C
Crocus
Guest
Last edited:
- Status
M
Mishakel
Guest
I have read them. The first link is about Saul’s name to Paul so I think you’re more referring to the 2nd link dealing with transubstantiation.
I disagree with the author’s views about both what Paul and Jesus said on the last supper. It’s true Paul talked about holding fast to the traditions he had spoken of but to assume he spoke anything different than what was written down is only an assumption. To assume Paul was speaking of the eucharist specifically when speaking of tradition is taking an assumption even one step further.
I can give you my reasons based on what Jesus said and other parts of scripture say as to why I don’t believe in the eucharist or transubstantiation.First let’s both agree on what Catholicism believes about the eucharist so we have a starting point.
The Catholic Bishops of the US met in 1994 and listed 5 affirmations on the eucharist as sacrifice. The first says:
“We affirm that in the eucharist the Church, doing what Christ commanded his apostles to do at the Last Supper, makes present the sacrifice of Calvary. We understand this to mean that when the Church is gathered in worship, it is empowered by the Holy Spirit to make Christ present and to receive all the benefits of his sacrifice.”
What are these benefits?
Paul states when referring to the bread and wine “this do in remembrance of me” We are taught to examine ourselves prior to repeating this act of remembrance. Nowhere does Paul state all the other benefits to which Catholicism believes. Dogmatically, Catholicism will say this was a tradition handed down orally only to itself.
The 2nd benefit listed “Reinforces the unity of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ”. What is the definition according to these Bishops when they use the word Church? My guess is they mean the Roman Catholic Church. I don’t know that so if you or anyone can shed light on that it would be helpful. The Church of Christ spoken of in scripture is made up of all believers in Christ according to Peter. Peter was speaking to normal people, not an organization when saying in 1 Peter:2
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
I disagree with the author’s views about both what Paul and Jesus said on the last supper. It’s true Paul talked about holding fast to the traditions he had spoken of but to assume he spoke anything different than what was written down is only an assumption. To assume Paul was speaking of the eucharist specifically when speaking of tradition is taking an assumption even one step further.
I can give you my reasons based on what Jesus said and other parts of scripture say as to why I don’t believe in the eucharist or transubstantiation.First let’s both agree on what Catholicism believes about the eucharist so we have a starting point.
The Catholic Bishops of the US met in 1994 and listed 5 affirmations on the eucharist as sacrifice. The first says:
“We affirm that in the eucharist the Church, doing what Christ commanded his apostles to do at the Last Supper, makes present the sacrifice of Calvary. We understand this to mean that when the Church is gathered in worship, it is empowered by the Holy Spirit to make Christ present and to receive all the benefits of his sacrifice.”
What are these benefits?
- Maintains and increases intimate union with Christ. (Cf. [CCC 1325]
- Reinforces the unity of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. (Cf. [CCC 1396]
- Removes venial sins and increases charity toward God and neighbor. (Cf. [CCC 1394]
- Strengthens the recipient from grave sins. (Cf. [CCC 1395]
- Decreases temporal punishment due to sin. (Cf. [CCC 1414]
- Helps the recipient to avoid temptation and control concupiscence. (Cf. [CCC 1393]
Paul states when referring to the bread and wine “this do in remembrance of me” We are taught to examine ourselves prior to repeating this act of remembrance. Nowhere does Paul state all the other benefits to which Catholicism believes. Dogmatically, Catholicism will say this was a tradition handed down orally only to itself.
The 2nd benefit listed “Reinforces the unity of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ”. What is the definition according to these Bishops when they use the word Church? My guess is they mean the Roman Catholic Church. I don’t know that so if you or anyone can shed light on that it would be helpful. The Church of Christ spoken of in scripture is made up of all believers in Christ according to Peter. Peter was speaking to normal people, not an organization when saying in 1 Peter:2
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
M
Mishakel
Guest
We have an example of this played out with Jesus in Matthew 12:
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Jesus was clearly saying his spiritual family, or Church as later described, is made up of his believers. Aren’t we all supposed to be disciples of Christ? Doesn’t that make all believers in him part of his spiritual Church? This is what I believe. If the Bishops meant Church as in the Catholic organization I would vehemently disagree in their belief system regardless of the eucharist views.
