Responding to a Protestant Claim about the Eucharist

[rcwitness]

Very good. Thanks so much Patrick.

It is clear that Jesus spoke to the crowd with love by answering their further prying, yet it was not enough. So Jesus sees the hardness of their hearts and did not ask that particular crowd to come back to him. As the Truth was too much for their thoughts of their flesh so to speak.

No wonder he then mentioned about the flesh counts for nothing and it is the Spirit that gives life.

Thanks again.

MJ

Let me ask you a hard question.

Do you think, that if some disciples believed that Jesus was speaking metaphorically, they would have stayed with Him?

 

[steve_b]

Those are good clarifications. There also are non-Catholic saints.

It can happen that ignorance that the full truth subsists only in the Catholic Church can continue throughout the lifetime of a non-Catholic Christian, even for the faithful in a state of grace, such as Orthodox or others.

providing ignorance is absolutely innocent. Innocent ignorance isn’t so easy to qualify for, especially in an era like ours, where information has never been so easy to access.
As the CCC says 1791
V:

One statement on ecumenical dialogue by Cardinal Walter Kasper is on imposition:In a dialogue*** I do not want and am not permitted to impose anything on anybody against their will and conviction.*** ***It is the same with missionary activities. Since the beginning of Christianity it has been strictly forbidden to christen anybody against their will.***This implies also the exclusion of material promises and gifts as a means of mission. Mission also excludes proselytism.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/card-kasper-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20030227_ecumenical-dialogue_en.html

And God doesn’t force himself on anyone to believe or obey Him as well. Free will which God gave us, must be free. That in the end is what makes us culpable for what we freely choose and / or freely reject.

 

[steve_b]

There also are non-Catholic saints.

Do you have the name of the saint you’re thinking of?

I forgot to ask that in my previous post

 

[Duane1966]

Hi…thanks for reply…if you take it explicitly, the text says you must gnaw at, like apiece of meat…I have yet to see anyone gnaw at the commu ion host…quite the contrary…

Wrong again. I have seen Holy Communion gnawed at, when it was received as a chunk of bread. The Greek word used also means crunch, which many times I have heard the crunching of the host. The main thing is the Greek word that is used. That word has never been used metaphorically. It has always been used in relation to actual eating of real food. To say it is used metaphorically here, just this one time, and nowhere else in the gospels, or anywhere else in Greek literature (and no Protestant has been yet to find it used metaphorically elsewhere, though they’ve tried), becomes a real stretch of the imagination.

Tertullian argued against same Dosetists, and says same thing as Ignatius, but with this statement also,

““This is my body”, that is, the figure of my body. A figure there could not have been, unless at first there were a veritable body”. (Against Marcion, bk 4)…(literal and symbolic both purport a bodily death of our Savior, rejected by Dosetists)

Blessings

Well Ben, the leading Protestant linguistic experts of the last two centuries admit that the way figurative was used is not how we use figure today. They admit for Augustine and Tertullian figure meant an actual participation in the thing symbolized.

"Occasionally these writers use language which has been held to imply that, for all its realist sound, their use of the terms 'body' and 'blood' may after all be merely symbolical. Tertullian, for example, refers [E.g. C. Marc. 3,19; 4,40] to the bread as 'a figure' (figura) of Christ's body, and once speaks [Ibid I,14: cf. Hippolytus, apost. trad. 32,3] of 'the bread by which He represents (repraesentat) His very body.'

"YET WE SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT INTERPRETING SUCH EXPRESSIONS IN A MODERN FASHION. **According to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; the symbol in some sense WAS the thing symbolized. Again, the verb -repraesentare-, in Tertullian's vocabulary [Cf. ibid 4,22; de monog. 10], retained its original significance of 'to make PRESENT.'**

"All that his language really suggests is that, while accepting the EQUATION of the elements with the body and blood, he remains conscious of the sacramental distinction between them [as do Catholics today -- see the Catechism, paragraphs 1333ff].

