SPLIT: The Eucharist in Scripture and Catholic teaching.

[Cal_Fullerton]

. . . That depends upon what the priest gives you for your penance.

I have indeed been given “Pray 3 Hail Marys” as my penance.

Do you see something wrong with that?

Have you ever forgiven your neighbor boy for breaking your basement window with a baseball, but still made him pay for its repair?

You’ve made a good point.

My Bible study, and also real-life stories, has led me to believe that sometimes God exempts us from the penalty for sin when we are forgiven—skipping hell would be the grand example of that—and sometimes we still suffer for our sins even though we have repented with all our hearts. After David was forgiven for his infamous sin with Bathsheba and against her husband, he didn’t have to die, but he still suffered greatly.

I believe that often we are not fully repentant even though we say we are. But when suffering follows sins that we have fully repented of, we can count that suffering as an excuse to learn to trust more deeply in God just like we would if we were going through any other kind of trial.

Getting back to penance, I think that unless the priest is inspired by God, he is stepping on God’s toes if he decides himself what your penalty should be. Do you think he is always inspired by our heavenly Father?

 

[PRmerger]

That sounds good.
But are you saying, like Mormons often say, that the Holy Spirit (or the rebirth of the human spirit, or the entering into the kingdom of God, or, as you put it, the reception of the mark of Christ) begins at baptism and not before?

Yes, I am saying that the reception of the mark of Christ begins at baptism and not before.

Not sure if this is “like Mormons often say”.

In other words, are you saying that baptism is essential for forgiveness of sins,

Yes.

that you will go to hell if you are not baptized, even though you’ve sincerely turned your heart toward Jesus to serve him?

Baptism is the normative means for our salvation, but we never, ever say “you will go to hell if you are not baptized.” We simply don’t know.

I will have you note that the Catholic Church has an entire feast day in December devoted to thousands of souls who are believed to be in heaven who did not receive baptism: the Feast of the Holy Innocents.

Not to mention in my urban area there’s an entire church/parish devoted to honoring these thousands of souls who are in heaven who did not receive baptism.

Also, does Protestant baptism count for anything in your humble opinion?

Well, since “Protestant” is a behemoth of tens of thousands of different denominations, it’s hard to say exactly what you mean by “Protestant baptism”…

but if you were baptized in water using the Trinitarian formula, then you are a member of Christ’s Body, the Catholic Church. And if you ever wish to formally join the CC, you will not need to be re-baptized. If you did, all that would happen would be that you would get wet.

P.S. I love your comic of the crying woman. :bounce:

And I love you for having a sense of humor when in dialogue here! :hug1:

 

[adrift]

That sounds good.
But are you saying, like Mormons often say, that the Holy Spirit (or the rebirth of the human spirit, or the entering into the kingdom of God, or, as you put it, the reception of the mark of Christ) begins at baptism and not before? In other words, are you saying that baptism is essential for forgiveness of sins, that you will go to hell if you are not baptized, even though you’ve sincerely turned your heart toward Jesus to serve him?

Also, does Protestant baptism count for anything in your humble opinion?

P.S. I love your comic of the crying woman. :bounce:

Baptism is essential because that is what Jesus said.

Acts 2
38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1 Peter
20 who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.

21

This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God 7 for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

22

who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

To your question of going to hell. I would suggest you read this Baptism We cannot judge. We can only go by what Jesus said. How He applies it we do not know.

We also believe in only one baptism. All that matters is that the intention, words and understanding is present. An atheist can baptize as long as long as his intent is to baptize. The Catholic Church when accepting a convert only baptizes that person if they have not been baptized or there is some doubt of the validity of baptism. One invalid baptism is Mormons. That is because they do not believe in the Trinity as most Christians do. If you are baptized in the Lutheran Church. You are baptized. Please read the article for a further explanation.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Are Catholics encouraged to read their Bibles?

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Then I think what you are proclaiming is exactly the Catholic definition of infallibility!

That is, men are capable of writing things that are inspired–and without error–but in other areas of their lives they make mistakes.

And thus, men are infallible, given certain parameters.

Are you okay with that definition and then agreeable with the Catholic Church’s teaching on infallibility?

EDIT: Hiya! Welcome back!

If that’s it, YES! Hallelujah!:extrahappy:

 

[PRmerger]

You’ve made a good point.

Oh, p-shaw!