Christ’s last words are extremely powerful. John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
The Greek word tetelestai is translated to “it is finished”. It also means “paid in full”. This would mean the debt of sin is paid in full. Paul states in Hebrews 10: 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
This is the crux of scripture. Through our belief in Jesus we are sanctified because he paid our debt of sin on the cross. The act of the eucharist would be a work. Jesus did away with the old system of works the Jews had to perform for they were under the original covenant.
I won’t go into all the other benefits listed by the Bishops as I think it would open more rabbit holes
Suffice it to say, as I talked about with the other poster, faith is how we attain righteousness. It is being born again which Christ talked about that allows God to wipe away all our sin. It is this faith alone which accomplishes this act. To me, believing in all aspects of the eucharist would mean Christ didn’t pay the debt in full on the cross and we somehow need his sacrifice to be replayed over and over to keep getting remission of sin. This simply goes against scripture.
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Jesus was clearly saying his spiritual family, or Church as later described, is made up of his believers. Aren’t we all supposed to be disciples of Christ? Doesn’t that make all believers in him part of his spiritual Church? This is what I believe. If the Bishops meant Church as in the Catholic organization I would vehemently disagree in their belief system regardless of the eucharist views.
Christ’s last words are extremely powerful. John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
The Greek word tetelestai is translated to “it is finished”. It also means “paid in full”. This would mean the debt of sin is paid in full. Paul states in Hebrews 10: 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
This is the crux of scripture. Through our belief in Jesus we are sanctified because he paid our debt of sin on the cross. The act of the eucharist would be a work. Jesus did away with the old system of works the Jews had to perform for they were under the original covenant.
I won’t go into all the other benefits listed by the Bishops as I think it would open more rabbit holes
Suffice it to say, as I talked about with the other poster, faith is how we attain righteousness. It is being born again which Christ talked about that allows God to wipe away all our sin. It is this faith alone which accomplishes this act. To me, believing in all aspects of the eucharist would mean Christ didn’t pay the debt in full on the cross and we somehow need his sacrifice to be replayed over and over to keep getting remission of sin. This simply goes against scripture.
Last edited:
C
Crocus
Guest
Appreciate that you have considered all those points from the bishops. Not sure I can address all your disagreements, but last one first, as it struck me.
What we celebrate in the Eucharist, is Christ making that one sacrifice fully present to us, united across time with all generations of believers, in that very moment we experience it. It is a mystical experience that unites heaven and earth.
Catholics agree that His sacrifice is once and for all time. We reject that our Eucharist is anything like a replay.
What we celebrate in the Eucharist, is Christ making that one sacrifice fully present to us, united across time with all generations of believers, in that very moment we experience it. It is a mystical experience that unites heaven and earth.
Last edited:
N
Nicene
Guest
Really?
Rom 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
And it’s complimentary in Eph 2:10
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Personally I’ll never understand quoting vs8-9 and eliminating 10 from St Paul’s teachings.
The same can be said of Phil 2:12-13 and most of the gospels. For example quoting Jn 3:16 but completely ignoring things like;
John 3:36 “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”
Justification by faith alone just isn’t biblical. It’s just another philosophy and man made doctrine.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
M
Mishakel
Guest
I completely understand if you didn’t see my other posts regarding faith + how we live.
The point I was making, and went into great detail on, was the fact that God’s grace or righteousness is bestowed because of faith. The example I gave were two but there are more. The first is the fact Paul goes into great detail about Abraham receiving God’s righteousness by his faith alone. Abraham was indeed made righteous before circumcision, before Isaac was born, and before following God’s order to sacrifice Isaac.
This is what Paul preached. It’s not my opinion or interpretation.
The second circumstance I pointed out was Saul’s conversion as a result of meeting Jesus near Damascus. The only thing that changed during that meeting was Saul’s faith. Prior to that meeting he knew who Jesus was and certainly knew what the Christians believed about Jesus as Saul persecuted them. Saul wasn’t ignorant. The single thing that changed was his faith. This was Saul being born again as Christ described as necessary.
Faith alone wasn’t the end of Saul or Abraham. Their life showed the world and God through their actions that their faith was sound.
I think many Catholics hear faith alone and think that’s the end of the discussion. It’s really the beginning of the discussion. It’s where our life in Christ begins.