"In fact, he is trying, with the aid of the concept of -figura-, to rationalize to himself the apparent contradiction between (a) the dogma that the elements are NOW Christ's body and blood, and (b) the empirical fact that for sensation they remain bread and wine." (JND Kelly, EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, page 212)

Darwell Stone on Tertullian from A HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST

"Another kind of phraseology is found most markedly in Tertullian... Tertullian more than once uses like language with explicit reference to the Eucharist. He asserts our Lord's intention to have been to show that bread was 'the figure (figura) of His body' : he explains the words 'This is My body' as meaning 'This is the figure (figura) of My body'; he interprets the words of institution as placing our Lord's body under the head of, or in the category of, bread (corpus eius in pane censetur) [Adv Marc iii,19; iv,40; De Orat 6]. He says also that our Lord by the use of bread 'makes present (repraesentat) His very body' [Adv Marc i,14].

"The consideration of this type of phraseology must include some discussion of (a) the meaning of the words 'symbol' [in Clement of Alexandria] and 'figure' (figura) [in Tertullian]; (b) the meaning of the word translated 'makes present' (repraesentat); (c) the relation of the passages here quoted to other statements of the same writers." [something which Schaff did not address] (Stone, volume 1, page 29)

FIGURA IN TERTULLIAN – “This is the FIGURE of My body”

After Stone points out the different meanings, associations and tendencies of the words “symbol” and “figure” even in present language and cultures, he goes on to say

"As regards the early Church it may be confidently stated that the notions suggested by words meaning 'symbol' would differ in important respects from those which like words would suggest to an ordinary Englishman or German of today. Dr. Harnack has stated a crucial difference with great clearness.

** ‘What we nowadays,’ he writes, ‘understand by “symbol” is a thing which is not that which it represents; at that time “symbol” denoted a thing which in some kind of way REALLY IS what it signifies…What we now call “symbol” is something wholly different from what was so called by the ancient Church.’ **[HISTORY OF DOGMA, ii,144; iv,289]

"...Still more explicit indications of the meaning of such terms [as symbol or figure] in the phraseology of Tertullian may be shown by an examination of his language elsewhere and by a comparison of other known uses of the word 'figura.'

"In describing the Incarnation Tertullian uses the phrase 'caro FIGURATUS' to denote that our Lord received in the womb of His Virgin Mother not only the appearance but also the REALITY of flesh [Apol 21; cf. Adv Marc iv,21]. He says that our Lord made known to the Apostles 'the form (FIGURA) of His voice' [Scorp 12]. He uses the word 'figura' in the sense of a main point in, or head of, a discussion [Adv Marc ii,21]. Elsewhere he denotes by it the prophetic anticipation of an event afterwards to be fulfilled [De Monog 6 -- the Latin is provided in note]." (Stone, vol 1, pg 30,31)

 

[PJM]

Ok thanks, maybe I need to explain my thoughts more clearly. Jesus said He is the Bread come down from heaven and he who eats this bread will never die. He explains it is not the literal bread which was called manna that the ancestors ate and then died. In the first verse mentioned he already had said that whoever believes on Him hath eternal life. To believe in Him is to partake of Him or symbolically “eat” Him. Those who believe in Him whose words give spiritual food and sustentance will live forever eternally. These are His words and to understand them to mean literally eat His flesh and blood and then in the same sentence “not die” should literally mean not die as the ancestors died. How can we understand one part of the sentence to be literal and the other part to be figurative as in meaning spiritual death and not physical death?

NO dear friend,

PLEASE do yourself a favor and read POST #'s 205, 228 & 229 which explain why. THEN of you still have questions, please let ME know.

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[PJM]

Yohttps://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/editor/color.gifu have eloquently expressed the Catholic pos
tition very well and also side stepped my question very effectively!

Hi, I THINK that I did answer your 2 questions on POST # 228 & 229

If NOT, PLEASE let ME know and I will certainly do so

GBY

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Ok, thanks. What do the words “not die” mean in John 6:50?

Good question AGAIN

[50] “This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.”

