SPLIT: The Eucharist in Scripture and Catholic teaching.

[pablope]

I’m obviously not Matt, but I would just like to say that I think it’s good that you are willing to think about this, Adrift. Have you also asked God to reveal to you what Jesus meant?

I know from experience that one does not have to participate in the Catholic Eucharist to become a Christian because Jesus has been living in me, a Protestant, for about 28 years now. He has changed my life in countless ways—from the inside out! If you will become personally acquainted with 10 typical Protestants, and look for evidence that Jesus is in them, you will most likely discover that Jesus lives in Protestants as well.

Thanks.

Hi, CF…take time to read this article…it will shed so much insights for you…calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

And this real true to life story…How I Solved the Catholic Problem …freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1858224/posts

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Hi, CF…take time to read this article…it will shed so much insights for you…calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

Hi pablope.

I read quite a bit from your link above. There were some interesting points in it.
Until I read it all and feel sure I have grasped the main points supporting your conclusion, I won’t feel qualified to respond to it.

Thanks. God’s blessings to you.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Thanks, jm, for your answer on birth control. (Whether it’s Santorum, Gingritch, or Romney, I hope we can remove Obama from office.)

Hi, CF…take time to read this article…it will shed so much insights for you…calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

pablope, having gathered my thoughts a bit, here’s a statement that expresses my view (I’m stealing it from a booklet I’m reading):

A believer who is living a pure life and keeping in touch with God through prayer and regular study of the Bible possesses an anointing from the Holy Spirit that will keep him [or her] from being deceived.

Have a great day in our Lord.

 

[pablope]

pablope, having gathered my thoughts a bit, here’s a statement that expresses my view (I’m stealing it from a booklet I’m reading):

A believer who is living a pure life and keeping in touch with God through prayer and regular study of the Bible possesses an anointing from the Holy Spirit that will keep him [or her] from being deceived.

Have a great day in our Lord.

Thanks for reading the link, CF.

My question to you is…sure, you may be prevented from “being deceived”…it is future tense…and indicates that there has to be something else that you need to do.

And…how can you be sure you are not deceiving yourself? Are so sure of yourself, that you are denying yourself the fullness of the Christian faith…of the receiving the fullness of Christ?

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks, jm, for your answer on birth control. (Whether it’s Santorum, Gingritch, or Romney, I hope we can remove Obama from office.)

pablope, having gathered my thoughts a bit, here’s a statement that expresses my view (I’m stealing it from a booklet I’m reading):

A believer who is living a pure life and keeping in touch with God through prayer and regular study of the Bible possesses an anointing from the Holy Spirit that will keep him [or her] from being deceived.

Have a great day in our Lord.

Cal! I am sooo proud of you! Getting all fancy-schmancy with your posts now, using the indent and everything.

Now, for the serious part: let’s take your statement and see how that applies to a man, such as Fred Phelps, who claims to be a Christian but makes statements such as this.

lgbtqnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/phelps.jpg
(warning: content is lewd and offensive, but is ostensibly offered by a Christian. I also offer a disclaimer from the website that offers this photo of Mr. Phelps–it is a pro-homosexual site, but the fact remains that Mr. Phelps does indeed proclaim what is displayed in the sign.)

So how does a person apply your statement and include you but exclude Fred Phelps in this paradigm?

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

I’ve been to Catholic Charismatic meetings and Masses. The “prophetic messages” are usually quite vague, mostly platitudes like, “Jesus wants you to know that He loves you” and things like that. Harmless, and definitely not earth-shattering. . . .

Some five year old kid (St. Francisco) getting up and telling the congregation on May 13th 1914 saying, “Hey, the Communists are coming to burn all our churches down, and the dead will be falling into Hell like snowflakes in a November blizzard for the next seventy-five years” - that’s something the Pope needs to know about, right? And you don’t just let it lie there without a lot of discernment and prayer. I think it was finally declared to be “worthy of belief” in 1989, after the wall came down and the seventy five years were fulfilled.

It did, in fact, turn out to be true, but is there anything they could have done to save themselves that they didn’t already know? They already knew that they were required to remain faithful to Christ through every storm.

The value of hearing God speak through prophesies of various levels has to be gauged with balance, that is a good point.

However, even a simple “I love you” can be very powerful when spoken at the right time by the right person. How much more when spoken by the creator, sustainer, and judge of the entire universe!

I believe God is speaking all the time. He wants to be more intimate with us than we want to be with him.

First Timothy 1:18 says, “Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight.” Could Timothy have fought the good fight without following the prophecies once made about him? Sure. Could those prophecies have helped stir Timothy on if he kept them in mind? Paul thought so.

Take care, my friend.

 

[jmcrae]

!

I believe God is speaking all the time. He wants to be more intimate with us than we want to be with him.

So do we - this is why Adoration is so important. We should make a Holy Hour at least once a week, if possible. But we shouldn’t try to make ourselves “special” by noising abroad the intimate things that Jesus tells us in Adoration. They are private.

