The Eucharist: Real Presence or symbol?

[CMatt25]

No, CMatt. This is a false and misleading statement. God does not require perfection from humans in order to work infallible acts through them. In fact, scripture itself refutes your statement, since it is clear that the authors accomplished an infallible act by penning the NT, but the evidence is contained in those pages that noe of them “had everything right from the get go”. Again you have created a strawman, something the Catholic Church neither believes or teaches. One has to wonder why you engage in this type of behavior. What is served by you bringing calumny against the Catholic Church?

I find it curious that none of your “faith steps” involve God.

Has it ever occurred to you that Catholics can trust in God because He is divine and infallible?

Yes, indeed, the writings of the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church can be perverted just like the NT can.

Guan, you seem to me to have missed my point about faith in all our discussions about it.

I never said human perfection was required. In fact I argue perfect understanding of God is not attainable by humans with finite minds in this lifetime. But then if you agree none (I’m thinking “noe” was a typo and you did mean none) of them had everything right from the get go, when Christians did have everything right, if we even do yet, is a matter of faith and belief.

You mention the NT. But I know you realize there are faiths which do not prescribe to things in the NT. You and I may place our faith in the NT, yes. And you might place faith in all the Catholic Church teaches and interprets. But that’s my point. It is faith and belief. Guan, the non believer doesn’t even have faith in God. Jews don’t have faith in the NT. If faith was so easily truly proven to be certain truth, then everyone would hold the same faith.

What you said about my faith steps not including God, I find rather offensive. So I have nothing to say about that other than for you to say that, is certainly a false and misleading statement.

Guan, I have absolutely no problem with Catholics trusting God. I have no problem whatsoever with Catholics believing as they do. Great! I would only wish they could admit there is a difference between faith. And in knowing with 100% absolute certainty they have all revealed truth in matters of faith. And what is served by not being able to admit that is what I might never understand. But I do understand many need a framework to live by and perhaps then a need to think they are for certain right.

To me faith and belief and saying we know the truth with absolute certainty are oxymorons. But we have discussed this over and over. And as I have said we may simply have to agree to disagree and move on.

God bless and peace.

 

[CMatt25]

I had just replied in another thread to someone who claimed that those who have no faith are so simply becuase they are ignorant, that because they refuse to study, that ecause one has not read the proper books, they lack faith.

Please forgive me if I carried my argument from that thread to this. I apologize.

-Tim-

Tim, arguments are often it seems carried from other threads. But if forgiveness was even needed, forgiven! Peace.

 

[panevino]

Hi radical
I thought I’d try to continue this discussion in this thread as it was off topic in the other.

do you mean at vis 3.5.1 or at Sim 9:27.1-3?
*It seems you mean Sim 9:27.1-3, but I am not sure of your point.

Yes shepard of hermas Sim9:27. I’m looking in the Roberts/Donaldson translation (quite Protestant). My point here was merely to show an early recognition of the separate role of a bishop, but u appear to acknowledge it anyway. The tree overshadowing /sheep analogy is clear i think.*

*I am not saying that an overseer/bishop does not have a key ministerial role in the Church…I am saying that the role is not properly described as the role of a priest.

Understood
You do accept that believers in christ are priests under the priesthood mentioned by Peter.
you accept a bishop has a ministerial role in the church.
You accept a bishop is entitled to label of priest under the priesthood mentioned by Peter.
You accept that Jesus is the High priest.

You reject that a bishop is a priest of the Law

All above sounds pretty Catholic.
But have u wondered why the NT calls us priests.

Do you accept that Only a “priest” can hope to offer a worthy sacrifice?
I assume you do, given, 1peter2:5

Who offers bread and wine in the OT - a priest right, called Mechezeldec, gen14:18
But these items (ie bread /wine) also play a part elsewhere , ie the firstfruits, see lev23:9-14, exo29:32-34, etc…
And who/what is the NT firstfruits ?*
See 1cor15: 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept.