My Bible study, and also real-life stories, has led me to believe that sometimes God exempts us from the penalty for sin when we are forgiven—skipping hell would be the grand example of that

Then that would make God un-just wouldn’t it?

—and sometimes we still suffer for our sins even though we have repented with all our hearts. After David was forgiven for his infamous sin with Bathsheba and against her husband, he didn’t have to die, but he still suffered greatly.

Yes, I would say so. Losing your son because you committed a grave sin is indeed “suffering greatly”. It does indeed show that even though God forgave David, penance was required.

I believe that often we are not fully repentant even though we say we are.

Yes, possibly.

And that brings up a great argument for purgatory. What happens, Cal, when you die but you have a sin that you haven’t fully repented of, even though you say you were? Do you deserve hell for that?

Or perhaps you need a little bit more purging and cleansing before you enter before the Throne of Heaven?

Remember, nothing unclean can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Getting back to penance, I think that unless the priest is inspired by God, he is stepping on God’s toes if he decides himself what your penalty should be. Do you think he is always inspired by our heavenly Father?

Penance does not equal “penalty”, Cal.

And the Church does not teach that the penance we receive from the priest is inspired by our heavenly father. It may indeed be too lax. Or too great. He may have erred in the assignation.

However, that penance is required is a no-brainer, yes?

 

[PRmerger]

If that’s it, YES! Hallelujah!:extrahappy:

Then you are way ahead of the great number of folks (Catholics included, sadly) who haven’t a clue what the charism of infallibility means.

Now you know!

 

[PRmerger]

Are Catholics encouraged to read their Bibles?

See what our Catechism has to say about this:

The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. (Phil 3:8 ) Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ. CCC 133

 

[jmcrae]

Hello my Catholic friends & spiritual relatives,

I have an important question for you. I grabbed the following statement of faith from the National Association of Evangelicals. Which ones do the Catholic Church agree with, and which ones don’t you agree with? Your answers, which needn’t be long, will help me have an overall picture of how we compare. Thanks!

Statement of Faith

We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.


We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.


We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.


We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration [the rebirth of the spirit] by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.


We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.


We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.


We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.

PR already answered your questions regarding this - but I have a question for you about it:

Which (if any) of the Apostles came up with this list of required beliefs?

OR, was it perchance written more recently? And if so, then by what authority does that person tell us what we are required to believe? Is/was he a self-anointed prophet?

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

ARTICLE 1
THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM

No, it is not repeating prayers over and over, and it is really a subject deserving of its own thread. It cannot be answered in a few short paragraphs.

V. THE MANY FORMS OF PENANCE IN CHRISTIAN LIFE

[ARTICLE 2
GRACE AND JUSTIFICATION

I. JUSTIFICATION ](Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 2)

Sounds good!

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Please elaborate on this statement. Exactly what mistakes [did Peter make].

Paul talks about them in Galatians 2:11-16. (Those verses are hard to understand. A modern version of the Bible comes in handy here, or a good commentary.)

Peter gives in to fear and begins to draw back from associating and eating with Gentiles even though he had been eating with Gentiles before the Judaizers came around. He gives in to pressure from the Judaizers. Judaizers were Christians who felt that circumcision was necessary for salvation. Maybe they felt the practice of other Jewish customs were necessary as well.

Paul calls what Peter was doing “hypocrisy” in verse 13 and says that he corrected Peter right in front of all those present.

Peter was hypocritical because he had been proclaiming and living out the fact that salvation is by faith in Christ, not by observing the law, and here Peter is, going back to the Law of Moses—or at least to Jewish customs that may or may not have been part of the Law of Moses.

Apparently Peter was also falling in with the Judaizers in requiring new Christians from the Gentile world to follow Jewish laws. In verse 14 Paul relates some of what he had said to Peter: “How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”

In verses 15-16 Paul reiterates the gospel that says we are justified by faith in Jesus, not by observing any law. Peter began to separate himself from the Gentiles (v. 12) even though he knew that it was okay for him to eat with Gentiles since Jesus broke the barrier between Jews and Gentiles by his blood. The New Covenant changes things. (I wasn’t trying to stay with the subject of the Eucharist but I am on the subject because the Eucharist celebrates the New Covenant, among other things.)

Have a blessed day, adrift. Don’t drift too far! :heaven:

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=688789

Back to your regularly scheduled thread …

Too much, jm. I’m trying to move along quickly and you’re making it difficult!

