SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[guanophore]

During the Eucharist, Roman Catholics want to believe that the actual body of Jesus is what is being eaten and the wine in the cup is actually His blood.

Actually, here is one Catholic that does n’t want to believe this. I find it very difficult. It is one of those concepts I just cannot rationally wrap my mind around at all. that is what Jesus said, so I choose to believe it by faith.

Of course this is not to be taken literally.

And on what authority do you promulgate this assertion? How is it the Apostles and their disciples all misunderstood Him, and every Christian for 1500 years?

How could Jesus, still present in His own body, say that bread and wine were His body and blood?

I confess I don’t understand a great many things. I don’t know how the infinite God “empties himself, taking on the form of a slave”. I don’t know how He works infallibly through fallible men, but He does.

Jesus told them to commemorate His sacrifice and New Covenant by using the bread and wine as symbols of His body and blood.

I think you still have some learning to do about the rememberance ceremony. the Offering had to be eaten. It symbolizes, and also containse that which it represents.

This concept did not originate with the Last Supper as Jews had been celebrating Passover for thousands of years in the same manner. The unleavened bread was a symbol of the bread that did not have time to rise, because their haste in getting away from Pharaoh in their flight from Egypt.

Jesus fulfilled the last supper, and infused it with His own presence.

If you read this verse out of context, it seems that Roman Catholics have a good point that Jesus indicated that you must eat His body and blood.

The context of the verse IS Catholicism, it having been written by, for, and about Catholics. However, if you think this is a “Roman” phenomenon, then you are just revealing your ignorance. Take it up on the Eastern forum, or better, try arging the point with the Orthodox, who have little love for Rome.

"The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." (John 6:29)

You won’t find any dispute of that here.

He mentioned believing only, not eating.

The two are not to be separated.

"I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. (John 6:35)

This is perfectly consistent with the Real Presence

If anyone believes in Jesus, his spiritual hunger will be satisfied. The Eucharist cannot satisfy one’s physical hunger. Neither can it satisfy one’s spiritual hunger. This hunger can only be satisfied by the living bread (John 6:51),** which is the living Lord Himself**.

Another baseless assertion. It will not for those who do not approach in faith. they profane it, and it makes them sick.

Obviously, real bread does not come from heaven. It comes from grain grown on the earth. Jesus could only be referring to spiritual bread. The analogy is quite clear that Jesus is the spiritual bread from heaven that gives spiritual (eternal) life. Physical bread gives physical life. Spiritual bread gives spiritual life. Jesus talked twice more about believing in Him:
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44)

(cont’d)

The Passover bread is real bread from grain, and the wine really made from grapes.

 

[Tomster]

**I’m sure your Priest won’t like it but I will be glad to give you a history lesson of the church. I am not presumptuous enough however to say when Christ “left” the Catholic Church because I don’t believe He ever left the Catholic
Church. He may have left the Roman Catholic Church when they took over the Catholic Church but who knows the ways of God. For sure, it is not the same Church now.

Christ established His Church and gave explicit instructions in Scripture and through his apostles on how it was to be set up and operated. He gave power to the apostles to do many things as long as they lived but did not allow them to “hand down” these powers, but left them with ordination procedures and policies. The age of the prophets and inspiration died with the last apostle. From that point on, no one had the power to raise from the dead, etc.

Originally the Catholic Church was given all truth. It was as early as the first century, after Christ had gone, that the Gnostics and heretics began to preach their different doctrines, dogmas and practices. Several of the early church fathers combated them fiercely and always with Scripture as there was nothing else to prove them wrong. You won’t find one time that a heretic was confronted with tradition that did not come from Scripture.

These heretics continued and grew in number despite efforts of those like Irenæus and a few others. By the time of the 4th century, so many heretics were teaching false doctrines, etc. that it seemed necessary for as many of the churches as could, get together and establish certain rules of faith, etc. There was no central church at that time. Some claimed authority for the Church at Rome, some claimed authority for the Church at Jerusalem, the Church at Antioch, The Church at Philadelphia and Alexandria. The churches had not agree on one leader, no matter what you have been taught. A simply study of Church History will show this but most Roman Catholics don’t want to do this. They had rather believe what they’ve been told.

