’t believe it, take it up with Him.

They ate manna in the wilderness and died. If you eat Christ’s flesh in any fashion you shall die also. Those who spiritually believe in the eating for remembrance, in the Giver ( of manna or the Christ), shall live forever in the hereafter.

In the one instance is an action according to the will and design of Christ, in the other is an action in some fashion imitating that - **commonly, eating some bread **and drinking some wine or grape juice and having a pleasant memory of Christ, not at all according His will and design.

I try not to define your doctrine apart from what you say it is, please don’t define ours. It is not “common” as so said by early fathers, we eat "not as common bread".

Did He say “Take and eat. This is by body” or “Take and eat. This is bread which represents my body?” Did He say “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” or “This cup which is poured out for you is wine which represents my blood which, as of tomorrow, will be poured out as the new covenant?” It’s really and truly as simple as that.

Then why do you add these words, ala OT, “Pray that our sacrifice be acceptable to God, the Almighty Father,… May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands…and so we bring you these gifts, we ask that you make them holy” ?

He means what He says and says what He means.

Exactly . It is His sacrifice not ours. It is His gift to give to us, not ours to give to Him. Eucharist means we cease from these OT paradigms and give wondrous praise and thanksgiving. That is the closest it comes to “sacrifice”, **of praise **, for which we need not ask permission to give, or to sanctify, or accept, for in faith we confess jubilantly that it already is, beyond a shadow of doubt.

They DID NOT drink some wine and eat some bread and have a pleasant memory

Then why did Christ afterwards call the consecrated cup “fruit of the vine” ? No one can say the apostles thought they drank anything but covenant wine. They were not thinking transubstantiation, in my opinion…

So, according to Christ’s command, we do what they did, in remembrance of Him.

Indeed. Some by consubstantiation, some by transubstantiation, some by spiritual, some by symbolic, and some without definition,all universally Eucharisting, giving thanks for Calvary in remembrance and expectation for His coming again.

God bless

 

[joe371]

[benhur;12638424]Why ? Does it need to be re-encated, re-presented for it to be once and for all, to be eternal, continual ?

Jesus’ work on the cross: Nope. it does it need to be re-encated, re-presented for it to be once and for all. However, it is a command of Jesus.

As an early Father writes ,“He is in need of nothing, even from us, save the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving”. Eucharist =Thanksgiving, for what He offered for us, and not vice versa.

:yup:

They ate manna in the wilderness and died.** If you eat Christ’s flesh in any fashion you shall die also. **

Who said that?

Those who spiritually believe in the eating for remembrance, in the Giver ( of manna or the Christ), shall live forever in the hereafter.

Which verse says: Those who spiritually believe in the eating for remembrance shall live forever in the hereafter?

I try not to define your doctrine apart from what you say it is, please don’t define ours.

It is not “common” as so said by early fathers, we eat "not as common bread".
Then why do you add these words, ala OT, “Pray that our sacrifice be acceptable to God, the Almighty Father,… May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands…and so we bring you these gifts, we ask that you make them holy” ? Exactly . It is His sacrifice not ours.

:yup:The sacrifice of the Mass is Jesus’ body and blood.

It is His gift to give to us, not ours to give to Him. Eucharist means we cease from these OT paradigms and give wondrous praise and thanksgiving. That is the closest it comes to “sacrifice”, **of praise **, for which we need not ask permission to give, or to sanctify, or accept, for in faith we confess jubilantly that it already is, beyond a shadow of doubt.

Not a genuine sacrifice for your church? OK.

Then why did Christ afterwards call the consecrated cup “fruit of the vine” ? No one can say the apostles thought they drank anything but covenant wine.

So, in your opinion, Jesus is offering up wine to the Father while telling his disciples, visa-vis the cup of wine: This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins? OK.

For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves

They were not thinking transubstantiation, in my opinion… Indeed. Some by consubstantiation, some by transubstantiation, some by spiritual, some by symbolic, and some without definition,all universally Eucharisting, giving thanks for Calvary in remembrance and expectation for His coming again.

Nope Jesus and the apostles did not use the word transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or symbolic as it pertained to the Eucharist.