"True Church" versus "Roman Catholic Church"

[mercygate]

That is, to be sure, the judgment refected in Apostolicae Curae, and is, of course what all RCCs should affirm. Anglicans, as you can understand, see the matter differently. As, for example, in (RC) Fr. John J. Hughes’ two books on the issue, ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

Been there. Done that. Can’t buy it any more, GK.

 

[RCCDefender]

Hi,
I a little confused by the last part of your statement about after eating His flesh and then drinking His blood what exactly do you mean He stays in you? If you look at it from a biological standpoint He does not stay in you(I wont elaborate-you know what I mean). Spiritually the Holy Spirit is the only presence that stays with us till the day of redemption. Im a little confused by your statement maybe dense I dont know Im tired.

Okay, I tried to answer this yesterday but something went wrong. Here is what I wanted to say:

Then try looking at it Biblically:

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him

John 6:56

 

[RCCDefender]

Our apostolic succession can be traced to the Archbishop of Canterbury…

Then that would make it a “no” to that question. So, I’m sorry, no matter how much you want it to be, the actual physical presence is not there.

I guess I’m at the point where if you don’t care to respect my faith, I’m not too worried about what you think.

I don’t think it’s a question of respect at all. It’s a matter of the fullness of Truth. Do I want you to have the fullness of Truth? You bet!!! But you have the freedom to choose to worship as you wish. I don’t think you should worry about what I think either. But I do think you should worry about having the fullness of Truth. Peace be with you.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Okay, I tried to answer this yesterday but something went wrong. Here is what I wanted to say:

Then try looking at it Biblically:

John 6:56

Exactly, since the Protestants think in the Symbolic is within the Eucharist rather than Real Presence, there is no Christ in them.

 

[jAlex]

You posited three (and only three) categories where people could fit.

So please! By all means! Feel free to add more categories if you think it’s not enough! I did not forbid anybody to do so.

What do you find so scandalous ? I present my view and you present yours in trying to understand each other. This doesn’t mean we will always agree, but at least we learn more from one another.

Did one of these apply to me? I think it’s fair to say that your are thus categorizing people, is it not? If that’s putting words in your mouth, I don’t see how we can communicate.

Good Sir, the purpose of my posting was not to classify you.

Did one of these apply to you ? Maybe, maybe not… who am I to tell ? I do not know you personally do I…
Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, etc. is also a way to categorize people and I do not think somebody should be offended by this. I am certainly not.
I am sorry if you feel offended and if you do not want to communicate then fine, I’m not gonna drag anybody in the public square for this. I just wish you well and God bless you!

And if we are talking about feeling offended… I can tell you that I am also offended when somebody puts words in my mouth, but that’s a public forum and I’ve got used to it.

I don’t think I really belong here anymore. The past few years posting here have taught me that sacramental discussions between Protestants and Catholics are fruitless, since we have no “validity” of orders, confection, or anything else. We’re just playing church in your eyes, I think.

Luke,
In discussing about the Sacraments, we only present our Church’s views. We cannot personally change these views - it’s only the Pope and the Bishops that have the authority to do so.
And no, we do not think you are “playig church”. Why do you come up with such offensive terms? Is it only to fuel your ideea that I am trying to offend you?

If you want to start a thread and present your views about the Apostolic Succession in your church, I would be more than happy to see what you have to say! Honestly !

I took a vow to do no harm. I think I best live up to it.

Pax vobiscum,

O+

It’s commendable of you if you try to live up to it!
Nobody’s trying to harm anybody here. Sure the discussions can be sometimes very pointed but we have to remember that this is just a discussion. Whenever you feel that I, or somebody else said something wrong please correct us and show us where you think we are wrong. Basically that’s the whole reason this forum exists in the first place!

God bless,
Alex.

 

[mercygate]

Exactly, since the Protestants think in the Symbolic is within the Eucharist rather than Real Presence, there is no Christ in them.

Manny, how does this elucidate the these doctrines to those who do stand in traditions that don’t see them as Catholics understand them? Can we show some respect here?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny, how does this elucidate the these doctrines to those who do stand in traditions that don’t see them as Catholics understand them? Can we show some respect here?

They need to understand the Mysteries of Eucharist, the way the Jesus taught us.

They desire to love Jesus Christ is honorable but they truly want to fulfil his commandment, they need to acknowledge the Truth, which the Catholic Church possess.

 

[Saint_Sinner]

I took a vow to do no harm.

