Saint John, New Testament, Chapter Six...

[NonCatholic]

Thank you! BTW, here’s some interesting facts for you.

1. God’s Church was referred to as ‘‘catholic’’ for the first time in the 1st century in a letter by St. Ireneus who used the word meaning ‘‘universal’’. The disciples of the apostles (the early Church fathers) quickly adopted the word to distinguish it from other pagan churches.
2. The Catholic Church survived until 382 A.D. without a canon of scripture published as the Bible that we have today.
3. It was a bunch of Catholics who were guided by the Holy Spirit and published the canon of scripture at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.
4. Sacred Scripture and Tradition was taught as a whole with the same interpretation for centuries until Martin Luther added the word ‘‘alone’’ to the King James Version 1600.
5. Martin Luther never disputed the interpretation of John Ch. 6.
6. The King James Version 1600 contains a calendar of all the Saint Feast Days and all 72 books.
7. Martin Luther and not Jesus or his apostles, is the one who taught ‘‘sola fide’’ or ‘‘faith alone’’ which you seem to be the fruit of.
8. No where in the Bible does it say what you or Martin Luther teach. Jesus didn’t teach ‘‘faith alone’’ the apostles didn’t teach ‘‘faith alone’’ and none of the early Church fathers taught ‘‘faith alone’’. Not until Luther in 1600 A.D. who was an excommunicated Catholic monk.
9. The authority to ‘‘bind and loose’’, including the interpretation of Tradition or Sacred Scripture, was passed down from Jesus himself to the Apostles who passed down the same authority to today’s Magisterium.
10. There was a living Catholic Church between the time the disciples of Jesus’ apostles taught and the Bible was published with 72 books (not 66) and John Ch. 6 was taken as literal then and it is taken as literal now.

I will also pray that you put your pride aside and ask God to open your mind and realize that what you’ve been taught and what you teach now is what was warned about in Sacred Scripture.

Now then…would you like to answer my questions from the earlier post or should I just keep repeating them to you?

Peace.

:banghead: uch:

 

[elijio]

:banghead: uch:

Yup. I see your frustration. LOL!

BTW. Jesus is the head of the Church. His BODY is the Church which are his disciples (us) who are the body and is the Church. The fullness can only be found in the Catholic Church which Jesus founded on Peter, the Rock.

Colossians 1:18 ‘‘He (Jesus) is the HEAD of the BODY, THE CHURCH; he is the beginning, the first born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.’’

That’s from the RSV. Should I quote the KJV or Gideons or what? You pick! I’ll quote from any of them!

Hey, your good practice for me! I already stumped NDfan. Let’s me and you keep going and start a new thread of anything you’d like!

Peace.

 

[Benadam]

There you said it;“the Church is the truth.” I live in Christ and He in me. I’ll keep on praying for you.

Hello again bro. There is a dimesion of unity with Jesus that allows the word Truth to be applied to the Church in the same way it is to Jesus albeit dependent on Truth applied to the person of Jesus.

I think this dimesion is best understood in the Words Jesus introduced Saul of Tarsus to who he was persecuting.

Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the goad. 15 And I said: Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord answered: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

We offer the world the very same Salvation that Jesus offered on earth and in the same way and in as much as we are able to offer our bodies in sacrifice it can be a most perfect pattern of His life and it becomes an offering that will be a sign of contradiction and the rising and falling of many. The Church in this way becomes Truth that happened like Our Saviour.

The generations of Sacramental life and 2000 years of history of being Truth happening vicariously while Jesus is absent on earth will slip out in our dialogue sometimes.:flowers:

 

[ncgolf]

To more fully understand the Eucharist … you must understand the Mass. Read the words used in the different parts of the Mass … especially the words used in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. If you read the words used during Mass it uses basically nothing but Scripture … it is Scripture in action.

If you do not understand what and why the Catholic Mass is … you will never understand the Eucharist.

It is all part of the same thing … no priest (in persona Christo) then no Mass … no Mass then no Euchuarist … you can see how this all fits when you look at it in total … the way the Bible is looked at in Catholic theology … in total … not piecemeal.

 

[NonCatholic]

Hello again bro. There is a dimesion of unity with Jesus that allows the word Truth to be applied to the Church in the same way it is to Jesus albeit dependent on Truth applied to the person of Jesus.

I think this dimesion is best understood in the Words Jesus introduced Saul of Tarsus to who he was persecuting.

Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the goad. 15 And I said: Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord answered: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

We offer the world the very same Salvation that Jesus offered on earth and in the same way and in as much as we are able to offer our bodies in sacrifice it can be a most perfect pattern of His life and it becomes an offering that will be a sign of contradiction and the rising and falling of many. The Church in this way becomes Truth that happened like Our Saviour.

The generations of Sacramental life and 2000 years of history of being Truth happening vicariously while Jesus is absent on earth will slip out in our dialogue sometimes.:flowers:

I appreciate your response! Wish others would do the same. I have no comment on your post; other than I see no Scriptural evidence for such an institution as the Catholic Church. The church used in the passage you sited is the body, made of individual believers, each with a specific function preordained by God. The church referred to in Scripture has always been this assembly of individuals and never an institution. You can slice anyway you want, but the Biblical record will stand forever and those that preach and teach another gospel and those that fall into the web, will perish. If the blind follows the blind guide, then both will fall into a pit. Do you not have any concern about being part of the “many” as Matthew 7:13-14 describes?

 

[NonCatholic]

To more fully understand the Eucharist … you must understand the Mass. Read the words used in the different parts of the Mass … especially the words used in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. If you read the words used during Mass it uses basically nothing but Scripture … it is Scripture in action.

If you do not understand what and why the Catholic Mass is … you will never understand the Eucharist.

It is all part of the same thing … no priest (in persona Christo) then no Mass … no Mass then no Euchuarist … you can see how this all fits when you look at it in total … the way the Bible is looked at in Catholic theology … in total … not piecemeal.

I agree 100% withthe part where you said no priest, no Mass, but it needs to be added…no priest with a right heart; if his heart is not right, then the Mass is invalid…correct?

With that said, Hebrews eliminated the religious priesthood and replaced it with the order of Melchizedek, which is one Priest, Jesus Christ, and one priesthood, all the believers.

 

[ncgolf]

I agree 100% withthe part where you said no priest, no Mass, but it needs to be added…no priest with a right heart; if his heart is not right, then the Mass is invalid…correct?

With that said, Hebrews eliminated the religious priesthood and replaced it with the order of Melchizedek, which is one Priest, Jesus Christ, and one priesthood, all the believers.

No, not correct … a valid Mass is celebrated if the proper words and materials are used. It is not the power of the priest that confects but rather Christ through the priest that confects the Sacrament, the proper disposition of the priest is not a requirement for the Mass to be either valid or invalid. A Mass celebrated by a priest with the right heart offers no more grace than one celebrated by the opposite.

Jesus is indeed the High Priest … a properly ordained Catholic priest is of the same royal priesthood as Christ.

 

[Bill_Pick]

:banghead: uch:

what no answer from non-cathloic ,whats up with that

 

[Benjamin8o8]

what no answer from non-cathloic ,whats up with that

I want to know that to. Can anybody reply to the fact the other Catholic Posted, I am intersted in what you have to say.

 

[elijio]

what no answer from non-cathloic ,whats up with that

I’m waiting too.

 

[Benadam]

I appreciate your response! Wish others would do the same. I have no comment on your post; other than I see no Scriptural evidence for such an institution as the Catholic Church. The church used in the passage you sited is the body, made of individual believers, each with a specific function preordained by God. The church referred to in Scripture has always been this assembly of individuals and never an institution. You can slice anyway you want, but the Biblical record will stand forever and those that preach and teach another gospel and those that fall into the web, will perish. If the blind follows the blind guide, then both will fall into a pit. Do you not have any concern about being part of the “many” as Matthew 7:13-14 describes?

true dat about the church being refered to is the body it is made up of individual members has always been an assembly of individuals. An institution…this word , like the words ‘cult’ ‘myth’ ‘religion’ ‘works of man’ have all suffered from a wrong use that prevailed long eneogh to remove them from the original concept they symbolized and become a symbol of a dirtied thing.
A myth isn’t a flasehood or a lie…but that’s the dirtied thing it finds it’s object in now in the mind of the masses.

Institution .an organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program, esp. one of a public, educational, or charitable character: *This college is the best institution of its kind. *

Could any body of people on earth be recognized otherwise?

If we take a carefull look at that first body of believers we see a body that held to what they heard from teachers invested with authority who themselves were a body within a body. They were a visible and exclusive group of men who held to the True Faith and the whole body of individual believers held to what they taught. If an individual did not their state of communion with that body their seperation was visible.

*They had Sacred Scripture that were used to help the authorized teachers to show the faithfull how they were a continuation of the People of God from Adam to their Lord and would be untill their Lord returned. *

They had a tradition that some of has now become written but some kept within the bodies collective memory by various means and celebrated in manners consistent with the holy pattern of life that began their charism within history.

