SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[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.

Teflon,

I think you overstated your case and I guess that wasn’t the intent of your post.

Anyway, the following is an excerpt from the CCC…

CCC:

Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

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.337

From the above text it is obvious that a person could achieve eternal salvation w/out ever eating the eucharist.

 

[Church_Militant]

Teflon,

I think you overstated your case and I guess that wasn’t the intent of your post.

Anyway, the following is an excerpt from the CCC…

From the above text it is obvious that a person could achieve eternal salvation w/out ever eating the Eucharist.

Why even bother with that PL? It can’t apply to you and all the other n-Cs who have brought this up and had us explain it because you suddenly no longer qualify as “through no fault of their own”. right? It could not apply to me for that very same reason.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Pwrlftr:

From the above text it is obvious that a person could achieve eternal salvation w/out ever eating the eucharist.

That is address to those who do not know the Jesus and His Church, and those who do are not in full communion with Rome. They are move by the grace of God. God can work outside his own sacraments because they are his sacraments.

Non-Catholic Christians have an incomplete means of salvations because they lack the sacraments (except the Eastern Orthodox).

The Eucharist can only be consumed by those must be baptized, free of mortal sin, and be a Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox.

 

[jmcrae]

From the above text it is obvious that a person could achieve eternal salvation w/out ever eating the eucharist.

“Possible” is not synonymous with “probable.” We say that it is possible because under very particular circumstances (the Protestant lives a perfect life from the moment of his baptism until his death, while never hearing/reading one single word about the Catholic Church to know that it exists), it could happen.

But how likely are these circumstances?

 

[justasking4]

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.”

I just asked a question about John 6:54 in regards to your quote. Is Jesus speaking literally or metaphorically in the context of John 6?

 

[Mannyfit75]

I just asked a question about John 6:54 in regards to your quote. Is Jesus speaking literally or metaphorically in the context of John 6?

literally. He said eat me three times.

 

[jmcrae]

I just asked a question about John 6:54 in regards to your quote. Is Jesus speaking literally or metaphorically in the context of John 6?

Neither. We don’t literally eat Jesus’ flesh off of His bones, but we truly consume His body and blood, soul and divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine in the Holy Eucharist.

This is a spiritual reality, not in the sense of being metaphorical or symbolic, but rather in the sense that it is a real thing that comes to us in a spiritual way - it is actual, without being literal.

 

[Pwrlftr]

“Possible” is not synonymous with “probable.” We say that it is possible because under very particular circumstances (**the Protestant lives a perfect life from the moment of his baptism until his death, while never hearing/reading one single word about the Catholic Church to know that it exists), **it could happen.

But how likely are these circumstances?

So, you have the official teaching of Rome on this?

How about the countless theologians and apologists who don’t interpret your church’s documents concerning the “outside the church there is no salvation” doctrine as stringently as you do? Who should I listen to?

You used “Protestant” in your example so I am guessing you believe it is even more unlikely that a Jew will end up in heaven? Am I right?

 

[mercygate]

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

He also said the following:

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.

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?

He who believes has eternal life? Right. Believes what? That we are to eat His flesh and drink His blood. As you point out: the statement is unconditional. So we believe what He said. If you love me you will keep my commandments. “Belief” is only “enough” when it results in complete acceptance of ALL that Jesus commands. “This is my Body.” “Do this in remembrance of me.”

You guys and Bill Clinton have a lot of trouble with the word “is”. Nobody in the early Church had any problem with this. Rationalism. Anti-clericalism. Relativism. All that stuff gets in the way of “is.” Funny. Because only God truly “is” – unconditionally, of Himself, in Himself.

This IS my Body.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Why even bother with that PL? It can’t apply to you and all the other n-Cs who have brought this up and had us explain it because you suddenly no longer qualify as “through no fault of their own”. right? It could not apply to me for that very same reason.

CM,

I probably should have let it go but Teflon posted something to the effect of “no eucharist, no salvation” and that is an overstatement of your church’s position. The section I posted from the catechism, in context of my discussion w/ Teflon, was used simply to show that “no eucharist, doesn’t necessarily mean no salvation”. That is the only reason I brought it up.

There are some Catholics of course who hold to a very stringent view of “outside the church there is no salvation” but most of you whom I have encountered here don’t seem to hold to such a strict view of that statement.

 

[jmcrae]

CM,

I probably should have let it go but Teflon posted something to the effect of “no eucharist, no salvation” and that is an overstatement of your church’s position.

And you’re hanging on to that like a Rottweiller, as though your salvation depended upon him being wrong. (Oh, wait - maybe it does. )

What do you think of Jesus words, that we must partake of His body and blood, or else we have no life in us? (John 6:53) Do you think that Jesus was exaggerating, too?

 

[jmcrae]

So, you have the official teaching of Rome on this?

How about the countless theologians and apologists who don’t interpret your church’s documents concerning the “outside the church there is no salvation” doctrine as stringently as you do? Who should I listen to?

Why don’t you go to Adoration and ask Jesus what He thinks you should do?

You used “Protestant” in your example so I am guessing you believe it is even more unlikely that a Jew will end up in heaven? Am I right?

Depends on the Jew - are we talking about a Jew who has never even heard of Jesus before, or a Jew who takes every opportunity he can get to insult Christianity?

