SPLIT: The Eucharist in Scripture and Catholic teaching.

[adventbeliever]

Hummmm…it is not about believing but it is to believe in the Truth.

my reply: Jesus said, “I am the way, the the truth, and the life.” John 14:6. He is the Word of God (John 1:1) and the Word is the truth. “Thy word is truth.” John 17:17. The word teaches the priesthood of every believer. 1 Peter 2:5,9.

“I know that protestants cannot accept that the CC is the Church found Christ.”

My reply: The church is God’s fortress which He holds in a revolted world. It is the soul that is yielded to Christ and He intends that no authority shall be known in it but His own. The church, every individual disciple of the Master, is Heaven’s appointed channel for the revelation of God to man.

You should follow the Scriptures you quoted and stop the hatred and the saga to prove the CC is wrong. Stop telling lies to Catholics so they can leave the CC. Stop the envy towards the CC. This is the Holy Church of God, teh Pillar and Bullwark of the Truth. I know that you guys read Scriptures but avoid Scriptures that prove your falsehood. You cannot never say that your congregation was found by Christ. You can never say that you were sent by Christ HImself.

Gee, I wonder what happens to you guys if we take the Bible away from you all.

my reply: Did not the Catholic Church prohibit the reading of the Scriptures and did not that bring centuries of spiritual darkness to this world?

The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century put the Scriptures above the traditions of men and a revival took place.

Do we wish to return to the Dark Ages?

ab

 

[wisdomseeker]

wisdomseeker;8611572:

Hummmm…it is not about believing but it is to believe in the Truth.

my reply: Jesus said, “I am the way, the the truth, and the life.” John 14:6. He is the Word of God (John 1:1) and the Word is the truth. “Thy word is truth.” John 17:17. The word teaches the priesthood of every believer. 1 Peter 2:5,9.

“I know that protestants cannot accept that the CC is the Church found Christ.”

My reply: The church is God’s fortress which He holds in a revolted world. It is the soul that is yielded to Christ and He intends that no authority shall be known in it but His own. The church, every individual disciple of the Master, is Heaven’s appointed channel for the revelation of God to man.

You should follow the Scriptures you quoted and stop the hatred and the saga to prove the CC is wrong. Stop telling lies to Catholics so they can leave the CC. Stop the envy towards the CC. This is the Holy Church of God, teh Pillar and Bullwark of the Truth. I know that you guys read Scriptures but avoid Scriptures that prove your falsehood. You cannot never say that your congregation was found by Christ. You can never say that you were sent by Christ HImself.

Gee, I wonder what happens to you guys if we take the Bible away from you all.

my reply: Did not the Catholic Church prohibit the reading of the Scriptures and did not that bring centuries of spiritual darkness to this world?

The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century put the Scriptures above the traditions of men and a revival took place.

Do we wish to return to the Dark Ages?

ab

Scriptures was made for the Church alone. Due to the Bible being in teh hands of man is the reason why the world is left in confusion with so many voices teaching different things about God. how is the world supposed to believe in God and what God?

God loves those who Worship Him in Truth. You should seek the Truth. You should first seek the KIngdom of God, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. the only reason for your existence is to protest the CC. protestantism breath on battling the CC. The Holy Church of God is battled but not defeated. She is the New Israel. Have you ever asked yourself how so many come agaisnt this Beautiful Church yet they do not succeed? Could be because our Lord said, that He would be with her until the ends of time?

before you, the CC was and she still is. even after you guys took the Holy Book from her, She is still Triumphant. hummm…the reason you cannot understand the Word of God is because God will not let noone outside the Church know Him. Only through His Church one can know Him. “This is the Mystery of Faith, when we eat this Bread and drink this we proclaim your death, Lord until you come again.” Seek and you shall find.

 

[ncgolf]

I just made the sweetest carrot juice and as I drink it I confess that it is the blood of Christ for my physical life. The life that is in the carrot juice is the life of Christ for my physical nature for it is the life of His Word. Without the life of God nature would die.

ab

I suggest we ignore this troll. He/she is obviously not interested in any meaningful dialog nor interested in learning or understanding what Catholics believe.

Ultimately ab will just fade away and the forum will no less without these insipid comments.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Quote:
Originally Posted by adventbeliever
I just made the sweetest carrot juice and as I drink it I confess that it is the blood of Christ for my physical life. The life that is in the carrot juice is the life of Christ for my physical nature for it is the life of His Word. Without the life of God nature would die.

ab

This is quite a blasphemy agaisnt God. I will give you to God and let Him deal with you.