As I think I pointed out before, no amount of good works lead to salvation if there is no faith. To which the other poster replied basically saying there is no salvation without works to which I would agree unless it’s on a deathbed perhaps. The difference in our beliefs is I believe based on scripture that God’s forgiveness or grace or righteousness is bestowed when we first put our faith in Christ. Catholicism believes God’s grace or forgiveness is handed out in portions over time and the Church itself (Catholicism) can also grant that grace intermittently.
Hopefully that at least clarifies my position.
The point I was making, and went into great detail on, was the fact that God’s grace or righteousness is bestowed because of faith. The example I gave were two but there are more. The first is the fact Paul goes into great detail about Abraham receiving God’s righteousness by his faith alone. Abraham was indeed made righteous before circumcision, before Isaac was born, and before following God’s order to sacrifice Isaac.
This is what Paul preached. It’s not my opinion or interpretation.
The second circumstance I pointed out was Saul’s conversion as a result of meeting Jesus near Damascus. The only thing that changed during that meeting was Saul’s faith. Prior to that meeting he knew who Jesus was and certainly knew what the Christians believed about Jesus as Saul persecuted them. Saul wasn’t ignorant. The single thing that changed was his faith. This was Saul being born again as Christ described as necessary.
Faith alone wasn’t the end of Saul or Abraham. Their life showed the world and God through their actions that their faith was sound.
I think many Catholics hear faith alone and think that’s the end of the discussion. It’s really the beginning of the discussion. It’s where our life in Christ begins.
As I think I pointed out before, no amount of good works lead to salvation if there is no faith. To which the other poster replied basically saying there is no salvation without works to which I would agree unless it’s on a deathbed perhaps. The difference in our beliefs is I believe based on scripture that God’s forgiveness or grace or righteousness is bestowed when we first put our faith in Christ. Catholicism believes God’s grace or forgiveness is handed out in portions over time and the Church itself (Catholicism) can also grant that grace intermittently.
Hopefully that at least clarifies my position.
J
Justin_Mary
Guest
The crux of scripture is Jesus. His life, death, & resurrection. If we died with Christ, we shall be raised with Christ. We pray one day, like Paul, we can say, “it is not I who lives, but Christ.” “To die is gain, to live is Christ.” “I make up in my body, that which is lacking in Christ’s suffering.”
To think it is “finished” misses the point entirely. We are to follow Christ. From Conception to Cavalry, to His resurrection.
Peace
M
Mishakel
Guest
I understand this belief. The difference is as I described above. Catholicism believes the eucharist in fact removes sin from us. This is the part we’re at odds on.
Paul spoke pretty extensively on the difference between the new covenant that Christ established vs the first covenant.
Hebrews 10:
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
This is the contradiction between the eucharist and and what Paul taught. Through faith in Jesus our sins are forgiven and remembered no more. We can certainly sin after this faith but asking God’s forgiveness and help realigns our spirit with God’s will. Our sins were already forgiven because of our faith. God’s grace isn’t handed out in pieces.
This is why we can do what no Jew under the first covenant can do. We believers can go boldly before God because we are assured of his grace.
C
Crocus
Guest
This is the Eucharist we participate in, the one offering, made present to us, in and across time. This is the new covenant (once for all) that replaces the old (that had to be repeated over and over). This is what Jesus promised, and gave us at His last supper, that we eat His body and drink His blood.
It is a hard saying, at which many of His followers turned and walked away. He asked His apostles if they too would walk away; Peter answered “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life.”
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
That’s not “once saved, always saved.” That’s Perseverance of the Saints. Although they both teach salvation cannot be lost, OSAS also teaches that a change in desire to be obedient to God & submit to Him as a slave to a Master (Lord) is not necessary. Essentially, OSAS gives one a license to sin. NO genuine Protestant who understands the Reformation will ever believe this. POTS teaches once you are saved, you will have a desire to obey God, even if you do sin. If you don’t, you aren’t saved regardless if you say you are “saved by faith.” No fruit, no salvation.
Last edited:
D
DiZent
Guest
Interesting. First time I have heard that description. So if one starts with fervor, then loses fervor, they were “never saved”?
M
Mishakel
Guest
This is why I started with the definition of the eucharist according to Catholicism and the benefits as well.