 

[adrift]

Cal I am sure that is is hard to follow this thread so lets review the conversation:

Do you believe Peter was infallible? If so, where’s your biblical support for that?

Hiya, Cal!

Here’s the thing: you believe Peter was infallible, as well!

How 'bout that?

How do I know this?

Because you quoted him as infallible right here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9008448&postcount=404

Unless you think there are some errors in his encyclicals, 1 Peter and 2 Peter, then you do believe he was infallible, right?

Hiya!
No. I believe 1 & 2 Peter are inspired, but Peter certainly was capable of saying things that were not correct. Galatians indicates that he made mistakes.

Please elaborate on this statement. Exactly what mistakes.

Paul talks about them in Galatians 2:11-16. (Those verses are hard to understand. A modern version of the Bible comes in handy here, or a good commentary.)

I thought that is what you meant. Cal what you quote to prove that Peter was not infallible proves that you do not understand what Catholics mean by infallibility.

The Catholic Dictionary has this definition

INFALLIBILITY
Freedom from error in teaching the universal Church in matters of faith or morals. As defined by the First Vatican Council, “The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra—that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and therefore such definitions are irreformable of themselves, and not in virtue of consent of the Church” (Denzinger 3074).

The bearer of the infallibility is every lawful Pope as successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles. But the Pope alone is infallible, not others to whom he delegates a part of his teaching authority, for example, the Roman congregations.

The object of his infallibility is his teaching of faith and morals. This means especially revealed doctrine like the Incarnation. But it also includes any nonrevealed teaching that is in any way connected with revelation.

The condition of the infallibility is that the Pope speaks ex cathedra. For this is required that: 1. he have the intention of declaring something unchangeably true; and 2. he speak as shepherd and teacher of all the faithful with the full weight of his apostolic authority, and not merely as a private theologian or even merely for the people of Rome or some particular segment of the Church of God.

The source of the infallibility is the supernatural assistance of the Holy Spirit, who protects the supreme teacher of the Church from error and therefore from misleading the people of God.

As a result, the ex cathedra pronouncements of the Pope are unchangeable “of themselves,” that is, not because others in the Church either first instructed the Pope or agree to what he says. (Etym. Latin in-, not + fallibility; from fallere, to deceive: infallibilis, not able to deceive, or err.)

Let us apply this to your proof of Peter’s statements
The condition of the infallibility is that the Pope speaks ex cathedra. For this is required that:

1. he have the intention of declaring something unchangeably true;
   I hope you agree with me that Peter did not declare this as unchangeably true. Later He does make an infallibly true statement that Gentile converts to Christianity were not obligated to keep most of the Mosaic law, including the rules concerning circumcision of males.
2. he speak as shepherd and teacher of all the faithful with the full weight of his apostolic authority, and not merely as a private theologian or even merely for the people of Rome or some particular segment of the Church of God.
   Peter didn’t do this either. Don’t mix up infallibility with impeccability they are not the same.

 

[PRmerger]

I thought that is what you meant. Cal what you quote to prove that Peter was not infallible proves that you do not understand what Catholics mean by infallibility.

Actually, adrift, I think that Cal has already acknowledged that when the Catholic teaching on infallibility is presented like this:

Then I think what you are proclaiming is exactly the Catholic definition of infallibility!

That is, men are capable of writing things that are inspired–and without error–but in other areas of their lives they make mistakes.

And thus, men are infallible, given certain parameters.

Are you okay with that definition and then agreeable with the Catholic Church’s teaching on infallibility?

that Cal is good with the acknowledgment that men can, indeed, be infallible, given the above parameters.

His response to the above was:

If that’s it, YES! Hallelujah!:extrahappy:

 

[jmcrae]

Paul talks about them in Galatians 2:11-16. (Those verses are hard to understand. A modern version of the Bible comes in handy here, or a good commentary.)

Peter gives in to fear and begins to draw back from associating and eating with Gentiles even though he had been eating with Gentiles before the Judaizers came around. He gives in to pressure from the Judaizers. Judaizers were Christians who felt that circumcision was necessary for salvation. Maybe they felt the practice of other Jewish customs were necessary as well.

Paul calls what Peter was doing “hypocrisy” in verse 13 and says that he corrected Peter right in front of all those present.

For sure, Peter did wrong, and Paul was right to correct him.

Does this prove that Peter was not infallible? I would propose that, in fact, it proves the opposite.