Where a sacrificed lamb is eaten with unleavened bread As the Passover exo12:7*
And who is the NT Passover - see
1cor5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

The firstfruits and the Passover are offered/presented

Justin martyr - trypho ch XLI -"… He speaks namely of us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, Ie. The bread of the euchArist and also the cup of the eucharist…"

Only a priest can do any of this. Forget about general /ministerial for the moment. And don’t get me wrong the Eucharist is far more deep than an offering of bread and wine(ie as if it was independent of us) it is humbly “us” offered through the only pure sacrifice made by the true High priest. *That is why I think that we are called priests and why bread and wine is used and why Jesus is refered to as the firstfruits and the Passover…

Re the need for a bishop/clergy to preside as a ministerial priest under the high preist(in vein of aarons sons did I believe) I see acts 6:1-6 where the apostles ordain for purpose of daily ministration. This appointment via laying of hands is what I believe Paul refers to Titus in Titus1:5-7

Beyond the Eucharist, the general priesthood offer a sacrifice of a contrite broken heart of repentance at any time, and prayer and worship and try to do His will etc…

*correct
agreed. I expect that the Didache contemplates the situation were an apostle isn’t around…which I don’t think was all that rare. It seems that prophets were common evangelists. *The congregation requires some sort of leader and if an apostle wasn’t around to do the job (still with the congregation’s approval), the congregation would simply do the job itself.

in terms of appointing another bishop, Paul gives Titus the ok not the general congregation, independent of ordained clergy.
I don’t believe u can extract a congregation ordaining authority from didache when u have the apostles ordaining stepehn/phillip. And then have paul/Titus(ie Paul authorizing Titus to ordain as he did him)
Where is the quality control in that
I’m sure Simon mangus would of loved that set up. I recall he offered to pay for the power to lay hands.
Why, when he could of just found a simple group of Christians to appoint him. *When the apostles appointed stepehen and phillip etc it was for a ministerial role as the apostles were getting to busy is my understanding.

*well, if nothing else this specifies our disagreement. *It is my position that there is no need for a bishop/priest to play a major part or to enable it. *That is a function not described in the NT. Ignatius (probably for reasons of unity) declares that a bishop is required for a valid Eucharist, but he uses no priestly terminology in that regard (Sullivan p. 116) *

*I note polycarp also writes “…be obedient to clergy and deacons as we should be to God and Christ…”, which seems to reflect that baggage u have concerns about with the modern use of “bishop”

*I agree that the bishops and deacons of the Church have a special role, but I don’t see it as being properly described as a priestly role where the Eucharist is involved.

once the clear types of firstfruits and Passover are recognized in the Eucharist(and Justin martyr is all over this) it is clear that the eucharist is relevant to a priestly role. And I don’t consider that as eisegesis. but the role of the priest is different to the OT system, ie incredibly more personal for the general priesthood

 

[Denise1957]

CMatt25 wrote:

“I only wish they could admit there is a difference between faith. And in knowing with 100% certainty that they have all revealed truth in matters of faith. And what is served by not being able to admit this is what I might never understand. But I do understand that many need a framework to live by and then perhaps a need to think that they are for certain right.”

If I can offer my perspective on this, which I will probably not do a very good job of explaining, but here goes. I’m not sure, exactly, of what you are wanting Catholics to admit. Do you want us to admit that we believe with absolute certainty all that the Church teaches? Or do you want us to admit that we cannot know with absolute certainty all that the Church teaches? I’m not sure which it is, but I’ll go with the former.

I, for one, do not think in terms of having 100% absolute certainty that the Church has all revealed truth in matters of faith. I do, however, have absolute TRUST that the Church teaches all that is needed to know and do for the salvation of our soul. And I trust that the Catholic Church was founded by God, and that it is the only lawful authority to pass on the teachings of Christ. This does not mean that non-Catholic sects do not have truth. They do. But it is truth only in what they have borrowed from the Church.

