SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[CentralFLJames]

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

Clearly, when Jesus gave to the Church the authority to hold sins bound or forgive sins He also conveyed a general authority for the Church to use its own moral conscience and judgment and discretion in forming the criteria for absolving sins and other operations of the church.

Jesus did not sit down for a year to write out a laborious set of rules about the ecclesiastical criteria for forgiving sins or how to light candles on the altar or what color robes of the choir should be. No, he relied on the high moral integrity and goodness of His disciples and later His bishops (as influenced by the Holy Spirit) to exercise personal discretion and form councils and consent in these areas. In other words Jesus essentially said ‘you serve me but I trust you to be reasonable and to honor the spirit of my teachings’. So Jesus trusts His Church to be fair as well as honorable to the justice principals of God taken along with His Mercy; subject to not letting the trust be abused by wanted disrespect of members to abuse the sacraments.

Therefor, that same trust, heavy responsibility and authority is likewise implied to be granted for the liberty of The Church to form all it’s administrative church rules, liturgy and cannon rules. None of the Church doctrine in this area was developed without serious, deliberate and responsible thought. As well it was all based on consultation with the bishops and of course never formed if inconsistent with a particular scriptural belief.

James

 

[Church_Militant]

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).

I’m afraid I have to agree with you on this.

BTW…they’ll probably name it “the altar call”.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I’m afraid I have to agree with you on this.

BTW…they’ll probably name it “the altar call”.

I second that opinion. Old Scholar, pwflr, and justasking4 are our local Anti-Catholic forum members. While the Catholics are the good guys.

 

[Church_Militant]

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.

A good point PL.
What he says is based upon John 6:54 “Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.”

 

[justasking4]

Clearly, when Jesus gave to the Church the authority to hold sins bound or forgive sins He also conveyed a general authority for the Church to use its own moral conscience and judgment and discretion in forming the criteria for absolving sins and other operations of the church.

Jesus did not sit down for a year to write out a laborious set of rules about the ecclesiastical criteria for forgiving sins or how to light candles on the altar or what color robes of the choir should be. No, he relied on the high moral integrity and goodness of His disciples and later His bishops (as influenced by the Holy Spirit) to exercise personal discretion and form councils and consent in these areas. In other words Jesus essentially said ‘you serve me but I trust you to be reasonable and to honor the spirit of my teachings’. So Jesus trusts His Church to be fair as well as honorable to the justice principals of God taken along with His Mercy; subject to not letting the trust be abused by wanted disrespect of members to abuse the sacraments.

Therefor, that same trust, heavy responsibility and authority is likewise implied to be granted for the liberty of The Church to form all it’s administrative church rules, liturgy and cannon rules. None of the Church doctrine in this area was developed without serious, deliberate and responsible thought. As well it was all based on consultation with the bishops and of course never formed if inconsistent with a particular scriptural belief.

James

So you agree that Jesus nor His disciples taught you must take the Eucharist to be saved?

 

[Church_Militant]

I second that opinion. Old Scholar, pwflr, and justasking4 are our local Anti-Catholic forum members

. While the Catholics are are the good guys.I haven’t dealt much with anyone but Pwrlftr and from our talks behind the scenes I would not call him an a-C. He disagrees with Catholic teaching, but he has always dealt with me honestly and with charity.

Let’s not lump everyone together, okay?

Ja4, seems to come from the same school as OS and I seem to see a lot of threads where they say stuff and then don’t get much into the discussion. (Ja4 that is…) I don’t know why…

Just remember people, you refute things with facts… not rhetoric. Rhetoric is what OS is laying down, and that’s why it’s so easy to refute him, (that and the fact that he’s appealed to sources that don’t actually support his position.). It’s important to deal with the actual issue and not so much of the person.

 

[Church_Militant]

So you agree that Jesus nor His disciples taught you must take the Eucharist to be saved?

[SIGN1]What planet are you reading posts on?[/SIGN1]
Nowhere does he say any such thing or even imply it. Please show me where you see that?

I think you just broke a forum rule by intentionally misrepresenting what another poster said. That’s a BAD idea.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I haven’t dealt much with anyone but Pwrlftr and from our talks behind the scenes I would not call him an a-C. He disagrees with Catholic teaching, but he has always dealt with me honestly and with charity.

Let’s not lump everyone together, okay?

Ja4, seems to come from the same school as OS and I seem to see a lot of threads where they say stuff and then don’t get much into the discussion. (Ja4 that is…) I don’t know why…

Just remember people, you refute things with facts… not rhetoric. Rhetoric is what OS is laying down, and that’s why it’s so easy to refute him, (that and the fact that he’s appealed to sources that don’t actually support his position.). It’s important to deal with the actual issue and not so much of the person.