I also took a vow to “do no harm”. Good to hear from you. Let’s pray for the redemption of our profession from those who would not listen to these words.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Hi,
I a little confused by the last part of your statement about after eating His flesh and then drinking His blood what exactly do you mean He stays in you? If you look at it from a biological standpoint He does not stay in you(I wont elaborate-you know what I mean). Spiritually the Holy Spirit is the only presence that stays with us till the day of redemption. Im a little confused by your statement maybe dense I dont know Im tired.

John 15:4
“Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me.”

John 6:57
“He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.”

John 6:56
“For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.”

 

[milimac]

The Protestant personal relationship with Jesus is limited in a spiritual sense they lack the Eucharist.

It doesn’t get more personal than receiving Jesus upon your mouth and he remains in you.

I agree. But that’s different than saying a Protestant cannot have a real personal relationship. I think some if not many Protestants have a deeper relationship without the Eucharist than some if not many Catholics do with it. Have you seen how many Catholics receive Jesus irreverently or so casually as if all they were doing was eating a piece of bread and a sip of wine? Of course, our goal is to have the best relationship possible, and the best possible relationship would indeed include the Eucharist.

I liken it to two married couples. On the one hand you have the married couple who are kind to each other, do nice things for each other, and suffer with and for each other, but one spouse is in prison and and they can’t share the most intimate union – sexual union. On the other hand you have the couple who enjoy the pleasure of sexual intimacy but don’t build on that to strengthen other aspects of their marriage. Granted, there are some if not many Catholics who have both in this analogy.

So saying someone does not have a real personal relationship with Jesus unless they have the Eucharist is like saying a married couple only love each other when they’re having sex. A good marriage includes it, but lets not go overboard by saying there is no personal relationship without it.

 

[prv]

I may be speaking out of turn here, but I think that Alfie believes that the true chruch is the modern Evangelical Church, as they have condemned Catholics who Alfie believes are mistaken about a great many things. Alfie has, of course, been unable to document anything, but she does love to make blind accusations.

The evangelical Church was formed centuries, and I really, really mean centuries after the bodily death of our Lord. But I’m glad your brought up this list, so that it gives me a chance to rehears my arguments against those who hate the Lord and His Church.

 

[GKC]

Been there. Done that. Can’t buy it any more, GK.

Then you are doubtless where you should be, a place that no Anglo-Catholic can complain about.

As an aside, does your comment mean you’'ve read both of Fr. Hughes books?

GKC

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Okay, I tried to answer this yesterday but something went wrong. Here is what I wanted to say:

Then try looking at it Biblically:

John 6:56

Hi,
This is how I would sum up the discussion on the Eucharist.
Jesus came to eliminate ritualistic religious activities and initiate direct personal relationship with God through Jesus.

Now I am not saying that to offend the catholic faith. I believe this with all my heart, mind,soul and body.

My statement certainly does not mean you should not have communion because that is what Jesus wants us to do, break bread with each other and fellowship and worship together as the body of believers.

I just dont believe or see it the way you do. I have read the Scriptures John chapter 6. To me it just doesnt mean the same as the CC teaches it. The Scriptures say to me that Jesus is the food and drink that sustain us(eternal life)He made refernce to bread and wine because food and drink sustain our body like Jesus’s work on the cross will sustain us(eternally). There is so much more on this but I just cant write it all. I guess it comes down to I dont believe Jesus was speaking literally. I also believe that the people who left His side thought He was being literal and couldnt understand how they could actually eat Him(cannibalism). They could not see beyond that to the true meaning because they did not believe who Jesus was in the first place and therefore they were blind to the spiritual truth. Verse 47 says “Truly, Truly I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.” That is a statement that can hardly be misunderstood. By comparing verse 47 and 54, clearly shows(at least to me)that to eat His flesh and drink His blood means to believe in Him. Ok Ill stop there. I actually wrote more then I thought I would. Sorry for the long post. I dont like to write long posts
Peace
AFH

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Exactly, since the Protestants think in the Symbolic is within the Eucharist rather than Real Presence, there is no Christ in them.

Hi,

I am sorry but that is a false statement. The Eucharist has nothing to do with whether I am saved and have the Holy Spirit in me. I have Him the **Holy Spirit **in me because I have accepted Jesus Christ, admitted I was a sinner and in need of a Savior and have repented. I am sealed till the day of redemption.(Ephesians) Whether or not I believe in what the CC teaches about the Eucharist does not decide my salvation. BTW it doesnt define yours either. I say this with love

Peace
AFH

 

[Mannyfit75]

Hi,

I am sorry but that is a false statement. The Eucharist has nothing to do with whether I am saved and have the Holy Spirit in me. I have Him the **Holy Spirit **in me because I have accepted Jesus Christ, admitted I was a sinner and in need of a Savior and have repented. I am sealed till the day of redemption.(Ephesians) Whether or not I believe in what the CC teaches about the Eucharist does not decide my salvation. BTW it doesnt define yours either. I say this with love

Peace
AFH

Your salvation depends totally on God. So I leave that to God.