I’d like to mention, too, that we Catholics personally do not have truth. It is not “our” truth, because we did not invent it. We give our assent to it, and we believe in it.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What rarely gets discussed on the Eucharist topics is the profound Liturgy when heaven and earth enter into communion with God, “only” through Jesus true body and blood presence;

Jesus makes it clear in John 14, after he revealed the bread of life discourse from John 6. Jesus reveals how we are to access the throne room of God.

John 14:6… "No one comes to the Father except through me."

We proclaim Christ crucified and profess that Jesus Christ resurrected with his body, as St. Thomas proves the physical evidence from the gospel.

The only way to the Father is with the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus True presence, there is no other way to enter into the holy of holies.

No one can go before the Father, from a memory, imagination or a symbol representing Jesus. To think one accesses heaven by the former mentioned denies oneself from the reality that exists in the true body resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Jesus tells the Samaritan woman, John 4:22 You people worship what you do not understand; we worship what we understand,…
23
But the hour is coming, and is now here, when true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth; 9 and indeed the Father seeks such people to worship him.
24
**God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth." **

We believe the Spirit is a person and we know that Jesus revealed to be “Truth” (John 14:6
Jesus said to him, **"I am the way and the truth **5 and the life.

So the true worshippers of God access the Father through Jesus True bodily presence, because Jesus is the “Way and the truth and the life”.

Without the True presence of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity, one has no Truth and no way to the Father.

To claim to a “spiritual belief” in the true presence, deny’s the “Works of God”, because it the Spirit that “transubstantiates” the “Substance” (never the elements) of bread and wine into the True presence of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity.

Dear Jesus our souls thirst to be given your body, blood soul and divinity inorder to “come to the Father”, so that “in him, with him and through him, all glory and honor” is given to our Father in heaven, when God is “all and in all” amen.

From the New Testament reveals the sacred mysteries being celebrated from liturgy;
Hebrews 10:19
9 Therefore, brothers, since through the blood of Jesus we have confidence of entrance into the sanctuary 20
10 by the new and living way he opened for us through the veil, that is, his flesh**, **21
11 and since we have “a great priest over the house of God,”
22
**let us approach with a sincere heart and in absolute trust, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience 12 and our bodies washed in pure water. **23
**Let us hold unwaveringly to our confession that gives us hope, for he who made the promise is trustworthy. **25
We should not stay away from our assembly, 13 as is the custom of some,

Hebrews 12:18 You have not approached that which could be touched… 22
No, you have approached Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and countless angels in festal gathering,
23
and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, 6 and God the judge of all, and the spirits of the just made perfect,
24
and Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood that speaks more eloquently 7 than that of Abel.
25
See that you do not reject the one who speaks.

Peace be with you

 

[CMatt25]

CMatt25 wrote:

“I only wish they could admit there is a difference between faith. And in knowing with 100% certainty that they have all revealed truth in matters of faith. And what is served by not being able to admit this is what I might never understand. But I do understand that many need a framework to live by and then perhaps a need to think that they are for certain right.”

If I can offer my perspective on this, which I will probably not do a very good job of explaining, but here goes. I’m not sure, exactly, of what you are wanting Catholics to admit. Do you want us to admit that we believe with absolute certainty all that the Church teaches? Or do you want us to admit that we cannot know with absolute certainty all that the Church teaches? I’m not sure which it is, but I’ll go with the former.

I, for one, do not think in terms of having 100% absolute certainty that the Church has all revealed truth in matters of faith. I do, however, have absolute TRUST that the Church teaches all that is needed to know and do for the salvation of our soul. And I trust that the Catholic Church was founded by God, and that it is the only lawful authority to pass on the teachings of Christ. This does not mean that non-Catholic sects do not have truth. They do. But it is truth only in what they have borrowed from the Church.

I’d like to mention, too, that we Catholics personally do not have truth. It is not “our” truth, because we did not invent it. We give our assent to it, and we believe in it.