If we receive a message for the world, we need to follow the proper channels within the structure of Church authority - we don’t set ourselves up in authority over others just willy-nilly.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Cal Fullerton had said,
"How do you know that [the authority of the office of the Pope has remained intact all these years]?

jmcrea responded,

Because we’re still following all ten Commandments and all eight Beatitudes, without compromise.

No Pope, even those who were sodomites, ever said, “Sodomy is no longer a sin.” No adulterous Pope ever declared there to be such a thing as a “Biblical divorce.” No Pope who stole from the common treasury ever created a law that says it’s okay for the rich not to pay their taxes (aka steal from the common treasury).

Hi jm.

I think your first sentence is fine.
I think I understand the point of your next paragraph. . . . but . . .
Are you implicating Protestants when you mention “biblical divorce”?

This is off topic, but it seems that Jesus allowed divorce in the case of infidelity. (I don’t believe that divorce is always best in such a case, however. I’ve heard several stories of marriages surviving and flourishing after the unfaithfulness of one spouse. God can enable us to do incredible things!)

Paul also said that if the unbelieving spouse wants to leave, let him or her go (1 Cor. 7).

And I don’t think these are the only exceptions. If my wife, God forbid, ever pointed a gun to my head and ordered, “Leave or I’ll shoot,” I would leave and be confident God will hold nothing against me for it.

Easy annulments are not biblical and amount to easy divorces.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Can you name a teaching that a pope has changed that was subsequently in error?

I can name error but I don’t know enough Catholic history to tell you of a teaching that was changed. . . .
*I take that back! * Any error would be a change from what the first pope taught, assuming the first pope was Peter.

I hope your lent went well. Blessings . . .

 

[jmcrae]

Cal Fullerton had said,
"How do you know that [the authority of the office of the Pope has remained intact all these years]?

jmcrea responded,

Hi jm.

I think your first sentence is fine.
I think I understand the point of your next paragraph. . . . but . . .
Are you implicating Protestants when you mention “biblical divorce”?

It’s a phrase I’ve heard, and yes, some Protestants misinterpret the teachings of Jesus in these latter days to justify themselves in divorcing one another. (Interestingly, this is a recent “discovery” - in former times, they understood those passages the same way that we do.)

I am also referring to those Protestant groups that permit homosexual “marriage” and consider it equal to heterosexual marriage.

This is off topic, but it seems that Jesus allowed divorce in the case of infidelity.

Not in the sense of one spouse cheating on the other after lawful marriage vows were taken. Rather, He is referring to unlawful marriage vows being made, where one who is already married attempts to marry a second time (thus committing infidelity on their first spouse).

Jesus was pointing out that since such a “marriage” is unlawful to begin with, it is not unlawful to break it up. But it would be unlawful to break up the first marriage and then attempt a second marriage - since the first marriage is lawful (and thus, binding until death) the second marriage would always be an act of adultery against the first spouse.

Paul also said that if the unbelieving spouse wants to leave, let him or her go (1 Cor. 7).

But nothing about attempting a second marriage. St. Paul was assuming that the believing spouse would then remain unmarried.

And I don’t think these are the only exceptions. If my wife, God forbid, ever pointed a gun to my head and ordered, “Leave or I’ll shoot,” I would leave and be confident God will hold nothing against me for it.

You would be right to leave. However, she would still remain your wife (though hopefully not living with you) until one of you dies - you would not be allowed to remarry.

Easy annulments are not biblical and amount to easy divorces.

I agree. So far, I have never heard of any easy annulments, other than one case of a woman who had become someone’s second wife, and then he left her, too, for a third woman. She obtained the Declaration of Nullity very easily, because she had never been lawfully married to the man in the first place - he had already been married to a previous woman.

Most cases take several years, and involve a lot of difficult self-examination, and a lot of difficult conversations with difficult relatives. Few people enter into the process lightly.

 

[jmcrae]

I hope your lent went well. Blessings . . .

Off-topic: Lent is just getting started - we have six more weeks until Easter.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Yes, indeed, the Church is the Body of Christ.

Great.

You went on to quote someone who said participation in Eucharist helps us get close to God. I’m all for that! That’s great!

“If the bottom line is fine, what are you so upset about?” someone might say to me.
I’d reply, “It’s the condemnation of those who participate in a non-Catholic Eucharist, that I disturbs me—for their sake, not for mine. Jesus will protect me and reward me for any verbal abuse thrown at me, IF I don’t retaliate! But I’m concerned about you folks. Paul indicated that we all need each other (1 Cor. 12:21).”

Have a great evening, sister. (Are you a nun, by any chance?)

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

“Believers” in what, though? If I call my car “Jesus,” and then worship it as a god, I can say with all sincerity that I am a worshipper of Jesus - but am I actually a member of His Church, or do I just think I am?

What about lesser heresies? How much heresy can be permitted? At what point is the god you call “Jesus” not the same Jesus who died on the Cross, rose from the dead, and established the Church?