This is speaking of ETERNAL LIFE after bodily death if MERITED:thumbsup:

Which means that a Soul dies without Un-confessed / Unforgive GODS WAY, Mortal sins

1John.1 Verses 8 to 9
[8] If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
[9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1John.5 Verses 16 to 17
[16] If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. [17] All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.** [MEANS unto eternal damnation]**

John.20 Verses 19 to 23
[19] On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples [APOSTLES see Mt 10:1-4] were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them,** “Peace be with you.”** [20] When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. [21] Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." [22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them,** “Receive the Holy Spirit. [23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”** Also see Mt 16:19

Thus Jesus Instituted the SACRAMENT of Known forgiveness os sin GOD"S WAY; so it is TRULY the Known forgiveness of sin that can and DOES put one’s Spirit at PEACE as is the Desire of Christ:thumbsup:

I pray this does not change the course of this THREAD

GBY

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Yes, and in the first verse He says "truly, truly, he that believes in me has eternal life.

YES He does; BUT in it’s RIGHT context it means HERE precisely HE WHO BELIEVES THAT “I AM” REALLY, TRULY AND SUBSTANTIALLY PRESENT REALLY] IN CATHOLIC HOLY COMMUNION.

JOHN SIX IS ONE OF THOSE CHAPTERS THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN IN ITS ENTIRETY TO ACTUALLY GET THE TEACHING RIGHT. PLEASE SEE POST #228

GBY

Patrick

 

[PJM]

1. 
   
   Agreed. So you agree with me that in the referenced verses of John 6, Jesus was talking not of literal physical death when He said “not die.”

1. 
   Correct; but still ETERNAL:thumbsup:

 

[PJM]

Hi W,

Agree . The dying is a spiritual reference, so is the eating a spiritual reference also, ,and not physically literal. As one father has written, leave your teeth and bellies behind , to eating jesus in John ch6.

Blessings

PS- my thought is that NT folk do die differently spiritually speaking, at least as far as destination. The saved to Hades or Abraham’s Bosom in OT, and now heaven in NT, now that propitiation has been met by Calvary, the gates of heaven open. Otherwise , Christ would be suggesting *all *that died in the desert went to gehenna hell, the place of torture , and will die the second death. Not sure they were all damned (not saved) that died in the desert.

NO dear friend

Please READ my POST #228 & 229

Then if you have further question please ask me

GBY
Patrick

 

[PJM]

A whole lot of obedience and a willingness to make Him Lord and Master, allowing Him to live in us every moment.

OK

BUT can [does?] the HS do that if One is NOT fully informed and obedient to ALL that He teaches?

GBY

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Very good. Thanks so much Patrick.

It is clear that Jesus spoke to the crowd with love by answering their further prying, yet it was not enough. So Jesus sees the hardness of their hearts and did not ask that particular crowd to come back to him. As the Truth was too much for their thoughts of their flesh so to speak.

No wonder he then mentioned about the flesh counts for nothing and it is the Spirit that gives life.

Thanks again.

MJ

YEA! you GOT it

Blessings

Patick

 

[Duane1966]

Thank you gabe,

I suppose each writing could be taken on its own.

As for Martyr, he does not describe transubstantiation . I have heard his "transmutation’ is referred to the bread and wine nourishing our body,…that is thru digestion. He is staying clear from suggesting we eat His flesh and drink His blood, for that is what he is defending against, and would be illegal and subject to a death sentence. He makes it clear it is religious symbolism, that they eat bread and wine mixed with water, representing His blood and body. That is how and others view his words understanding.

He further suggests it is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.

Blessings

Actually, Justin describes transubstantiation to a T. Don’t you wonder why the Roman’s accused the Christians of Justin’s time as cannibals?

Yes, I spirtually eat the flesh and blood that jesus walked in (and is it that flesh or is it His glorified flesh, that was veiled from us?)

Blessings

How do you spiritually eat His flesh?