Hope that makes sense.

Hi Denise, I already know what Catholics believe so it was not the former but thanks! And I’m sorry for being unclear. But it actually was not exactly the latter either. As I know folks can be certain of what Church teachings are.

My point has always been more along the lines of we are talking about matters of faith and belief. You yourself speak of trust. You trust or have faith in the Catholic Church. I only want Catholics to admit that is what it is though. Faith and belief. Trust. Not absolute proven 100% certainty.

For starters It all begins with faith in God and then we move on to placing faith in NT writings, you for instance then have faith in Catholic Church interpretations of Scripture, in ECFs.

I myself have tons of faith. I look around and I believe in a Creator. I couldn’t live without having faith that this earth is not as good as it gets. And I personally place faith on the cross. I have faith and hope I will spend eternity with my Creator. I trust in His mercy and love. And in His undertanding of my heart. Only He knows. But I don’t go around clobbering ppl that I know for certain whatever detail or "t’ crossed or “i” dotted I might or might not believe in, is absolutely right. With a period. End of story. I hope at least I am humble enough in that regard.

But so many seem afraid to admit it is faith and instead have to think faith is somehow more than faith. Beliefs become certainty in their minds. And I know in their minds and hearts they truly believe their beliefs are the right ones. But I just want ppl to admit faith does not mean proven certainty. I might add btw it is not only Catholics who do this. I just concentrate on Catholicism here. If I were on another forum where the hosting faith thought their faith beliefs were beyond the definitions of faith and belief but 100% certainty, I’d be saying the same thing! Anyway peace on your faith walk always.

 

[mississippiwild]

Tommy, no forgiveness necessary. I see you have a relatively small amt of posts. Stick around. Trust me if you thought you were being uncharitable with that, you weren’t. But irregardless I just had a Chinese fortune cookie and my fortune said, “No person is so important to make you angry”. Again not that there was a thing wrong with your post. But I’m in a pretty good mood anyway at the moment after reading that fortune so as not to allow something to get under my skin

No it’s not at all wrong for ppl to believe in the real presence of Jesus if that’s what in faith they believe the truth to be. As far as your earlier post about what is not taken literally in the Bible? A whole host of things. Just to name a few. Slavery in the Bible, women not speaking in churches, a 6 day creation with the evening and the morning being a 24 hr day, don’t have intercourse with a menstruating woman, men don’t clip the hair at your temples or trim your beard.

God bless you on your lifelong journey of faith and peace be with you.

Not all Catholics disbelieve these things that you mentioned. Some do take a literalist approach to the bible. The bible, I have learned, is definitely the words God spoke to Prophets. But, i was just questioning taking a literal stance on most things and not taking a literal approach on John 6…

Tommy

 

[PJM]

=CMatt25;7623908]After placing faith in God, in the NT, in the Catholic Church’s interpretations, you then must place faith in the humans of the early church having had everything right from the get go. You must place faith in ECFs and the Catholic Church’s interpretations of their writings. Takes a lot of faith steps to get to where you are. But then the Apostle Paul said we walk by faith and not by sight. Maybe if you read for just an example, about Protestant thinking regarding Augustine and some things he said figuratively, you might get at least a better understanding of a different belief even if you yourself do not share the same faith. And one can believe in more than symbolic but at the same time in a real presence of God’s spirit. I understand all better now.

A Literal Translation is TRUE because God Himself said; then offers Himself as surety of it’s TRUTH.

John.8: 43 to 47 : “Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

**Mt. 26: 26-28, Mk. 14: 22-24, Lk. 22: 19-21, John 6: 40-60, 1 Cor. 11:23-26. ** AL confirm the reality of this truth.

**Eucharist: 2 Cor. 4: 7 **“But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us.” [Re: Who makes Eucharist God!]

John 6:52 “ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 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.