Well shortly after the beginning of the 4th century, the Roman Emperor, Constantine, decided to call a council and the Council of Nicæa was ordered. This was done by the Roman Emperor who was not even a Christian and later was baptized into the Arian Church. The biggest problem the Church faced was Arianism, Gnostics and Heretics. Constantine invited 1800 Bishops from all over the Roman Empire but only about 320 showed up. The Bishop of Rome was not one of them.

Constantine wanted control over the Church because his paganistic society was giving him a hard time about these “Christians” who they did not like. Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire and that is when the Roman Catholic Church was begun. He introduced several pagan rituals and rites into the Christian Church in order to keep the pagans happy. The Pagans already had marvelous temples and expensive buildings, etc. and it only seemed natural to convert those to Christian buildings.

In addition to taking over the Christian Church, Constantine also built a beautiful new city and it became Constantinople, the new seat of the Roman Empire.

There were many Churches that did not agree with what Constantine had done and did not accept it. That is when the RCC locked up the Bibles so that the common man could not own or read one and it stayed that way for hundreds of years. It took Wycliffe, Tyndale and Luther to finally get the Bible into the hands of the common people again. That’s what brought on the Reformation because now the common person could read the Bible and see all that had been changed throughout the years.

The Bible is the infallible Word of God and nothing any man can say is infallible. The Bible hasn’t changed, it still means what it says and though many have tried to change it, God has promised to keep it accurate for Christians.**

“The Bible is the infallible Word of God and nothing any man can say is infallible. The Bible hasn’t changed, it still means what it says and though many have tried to change it, God has promised to keep it accurate for Christians.” - Old Scholar

How do you know this to be true? Are you saying we should accept your word for it? Why should we? By saying ’ the Bible is the infallible Word of God’ are you making an infallible statement? Obviously your statement is not infallible because as you stated ’ nothing any man can say is infallible.’ So by stating that ‘the Bible is the infallible Word of God’ you are just making a fallible statement which can be accepted or rejected. Where do you get the authority to make such a statement? Are you assuming an authority you do not really have? ANSWERS PLEASE!

I have to disagree with you on another point. One person did actually change something in the Bible. I believe the Rev. Dr. Luther did change something in the Book of James. It had something to do with “faith alone” I believe. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Tomster

 

[stadre]

Originally Posted by Old Scholar forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
How could Jesus, still present in His own body, say that bread and wine were His body and blood?

And it really does all come down to this. You ask, “How could Jesus do this?”

1. Do you believe that Jesus is God?
2. Do you believe that God is all-powerful?

If Jesus is God, and God is all-powerful, it is most certainly possible for Him, “still present is His own body, say that bread and wine were His body and blood.” The “how” really doesn’t matter. (It’s called “mystery”.) Surely you must realize that it is at least possible.

At this point, I would offer that you may need to rethink your most basic beliefs in God.

 

[Indyann]

Actually, here is one Catholic that does n’t want to believe this. I find it very difficult. It is one of those concepts I just cannot rationally wrap my mind around at all. that is what Jesus said, so I choose to believe it by faith.

You have hit the nail on the head! The GIFT of faith. The MYSTERY of faith.

 

[Tomster]

guanophore;3242039:

Actually, here is one Catholic that does n’t want to believe this. I find it very difficult. It is one of those concepts I just cannot rationally wrap my mind around at all. that is what Jesus said, so I choose to believe it by faith.

You have hit the nail on the head! The GIFT of faith. The MYSTERY of faith.

:harp: Mysterium Fidei :harp:

 

[Teflon93]

Would you happen to have the passage where is states that you must recieve the Eucharist to be saved?

John 6:53.

 

[justasking4]

John 6:53.

In John 6 where is the eucharist or even the last supper even mentioned?

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3240958]Do you think it is possible at all for infants to go to Heaven, then? Since if belief is all that matters, and you say that infants can’t believe, then they’re hooped either way - with or without the Sacraments.

i do think infants do go to heaven. That would make sense to me in my understanding of the mercy and love of God.

They were also not members of the Covenant - notice their placement in the Temple next to the Gentiles, rather than with the believers. Christianity is actually the only major ancient religion that includes women as full members.

This is why i don’t think the comparison with baptism is that strong because of the differences.

