SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[Pwrlftr]

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

As you know I’m not Catholic and don’t share your belief in the real presence so I probably won’t be going to adoration anytime in the near future.

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?

There probably aren’t any Jews who haven’t heard of Jesus at this point.

 

[guanophore]

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. The metaphorical meaning of eating is already being discussed in the transubstantiation thread, so I suggest you take this issue there. This same question was already posted, and you can see the answers.

 

[Pwrlftr]

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

I have a feeling I will wish I hadn’t made a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[jmcrae]

There probably aren’t any Jews who haven’t heard of Jesus at this point.

So, if they know of Him, and are rejecting Him, do you think they will go to Heaven? (if so, why?)

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3230584]
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
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.
guanophore
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.

Huh? What is what i’m saying have to do with evangelism? It is very much appropiate to discuss these things. If you think what you believe is true then i would think you or any catholic would want to discuss this instead of attacking me personally.

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.

If you have the truth you will have the historical support where needed. The mere fact that in those doctrines where histocial evidence is necessary and there is none should cause you and other catholics great concern. Paul in fact appeals to historical evidence for the resurrection in I Cor 15:1-8. The same goes for Luke 1:1-4. These predates any challenge by heretics.

 

[guanophore]

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.

We are reading them in the light of the Church Teaching, which represents the Apostolic Authority appointed by Christ, so no, it is not the same thing.

 

[Mannyfit75]

As you know I’m not Catholic and don’t share your belief in the real presence so I probably won’t be going to adoration anytime in the near future.

I’m well aware of that. That is what I feel lacking in Protestantism. No Real Presence of Jesus Christ at all. Empty and lack of pure sacrifice. No intimate relationship with Jesus Christ. It’s all talk and no action.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3230615]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
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?
guanophore
Literally. The metaphorical meaning of eating is already being discussed in the transubstantiation thread, so I suggest you take this issue there. This same question was already posted, and you can see the answers.

If i take John 6 literally then it means Jesus is teaching a form of canabalism. Surely it does not mean that. Correct?

 

[DarkMark]

I’m well aware of that. That is what I feel lacking in Protestantism. No Real Presence of Jesus Christ at all. Empty and lack of pure sacrifice. No intimate relationship with Jesus Christ. It’s all talk and no action.

"This is my Body [not a symbol of my Body] ", “This is my Blood [not a symbol of my Blood]”. We Catholics believed Jesus words. Too bad Protestants don’t seem to get Jesus Words

 

[jmcrae]

If you have the truth you will have the historical support where needed. The mere fact that in those doctrines where histocial evidence is necessary and there is none should cause you and other catholics great concern. Paul in fact appeals to historical evidence for the resurrection in I Cor 15:1-8. The same goes for Luke 1:1-4. These predates any challenge by heretics.

We don’t have any historical evidence of Christ’s resurrection, either, come to that. St. Paul did, but we don’t - all we have are the stories about it that come to us through the Scriptures and Holy Tradition.

It’s the same with the Assumption of Mary - all we have of it are the stories about it.

We have neither more nor less evidence for Mary’s assumption than we have for Christ’s resurrection and ascension into Heaven. The same Church gives us both stories, so either we believe both, or neither. But it makes no sense just to arbitrarily believe one, without believing the other.

 

[DarkMark]

If i take John 6 literally then it means Jesus is teaching a form of canabalism. Surely it does not mean that. Correct?

When Catholics celebrate the Lord’s Supper and consume His Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist it is not cannibalism. Even the Reformers Martin Luther and others believed that we are to literally eat and drink Christ’s Flesh and Blood. It is only in recent times that this figurative only interpretation has become popular amongst Christians.

Christ’s Body is truly and substantially present, not in a natural way but in supernatural, i.e. miraculous way. It is “supernatural”, not Natural. Our Lord is in heaven with a glorified body and made present under the Eucharistic elements, thereby cannibalism is not possible.

The doctrine of transubstantiation has been around in since the 2nd Century. Thus, we can only conclude that like Sola-scriptural, the teaching that the Bread and Wine does not turn into the Body and Blood of Our Lord, is a 500 year old doctrine. That is one of the errors of Protestantism.

 

[guanophore]

Could you give us the Scripture that says heaven was opened?

John 3:13
13 No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.

Eph 4:8-11
8 Therefore it is said,

“When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men.”