Everything fits just as well under spiritual symbolism, and as St. Augustine says somewhere, “leave your teeth and bellies behind” , for we eat by faith, and that with our spirits, as in understanding.

Are you saying that you believe St. Augustine did not believe the Eucharist is really the flesh of Christ that He walked in?

 

[Wannano]

YES He does; BUT in it’s RIGHT context it means HERE precisely HE WHO BELIEVES THAT “I AM” REALLY, TRULY AND SUBSTANTIALLY PRESENT REALLY] IN CATHOLIC HOLY COMMUNION.

JOHN SIX IS ONE OF THOSE CHAPTERS THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN IN ITS ENTIRETY TO ACTUALLY GET THE TEACHING RIGHT. PLEASE SEE POST #228

GBY

Patrick

Do you also have the same understanding in John 3:16? Is the right context there also meaning the same as in the verse referenced in your post above?

 

[benhur]

Wrong again. I have seen Holy Communion gnawed at, when it was received as a chunk of bread. The Greek word used also means crunch, which many times I have heard the crunching of the host. The main thing is the Greek word that is used. That word has never been used metaphorically. It has always been used in relation to actual eating of real food. To say it is used metaphorically here, just this one time, and nowhere else in the gospels, or anywhere else in Greek literature (and no Protestant has been yet to find it used metaphorically elsewhere, though they’ve tried), becomes a real stretch of the imagination.

Hi D,

OK. I did think about gnawing on a good loaf, but that is generally not done when sharing a loaf. That is, it is broken first (and not by biting but with hands), then passed. But perhaps the piece broken is large enough for several “bites”. But yes I have gnawed on a personal loaf of bread.

As far as the greek word never, ever being used figuratively, I will take your word on that. That does mean something, but does not absolutely rule it out here. It is quite an extraordinary dialogue, and if figurative, extraordinary just the same.

Well Ben, the leading Protestant linguistic experts of the last two centuries admit that the way figurative was used is not how we use figure today. They admit for Augustine and Tertullian figure meant an actual participation in the thing symbolized.

OK. Have to take your word on that again. Does not rule out other linguists coming with similar conclusions (not transubstantiation).

Even your wording here does not rule out spiritual or symbolic understanding. Of course it is an actual participation in the thing symbolized. I mean we do not participate in eating the Easter bunny or drinking a toast to Welch’s.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Actually, Justin describes transubstantiation to a T. Don’t you wonder why the Roman’s accused the Christians of Justin’s time as cannibals?

Hi D,

Again, some think not that Justin is describing trans

The Romans and others thought it cannibalism because of the consecratory words. They hear that it is said that it is His body and blood and they take it literally. Why wouldn’t they ?

Well, Justin says it is not , that they eat bread and wine that signify His body and blood. He never argues that the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine. Never, if I am correct.

How do you spiritually eat His flesh?

You tell me, for that is how I have seen it explained sometimes here by the CC. That is, it is spiritually His body and blood, and that literally, with the senses, it is bread and wine. it is all on a spiritual plane,where the senses , human senses, can not reach. It (?) can only be perceived by faith, as it abides, lives in and thru the regenerated spirit in a man. That is how one eats “literally”, spiritually or symbolically.

Are you saying that you believe St. Augustine did not believe the Eucharist is really the flesh of Christ that He walked in?

Not sure, for some say it is His glorified body, and some say it is not in that sense, for as then and now, He can only be in one place. It is in a different sense than to eat the literal body of the Speaker of the John 6 discourse.

Yes, there are those that say Augustine did not portray a transubstantiated participation. That is, just how the bread and wine is the Body and blood is not that clean cut, just as it was not at the Last Supper.

Perhaps the Orthodox have some wisdom here, and not totally try to explain it.

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

Hi D,

OK. I did think about gnawing on a good loaf, but that is generally not done when sharing a loaf. That is, it is broken first (and not by biting but with hands), then passed. But perhaps the piece broken is large enough for several “bites”. But yes I have gnawed on a personal loaf of bread.