However, in my opinion, there is no physical presence of God. You did not received physical presence of Eucharist, whom we Catholic believe is Jesus.

Receiving the Holy Spirit is not the same as receiving Holy Communion. Receiving the Holy Spirit is given to you on spiritually matter.

Likewise, receiving the Blessed Sacrament is receiving the Lord and consuming him.

 

[Genesis315]

Hi,

I am sorry but that is a false statement. The Eucharist has nothing to do with whether I am saved and have the Holy Spirit in me.

Of course, you knew this would be coming :

John 6:54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Your salvation depends totally on God. So I leave that to God.

However, in my opinion, there is no physical presence of God. You did not received physical presence of Eucharist, whom we Catholic believe is Jesus.

Receiving the Holy Spirit is not the same as receiving Holy Communion. Receiving the Holy Spirit is given to you on spiritually matter.

Likewise, receiving the Blessed Sacrament is receiving the Lord and consuming him.

Hi,
Thanks for responding so kindly.
You said we dont have Christ in us. Having the Holy Spirit** in **us is having Christ in us.

Peace
AFH

 

[Mannyfit75]

Your welcome. I try not to be offensive. There are times when I post offensive post.

I do wish you do have valid sacraments and Real Presence of Jesus Christ in Holy Communion, but your Church doesn’t.

However, I am grateful that God has granted you the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Your welcome. I try not to be offensive. There are times when I post offensive post.

I do wish you do have valid sacraments and Real Presence of Jesus Christ in Holy Communion, but your Church doesn’t.

However, I am grateful that God has granted you the gift of the Holy Spirit.

BLESS YOU

 

[jmcrae]

Hi,
This is how I would sum up the discussion on the Eucharist.
Jesus came to eliminate ritualistic religious activities and initiate direct personal relationship with God through Jesus.

If so, then why did Jesus Himself command the Apostles to participate in rituals such as the Mass (see I Corinthians 11:23-26) and Baptism (see Matthew 28:16-20)?

Would you say that the Saints of the Old Testament such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc., did not have a personal relationship with God? And yet they faithfully participated in many Jewish rituals.

Jesus Himself also participated in many Jewish rituals, and even told the people that He was the “Lamb of God” that is, the lamb of the passover ritual, who must be physically consumed.

I just dont believe or see it the way you do. I have read the Scriptures John chapter 6. To me it just doesnt mean the same as the CC teaches it. The Scriptures say to me that Jesus is the food and drink that sustain us(eternal life)He made refernce to bread and wine because food and drink sustain our body like Jesus’s work on the cross will sustain us(eternally). There is so much more on this but I just cant write it all.

Doesn’t it strike you as at all odd that when Jesus established His “memorial meal” He commanded that bread and wine be used? If He was simply using these as metaphors, why would He go to the lengths of providing them with actual bread and wine? After all, He never came around with actual sheep, vineyards, or doors when using these in his parables - but He did come around with actual bread and wine, and held them up and said, “This is my body,” and “This is my blood.”

I guess it comes down to I dont believe Jesus was speaking literally. I also believe that the people who left His side thought He was being literal and couldnt understand how they could actually eat Him(cannibalism).

It is significant that (unlike at other times when people misunderstood His teachings) He never stopped to explain what it was that they had misunderstood. No - they had understood Him perfectly. That’s why they left.

Peter didn’t understand why Jesus wanted them to partake of His body and blood, but he understood that Jesus could not lie to him or make him do anything that is against God’s will.

This is the same attitude that we Catholics take when Jesus commands us through the Church to do various things. We believe because we know that Jesus cannot lie or make us to go against God’s will - not because we always understand everything.

They could not see beyond that to the true meaning because they did not believe who Jesus was in the first place and therefore they were blind to the spiritual truth. Verse 47 says “Truly, Truly I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.” That is a statement that can hardly be misunderstood. By comparing verse 47 and 54, clearly shows(at least to me)that to eat His flesh and drink His blood means to believe in Him.

This is why only believers are allowed to participate in Holy Communion. What it means is that only believers can participate in Holy Communion; it doesn’t mean that believing is the same thing as Holy Communion.