 

[PRmerger]

I just made the sweetest carrot juice and as I drink it I confess that it is the blood of Christ for my physical life. The life that is in the carrot juice is the life of Christ for my physical nature for it is the life of His Word. Without the life of God nature would die.

ab

Hi, friend.

It is good for you to be here to dialogue with Catholics who are knowledgeable in their faith and able to provide apologia for the One True Faith that can trace its origins to the Church Jesus founded, not a church founded in America 20 centuries after the life of Christ.

However, you must be respectful to the faith of your hosts. Statements such as the above may get you banned.

I hope that you take this friendly warning so that you may continue to dialogue here and we may be able to offer you the reasons for the hope that is in us!

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

This morning I happened upon this comment in a Protestant book: “Great healing in body, soul and spirit happens during communion. . . . is not just a religious ritual. . . . is an intimate time of fellowship with Jesus.”

Maybe some Protestants are catching up to Catholics on this topic.

Gobble, gobble.

 

[PRmerger]

This morning I happened upon this comment in a Protestant book: “Great healing in body, soul and spirit happens during communion. . . . is not just a religious ritual. . . . is an intimate time of fellowship with Jesus.”

Maybe some Protestants are catching up to Catholics on this topic.

Gobble, gobble.

That is heartening to read.

But, alas, without a valid priesthood Protestants do not have the Eucharist.

One reason I am thankful today:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Here’s what the Catholic Church proclaims you must do/believe in order to receive salvation: We are saved: By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

But apparently one doesn’t need to have an explicit faith in Christ as the invincibly ignorant can also be saved.

By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

Here I agree that repentance is inseparable from saving faith. Curiously, however, the Catholic Church does seem to separate the act or repentance from both belief and baptism, whereas scripture so often conjoins the three. In fact, the normative pattern for most Catholics is to be baptized without repentance, whereas the normative pattern that we seen in the New Testament is for baptism to follow both belief and repentance.

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

Which, strictly speaking, isn’t needed for salvation at all. For Catholics, the mere desire for baptism is enough. In fact, in the case of the invincibly ignorant, they don’t even need an explicit desire for baptism. They just need to follow the light that they were given. But of course these are the exceptions, not the rule. But even in the case of the vast majority who are baptized, baptism itself doesn’t save–not even in Catholic theology. What it does is put one in the state of sanctifying grace. So long as you don’t sin after this, baptism can save you. But if you do sin after baptism, can no longer save you. For now you will need another sacrament to deal with post-baptismal (mortal) sin. This seems to force the conclusion that the baptized Catholic who receives sacramental absolution from a mortal sin is no better off than the invincibly ignorant unbeliever who has never been baptized in the first place, yet somehow has managed to attain the sate of grace by obeying the dictates of conscience. (By the way–the only unambiguous reference to baptism is 1 Peter 3:21, as neither John 3:5 nor Titus 3:5 are unequivocal references to baptism–and indeed probably are not).

By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)

Of course no Catholic really believes this. For one–how many times is it necessary? Does going to communion once suffice? What if one dies prior to making his/her first communion, yet is in the state of grace? And of course, our invincibly ignorant brethren must likewise be exempt from this requirement. After all, they don’t even need to believe in Jesus to go to heaven, so why would they need to take communion? On another note, it is hardly clear that John 6 is about the Eucharist at all. So making it a requirement for salvation is dubious on exegetical grounds alone. But what it is about–namely coming to and believing in Jesus–is clear. And so the Biblical and specifically Johanine requirement to have an explicit faith in Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation.

Of course, most of the things on this list are only the normative requirements for being a good Catholic, not the absolute requirements for going to heaven. But a normative requirement really is not requirement at all, once we begin to allow for multiple exceptions to the rule. This, the Catholic Church has done, having changed its old exclusivist claims (no Salvation outside the Church) for a normative view wherein faith in Christ is constitutive of salvation for anyone who goes to heaven, especially those who believe in Him. So the good Buddhist and conscientious Hindu can–by the objective grace obtained at the cross–go to heaven, even without having an explicit faith in Christ. That is the Gospel according to Vatican II, anyway. For a different view, try John 14.

 

[jmcrae]

The Mormon Church teaches that the only people qualified by God to lay hands on people to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit to be a constant companion are in the Mormon Church.

