SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[justasking4]

guanophore;3230701]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
How is a catholic saved?
guanophore
Same way everyone else is, by grace, through faith.

Does a catholic have to have faith more than just Christ to be saved?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny,

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

Christians from the beginning always believed in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ. Why should I bother changing my belief concerning the True Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Eucharist? God doesn’t change. Just as Jesus said that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, we ought to obey him. We do it of course out of love.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Does a catholic have to have faith more than just Christ to be saved?

You want a summary of the Catholic faith? Here it is.

You must believe everything that Jesus said and done. When he says we obey his commandment, we obey. When he says that we must be baptized, and by God, we shall be baptized, and when he says we have to eat his flesh, we will eat his flesh. Why? Because what we Catholic receives have been handed down to us from the bishops, whom the bishops received from the Apostles, and the Apostles received from Jesus, and from Jesus, from the Father.

You either deny this faith or not. We Catholics take everything to what Jesus said into account. Everything. We do not pick and chose Scripture verses like you Protestants do.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Christians from the beginning always believed in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ. Why should I bother changing my belief concerning the True Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Eucharist? God doesn’t change. Just as Jesus said that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, we ought to obey him. We do it of course out of love.

Manny, this is what you posted last time

Manny:

No intimate relationship with Jesus Christ. It’s all talk and no action.

I didn’t ask you to change your belief in…anything.

I simply commented that it must be nice to be able to discern someones reltationship with God as you apparently have the ability to do.

 

[jmcrae]

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.

But those 500 witnesses are dead now - we don’t even know their names - and so is St. Paul. We are now living nearly 2,000 years after the event, and all we have are the stories that they left behind.

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.

The stories come down to us through time from when her body went missing. Her Assumption is mentioned in Revelation 12:1. The theological significance of these stories was not recognized for a long time, but once it was (325 AD) then all of a sudden we see them being written down and discussed. The fact that it took that long for their importance to be recognized does not mean that they didn’t exist yet, though. John alludes to the story in the Book of Revelation. I think it’s also referred to in the Protoevangelium of James, which was also written quite early on.

 

[SyCarl]

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.

I guess I will just have to take solace in Augustine agreeing with my interpretaion of John 6. I am not talking about his view of the Eucharist, just John 6.

1. “They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perishes, but for that which endures unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already.-Augustine (Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 25, Paragraph 12)
   newadvent.org/fathers/1701025.htm

Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.-Augustine (Tractates on the Gospel of John. Tractate 26, Paragraph 1)
newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm

1. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.-Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 16, Paragraph 24)
   newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

 

[DarkMark]

Christians from the beginning always believed in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ. Why should I bother changing my belief concerning the True Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Eucharist? God doesn’t change. Just as Jesus said that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, we ought to obey him. We do it of course out of love.

Why should we change our belief due to [resent] Protestants private interpretation of Scriptures? Christians believed in the Real Presence since the 1st Century, not to mention the Protestant reformers (amazing isn’t it?) also believe it soon. Only a minority believed in a symbolic Eucharist.

 

[Pwrlftr]

But those 500 witnesses are dead now - we don’t even know their names - and so is St. Paul. We are now living nearly 2,000 years after the event, and all we have are the stories that they left behind.

The stories come down to us through time from when her body went missing. Her Assumption is mentioned in Revelation 12:1. The theological significance of these stories was not recognized for a long time, but once it was (325 AD) then all of a sudden we see them being written down and discussed. The fact that it took that long for their importance to be recognized does not mean that they didn’t exist yet, though. John alludes to the story in the Book of Revelation. I think it’s also referred to in the Protoevangelium of James, which was also written quite early on.

How exactly does Rev 12 equal the assumption?

Also, who was the first father to recognize the woman as Mary in Rev. 12?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny, this is what you posted last time

I didn’t ask you to change your belief in…anything.

I simply commented that it must be nice to be able to discern someones reltationship with God as you apparently have the ability to do.

It’s my zeal for the truth and my Love for God.

 

[jmcrae]

Does a catholic have to have faith more than just Christ to be saved?

What is “just Christ”? Doesn’t Christ consist of all of His actions and commandments, including the Church that He founded, and the precepts of that Church?

Can it be said that someone who rejects some (any) part of Christ actually believes in Christ, or does he believe in something of his own invention?

 

[mercygate]

Does a catholic have to have faith more than just Christ to be saved?

“Just” Christ? According to our ability, we need to believe everything He gives us. I don’t know what “just” Christ means. For me, “just” Christ is kind of an amorphous term.

 

[DarkMark]

I guess I will just have to take solace in Augustine agreeing with my interpretaion of John 6. I am not talking about his view of the Eucharist, just John 6.

I still believed Saint Augustine and the other Fathers, when He said the Bread and Wine turns into the Body and Blood of Jesus.

Saint Augustine, like some other Fathers, did impose a more symbolical way of John 6, but I they still believed in the Real Presence.

 

[guanophore]

Huh? What is what i’m saying have to do with evangelism?

You have stated that it is your goal to pull Catholics here away from their erroneous teachings, which are the speculations of men.