**John 14: 16-17 ** And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.

**John 17: 14-19 **“I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.”

It’s IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE CC TO TEACH INCORRECTLY ON MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS. God Himself has sworn to this TRUTH!

Would you agree that Not accepting the Bible is DENIAL of God?.. It is!

May God Grant RIGHT Understanding to all!

Pat

 

[mississippiwild]

LDS (mormon).

Ah, the Latter Day Saints… So, why would I want to be a God of my owrn Planet when I can’t figure out my own life? But, seriously, why would you use water and bread? Does the water symbolize baptism in your church?

Tommy

 

[mississippiwild]

To take such a position, a person would have to be either confused, or diablically misled. I would prefer to believe you are confused.

It seems that you may be failing to distinguish between the Holy Church and the fallible men who are members of her. The Bride of Christ is incorruptible. The human beings who are part of her are not. If you are asserting here that the Church strays from good fruits, then you are in error. If you are asserting that some people in the Church have been bad trees, and bear bad fruit, then you are correct. However, even men falling away from holiness does not detract from the Truth. That is like saying that what Jesus taught was “bad fruit” because Judas did not believe and live it.

Your statements do not seem to reflect an understanding of the incarnational nature of the Church - that she has both divine and human elements.

Amazing… Thank you so much. My faith has been bolstered more than ever. God bless you and have a good day…

Tommy

 

[Nicea325]

I don’t know any believer who takes it lightly. All one can do is place their faith where they believe the Holy Spirit is guiding them to be when they open their heart to God’s Spirit.

Which begs the question: So many different churches with so many different teachings,case in point,baptism. Cannot all be right or else there would be no need to found other churches.

Just because something may or may not be “history” does not mean it is perfect. Many things have occured in history which have not exactly been good things. But neither does it mean something is not true. We simply truly do not know in matters of faith and belief as much as we may want to believe we do.

So in other words,the early church and the ECF’s had it all wrong,since simply we do know in matters of faith? Wow! Salvation sure sounds amd looks rather risky.

That is why it is called faith. You may not be a revisionist but the Catholic Church has revised disciplines or guidelines thru the yrs.

Disciplines and guidelines are one thing,but doctrine is another. The CC has not changed doctrines over the years.Many seem to confuse disciplines and doctrines or merely fuse them together. Nonetheless, changing disciplines is not my point of revisionism of history. What I am referring to is the fact many want the ECF’s to say something which they never intended to say or even remotely taught.

Would a closeted gay priest having a secret homosexual relationship unbeknownst to you be Biblical?

And would a closet gay politician be applicable as well? What does this have to do with the issue here?

What about the priests who have molested children or the bishops would who have covered it up?

And what about Protestant ministers who molested children?

Baptism by immersion of someone of a greater age than infancy is clearly found in the Bible. But assuming households had infants, there are examples of households being baptized as well. So it comes down to faith.

Well duh! The first converts were adults,there we no cradle Christians at first. The practice of baptising infants and children is mentioned implicitly in scripture and mentioned by the ECF’s.

The question is not so much about whether Jesus promised truth. It is more about whether He has to correct or reform His Church and where He takes it, to prevent the gates from prevailing as He promised they would not do. And again that is where faith comes in. I do not understand why folks can not believe they “know” if that is what they need. While at the same time recognizing faith and belief is not the same as absolute certainty. I am sorry but that concept just totally escapes my reasoning. But I guess we may just have to agree to disagree. God bless you on your walk and peace.

Bottomline is simple: It is all about the truth,not right or wrong or my personal feelings.

 

[mississippiwild]

What rarely gets discussed on the Eucharist topics is the profound Liturgy when heaven and earth enter into communion with God, “only” through Jesus true body and blood presence;

Jesus makes it clear in John 14, after he revealed the bread of life discourse from John 6. Jesus reveals how we are to access the throne room of God.

John 14:6… "No one comes to the Father except through me."

We proclaim Christ crucified and profess that Jesus Christ resurrected with his body, as St. Thomas proves the physical evidence from the gospel.