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3241010]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Let me ask you a couple of questions in regards to John 6:
1- verse 27-- what is the “food which endures to eternal life”?
If you have access to a NT Greek lexicon how does it define the word?

Church Militant
You tell me if you know.
This is how the word “food” is used in my greek lexicon of the NT–Metaphorically it means nourishment (John 4:32. In John 6:27, 55, bró̄sis is used in the sense of food for the soul, meaning spiritual nourishment from above which is offered to Christians through Christ.
.

Quote:justasking4
2-verse 33-35 speaks of bread that comes down from heaven that gives life. Where in the last supper accounts does Jesus say anything about the bread coming down from heaven that He gives them?

Church Militant
Why would Our Lord have to? The apostles already had accepted that he was speaking literally when He said, [53] 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 you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

This is where i need to understand what you mean by your belief that Jesus is speaking “literally”. I looked up again in lexicon some key words in this chapter that deals with eating and drinking. Here is what i found:
“flesh” in verse 51-- Metaphorically in John 6:51, “and the bread . . . is my flesh,” meaning that Jesus Himself is the principle of life and nutrition to the regenerated soul; see vv. 53–56 (cf. Matt. 26:26)

This is what the word “eat” means in 50-51-53
Spiritually to feed by faith and be sustained in a spiritual and eternal life (John 6:50, 51, 53).

Quote:justasking4
3- Is there any place in John 6 where the passover is mentioned?

Church Militant
Again, why would it have to be?

Since the catholic church is saying there is a connection between this passage and the supper accounts we should expect to see some connection with the passover in a strong way.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Would you believe if someone made a claim to today that a pope that lived and died 300 years ago was assumed into heaven because they found no evidence for his body?

davidv
If was just “someone” no. And since there are no existing stories of any such thing, I am extremely confident that the Church will not ask me to believe it.

What if it were some high church leader like a pope or bishop? Would you believe it then?

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3241146]

Originally Posted by justasking4
You believe baptism is essential to salvation. Correct?
Your church baptizes infants with salvation in mind and the washing away of original sin. Correct?

Church Militant
Yes x 2.

Quote:justasking4
Lets assume i’m correct. Take infant baptism. If we take just a plain reading of what is required before baptism is belief. The Scriptures are clear that a person must first repent and believe then comes baptism. The problem you have with infant baptism is apparent in that they cannot believe. We also know there are no specific and explicit examples from Scripture that shows this. i’m also aware of the arguments from whole households but this is extremely weak and problematic. Circumcison also is not a good example to use in support of either since there are to many differences between the 2 rites.

Church Militant
I disagree, and I know you expected that.

You disagree with what? Do you disagree that infants cannot believe and that there are no clear examples of children being baptized in the NT?
Or the differences between circumcision and baptism are quite large?

Consider that God Himself established circumcision as the means of salvation and in that context the child did not have to profess faith but his family did on his behalf.

Would you happen to have some reference from the OT where circumcision is mentioned in connection with salvation? I’m not aware of any and perhaps missed it.

Consider also that in the Martyrdom of Polycarp Polycarp outright tells the Roman Proconsul that he’s 86 years old and has been a Christian for 86 years, which unless my math skills are REALLY bad means that the man (who was a close friend and disciple of St. John the Evangelist) was infant baptized…probably by St. John himself.

Interesting. I take it you are a priest if i understand the picture on your blog. If this is so, i’m sure you are concerned with the babies you may have baptized or know of who grow up thinking they are catholics becasue they were baptized as infants who believe they are going to heaven but who have no fruit in their lives that they really are catholics. How many claimed catholics who claim don’t even bother with church teachings or practices but when asked if they are catholics will tell you they are based on being baptized as infants?

This is one of the problems there is with infant baptism is that it gives those who were a false sense of security. Thats why i believe the scriptures are clear that a person must have an understanding of what their condition is and their need of a Savior. Once this is realized i.e. believed, then baptism should follow becasue it is a public sign that person has acknowledged Christ and is going to follow Him.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by Old Scholar
So you don’t believe that part of the New Testament was written by eyewitnesses?

jmcrae
No - what he believes is that the New Testament was given to us by the Church in 405 AD, and that the eyewitnesses were long since dead at that time.

It is a precept of the HolyTradition that the New Testament even existed in the first century let alone that it was written by eye-witnesses - there is no contemporary documentation to prove that the New Testament was written by eye-witnesses.