As far as the greek word never, ever being used figuratively, I will take your word on that. That does mean something, but does not absolutely rule it out here. It is quite an extraordinary dialogue, and if figurative, extraordinary just the same.OK. Have to take your word on that again. Does not rule out other linguists coming with similar conclusions (not transubstantiation).

Even your wording here does not rule out spiritual or symbolic understanding. Of course it is an actual participation in the thing symbolized. I mean we do not participate in eating the Easter bunny or drinking a toast to Welch’s.

Blessings

Except if you read the excerpts I posted, those Protestant scholars are clear that you would actually be eating the actual Easter bunny. Which is why Augustine said that in the Eucharist, we are eating the actual flesh with which He walked the Earth.

Augustine says, like Justin Martyr, that after the blessing (consecration), it is no longer bread or wine. He says what you see there, is not what is actually there. Though the word was not in use yet, what Augustine says, fits the definition of transubstantiation, and can only fit that definition. For if it is not transubstantiation, then what I see there, would still in part be bread and wine, even if Jesus is added to it.

Justin, says after the blessing, the bread and wine is the flesh of Jesus. He doesn’t say it is bread **and **Jesus. He says the bread is Jesus’ flesh.

Many Orthodox admit that while they do not call it transubstantiation, what takes place at their Divine Liturgy fits the definition of transubstantiation.

 

[Cathoholic]

benhur.

I mentioned how there is ONLY ONE PRIEST – Jesus Christ.

I showed how there are differing SHARES in that ONE Priesthood of Jesus’.

I told you Catholicism teaches about episcopoi (bishops), presbyteroi (ministerial priests), and the priesthood of all the faithful. Three priestly offices that have differing SHARES or PARTICIPATIONS (koinonia) in the ONE PRIESTHOOD of Christ.

This is the way it has been since apostolic times.

I showed in post 155, how you can be BOTH an accountant and an economist (but it doesn’t NECESSITATE both). You and I agree on that.

You said that these two offices that have been present since the Apostolic age, presbyter and bishop, are . . . “interchangeable”.

I asked for ANY Biblical evidence of this (reminding you that ALL Bishops ARE Ministerial Priests too, but ONLY Ministerial Priests that have been ordained by the laying on of hands to the episcopate were . . . Bishops).

You said in post 176:

When I say they are interchangeable, I mean they were initially , as found in Writ

I asked for some Biblical evidence of this (in post 184) asking . . . .

And all I am asking is that you show some evidence of this “IN writ”.

You said in post 197:

Ok, don’t have them at my fingertips, nor the site . . .

I’m not trying to be a smart alek benhur, but you are not going to be able to find those verses because they don’t exist.

The best you will be able to do is see Bishops describing themselves as Priests which I already affirm (Jesus is even a “Priest” . . . Jesus is THE Priest in fact).

You will also be able to find ministerial Priests described as Bishops (which I also agree with).

What you won’t be able to find is that their offices are the same.

All Bishops are ministerial priests.

Some Priests (presbyters) are Bishops.

But ALL ministerial priests are NOT Bishops.

You went to history in post 176 mentioning St. Irenaeus and St. Clement of Alexandria quoting . . .

“We refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles and is preserved by the successions of presbyters in the churches. . . . The faith preached to men comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.” Irenaeus (c. 180)

“Looking to the appointed bishop, . . . John said, “This [youth] I commit to you in all earnestness.” . . . And the presbyter took home the youth committed to him. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195)”.

But I already affirm this.

You still have not shown how the office of the Ministerial Priest or presbyteroi, is identical to the office of episcopoi, or bishop.

You also appealed to St. Jerome . . . .

“Therefore a presbyter is the same as a bishop is, and before that by the instigation of the devil emulations in respect to religion arose, and people began to say: I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the churches were governed by the common counsel of the presbyters. But, after that each one was accustomed to regard those whom he had baptized as his own disciples and not of Christ, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen from among the presbyters should be placed over the others…Therefore, as presbyters may know that by the custom of the church they are subject to the one who has been placed over them; so also bishops may understand that they are greater than presbyters more by custom than by the veritable ordinance of the Lord.”…Jerome

**THIS is the quote I want. **

You brought it up. I want to read it.