This body has visible boundaries. Who were members and who were not were not ambiguous or misty realities but concrete and tested in fire.

*This body had a visible body of teachers who were the only teachers listened to and of whom all were in agreement. This Church could say; here is the True Faith. Truth has a Witness on earth. *
For Jesus is One and in only a body that is a visible sign of His oneness could He possibly identify as ‘Me’ on earth.

True then, true now

My non-catholic friend what you view as the body is the Church to me too but it’s boundaries are not visible and cannot be the source of the gift of salvation on earth because it is not a visible body that can be pointed out and known as the guarantor of salvation Jesus said His Church is. AS the Apostles established to be a light on a hill. As was the early body of Christ is the Body now.

*Incidentally I wish the non-catholics would re-discover their traditions so that the USA would recover the wholesomeness it had when it listened to their voices. *
*In their zeal to sully the word they have cut themselves off from their own roots. *

 

[broski234]

Bill no disrespect but what rules of scriptural interpretation are you following?? Once is figurative, but more than that is literal??

In the OT the Jews were commanded by GOD to NOT eat the blood of a living being. Did that need to be repeated 3 times so the Jews would take it literally because it wasn’t?? Yet you want everyone to believe that Jesus, when speaking to law abiding Jews, spoke literally that they should break the law of HIS Father.

Please tell me why when after Jesus supposedly consecrated the wine into HIS blood that HE still refers to it as drinking the fruit of the wine? Fruit of the vine by the way doesn’t mean grape juice. It was a way of referring to wine. Show me the instructions Jesus gave to HIS disciples to repeat the process of turning the bread and wine into HIS literal body and blood. Do this in remembrance of ME refers to eating the bread and drinking the wine in remembrance of Christ. So where does Jesus say when you repeat the words I just stated the consecration takes place.

Now also in Corinthians when Paul repeats the words of the so-called consecration he still refers to the bread as bread saying as often as you eat this bread. Why doesn’t Paul say when you eat the flesh of Christ.

Why did Jesus take the 3rd cup of redemption, which is red wine mixed with warm water in the Seder meal to SYMBOLIZE the blood of the lambs from the Exodus, and say this cup is the new covenant in MY blood?? HE didn’t say this cup of my blood. The Jews always treated the wine as a symbolic representation of the blood of the lambs. Christ now says it’s HIS blood as the perfect sacrificial lamb. Yet somehow you want to change a sacred Jewish practice into your own by taking a piece of figurative scripture and putting it through a meat grinder so it meets a ridiculous belief.

Finally in the 1st century it was a common Jewish tradition that when a man and woman considered marriage, they drank a cup of red wine. The groom in proposing to the woman would take the cup of red wine, hand it to the woman and say “This cup is a covenant with my blood”. The woman had a choice of either drinking it or not. If she did it represented her acceptance to be his bride. I don’t think she thought she was drinking his blood.

Now let’s see what does Christ call HIS church? Does the word bride come to mind? Each time we drink from the cup we proclaim Christ’s death and profess our acceptance to be part of Christ’s bride, HIS church.

PEACE

NDfan,
I have a few questions for you:

1)Did Jesus give His real flesh or His symbolic flesh for the life of the world? Real or Symbolic?

2)Did Jesus say that the bread that He would give us to eat, which, if we ate we would live forever, was the flesh that He would give for the life of the world? Yes or no?

3)Did Jesus say that we had to eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have eternal life? Yes or no?

4)Did Jesus say that His flesh was food indeed and that His blood was drink indeed? Yes or no?

Here is a quote from St. Justin Martyr:
"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”–St. Justin Martyr 1st Apology (#66)

Did you read that? Not as common bread or drink do we receive the consecrated bread and wine. Yet, you believe that it was a common and symbolic meal. Hmm. Should we believe a famous Christian apologist of the 2nd Century, or you? And did you catch that word–Transmutation? Gee, I wonder what thats all about? Here we see that the Christians of the 1st and 2nd century believed that the bread and wine, after being blessed, were indeed the flesh and blood of “that Jesus who was made flesh.”

 

[NonCatholic]

No, not correct … a valid Mass is celebrated if the proper words and materials are used. It is not the power of the priest that confects but rather Christ through the priest that confects the Sacrament, the proper disposition of the priest is not a requirement for the Mass to be either valid or invalid. A Mass celebrated by a priest with the right heart offers no more grace than one celebrated by the opposite.