Remember who Paul was? He was a Pharisee. It was his profession to know and uphold the Law of God. He was good at it, too. He was well-known in Jerusalem, and highly respected. If anybody knew the Law, it was Paul.

If anybody knew how Divine Law came about, it was Paul. He understood the sources of authority, and could differentiate between laws that only apply in particular circumstances vs. laws that are binding on everyone at all times.

Peter was hypocritical because he had been proclaiming and living out the fact that salvation is by faith in Christ, not by observing the law, and here Peter is, going back to the Law of Moses—or at least to Jewish customs that may or may not have been part of the Law of Moses.

Right. Peter was going back to the Bible, instead of following the Holy Tradition of the Apostles.

Apparently Peter was also falling in with the Judaizers in requiring new Christians from the Gentile world to follow Jewish laws. In verse 14 Paul relates some of what he had said to Peter: “How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”

In verses 15-16 Paul reiterates the gospel that says we are justified by faith in Jesus, not by observing any law. Peter began to separate himself from the Gentiles (v. 12) even though he knew that it was okay for him to eat with Gentiles since Jesus broke the barrier between Jews and Gentiles by his blood.

And how did Paul know this?

Because the Vicar of Christ, Peter, had told him so. Acts 15:7-11

[SIGN]ACTS 15

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

[/SIGN]

 

[IanGE]

1 Corinthians 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. 26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.

The above is what happens each time a Catholic Mass is celebrated.

The synoptic gospels agree with Paul’s testimony. I can quite understand other Christian churches reading Jesus’ words more as “do this in commemmoration of me” rather than the Catholic mystery of bread and wine turning into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. I have been led by Jesus to celebrate communion in other churches: the first time I cried and said “Lord, this is a PROTESTANT church” and the Lord asked, “are you afraid of me, Ian?” Blessedly it was a High Church of England, which believes in transsubstantiation, so I had no problem. Other times I KNOW they do not believe in transsubstantiation but simply join in with them in commemmoration of our Lord Jesus. Although the Pentecostal practice of passing round broken crackers and thimbles of blackcurrant juice is pushing it a bit!
Having said that, partaking of the body and blood of my Lord became a wondrous event since I was Born Again. I constantly tell my Protestant Born Again friends they are missing out!
One Maundy Thursday we happened to be on holiday in India, where I was born. We went to my mother church and the Indian Monsignor’s sermon claimed that the Last Supper celebrated two momentous church institutions: one, the introduction of the Eucharist, the other the institution of the priesthood, because only priests could celebrate communion. Now THAT is an interpretation too far! Priests were instituted by God to serve and keep themselves scrupulously holy in the desert temple and later the temple in Jerusalem. God WAS present behind the veil in the Holy of Holies and only the High Priest went behind that veil on Yom Kippur. And he had to have kept himself ritually pure or else he’d be zapped: which is why he wore bells on the hem of his garment: if the bells stopped, the No. 2 I/C had to gird his loins and drag him out. And God help him if he skipped a ritual!
But at the instant of Jesus’ death on the cross, the veil of the temple was rent in two. God was no longer present in the temple. As He promised in prophecy he would live in the hearts of his people, who no longer had to make severe pilgrimages to worship God in a building cos He was right there making his abode with them. One can conclude that special ultra-holy people are no longer required to serve God. How much more staggeringly wonderful is the thought that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit LIVE right there IN you! But baby Christians and those of weak faith or even no faith do need experienced Elders to chair meetings and guide their flock. Among Paul’s list of God’s appointments (1 Cor 13:28) are those with gifts of administration. Which includes me out cos I was a hopeless manager who just could not delegate!

 

[jmcrae]