I have to disagree. **Any Christians who disagrees with the Catholic Church **teachings is Anti-Catholic. That’s just me…especially if they believe the Catholic Church teaches false doctrines. People like these exchange the truth for a lie like I said many times before.

 

[mercygate]

So you agree that Jesus nor His disciples taught you must take the Eucharist to be saved?

That’s like saying the ECFs taught that doctrine must be based in Scripture – and interpreting it to mean Scripture alone. No. In emergencies, on the floor of the arena with a lion coming at you before you are baptized and admitted to the Eucharist – in such a case one does not have to receive the Eucharist to have eternal life.

Failing that, in normal circumstances, in faith, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” That is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. That is the teaching of Jesus Christ.

 

[CentralFLJames]

So you agree that Jesus nor His disciples taught you must take the Eucharist to be saved?

How did you take my comment about justifying how the church establishes rules about how many times one must receive communion into that conclusion?!

Jesus said it plainly - unless you eat My Body you will not have life in you. Therefore, if you follow the scripture as you say you do and if you have not received The Eucharist you have no life in you. Have you? Or are you going to rely on the Catholic Church’s infallible teaching that you “may” be saved?

“May” is the same word Jesus used when he said that ‘I died so that sins MAY be forgiven’. Do you think Judas’ or Pilot’s sins may have been forgiven? Would you want to be in their shoes on judgement day?

May you find a way to heaven knowing that the many try but few are able to enter by the narrow gate.

Hope to see you on the other side,
James

 

[justasking4]

CentralFLJames;3229998]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
So you agree that Jesus nor His disciples taught you must take the Eucharist to be saved?
CentralFLJames
How did you take my comment about justifying how the church establishes rules about how many times one must receive communion into that conclusion?!

i didn’t take you answer as an answer to my question about a catholic needing to take the eucharist to be saved. I countered by asking the above. I know that the last supper accounts never mention anything about taking the eucharist itself saves a person.

Jesus said it plainly - unless you eat My Body you will not have life in you. Therefore, if you follow the scripture as you say you do and if you have not received The Eucharist you have no life in you. Have you? Or are you going to rely on the Catholic Church’s infallible teaching that you “may” be saved?

John 6 is not about the eucharist. He never mentions it. If you read John 6 carefully you will not find Jesus teaching about the eucharist here.
Has the catholic infallibly interpreted John 6?

Where does Jesus teach in the last supper accounts that eating the bread and drinking the wine gives you life?

How is a catholic saved?

“May” is the same word Jesus used when he said that ‘I died so that sins MAY be forgiven’. Do you think Judas’ or Pilot’s sins may have been forgiven?

Only if they repented and believed that Christ died and rose again. See Romans 10:9-10.

Would you want to be in their shoes on judgement day?

no.

May you find a way to heaven knowing that the many try but few are able to enter by the narrow gate.

Hope to see you on the other side,
James

amen

 

[SyCarl]

That’s like saying the ECFs taught that doctrine must be based in Scripture – and interpreting it to mean Scripture alone. No. In emergencies, on the floor of the arena with a lion coming at you before you are baptized and admitted to the Eucharist – in such a case one does not have to receive the Eucharist to have eternal life.

Failing that, in normal circumstances, in faith, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” That is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. That is the teaching of Jesus Christ.

You cannot just look at one verse in the bread of life discourse out of context. Jesus did say:

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.
(John 6:53 NASB)

He also said the following:

“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
(John 6:51 NASB)

"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
(John 6:54 NASB)

These are unconditional statements by Jesus that if you eat His flesh and drink His blood that you will have eternal life. He puts no qualifications on these statements, not even that you must believe.

If you take these statements literally, then anyone who sneaks into Mass and partakes will be saved because they have met what Jesus said. It doesn’t matter if they eat licitly or not.

But He also says more.

“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
(John 6:40 NASB)

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
(John 6:47 NASB)

These are unconditional statements that those who believe in Jesus will have eternal life. But how can that be since He has also said that you cannot be saved unless you eat and drink Him. How can He say that belief is enough unless He is not speaking literally when He says you must eat and drink Him?

 

[CentralFLJames]

i didn’t take you answer as an answer to my question about a catholic needing to take the eucharist to be saved. I countered by asking the above. I know that the last supper accounts never mention anything about taking the eucharist itself saves a person.

John 6 is not about the eucharist. He never mentions it. If you read John 6 carefully you will not find Jesus teaching about the eucharist here.
Has the catholic infallibly interpreted John 6?

Where does Jesus teach in the last supper accounts that eating the bread and drinking the wine gives you life?

How is a catholic saved?

Only if they repented and believed that Christ died and rose again. See Romans 10:9-10.

no.

amen

Justasking you are going circular on me again.

