SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[Ignatius]

This is an amazing group of people. It must be one of the best groupings of Catholics with all these people defending the truth. WOW!

Just regular folks speaking the Truth in Charity. Oops, it’s one o’clock. Lunch is over, gotta’ get back to work.

In Him.

 

[Margarite]

Just regular folks speaking the Truth in Charity. Oops, it’s one o’clock. Lunch is over, gotta’ get back to work.

In Him.

Me to bye for the day

 

[Pwrlftr]

Evidence, please.

Doesn’t your church teach that one could be saved and not even be a Christian?

Also, doesn’t your church teach that those of use who are outside the formal boundary of your church (ie. Christian but not Catholic), while being at a disadvantage, may nonetheless be saved?

 

[Teflon93]

Isn’t it funny how OS started by making a series of allegations with question marks after them, ignored the responses, claimed there were no responses, made another series of allegations, and has received even more responses?

Could there be a more compelling refutation of his claim in the OP that Catholics will not answer his questions/allegations?

Prediction:

He will ignore the latest in favor of simply making more allegations, unsupported by evidence or logic.

This is the anti-Catholic playbook’s equivalent of the Hail Mary (although they would probably call it something else).

 

[Teflon93]

Doesn’t your church teach that one could be saved and not even be a Christian?

Also, doesn’t your church teach that those of use who are outside the formal boundary of your church (ie. Christian but not Catholic), while being at a disadvantage, may nonetheless be saved?

Those look an awful lot like questions, Pwrfltr, not evidence.

You made the assertion—back it up.

I presume you have more in mind than semantic sleight of hand.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Those look an awful lot like questions, Pwrfltr, not evidence.

You made the assertion—back it up.

I presume you have more in mind than semantic sleight of hand.

Earlier you said:

teflon:

John 6:53. No Eucharist, no salvation.

You made a concrete statement so it is no semantic slight of hand to point out that your statement, taken at face value, isn’t true.

I can look up the reference in the catechism if you like but I am sure you are already familiar with it and realize that you just overstated your case. Nonetheless, I’ll try to dig something up for you later…although I imagine you already know what I am going to post.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Earlier you said:

You made a concrete statement so it is no semantic slight of hand to point out that your statement, taken at face value, isn’t true.

I can look up the reference in the catechism if you like but I am sure you are already familiar with it and realize that you just overstated your case. Nonetheless, I’ll try to dig something up for you later…although I imagine you already know what I am going to post.

Teflon made a correct statement. He believed in Jesus Christ, and he also believe what Jesus said that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. If you deny, this you deny Jesus’ words. Believing goes much deeper than just mere belief. Even the Devil believe and he is in hell. You have to believe everything what Jesus said. That is why Teflon said, “No Eucharist, no salvation.”

I also think you miss the point. In Catholic theology, the consecrated Eucharist is Jesus Christ.

I can easily write rephrase this: “No Jesus, no Salvation.”

“No Blessed Eucharist, No Salvation.”

What we, Catholics, received before the alter is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. Before our alter, we have the same Jesus before us. The same Jesus who died at the cross, the same Jesus who is at the Right Hand of God.

 

[Schabel]

You need to look up the word “communion.” Everyone realizes that Christ was speaking metaphorically

Yeah, they sure must’ve thought that when Christ was speaking in John 6:22ff. That’s why they didn’t have any problem with His teaching; they KNEW that He was speaking metaphorically. Otherwise, they’d call it a “hard teaching” and ask “who could accept this” teaching?

Heck, if they didn’t think if was a metaphor, and if they didn’t have enough faith in Him, you’d think that many of His disciples would even have entertained thoughts of LEAVING now, wouldn’t you?

[end of dripping sarcasm mode]

 

[justasking4]

Teflon93;3229404]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pwrlftr
Doesn’t your church teach that one could be saved and not even be a Christian?

Also, doesn’t your church teach that those of use who are outside the formal boundary of your church (ie. Christian but not Catholic), while being at a disadvantage, may nonetheless be saved?
Teflon93
Those look an awful lot like questions, Pwrfltr, not evidence.

You made the assertion—back it up.

I presume you have more in mind than semantic sleight of hand.

It looks like Pwrfltr is right. Here is what it says in the catholic catechism— 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

 

[mercygate]

Are you saying that the historical evidence for her assumption is not important?

You can claim “All the Marian Dogmas stand in relation to Christ and the Creeds” but you cannot claim that are all grounded in the Scriptures or history either.

None of them contradicts Scripture, and as you have seen up-thread, there is plenty of warrant for interpreting certain Scriptures as indicative of the Assumption.

Have you actually studied the history of this Dogma – from the Catholic perspective, that is? A good place to start would be the paragraphs 963-975 in the Catechism relating to Mary’s relationship to the Church. This material may be a little too “developed” for you but what the heck. Give it a shot. Another place to explore this would be Munificentissimus Deuswhich proclaimed the dogma for the universal Church.

You keep saying, “That’s not in the Bible.” But Catholics do see it in the Bible. True, we do not see it openly stated in the Bible. But then, we do not see the characterization of the hypostatic union openly stated in the Bible either. Just as Mary “pondered all these things in her heart”, so the Church “ponders all these things in her heart.”

Again, I reiterate: ALL Marian teachings are directly related to the Person of Jesus Christ and illuminate some aspect of His glory. None of it as about Mary as a stand-alone proposition.

 

[justasking4]

Teflon made a correct statement. He believed in Jesus Christ, and he also believe what Jesus said that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. If you deny, this you deny Jesus’ words. Believing goes much deeper than just mere belief. Even the Devil believe and he is in hell. You have to believe everything what Jesus said. That is why Teflon said, “No Eucharist, no salvation.”