 

[mercygate]

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?

Have you read John 6? That’s an authoritative Church document.

You’re the “Bible only” person. John 6 IS definitely about the Eucharist. In fact, 6:11 says, "Jesus then took the loaves and when he had given thanks, distributed them . . . " and 6:23 again says “the boats from Tiberias came near the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had given thanks.” Both passages very much reflect the Mass. Moreover the words “given thanks” are “eucharistesas” and “eucharistesantos”. Eucharist.

 

[justasking4]

And you’re hanging on to that like a Rottweiller, as though your salvation depended upon him being wrong. (Oh, wait - maybe it does. )

What do you think of Jesus words, that we must partake of His body and blood, or else we have no life in us? (John 6:53) Do you think that Jesus was exaggerating, too?

What did Jesus mean by these words? Did He literally mean in John 6 they were to eat His flesh that was before them? He certainly teaches them that right there in John 6 that they could have eternal life if they ate His flesh and drank His blood. Thats why we must understand what He means without any reference to the eucharist.

 

[mercygate]

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.

No. You are objecting that a Catholic is doing what you claim is the right of every Christian: reading the Bible “for himself.”

 

[jmcrae]

What did Jesus mean by these words? Did He literally mean in John 6 they were to eat His flesh that was before them?

I answered this, above - here it is again:

Neither. We don’t literally eat Jesus’ flesh off of His bones, but we truly consume His body and blood, soul and divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine in the Holy Eucharist.

This is a spiritual reality, not in the sense of being metaphorical or symbolic, but rather in the sense that it is a real thing that comes to us in a spiritual way - it is actual, without being literal.

He certainly teaches them that right there in John 6 that they could have eternal life if they ate His flesh and drank His blood. Thats why we must understand what He means without any reference to the eucharist.

Why? Where are we given permission to isolate passages of Scripture and try to interpret them as if the rest of the Bible (or the Holy Tradition, or the Church) were not there to help us?

The Bible is not an “I Ching” - we don’t roll dice to get the verse numbers, and then isolate the verses and turn them into fortune cookies. We read each verse of the Bible with the consciousness of its context within the rest of the Bible, within the Holy Tradition, and within the Church.

Jesus was very clear when He instituted the Eucharist: “This is my body,” and “this is my blood.” These statements directly answer the questions that the Disciples were asking at the time of the Bread of Life discourse.

 

[mercygate]

What did Jesus mean by these words? Did He literally mean in John 6 they were to eat His flesh that was before them? He certainly teaches them that right there in John 6 that they could have eternal life if they ate His flesh and drank His blood. Thats why we must understand what He means without any reference to the eucharist.

No. That is what one WOULD understand without reference to the Eucharist. In the context of the Eucharist, however, John 6 makes perfect sense. Even Jesus’ closest disciples did not understand Jesus AT THE TIME. Jesus asks, “Will you also go away?” And the answer is not – “Of course not, JC! We’re cool with this. We know you’re just speaking metaphorically!” The answer is a tenuous, “To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

Whassat? Eternal life? Words of eternal life? Eat my flesh means eternal life?

Roger.

They trusted Him because they knew him. Namely: they BELIEVED. They believed without even knowing what it was that they believed because it had not yet been fully revealed at the Last Supper and later after the Resurrection. The BELIEVED Him because they knew him. That is why WE believe Him. Because we know Him. For a Catholic, that is what it MEANS to “believe”: it means to “Do this” – because He said so.

 

[guanophore]

But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’
This should cause any catholic to stop and think about this. It was unknown for centuries and no one knows exactly what happened.

ja4, it is not appropriate for you to tell Catholics what “should” worry them or give them pause. This is a very poor method of evangelism.

This lack of historical evidence is not a major concern for Catholics because all of our major dogmas were promulgated prior to any historical evidence. Historical evidence did not arise until the beliefs were challenged by heretics. This includes the Trinity, the canon, the hypostatic union, and many others.

 

[justasking4]

mercygate;3230525]
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
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?
mercygate
Have you read John 6? That’s an authoritative Church document.

i have read this many times. There are a number of different things that are going on this passage.

You’re the “Bible only” person.

Since you describe me this way how do you describe yourself?

John 6 IS definitely about the Eucharist. In fact, 6:11 says, "Jesus then took the loaves and when he had given thanks, distributed them . . . " and 6:23 again says “the boats from Tiberias came near the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had given thanks.” Both passages very much reflect the Mass.

Again you are reading into this passage catholic doctrine. For example in the case of the loaves is Jesus by His words changing those loaves into His body for the people to eat?
What is the connection Jesus makes with Moses? See verses 30-33.

Moreover the words “given thanks” are “eucharistesas” and “eucharistesantos”. Eucharist.

 

[guanophore]

Since no one knows what happened we can speculate all we want. It could also be that some decided to keep her grave site secret so that people would not make a shrine out it. Could also be that some would dig up her body thinking it had some special powers. Who knows?

What is troubling is that the catholic church has made a major dogma of belief for all catholics to believe in which it has a non existant Scriptural and historical basis. This has to be troubling to a lot of catholics.

I am mystified why this troubles you so much, ja4.

Why do you wish Catholics to be trouble by it just as you are? What is you goal, in trying to stir all this trouble?