We have just spent over 210 posts discussion the topic of the real presence of Jesus in The Eucharist if you want to learn the truth. Please check this out - your immortal sould depends on it:
Does scripture actually teach transubstantiation?

I’ll finish my comments to you here to warn about the dangers of private interpration of scriptures:

From Christianity’s beginnings, the Church has been attacked by those introducing false teachings, or heresies.

The Bible warned us this would happen. Paul told his young protégé, Timothy, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths” (2 Tim. 4:3–4).

Peace,
James

 

[tdgesq]

So you agree that Jesus nor His disciples taught you must take the Eucharist to be saved?

The Eucharist is necessary for salvation, although it can be received through desire outside of the formal sacrament, even in the case of children.

Check out the S.T., Q. 73, Art. 3 here:
newadvent.org/summa/4073.htm#3

 

[Mannyfit75]

John 6 is not about the eucharist. He never mentions it. If you read John 6 carefully you will not find Jesus teaching about the eucharist here. Has the catholic infallibly interpreted John 6?

Eucharist comes from the Greek work eucharista which means “give thanks” in Greek.

There are several passages in the Bible where Jesus often give thanks to the Father. What John 6 does say that we must eat the flesh of the Son of Man and Drink his blood. You want to know the infallible statement of the John 6? Well, the Church for 2,000 yrs have taught that real presence of Jesus is truly present in the consecrated Bread and Wine. We also affirmed that this is a living sacrifice offered to the God, the Father. This is a completion of the Paschal Sacrifice.

We offer before God, a pure sacrifice. Spotless Lamb of God.

 

[CentralFLJames]

The Eucharist is necessary for salvation, although it can be received through desire outside of the formal sacrament, even in the case of children.

Check out the S.T., Q. 73, Art. 3 here:
newadvent.org/summa/4073.htm#3

The problem for those outside the Catholic church though is their status has been declared invalid by the Pope. Pope: Other Christian Denominations Not True Churches

So its not clear to me if Augustine extends the exegesis in this partaking by “desire” to those who were previously in a very deliberately lose and involuntary or unconscious association with the true Catholic Church given that the same are now declared to “not be churches” but ecclesiastical communities. My take is that the Pope essentially in this new doctrine has forced Protestants to elect to come under the authority of the Pope or be explicitly cut off from the blessings previously enjoyed through loose association with the Catholic Church.

It is going to be very funny if Pope Benedict XVI in order to save souls essentially hijacks Protestants back into the Church in the same manner Luther tried to hijack scripture and divorce itself from teaching authority and call it their own. My advise to Protestants would be to convert to Catholicism fast or get left standing for eternity with the goats. If nothing else Protestants better start “desiring” with all their hearts and minds to be partaking of the Eucharist and keeping themselves in a state of grace so as not to commit a sacrilege through desired partaking.

James

 

[justasking4]

tdgesq;3230134]
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
So you agree that Jesus nor His disciples taught you must take the Eucharist to be saved?
tdgesq
The Eucharist is necessary for salvation, although it can be received through desire outside of the formal sacrament, even in the case of children.

Is this taught in the catechism or some church document that you
must take the Eucharist to be saved?
If so, can you point it to me?

 

[justasking4]

Justasking you are going circular on me again.

We have just spent over 210 posts discussion the topic of the real presence of Jesus in The Eucharist if you want to learn the truth. Please check this out - your immortal sould depends on it:
Does scripture actually teach transubstantiation?

I’ll finish my comments to you here to warn about the dangers of private interpration of scriptures:

From Christianity’s beginnings, the Church has been attacked by those introducing false teachings, or heresies.

The Bible warned us this would happen. Paul told his young protégé, Timothy, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths” (2 Tim. 4:3–4).

Peace,
James

What do you think you are doing when you quote and interpret
2 Timothy to me? Unless your church has infallibly interpreted these passages for you you are gulity of the very thing you accuse me of i.e private interpration of scriptures.

 

[jmcrae]

Is this taught in the catechism or some church document that you must take the Eucharist to be saved?

If so, can you point it to me?

It’s in Scripture. In John 6:53, Jesus tells us that we must eat and drink of His body and blood in order to be saved.

Then a few days later at the Last Supper, Jesus holds up the Eucharistic bread and says “This is my body,” and then holds up the chalice and says, “This is my blood.” Thus He answers the question that they were all asking, “How can we eat His body and drink His blood?”

Obviously, this applies to those for whom it is actually possible - just like everything else in the Church.

 

[Church_Militant]

Is this taught in the catechism or some church document that you
must take the Eucharist to be saved?
If so, can you point it to me?

1384 The Lord addresses an invitation to us, urging us to receive him in the sacrament of the Eucharist: “Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”