I also think you miss the point. In Catholic theology, the consecrated Eucharist is Jesus Christ.

I can easily write rephrase this: “No Jesus, no Salvation.”

“No Blessed Eucharist, No Salvation.”

What we, Catholics, received before the alter is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. Before our alter, we have the same Jesus before us. The same Jesus who died at the cross, the same Jesus who is at the Right Hand of God.

Are you saying you must take the Eucharist to be saved?

 

[jmcrae]

Are you saying you must take the Eucharist to be saved?

Those who have the ability to do so, have the duty to do so.

Obviously, the child who dies right after being baptized will go to Heaven without having received the Eucharist, at least not here on the earth - he is still “saved,” though.

But if someone lives to be 70 years old and considers it sufficient that he was baptized as an infant, it is much less clear than he can be “saved.”

The Church requires that we receive the Eucharist at least once a year, during the Easter season. This is sometimes referred to as “the Easter duty” by some older people.

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3229704]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Are you saying you must take the Eucharist to be saved?

jmcrae
Those who have the ability to do so, have the duty to do so.

Obviously, the child who dies right after being baptized will go to Heaven without having received the Eucharist, at least not here on the earth - he is still “saved,” though.

But if someone lives to be 70 years old and considers it sufficient that he was baptized as an infant, it is much less clear than he can be “saved.”

The Church requires that we receive the Eucharist at least once a year, during the Easter season. This is sometimes referred to as “the Easter duty” by some older people.

On what is this based on? I do see such claims in the Last Supper accounts.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Are you saying you must take the Eucharist to be saved?

Let Jesus answer this question, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink in his blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53.

Of course this is what Jesus been saying in his Bread Discourse in the Gospel of John 6:41-59.

You have to eat Jesus flesh. You have to eat God and drink his Blood to live because Jesus told you that you must eat his flesh and drink his blood.

 

[tdgesq]

You need to look up the word “communion.” Everyone realizes that Christ was speaking metaphorically and did not expect anyone to bite a chunk out of His arm. To really think that you would be eating the actual flesh and drinking the actual blood is a little odd. Did the apostles actually bite into Jesus? Of course not!

If you want to know why his apostles didn’t start biting him, they believed that Jesus would give them his flesh to eat. He specifically says: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” John 6:51. You see, Jesus is the one that will give His flesh, which of course he did at the last supper just as he promised. He also told them he would give them his body - not a bit a of bicep or ear or some other body part.

In summary. Jesus told His disciples that He would give them His flesh to eat, not to come bite off a piece of His flesh. That’s why they didn’t.

I hope this helps you.

 

[mercygate]

Just regular folks speaking the Truth in Charity. Oops, it’s one o’clock. Lunch is over, gotta’ get back to work.

In Him.

Wellll… sometimes some of us kind of collapse in the charity department. Not me, of course. Other people.

 

[Church_Militant]

Church Militant

---

You need to look up the word “communion.” Everyone realizes that Christ was speaking metaphorically and did not expect anyone to bite a chunk out of His arm. To really think that you would be eating the actual flesh and drinking the actual blood is a little odd. Did the apostles actually bite into Jesus? Of course not!

Christ is present during the communion, no doubt about that because He promised He would be there but to believe we are drinking His blood is too much.Sorry, but as my posted quote plainly shows, not Everyone realizes any such thing, and you’re the one who cited Ignatius of Antioch as sharing your beliefs when in fact he does not.

In fact… based on what he wrote…he wouldn’t even have talked to you because he would have considered you a heretic. Hate it for ya…

I hope you will read the post I gave about the early church fathers and the fact that they were *Sola Scriptura *

believers. I have provided you the references and there are many more I could quote. No one believes anything could be accurately handed down through centuries by word of mouth and remain pure. It must have a basis and that is why God gave us the Bible.Nice rhetoric…not substantiated by either the Bible or the ECF (as I showed), Ignatius, Polycarp, and the Didache all taught Catholic beliefs and since you disagree, then you strait away lose their support for what you believe. A scholar worthy of the term should have known this I would think…unless of course, you didn’t do your own homework and took someone else’s word for it.:tsktsk:

 

[Church_Militant]

This is an amazing group of people. It must be one of the best groupings of Catholics with all these people defending the truth. WOW!

Who us? Nah… we’re just run o the mill Catholics that love Our Lord and His Church and have obeyed the words of St. Paul to St.Timothy when he tells him.
“Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” (2nd Timothy 2:15) Keep praying for us!
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[mercygate]

Teflon93;3229404]

Quote:

It looks like Pwrfltr is right. Here is what it says in the catholic catechism— 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - **those too may **achieve eternal salvation.

The conditions are strictly guards (as any Calvinist might appreciate) to avoid presuming upon the sovereignty of God. The conditions require “no fault of their own” and the statement is MAY achieve salvation. Not will achieve salvation, not even *can *achieve salvation. It is speculative.

Once you have identified the historic core and doctrinal continuity that subsist only in the Catholic Church through Apostolic Succession and STILL harden your heart and reject it, you effectively reject Christ Himself. Truth matters. Because Jesus Christ is Truth.

 

[Church_Militant]

Doesn’t your church teach that one could be saved and not even be a Christian?

Also, doesn’t your church teach that those of use who are outside the formal boundary of your church (ie. Christian but not Catholic), while being at a disadvantage, may

nonetheless be saved?That’s the whole point in both cases. But (if there is a coherent topic to this thread ) I suggest you save that for another thread or do a search before trying to discuss it because it’s been discussed quite a bit before.

(Inside joke: Don’t make me hafta meet you in that alley! )