The only way to the Father is with the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus True presence, there is no other way to enter into the holy of holies.

No one can go before the Father, from a memory, imagination or a symbol representing Jesus. To think one accesses heaven by the former mentioned denies oneself from the reality that exists in the true body resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Jesus tells the Samaritan woman, John 4:22 You people worship what you do not understand; we worship what we understand,…
23
But the hour is coming, and is now here, when true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth; 9 and indeed the Father seeks such people to worship him.
24
**God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth." **

We believe the Spirit is a person and we know that Jesus revealed to be “Truth” (John 14:6
Jesus said to him, **"I am the way and the truth **5 and the life.

So the true worshippers of God access the Father through Jesus True bodily presence, because Jesus is the “Way and the truth and the life”.

Without the True presence of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity, one has no Truth and no way to the Father.

To claim to a “spiritual belief” in the true presence, deny’s the “Works of God”, because it the Spirit that “transubstantiates” the “Substance” (never the elements) of bread and wine into the True presence of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity.

Dear Jesus our souls thirst to be given your body, blood soul and divinity inorder to “come to the Father”, so that “in him, with him and through him, all glory and honor” is given to our Father in heaven, when God is “all and in all” amen.

From the New Testament reveals the sacred mysteries being celebrated from liturgy;
Hebrews 10:19
9 Therefore, brothers, since through the blood of Jesus we have confidence of entrance into the sanctuary 20
10 by the new and living way** he opened for us through the veil, that is, his flesh**, 21
11 and since we have “a great priest over the house of God,”
22
**let us approach with a sincere heart and in absolute trust, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience 12 and our bodies washed in pure water. **23
**Let us hold unwaveringly to our confession that gives us hope, for he who made the promise is trustworthy. **25
We should not stay away from our assembly, 13 as is the custom of some,

Hebrews 12:18 You have not approached that which could be touched… 22
No, you have approached Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and countless angels in festal gathering,
23
and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, 6 and God the judge of all, and the spirits of the just made perfect,
24
and Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood that speaks more eloquently 7 than that of Abel.
25
See that you do not reject the one who speaks.

Peace be with you

You are waxing quite poetic and eloquent. I am reminded , in a way, of “Dante’s Inferno”

Tommy

 

[PJM]

=CMatt25;7626011My point has always been more along the lines of we are talking about matters of faith and belief. You yourself speak of trust. You trust or have faith in the Catholic Church. I only want Catholics to admit that is what it is though. Faith and belief. Trust. Not absolute proven 100% certainty.

BUT MY FRIEND TO FULFILL YOR DESIRE WOULD REQUIRE CATHOLICS TO LIE.

It is with 100% certainty IF you Beleive your God; and IF you accept what the Bible actually teaches. If you don’t then all we can do for you is Pray for your conversion and salvation.

1. **2nd. Tim 3:16-17 **Specifically tells us the ALL of the Teachings in the ENTIRE Bible “are inspired by God.”

#2. I’ll be happy via a PM to explain Jh.6: vrs. 63-64 so you actually know what Christ is saying and why. Let me know.

#3. **John 6:52-55 **The Jews who abandoned Christ ask a specif question. GOD WHO CANNOT LIE provides THEE truthful answer: [52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” [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,

#4. This beleif is affirmed FOUR additional times: **Mt. 26:26-28, Mk. 14: 22-24, Lk. 22: 19-21, and Paul 1st. Cor. 11: 23-29. **or do they too NOT understand?

#5. Christ Himself gives HIS PERSOANL guarentee of the CC’s inability to be WRONG on ANY Teaching regarding Faith and Morals.

#6. **2ND. Peter 1: 16-21 ** “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

#7. John 14: 16-17 And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you"

#8. .John 17: 14-19 “I [Jesus] have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.”

#9. The CC was the ONLY Christian Faith when this was spoken and written. Christ affirms and CONFIRMS all CC Teachings on Faith and Morals! ALL!