You might want to go back and read Luke 1:1-4, or take the great passage in John 20:30-31 which says:
30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
31 **but these have been written **so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

and 21:24–This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

These are just some the evidence for eyewitness accounts not to mention the dreaded word —tradition… that also supports indirectly eyewitness accounts.Mark is a case in point. Tradition has it that Peter told Mark and Mark wrote it down.

 

[fbl9]

hi justasking4; the parents raise the bptised baby up in knowledge of the faith. at an age of reason the child is then confirmed.as example my daughter who is 13 is going to recieve the sacrement of confirmation this spring.before even starting the sessions of deeper learning. i posed her the question if you have any doubts of what you have been taught, you do not have to do this. She was firm in her choice to be confirmed.Confirmation is a public acceptence of the faith with the understanding of what it means to have been baptised.i do not know of any one repenting of original sin. But through the waters of baptism what was lost to original sin is restorted unto that person.

 

[justasking4]

hi justasking4; the parents raise the bptised baby up in knowledge of the faith. at an age of reason the child is then confirmed.as example my daughter who is 13 is going to recieve the sacrement of confirmation this spring.before even starting the sessions of deeper learning. i posed her the question if you have any doubts of what you have been taught, you do not have to do this. She was firm in her choice to be confirmed.Confirmation is a public acceptence of the faith with the understanding of what it means to have been baptised.i do not know of any one repenting of original sin. But through the waters of baptism what was lost to original sin is restorted unto that person.

You sound like a great parent. Now how will you “disciple” her through the years? How will you go about teaching her about the faith personally?

 

[fbl9]

hi justasking4; the best testament to the faith is sometimes not by words but by how one lives what is taught.judge the medicine not by those who don’t take but by those who do.

 

[Old_Scholar]

This is completely false and you cannot produce a single scripture that even implies that Jesus was speaking symbolically about this. I’ve read the Word of God and it’s just not there.Irrelevant… The Eucharist is not based in Judaism
This scripture citation did not occur at the last supper.

YOU ARE CORRECT—SORRY ABOUT THE QUOTE

This is another place where you attempt to force your interpretation onto the text in order to make it seem to say something other than it does.

The fact is that Jesus did this at that time in order to demonstrate that he can carry out whatever He says, so when He tells us [53] 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 you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. Well obviously anyone who didn’t believe in Him wouldn’t believe in His miraculous presence in the Eucharist.

Yet St. Paul did, as he plainly tells us in 1st Corinthians 11:23-30.
Our Lord didn’t say that, and in fact He made it plain that He was speaking literally when the disciples bailed on him by then asking if the apostles wanted to go too. there is no explanation or qualifying of any kind…just as St. Peter answers Him , "[68] Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
[69] and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” Irrelevant passage citation…taken out of its context and twisted to apply here to something else.You err again here in this statement because real bread does indeed come from heaven…and you are twisting that while having just cited the discussion of the Manna in the desert. Bread which did indeed fall from heaven every day.
And while you preach this you expect anyone who has the Bible in front of them to ignore the whole rest of the chapter!!?

Any objective reader will see through this tactic of yours.

 

[Pier]

You sound like a great parent. Now how will you “disciple” her through the years? How will you go about teaching her about the faith personally?

As many times as the teaching moment comes up…

And one does not have to be a parent to teach others about the faith of Christ, many times a day, every day.

 

[Pier]

Old_Scholar:
Who said the following, and which Church carries out these orders on a daily basis, as per His instructions?

Give us this day our Daily Bread…

This is my Body.

This is my Blood.

&

Do this in memory of me.

Take your time…

 

[Pier]

Old Scholar,

Who said the following, and which Church carries out these orders on a daily basis, as per His instructions?

**Give us this day our Daily Bread…

This is my Body.

This is my Blood.**

&

Do this in memory of me.

?

Take your time…

 

[guanophore]

I have to disagree with you on another point. One person did actually change something in the Bible. I believe the Rev. Dr. Luther did change something in the Book of James. It had something to do with “faith alone” I believe. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Tomster

No, it was in Romans he added “alone”. He wanted to throw out the whole book of James! To much doing.

He also threw out seven other books that had too much “Catholic” doctrine in them.