I could not find it (from an original citation source).

Since YOU brought this St. Jerome quote up . . . . Would you be so kind as to tell me WHERE St. Jerome said this so I can read it in context?

I found it on Wiki (allegedly quoting a Catholic text from the 1800’s). I also found some Protestants sharing this same quote with the same absence of context.

I’m not saying it is a bogus quote. I am sure it is authentic. I am just saying I want to read it for myself in CONTEXT.

**So again . . . Would you be so kind as to tell me WHERE St. Jerome said this so I can read it in context? **

 

[Vico]

Do you have the name of the saint you’re thinking of?

I forgot to ask that in my previous post

There are a few categories of non-Catholic saints:

1. validly baptized infants
2. martyrs
3. non-Catholics with valid sacraments, and worthily receiving communion
   
   a. of the Assyrian Church of the East
   b. of the Oriental Orthodox
   c. of the Eastern Orthodox
   d. of the Polish National Catholic Church and Polish-Catholic Church
   e. of the Union of Utrecht of Old Catholic Churches
   [*]non-Catholics without valid sacraments, and worthily receiving communion in the Catholic Church​

Principles and Norms on Ecumenism

1. Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and the anointing of the sick to members of the Eastern Churches, who ask for these sacraments of their own free will and are properly disposed. In these particular cases also, due consideration should be given to the discipline of the Eastern Churches for their own faithful and any suggestion of proselytism should be avoided.129

129 ,… in general the Catholic Church permits access to its Eucharistic communion and to the sacraments of penance and anointing of the sick, only to those who share its oneness in faith, worship and ecclesial life.133 For the same reasons, it also recognizes that in certain circumstances, by way of exception, and under certain conditions, access to these sacraments may be permitted, or even commended, for Christians of other Churches and ecclesial Communities.134

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_25031993_principles-and-norms-on-ecumenism_en.html

 

[PJM]

Do you also have the same understanding in John 3:16? Is the right context there also meaning the same as in the verse referenced in your post above?

John 3:16 “[16] For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting”

There is a great deal of similarity in the two.

Here the term “believe in him” is of critical understanding.

It means to ACTUALLY [1] Know of Him [2] Then Know Him [3] then know ALL that He teaches, commands and expects

Simply knowing OF Him is NOT sufficient to actually KNOW HIM; as to KNOW Him is to OBEY completely Him. Amen

My friend have you ever been exposed to the One Infallible Rule for right understanding of the Bible?

Never Ever; can, may or DOES
One verse, passage or teaching have the power or authority to
Invalidate, make void or override another Verse, passage or teaching:

Were this even the slightest possibility; [it’s NOT!] it would render the entire Bible useless to teach or learn Christ Faith”

2Peter 1: 19-21
And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: [20] Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. [21] For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

[Douay explanation]
[20] No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation: This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide judgment of the Church, and not otherwise. End Quotes

WHICH IS PRECISELY WHY CHRIST & THE BIBLE WITH COMPLETE UNERRING CONSISTENCY TEACHES

Just One TRUE God [the 1st Commandment[

Just One true set of faith beliefs [even GOD can not have more… Mt 10:1-4; Mt 16:18-19; Jn 17:17-2; Mt 28:19-20; Eph 2:18-19; Eph 4:1-7

Through just One Church founded, desired, guided and protected by BOTH Jesus John 17:18, and the HS, Mt 28:19-20

Because GOD knew that is giving his humanity only ONE RIGHT choice; it would logically** less compelling to invent more alternatives and STRAY away from His Truths [always singular per defined issue]

“Whenever something is good it does not depend on us getting our way, but on God getting His way, and whether we do God’s Will depends on us [humbly] loving God. Moreover to love God we must [actually] know God, [not just know OF God].” Bread of Life booklet January 9, 2016”[Mt 7:21]

God Bless you

Patrick