#10. No-one is permited tere own personal understanding of ANY Bible Teaching.

**2nd. Peter 3: 16 ** “speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.”

**2 Pet.1: 20 **"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, " 2nd. Pet.3 3, 16 "First of all you must understand this, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own passions speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures

2 Peter 2: 1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words; from of old their condemnation has not been idle, and their destruction has not been asleep.

So with God’s own promise of accuarcy nd TRUTH; the CC CANNOT, absolutely CANNOT be in error on the Doctrine of the REAL Presence. It Is, it IS, with 100% certainity that we Thankfully [Eucharist means “thanksgiving”] accept God and th Apostles at there very word.AFTER ALL; THEY GAVE THERE VERY LIVES IN SUPPORT OF IT! [They tried to Boil John Alvie… But God permitted him to surive.]

Believe bcause Christ say’s so. Is One to take a human preachers understanding that opposes the VERY WORD OF GOD?

God Grant us all RIGHT Understanding,
Pat

PM me if you want further information.

 

[Denise1957]

Hi Denise, I already know what Catholics believe so it was not the former but thanks! And I’m sorry for being unclear. But it actually was not exactly the latter either. As I know folks can be certain of what Church teachings are.

My point has always been more along the lines of we are talking about matters of faith and belief. You yourself speak of trust. You trust or have faith in the Catholic Church. I only want Catholics to admit that is what it is though. Faith and belief. Trust. Not absolute proven 100% certainty.

For starters It all begins with faith in God and then we move on to placing faith in NT writings, you for instance then have faith in Catholic Church interpretations of Scripture, in ECFs.

I myself have tons of faith. I look around and I believe in a Creator. I couldn’t live without having faith that this earth is not as good as it gets. And I personally place faith on the cross. I have faith and hope I will spend eternity with my Creator. I trust in His mercy and love. And in His undertanding of my heart. Only He knows. But I don’t go around clobbering ppl that I know for certain whatever detail or "t’ crossed or “i” dotted I might or might not believe in, is absolutely right. With a period. End of story. I hope at least I am humble enough in that regard.

But so many seem afraid to admit it is faith and instead have to think faith is somehow more than faith. Beliefs become certainty in their minds. And I know in their minds and hearts they truly believe their beliefs are the right ones. But I just want ppl to admit faith does not mean proven certainty. I might add btw it is not only Catholics who do this. I just concentrate on Catholicism here. If I were on another forum where the hosting faith thought their faith beliefs were beyond the definitions of faith and belief but 100% certainty, I’d be saying the same thing! Anyway peace on your faith walk always.

Thanks for the clarification. So, if Catholics would tell you what you want to hear, would you then let it go? The things is, I don’t think that you will be told what you want to hear. I think that you want Catholics to think that the truths of the Catholic faith may indeed not actually be truth. If you can somehow plant uncertainty in the minds of Catholics, then maybe we will question our faith. But that’s not going to happen.

There was a time when I didn’t believe in such a thing as absolute truth. However, I now understand that those of us who believe in absolutes are a bit of a threat to the world, and the values of the world. I agree that we shouldn’t clobber people over the head with our beliefs, but, at the same time, we have to stand firm in what we believe. If a non-Catholic posts on a Catholic forum, they should expect that Catholics are going to stand up for what they believe. It’s a given, wouldn’t you say?

 

[chrisetree]

Real presence.
BUT
how many catholics really believe it?

 

[Denise1957]

Real presence.
BUT
how many catholics really believe it?

I think it’s difficult to tell how many exactly believe it. I know that I do, and many others here on CAF do, as well.:yup:

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi, CMatt; You are aware that scripture teaches that the Church is the body of Christ right? It would appear that you have an understanding that a catholic believes in the Catholic Church? (“boy” talk about an “oxymoron” statement) as two different entities, when they are One comprising of One faith, One body, One baptism and One Lord. The body of Christ is comprised of many members all believing the same operating from different functions.