“We affirm that in the eucharist the Church, doing what Christ commanded his apostles to do at the Last Supper, makes present the sacrifice of Calvary. We understand this to mean that when the Church is gathered in worship, it is empowered by the Holy Spirit to make Christ present and to receive all the benefits of his sacrifice.”
“Removes venial sins and increases charity toward God and neighbor. (Cf. [CCC 1394]”
So the removal of sin comes from this ceremony, the eucharist. The removal of sin is the grace of God which comes by faith as described by Paul. This is why I pointed out Abraham was made righteous because of his faith, before circumcision, before Isaac was born, before offering Isaac as a sacrifice.
Abraham remained righteous after he put his faith in God. Do you think Abraham sinned after putting his faith in God? The answer would be yes, just as Paul sinned after putting his faith in Christ. Nowhere does Paul say Abraham was made righteous because of his faith, and then had to keep doing something to be righteous. Do you see the difference?
1 Cor 15: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
Paul is clear here. He’s saying if Christ didn’t raise from the dead they are still covered in sin and their faith is in vain. Obviously some of the people he’s addressing didn’t believe in the resurrection from verse 12.
M
Mishakel
Guest
Peter is very clear in his teaching also. Peter says in Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
This is the grace of God. Peter can’t state this any clearer. It is our faith in Christ through which we receive God’s grace which is the remission of sin.
Paul states in Romans 4: 16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Again Paul states in Galations 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Again in Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Romans 4:9 9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
This is the grace of God. Peter can’t state this any clearer. It is our faith in Christ through which we receive God’s grace which is the remission of sin.
Paul states in Romans 4: 16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Again Paul states in Galations 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Again in Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Romans 4:9 9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
A
annad347
Guest
you know, you all seem to be heading to the same location but taking different paths to get there.
I say seems to be because its kind of hard to keep up with everything being said… but it seems to be heading to the same location.
By location I mean God…as in The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit… you knew that right?
I say seems to be because its kind of hard to keep up with everything being said… but it seems to be heading to the same location.
By location I mean God…as in The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit… you knew that right?
Last edited:
J
Justin_Mary
Guest
And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?”
S
Shasta-Rose
Guest
I am sure you are saved, Anna. Many are saved who aren’t Catholic. Even most Catholics will tell you that.
But, if you wanted to join the Catholic Church, the Church would be thrilled right down to the floor. I think all of the Catholics here would say that we would love it if you would join us.
And I think if you’d join us, you would say, as I do, that I was a Christian before, but now I get so much more from my faith and my Catholic life than I did before.
But, if you wanted to join the Catholic Church, the Church would be thrilled right down to the floor. I think all of the Catholics here would say that we would love it if you would join us.
And I think if you’d join us, you would say, as I do, that I was a Christian before, but now I get so much more from my faith and my Catholic life than I did before.
V
Vico
Guest
The Eucharist does not forgive mortal sins nor venial sins from us per Catholic doctrine. The sacraments of the dead are baptism and penance and are the only two sacraments that bring the forgiveness of mortal sin. Also there is perfect contrition. Only sins that one has contrition for are able to be forgiven – either mortal or venial. One does not receive the fruitfulness of the Body and Blood of Christ when not already in a state of grace which means when there are any unforgiven mortal sins – that is, Communion increases sanctifying grace. There is a reduced increase of sanctifying grace received with the Body and Blood of Christ when received in the state of grace yet not being sorry for all venial sins too.
Catechism
Last edited:
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
Not really “fervor,” but if one claims to be “saved” but walks away from the faith, they were not truly saved to begin with (1 John 2:19). I am not surprised this is the first time you have heard the difference between OSAS & POTS. Most people conflate the two, including apologists.
J
Justin_Mary
Guest
I always took that to mean people who left the Church; Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Henry, etc…
Last edited:
M
Mishakel
Guest
One of the greatest blessings and least known facts about the Eucharist is that, in the reception of holy Communion, a person’s venial sins are forgiven.
Venial sins can be forgiven through certain works and in moments of the Mass, etc.
receiving the Holy Eucharist must both cleanse us of venial sin and protect us from future sin.
From the Catechism: 1416 Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ increases the communicant’s union with the Lord, forgives his venial sins, and preserves him from grave sins. Since receiving this sacrament strengthens the bonds of charity between the communicant and Christ, it also reinforces the unity of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ.
You’re saying the Catechism and other magisterium are in error?? Please explain.
- Status