9 (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)

Jesus brought the Holy men and women with him who had been held “captive” until the gates of heaven could be opened. They had been shut after the fall, and all the OT saints were waiting with “eager longing”.

You didn’t answer my question! What do YOU think happened to the persons who were raised from the dead?

 

[guanophore]

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?

Yes, that would be John ch. 6. This is being discussed in the Transubtantiation thread.

 

[jmcrae]

Third try:

If i take John 6 literally then it means Jesus is teaching a form of canabalism. Surely it does not mean that. Correct?

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.

 

[mercygate]

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

Right. Keep reading and maybe you’ll see it.

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

I describe you as “Bible only” because that is the way you present yourself. I describe myself as a Catholic.

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.

Yeah. Silly me. Reading Catholic doctrine into John 6. How dumb is that?

Of COURSE I read Catholic doctrine in John 6. And, no, Jesus is not changing the loaves into His Body when he feeds the 5000.

The feeding with natural, perishable bread foreshadows the feeding with supernatural, spiritual Bread: Christ’s Eucharistic Body.

I find it telling that Jesus’ walking on the water separates the feeding of the 5000 from the Bread of Life Discourse. It harkens back to Genesis 1 and points toward the Eucharist:

“darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.”

Jesus’ walking on the water separates the “darkness” of the earthly bread – including the manna in the wilderness – and its inability to give eternal life, from the “light” of the bread that will enable one to live forever. Jesus is the Truth, He is the Light, He is the Life.

So I plead guilty: I read John 6 “like a Catholic.”

 

[guanophore]

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.

I know this is hard for you to understand, ja4, but I write this as much for the lurkers on the thread as for you. Catholics interpret scripture as a whole. We consider that they are all part of one whole Divine Revelation. The accounts of the last supper are understood along with John 6. We don’t separate parts out and isolate them like you do.

This topic is being discussed on the Transustatiation thread, so I am not going to repost the answer here. This thread is full enough!

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?

It is about eucharist because it was written by a Catholic who was present at the Last Supper, and knew EXACTLY what Jesus meant. But this is a matter for another thread.

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

Look on the other thread.

How is a catholic saved?

Same way everyone else is, by grace, through faith.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I’m well aware of that. That is what I feel lacking in Protestantism. No Real Presence of Jesus Christ at all. Empty and lack of pure sacrifice. No intimate relationship with Jesus Christ. It’s all talk and no action.

Manny,

I’m glad God has given you the ability to discern my relationship with Him. It must be great to have such power.

 

[Pwrlftr]

So, if they know of Him, and are rejecting Him, do you think they will go to Heaven? (if so, why?)

Nope, but many Catholic posters on CAF believe otherwise.

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3230654]
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
If you have the truth you will have the historical support where needed. The mere fact that in those doctrines where histocial evidence is necessary and there is none should cause you and other catholics great concern. Paul in fact appeals to historical evidence for the resurrection in I Cor 15:1-8. The same goes for Luke 1:1-4. These predates any challenge by heretics.
jmcrae
We don’t have any historical evidence of Christ’s resurrection, either, come to that. St. Paul did, but we don’t - all we have are the stories about it that come to us through the Scriptures and Holy Tradition.

Huh? The historical evidence for the resurrection is one of if not the best attested event in acient world. To have over 500 people who witnessed the risen Christ would hold up quite well in a court of law. I remember reading somewhere that it takes only 2 or 3 eyewitnesses to convict a person of a serious crime. To have this kind of evidence based on eyewitness accounts over a period of time and in different circumstances makes it a sure thing. Keep in mind that I Cor was probably written before 60 AD. Thats within 30 years of the event. Its absolutely astounding how good it is.

It’s the same with the Assumption of Mary - all we have of it are the stories about it. We have neither more nor less evidence for Mary’s assumption than we have for Christ’s resurrection and ascension into Heaven. The same Church gives us both stories, so either we believe both, or neither. But it makes no sense just to arbitrarily believe one, without believing the other.

There is a big difference between this and what i previously wrote. You don’t have anything close to the time of Mary before you read any reports about it. In fact catholic scholars admit that its quite late and they don’t know what exactly happened to her.

 

[jmcrae]

Nope, but many Catholic posters on CAF believe otherwise.

It is natural to hope for the best. I tend to be a little more realistic. In any case, our opinions don’t matter one way or the other - Jesus’ opinion is the only one that counts.