How can you prove to me that the Catholic Church has more authority than the Mormon Church?

The Catholic Church was started by Jesus; the Mormon Church was started by Joseph Smith.

It seems like a very simple calculation, to me.

 

[jmcrae]

But apparently one doesn’t need to have an explicit faith in Christ as the invincibly ignorant can also be saved.

It’s not that they “can be saved” - invincible ignorance is not salvation. Rather, it is that they cannot be damned, since they committed no deliberate sin. (Meaning, they must have died very young, or somehow been very sheltered in their lives, such that they never thought of doing anything that they knew was bad.)

Here I agree that repentance is inseparable from saving faith. Curiously, however, the Catholic Church does seem to separate the act or repentance from both belief and baptism, whereas scripture so often conjoins the three. In fact, the normative pattern for most Catholics is to be baptized without repentance, whereas the normative pattern that we seen in the New Testament is for baptism to follow both belief and repentance.

Baptism for anyone over the age of seven (which would include pretty much the whole first generation of Christians) follows years of spiritual preparation and faith formation, which includes both belief and repentance.

Someone under the age of seven still has need of baptism, but since they cannot deliberately sin, and do not have the use of reason, there is no need for them to have understanding, or repentance - however, it is required that they be taught the Christian faith, and that they be brought to the Sacrament of Reconciliation as soon as it is suspected that they are capable of deliberate sin (usually age 8 or 9).

Which, strictly speaking, isn’t needed for salvation at all. For Catholics, the mere desire for baptism is enough.

Not really, no. The desire to be baptized is sufficient to get into RCIA, but you can’t complete RCIA without coming to a full understanding of all of the teachings of the Church, or without repenting of your sins. (If you die while in RCIA, then you have baptism of desire, but if you never join RCIA, then can you really say that you desired baptism? Since you took no steps to make it happen.)

 

[PRmerger]

But apparently one doesn’t need to have an explicit faith in Christ as the invincibly ignorant can also be saved.

The invincibly ignorant can be saved, but that does not mean that they will be saved, Miguel.

Not to mention that having “an explicit faith” is not a Biblical term.

Jesus is the Eternal Logos,“the true light, which enlightens everyone” (John 1:9) and thus even those who have an “implicit faith” or knowledge of Him may be saved. Which is why Socrates, who never knew the man Incarnate, can be saved.

 

[PRmerger]

Curiously, however, the Catholic Church does seem to separate the act or repentance from both belief and baptism,

Are you aware of any Catholic baptisms that have occurred without the repentance of the baptized? If so, please let the local ordinary know! For repentance is required, to be sure!

Now, as infants have not sinned, they need not repent. But, of course, the repentance and faith of their parents/godparents a pre-requisite to baptism.

For Catholics, the mere desire for baptism is enough. In fact, in the case of the invincibly ignorant, they don’t even need an explicit desire for baptism. They just need to follow the light that they were given.

If you say so. And if that’s the case, then so what? Desire for baptism seems to be a good thing, no?

But of course these are the exceptions, not the rule. But even in the case of the vast majority who are baptized, baptism itself doesn’t save–not even in Catholic theology. What it does is put one in the state of sanctifying grace.

Right. No one is saved until he dies, Miguel.

 

[PRmerger]

This seems to force the conclusion that the baptized Catholic who receives sacramental absolution from a mortal sin is no better off than the invincibly ignorant unbeliever who has never been baptized in the first place, yet somehow has managed to attain the sate of grace by obeying the dictates of conscience.

Actually, this is not consonant with Catholic theology, Miguel.

We believe that invincible ignorance is, well, a bummer. It’s not a good way to live. It’s like living in pre-historic society without the benefit of fire. Can this spiritual Neanderthal have a good meal? Sure, but it’s a bummer not to be able to barbecue.

(By the way–the only unambiguous reference to baptism is 1 Peter 3:21, as neither John 3:5 nor Titus 3:5 are unequivocal references to baptism–and indeed probably are not).

Again, if you say so. But then again, it’s not the Catholic paradigm that requires “unequivocal references” to doctrine. (And, actually, it’s not yours either, except as it applies to Catholic theology. Go figure. )

Of course no Catholic really believes this. For one–how many times is it necessary? Does going to communion once suffice?

As Catholics profess the Eucharist to be the One Flesh Union with the Beloved, this question is similar to your wife asking you: “how many times is the marital embrace necessary? Shouldn’t once be enough?”