Jesus is indeed the High Priest … a properly ordained Catholic priest is of the same royal priesthood as Christ.

Are you saying the Catholic priest is of the order of Melchizedek? If so, can you give me a Catholic link for this? Thanks.

I was just reading and plan to do more, but i found that if the intention of the priest is invalid, then the Mass is invalid. See what you can find…thanks.

Here is a link…I believe I may have found what I was thinking.

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9905chap.asp

 

[elijio]

Are you saying the Catholic priest is of the order of Melchizedek? If so, can you give me a Catholic link for this? Thanks.

I was just reading and plan to do more, but i found that if the intention of the priest is invalid, then the Mass is invalid. See what you can find…thanks.

Here is a link…I believe I may have found what I was thinking.

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9905chap.asp

Since you won’t answer my other questions, I’m going to have a crack at this one without the research.

Your correct that if the INTENTION of the priest is invalid then the Mass IS invalid.

By ‘‘intention’’ it means that if the priest makes it a personal Mass rather than the Mass required to be celebrated. He cannot make up his own Mass to be anything other than what that day’s Mass is about.

Another interesting fact for you, NonCatholic, The same Mass celebrated in my small town in Texas is the same daily Mass celebrated in the smallest village in Africa, to the most secular city in the U.K. and it is the same daily Mass celebrated in places forbidden in China. All in sync, everyday just like it was since the beginning of the Church named the Catholic Church in the 1st century.

Peace.

 

[ncgolf]

Are you saying the Catholic priest is of the order of Melchizedek? If so, can you give me a Catholic link for this? Thanks.

I was just reading and plan to do more, but i found that if the intention of the priest is invalid, then the Mass is invalid. See what you can find…thanks.

Here is a link…I believe I may have found what I was thinking.

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9905chap.asp

There are 4 conditions for a valid Mass …

1. Validly ordained priest.
2. Intent of the priest is what the Church intends … this is not dependent on the spiritual status of the priest … i.e. is the priest in sin or not which is what I thought you meant earlier.
3. Proper matter
4. Proper form.

The numbers 2, 3 and 4 are requirements for all the sacraments.

For more on the Catholic priesthood newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm

 

[Hisalone]

NDfan,
I have a few questions for you:

1)Did Jesus give His real flesh or His symbolic flesh for the life of the world? Real or Symbolic?

2)Did Jesus say that the bread that He would give us to eat, which, if we ate we would live forever, was the flesh that He would give for the life of the world? Yes or no?

3)Did Jesus say that we had to eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have eternal life? Yes or no?

4)Did Jesus say that His flesh was food indeed and that His blood was drink indeed? Yes or no?

Here is a quote from St. Justin Martyr:
"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”–St. Justin Martyr 1st Apology (#66)

Did you read that? Not as common bread or drink do we receive the consecrated bread and wine. Yet, you believe that it was a common and symbolic meal. Hmm. Should we believe a famous Christian apologist of the 2nd Century, or you? And did you catch that word–Transmutation? Gee, I wonder what thats all about? Here we see that the Christians of the 1st and 2nd century believed that the bread and wine, after being blessed, were indeed the flesh and blood of “that Jesus who was made flesh.”

Why would you ask that your questions be answered when you did not answer any of NDfans questions?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Sacraments have their own power. Baptism, the Eucharist, etc., do not depend on the holiness of the priest because the power of the sacrament does not come from the priest.

 

[broski234]

Why would you ask that your questions be answered when you did not answer any of NDfans questions?

Hisalone,
I wasn't asking you the question! And he wasn't asking me a question, his questions were for someone else. It is very clear to everyone that you are here just to argue. To my knowledge, you never address any questions that are asked of you. I would appreciate it if you would not address me anymore.

 

[NonCatholic]

There are 4 conditions for a valid Mass …

1. Validly ordained priest.
2. Intent of the priest is what the Church intends … this is not dependent on the spiritual status of the priest … i.e. is the priest in sin or not which is what I thought you meant earlier.
3. Proper matter
4. Proper form.

The numbers 2, 3 and 4 are requirements for all the sacraments.

For more on the Catholic priesthood newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm

Thanks NC!

 

[NonCatholic]

Sacraments have their own power. Baptism, the Eucharist, etc., do not depend on the holiness of the priest because the power of the sacrament does not come from the priest.

Did you read NcGolf’s reply? Also, the link on my post and Nc’s? I think your reply may be oversimplified. But I got the answer I was seeking…thank you.