That is a very good question, jm.

During the first 10 years or so of my walk with the Lord Jesus, I made a practice of visiting every church in town—and I moved around a lot. I also became acquainted with, and fellowshipped with, Christians from many different theological slants. To make a long story short, the Lord showed me that most of his people are relatively immature (including me) in comparison to his unimaginable holiness.

Consequently, God’s people don’t fully understand the New Testament. We don’t possess a full revelation of all the principles of truth. We “see indistinctly, as in a mirror” (1 Cor. 13:12 NAB).

So, we make sincere mistakes, and the breadth of our sincere mistakes are often far beyond what the ordinary Christian can imagine could be sincere. When I say “sincere mistake” I mean an unintentional error committed in ignorance or under the deception of the devil.

To get back to your question, I finally decided that I needed to adhere strictly to the Bible in my judgments of others. I needed to let God decide what is essential for entering the kingdom of God during this life and what is essential for maintaining a union with him.

Therefore, unless the Bible says a certain belief or activity is absolutely mandatory for entering and maintaining a place in his kingdom, I will not accuse, on the basis of that certain belief or activity, anyone of not knowing my Jesus. Fair enough, my friend?

 

[jmcrae]

When I say “sincere mistake” I mean an unintentional error committed in ignorance or under the deception of the devil.

Can it be a “sincere mistake” to leave the Church that Christ established to start up a Church of one’s own, and name it after oneself? (Hypothetically speaking - I don’t mean that you have ever done this.)

I am also wondering whether it would be an “honest mistake” if one knew that Jesus established a Church, but went ahead and followed the man-made one instead, anyway, if it seemed to be “more biblical.”

PS: Edited to add - Are we orphans, then? How is it that we can make mistakes, and not be corrected by our loving Father in Heaven? Is the New Testament Church to have even less guidance than the Old Testament Church, which at least had Patriarchs and Prophets?

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

No, Christ’s flesh and blood is NOT the same thing as His eternal life. Christ, being the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, has eternal life even before the Incarnation. But He has flesh and blood only after the Incarnation. Therefore, they are not the same.

I agree with that.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Hello again Cal

Welcome back!

I have a question to your theology on the Church being made of all believers, all denominations and movements. Regarding Matthew 18:15-17

Lets say me and you have a disagreement about what Jesus was talking about when he said if we eat his body we will have eternal life

LOL

So after we discuss this with some of our brothers and find no solution, we decide to go to the Church as commanded by Jesus, and ask them “what did Jesus mean when he told us to eat his body?”

Keeping in mind 1 Tim 3:15 “But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

According to your theology you could go to any denomination to find the truth about what Jesus meant when he said eat my body. Well lets see what happens when we do this. [David89 then cited 4 different denominations with 4 different views]

My question to you is How do you reconcile such reasoning that all born-again believers are THE church with Matthew 18:15-17 and 1 Tim 3:15 ?

In Matthew 18:15-17 the church is the local congregation.
OK, let’s suppose my local congregation’s view of communion is wrong. Still, so long as they follow Jesus Christ from the heart so that Jesus is living in their hearts, they are part of the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15) on earth. They have the truth in their hearts, so they are the foundation of truth on earth. In other words, the truth is living in their bodies—not in the bodies of unbelievers, not in the bodies of animals, not in the bodies of skyscrapers, but in their bodies.

Does the truth leave their bodies because they have made a mistake? If so, we’re ALL out of luck!

I think the rest of your comments are answered in my last comment to jm.

God’s blessing back to you! We’re all growing in grace. Let’s have mercy for each other. “Love covers a multitude of sins,” said the first pope (1 Peter 4:8). He was a part of the pillar and foundation of truth, so we better listen to him .

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

It has not gone unnoticed that you are also busy at your keyboard, jm.
But you’re still at the end of the line.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Cal,

I have to admit I was thinking . . . maybe part of purgatory is where our memories are erased and we only remember our family,

because if we went to heaven with all the bad memories and memories of things on earth we have we would never be able to be in real peace, if you know what I mean.

Yeah, I know what you mean.
I’m very much looking forward to heaven. I’ll see you there, I bet!

Excuse me, I’ll let you get back to your sewing.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Hi Cal,

I really hope you consider my post, I was very much looking forward to your response

Sorry for the delay. I trust my response above is a response to the post you were hoping I’d respond to. I’m now looking forward to your response to my response.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

The substance of the bread and wine no longer exist after the Consecration - only their appearances. Jesus fully and perfectly displaces the bread and wine with His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Just as rock fully displaces the material accidents of ancient sea creatures to make fossils. The rock “looks like” the ancient sea creatures, but it is actually rock.

The same thing happens to the bread and wine at the spiritual level. The “spirit” (the philosophical substance - the “what-ness”) is exchanged for that of Christ.

Sounds like a good analogy. But if so, would I not taste blood and flesh when I partake of the bread and wine, just as I would taste minerals if I licked the fossils?