The synoptic gospels agree with Paul’s testimony. I can quite understand other Christian churches reading Jesus’ words more as “do this in commemmoration of me” rather than the Catholic mystery of bread and wine turning into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. I have been led by Jesus to celebrate communion in other churches: the first time I cried and said “Lord, this is a PROTESTANT church” and the Lord asked, “are you afraid of me, Ian?” Blessedly it was a High Church of England, which believes in transsubstantiation, so I had no problem. Other times I KNOW they do not believe in transsubstantiation but simply join in with them in commemmoration of our Lord Jesus. Although the Pentecostal practice of passing round broken crackers and thimbles of blackcurrant juice is pushing it a bit!
Having said that, partaking of the body and blood of my Lord became a wondrous event since I was Born Again. I constantly tell my Protestant Born Again friends they are missing out!
One Maundy Thursday we happened to be on holiday in India, where I was born. We went to my mother church and the Indian Monsignor’s sermon claimed that the Last Supper celebrated two momentous church institutions: one, the introduction of the Eucharist, the other the institution of the priesthood, because only priests could celebrate communion. Now THAT is an interpretation too far! Priests were instituted by God to serve and keep themselves scrupulously holy in the desert temple and later the temple in Jerusalem. God WAS present behind the veil in the Holy of Holies and only the High Priest went behind that veil on Yom Kippur. And he had to have kept himself ritually pure or else he’d be zapped: which is why he wore bells on the hem of his garment: if the bells stopped, the No. 2 I/C had to gird his loins and drag him out. And God help him if he skipped a ritual!
But at the instant of Jesus’ death on the cross, the veil of the temple was rent in two. God was no longer present in the temple. As He promised in prophecy he would live in the hearts of his people, who no longer had to make severe pilgrimages to worship God in a building cos He was right there making his abode with them. One can conclude that special ultra-holy people are no longer required to serve God. How much more staggeringly wonderful is the thought that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit LIVE right there IN you! But baby Christians and those of weak faith or even no faith do need experienced Elders to chair meetings and guide their flock. Among Paul’s list of God’s appointments (1 Cor 13:28) are those with gifts of administration. Which includes me out cos I was a hopeless manager who just could not delegate!

Ian, this sort of thing is extremely unhelpful when we are trying to present the authentic teachings of the Church. Please keep your personal opinions out of these kinds of discussions, lest someone accidentally mistake them for authentic teaching.

It is true, by the way, that Jesus instituted the Christian priesthood at the Last Supper. The Indian Monsignor wasn’t just giving a personal opinion - he was sharing with you the Holy Tradition of the Apostles.

It is also inappropriate for a Catholic, who has the fulness of the Christian faith, to partake of communion in non-Catholic churches, for the simple reason that, sadly, we are not in communion with them. Instead, we must pray that we will one day be reunited with them in One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, as Christ intended.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

No. She is saying that the manual - the “how to” book - is the Catechism. (Which isn’t strictly accurate, but it’s near enough that I won’t quibble at this point.)

Imagine a factory that is thousands of years old. It has a lot of great stories and history. This is analogous to the Bible and small-t tradition.

You also have a manual that you study to know how to do your job. You don’t learn your job from the stories of old; you learn it from the manual. It tells you how to clean, repair, and operate your machinery. This is analogous to the Catechism, broadly speaking.

The manual isn’t your authority, though - your supervisor is your authority. He’s the one who tells you when it’s time to operate the machine, when it’s time to clean it, and when it’s time to do repairs. The manual contains the instructions for doing these things, but your supervisor lets you know when to do them.

In the Catholic Church, the supervisor is your local pastor. Above him is your local Bishop, and above/beside him is the Pope. It is the living authority to which we look, rather than to dead letters.

I see.
What about the Holy Spirit? Does the Catholic Church encourage people to be led by the Spirit?

Also, I thought the pastor in the CC was called a priest.

 

[jmcrae]

I see.
What about the Holy Spirit? Does the Catholic Church encourage people to be led by the Spirit?

Together as the Body of Christ - a company of 2 billion souls, more or less - we are led by the Holy Spirit. There is only one Holy Spirit, so if someone claims to be led by the Holy Spirit in a different direction than the Catholic Church as a whole, then he is either deceived, or he is a deceiver.

Also, I thought the pastor in the CC was called a priest.

The priest who is in charge of your local parish (typically, the priest in charge of the parish church nearest your home) is your pastor, or shepherd. God’s authority over you rests in him.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

My Catholic step daughter told my wife and me yesterday that her priest said that there will come a time when there won’t be any denominational lines. There won’t be Catholics and Protestants but only Christians. She said that the priest said that Catholics shouldn’t think they are better than Protestants.
I was bit surprised. I said, “That’s good! I’ll have to tell my online Catholic friends about that.”

Do you agree with it? Part of it? Is it unusual for a Catholic priest to say such a thing?​

Another unrelated question I have has to do with something I heard a priest say during a Catholic Mass on TV. He said, “Father and Son in the unity of the Holy Spirit.” Is that what the CC teaches?—that it is the Holy Spirit that unifies, or makes one, the Father and Son?

If so, I agree with that.