What if one dies prior to making his/her first communion, yet is in the state of grace? And of course, our invincibly ignorant brethren must likewise be exempt from this requirement.

We don’t look at the One Flesh Union to be a “requirement”; this is a peculiar way to look at the Eucharist–as if your wife would look at the marital embrace as a “requirement” to be married to you. If she does, then something is surely missing in her understanding of the marital covenant.

After all, they don’t even need to believe in Jesus to go to heaven,

Of course they need to believe in Jesus to go to heaven! Outside the Church there is no salvation!

so why would they need to take communion?

Again, we don’t see the Eucharist as a requirement–it’s like your calling the marital embrace “your wifely duty.”

On another note, it is hardly clear that John 6 is about the Eucharist at all. So making it a requirement for salvation is dubious on exegetical grounds alone. But what it is about–namely coming to and believing in Jesus–is clear. And so the Biblical and specifically Johanine requirement to have an explicit faith in Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation.

Why, oh, why do you keep using the word “requirement”? Is the marital embrace a duty to you?

Of course, most of the things on this list are only the normative requirements for being a good Catholic, not the absolute requirements for going to heaven. But a normative requirement really is not requirement at all, once we begin to allow for multiple exceptions to the rule. This, the Catholic Church has done, having changed its old exclusivist claims (no Salvation outside the Church) for a normative view wherein faith in Christ is constitutive of salvation for anyone who goes to heaven, especially those who believe in Him. So the good Buddhist and conscientious Hindu can–by the objective grace obtained at the cross–go to heaven, even without having an explicit faith in Christ. That is the Gospel according to Vatican II, anyway. For a different view, try John 14.

See above.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Good posts, PRMerger.

All I read in Miguel’s post was “This is what I think Catholics believe. Whether or not they actually do believe it, I am unsure. But just for safe measure, I will put in a little bit of actual Catholic teachings.”

 

[PRmerger]

Good posts, PRMerger.

shaw:

All I read in Miguel’s post was “This is what I think Catholics believe. Whether or not they actually do believe it, I am unsure. But just for safe measure, I will put in a little bit of actual Catholic teachings.”

Yes. It’s a peculiar religion that Miguel objects to–but it’s certainly not Catholicism.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

On another note, it is hardly clear that John 6 is about the Eucharist at all.

This baffles me, especially the “hardly clear” part.

John 6 mentions the Body and Blood of Christ over a dozen times. It mentions the Bread from Heaven a couple times. Not to mention the fact that this is coming from the lips of Jesus Christ, the Word of God (but I mentioned it anyway). That is exactly what the Eucharist is. So, to say that it’s “hardly clear” that John 6 is about the Eucharist shows your intentions of saying that rather than what you actually believe.

 

[Church_Militant]

I have about one minute before dinner.
wisdomseeker mentioned a verse about private interpretation.
I think he’s misinterpreting the verse.
In any case, in the charismatic movement we stress the importance of everyone learning to distinguish the voice of God from that of the devil. Jesus said, “My sheep know my voice.”

The Catholic Church seems to stress more the traditions and authority of their leaders.

out of time. . . .

God is good!

Which is right in line with the New Testament when it calls the church the pillar and ground of the truth.

1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

The Catholic Church was started by Jesus; the Mormon Church was started by Joseph Smith.

Hi, jm.
I’m not letting you off the hook that easy!
Mormons claim that God reestablished the church of Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith.
How can you prove that your church holds the authority of God and not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or any other non-Catholic church?

This is a probing question that is not easily answered.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Which is right in line with the New Testament when it calls the church the pillar and ground of the truth.

Sometime I’d like to have a discussion about what the New Testament says the church is, but it’s off topic for now, I’m afraid.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hi, jm.
I’m not letting you off the hook that easy!
Mormons claim that God reestablished the church of Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith.
How can you prove that your church holds the authority of God and not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or any other non-Catholic church?

This is a probing question that is not easily answered.

Do you not know history? what history has the mormon religion?
Do you really believe that after Jesus, God sent a prophet to built another church?

The CC came before the Bible was put together. protestant came after the Bible, how convinient. protestant reads the Bible and think they can teach and find churches. they take their authority based on what they read. take the Bible away from them and see what you have.

it is not that hard to know the True Church. before protestantism, the CC already existed. Once you understand that God is faithfull to His promise, you will realize that His Church still here because she is found by the Master.