If you want to stay catholic stay away from the Scriptures. If you ever start to study them deeply you will find yourself in all kinds of conflicts with your church.

This is a slanderous accusation that is designed to malign Catholics themselves and the Church. It is malicious. you have been trying for the better part of the year to pursuade Catholics here to study the scriptures. Now you openly admit that it is your belief that doing this will pull Catholics away from the church by creating conflict. Your plan and your motives have been made clear.

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.

I am not saying not to discuss them, though I know it is not your real goal here to learn anything. I am asking you to refrain from telling Catholics what they “should” believe, feel, and think about. It is an offensive style of dialogue. It is not your place to tell Catholics how they “should” live their faith.

If you have the truth you will have the historical support where needed.

Not necessarily. There are many truths that are outside history. For example, I believe Jesus did see Satan fall from heaven, but I have no historical evidence for that Truth. I believe it because it is a divine revelation, not a historical “fact”.

The mere fact that in those doctrines where histocial evidence is necessary and there is none should cause you and other catholics great concern.

I am offended by your assertion of what “should” cause Catholics concern. It is a very poor polemic for dialogue. Also, you may require historical evidence for your faith, but I do not. I recieved my faith from a trustworthy source, and don’t require historical evidence. I believe by faith that God appeared to Moses in a burning bush, even though the bush has not been preserved to this day.

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.

I am always pleased when historical evidence exists, such as the discoveries about the Great Flood, and the finding of what might be the Ark on topof a mountain, etc.

 

[SyCarl]

Do you know that Saint Augustine believed in the Real Presence?

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

…

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).

Saint Augustine, like some Fathers, interpret John 6 in a more symbolic way, but they still believe that the Bread and Wine is transform into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Do you still believed Saint Augustine?

On the meaning of John 6? Yes. I did specify i was only dealing with John 6.

 

[Pwrlftr]

It’s my zeal for the truth and my Love for God.

Yup…that’s what it is.

 

[mercygate]

I guess I will just have to take solace in Augustine agreeing with my interpretaion of John 6. I am not talking about his view of the Eucharist, just John 6.

None of these quotations in any way denies the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Not in the least.

 

[DarkMark]

On the meaning of John 6? Yes. I did specify i was only dealing with John 6.

Yes, I know. I just realize, that is why I edited my post

Anyway, none of these quotes changes anything. Saint Augustine, as did all Christians, believed in Transubstantiation. **That is the most important part **

Trying to use Saint Augustine to prove your interpretation of John 6 does not help you, since He still disagree with you. That is the problem with Protestants; they only want to accept the beliefs of the Early Fathers that agree with there private interpretation.

 

[Mannyfit75]

On the meaning of John 6? Yes. I did specify i was only dealing with John 6.

Augustine is a Catholic Bishop of Hippo, and he believe in the Real Presence.

ST. AUGUSTINE

“You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”

-“Sermons”, [227, 21]

“He who made you men, for your sakes was Himself made man; to ensure your adoption as many sons into an everlasting inheritance, the blood of the Only-Begotten has been shed for you. If in your own reckoning you have held yourselves cheap because of your earthly frailty, now assess yourselves by the price paid for you; meditate, as you should, upon what you eat, what you drink, to what you answer ‘Amen’”.

-“Second Discourse on Psalm 32”. Ch. 4. circa

"For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf.

Source: St. Augustine, Sermons 172,2, circa 400 A.D.

"The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice. . . . Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him.

“Christ held Himself in His hands when He gave His Body to His disciples saying: ‘This is My Body.’ No one partakes of this Flesh before he has adored it.”

• St. Augustine

“Recognize in this bread what hung on the cross, and in this chalice what flowed from His side… whatever was in many and varied ways announced beforehand in the sacrifices of the Old Testament pertains to this one sacrifice which is revealed in the New Testament.”

• from the writings of St. Augustine, Sermon 3, 2; circa A.D. 410 {original translation}

MMmph, Carl. It seems like St. Augustine contradicted himself. I doubt it. It amazes me that Protestants use a Catholic bishop to claim he believe in Symbolizing the Real Presence in John 6…

I’m not surprise you pick and choose ECF to support your claim which itself is false. Christians always believe in the Real Presence. Protestants **invited the symbolism **of the John 6…

Source: St. Augustine, The City of God, 10, 5; 10,20, c. 426:

 

[jmcrae]

How exactly does Rev 12 equal the assumption?

The Ark in Heaven (theotokos) is the Woman who is the mother of Jesus. (Theotokos)

Also, who was the first father to recognize the woman as Mary in Rev. 12?

You mean the first Father to write on the subject of the Book of Revelation? I have no idea.

How would they have not recognized her, though? Does Jesus have two mothers, now?

 

[SyCarl]

Augustine is a Catholic Bishop of Hippo, and he believe in the Real Presence.

Manny, could you tell me where I can find the complete text of Sermons 227 and 172? I have never been able to find them any where.

The links I gave may not work since I can’t seem open the fathers portion of New Advent.