Did you know that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth? (see 1Timothy 3:15).

What is faith? Hebrews 11: 1 1
1 **Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence 2 of things not seen. **3
**By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, 3 so that what is visible came into being through the invisible. **My point has always been more along the lines of we are talking about matters of faith and belief. You yourself speak of trust. You trust or have faith in the Catholic Church. I only want Catholics to admit that is what it is though. Faith and belief. Trust. Not absolute proven 100% certainty.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Dante’s Inferno? without the comedy? I hope, but a lifting up of our hearts in “Paradiso” thank you

You are waxing quite poetic and eloquent. I am reminded , in a way, of “Dante’s Inferno”

Tommy

 

[JonNC]

And I think this is the point. That there is more to this that what can be proven by mere words on a page or use of historical proof.

Ultimately this truly does come down to faith. And for me, the fact that this is a matter of faith proves the real presence.

Christ knows that at some point he simply wants our faith to be in Him and beyond what our limited intellect is capable of. Those that do no believe in real presence are limiting what they think God can do.

As is demonstrated in this thread, there is enough evidence on both sides for each to feel they have a strong case, but only one side is putting God in box. Only one side is saying I don’t think God can do that.

What’s wrong with saying, I don’t understand it, I don’t know how He can do it, I don’t even know why He would do it, but I just believe. I have faith.

Indeed.
And quoting John of Damascus, “… if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit”

Jon

 

[CMatt25]

Which begs the question: So many different churches with so many different teachings,case in point,baptism. Cannot all be right or else there would be no need to found other churches.

So in other words,the early church and the ECF’s had it all wrong,since simply we do know in matters of faith? Wow! Salvation sure sounds amd looks rather risky.

Disciplines and guidelines are one thing,but doctrine is another. The CC has not changed doctrines over the years.Many seem to confuse disciplines and doctrines or merely fuse them together. Nonetheless, changing disciplines is not my point of revisionism of history. What I am referring to is the fact many want the ECF’s to say something which they never intended to say or even remotely taught.

And would a closet gay politician be applicable as well? What does this have to do with the issue here?

And what about Protestant ministers who molested children?

Well duh! The first converts were adults,there we no cradle Christians at first. The practice of baptising infants and children is mentioned implicitly in scripture and mentioned by the ECF’s.

Bottomline is simple: It is all about the truth,not right or wrong or my personal feelings.

Never said all were. Never meant to imply early Christians had it all wrong either. Sometimes I wonder if any of us have it all right.

In Christian faith salvation isn’t really all that risky. Instead of things like attend Mass on Tues Nov 1, 2011 and Thursday Dec 8, 2011 depending on your diocese in the world, and if you don’t, you need to repent before you die. Or else you die with a serious sin on your soul. And mortal sin is serious sin. So because you didn’t obey your particular bishop and missed those 2 weekday Masses in your life, you send yourself to hell. Sounds a bit legalistic to me. Examples Christ gave however of how the righteous reach eternal salvation included believing in Him for eternal life. And expressing love for Him by serving the hungry, the homeless, the sick, the prisoner. The peacemakers are blessed. Well you know.

Ok. Revising disciplines throughout history wasn’t your point about revising history. Fair enough. I guess we can pick and choose.

A closeted gay priest in a possible relationship had to do with the issue of what was Biblical which was brought up. Catholics oppose openly gay priests serving in other Christian traditions such as in TEC. So I just wondered if a closeted one in a relationship would make it Biblical. That was all. The gay politician you brought up is not running for priest or bishop. So that certainly has nothing to do with it.

Never said Protestants molesting children is Biblical either. But it is the Catholic Church that purports and represents Herself to be the one and only true Church of Christ. And yet we are to know them by their fruits.

Somewhere I mentioned households were baptized. Not sure if in the post you were responding to or not.

Blessings and peace.