What dear friend, do you find strange about Catholicism?

[rcwitness]

The only heresy (it) back then was Gnostic, to deny Christ died in the flesh, not whether you had symbolic/spiritual, consubstantiation or transubstantiation view of communion.

Found this from a quick search.
Heresy[N]

from a Greek word signifying (1) a choice, (2) the opinion chosen, and (3) the sect holding the opinion. In the Acts of the Apostles (5:17; 15:5; Isaiah 24:5 Isaiah 24:14; 26:5) it denotes a sect, without reference to its character. Elsewhere, however, in the New Testament it has a different meaning attached to it. Paul ranks “heresies” with crimes and seditions (Galatians 5:20). This word also denotes divisions or schisms in the church (1 Corinthians 11:19). In Titus 3:10 a “heretical person” is one who follows his own self-willed “questions,” and who is to be avoided. Heresies thus came to signify self-chosen doctrines not emanating from God (2 Peter 2:1).

 

[adrift]

I am willing to be scholarly and look at any evidence there in Ch 6 that the apostles took it literally…

Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”

Why would Jesus ask if they wanted to leave if they too had not understood it as Literal?

 

[benhur]

Hi Benhur

Well, I finally understand why you think communion is symbolic. I could see how you could come to this conclusion.

Thank you fran. That is all one can ask, to see things thru the others eye, while still holding on to your belief. All communion belief’s are rational, scriptural, historical, some more than others, and of course all can not be “right” but…

So communion becomes a means of sharing, a rememberance or memorial since we can’t really remember what we haven’t witnessed.

All views of communion have not witnessed the original Calvary. All views of communion, recall Calvary to the present moment. And if one has already had an encounter with Christ, in particular His goodness towards us thru Calvary ,every recollection should burst for with a thanksgiving (Eucharisting) all over again.

Furthermore, I have spoken with ex Catholics, and protestant communion for many is extra special because now they can hold the elements during the consecration, and the presider can be an elder, deacon, pastor, even responsible parishioner. Kind of like we are all on the same page/level, and all can go into the holy of holies, like no middle man needed (priest who alone can transubstantiate). The specialness now is not in an overt even mystical action by a priest, but in an inwardly reflection on the real interaction with an overt Christ at Calvary. Hopefully the latter is the same for all view participants.

Jesus said the bread would be His body and blood and it’s this gnaw (greek) word that makes it be so literal to us.

Sorry fran, have to be nit-picky but no one today follows the Lord’s word literally and* gnaws* on the Host.

Also, I must say that the Eucharist is very important to Catholics (bad wording again - sorry). Many protestants say they changed to Catholicism because of the Eucharist.

Thank you.I think I would agree that Catholics have a very high reverence and depth to their communion experience.

I have also thought that one would be hard pressed to pick out at the Sunday brunch, or the Monday break room which person had a symbolic, or spiritual communion, or which had a con or transubstantiated communion.

So yes, this is a great divide. We don’t however, say that ti’s communion that saves. It’s still faith.

Yes, call it like it is , glad it is faith above the rite/sacrament, and I would add Christ above it all that saves.

Thanks again for your patient and thoughtful demeanor.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Why would Jesus ask if they wanted to leave if they too had not understood it as Literal?

Good question. I would think that whether symbolic or literal, it was out there (out of the bag) that Christ would die , even leave them, return to heaven (ascend) hence the question. Peter had ‘trouble’ with this on three occasions later on (“you shall not go to the cross”, taking the sword ,cutting off an ear to stop His arrest, and thrice denial).

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Found this from a quick search.
Heresy[N]

from a Greek word signifying (1) a choice, (2) the opinion chosen, and (3) the sect holding the opinion. In the Acts of the Apostles (5:17; 15:5; Isaiah 24:5 Isaiah 24:14; 26:5) it denotes a sect, without reference to its character. Elsewhere, however, in the New Testament it has a different meaning attached to it. Paul ranks “heresies” with crimes and seditions (Galatians 5:20). This word also denotes divisions or schisms in the church (1 Corinthians 11:19). In Titus 3:10 a “heretical person” is one who follows his own self-willed “questions,” and who is to be avoided. Heresies thus came to signify self-chosen doctrines not emanating from God (2 Peter 2:1).

Hi rc, Yes thank you. Of course there were other heresies. I think I was referencing heresies attributed to Eucharistic views. Ignatius dealt with Gnostics and a non fleshly Calvary, and Paul talks of uncharitableness at the Table, both as ‘heresies’. Paul was not addressing just how the elements are the Body and Blood , but the attitude and division at the table over ‘ranking’, wealth,uncharitableness, not differing views on the former.

Thank you for qualifying my post further.

Blessings

 

[adrift]

Good question. I would think that whether symbolic or literal, it was out there (out of the bag) that Christ would die , even leave them, return to heaven (ascend) hence the question. Peter had ‘trouble’ with this on three occasions later on (“you shall not go to the cross”, taking the sword ,cutting off an ear to stop His arrest, and thrice denial).

Blessings

The question was what evidence there is in Ch 6 that the apostles took it literally? Other disciples walked away because they understood it as literal. I find no convincing arguments that Jesus did not mean it literally. Obviously the apostles did too otherwise Jesus would not have asked them if they too would walk away the evidence is there. Was Jesus talking about His death, of course that is what the Ch addresses. I have mentioned before that this chapter is very deep covering many aspects of Jesus’ mission. One of which was the literal eating of His Body and Blood understood by all His disciples some of which left Him because it was “too hard a saying” and others who did not because "“Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
They did not understand what Jesus meant, that would come later at the Last Supper but they trusted in Jesus’ word.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc, Yes thank you. Of course there were other heresies. I think I was referencing heresies attributed to Eucharistic views. Ignatius dealt with Gnostics and a non fleshly Calvary, and Paul talks of uncharitableness at the Table, both as ‘heresies’. Paul was not addressing just how the elements are the Body and Blood , but the attitude and division at the table over ‘ranking’, wealth,uncharitableness, not differing views on the former.

Thank you for qualifying my post further.

Blessings

I know your point of view in the matter of His Eucharist. I was posting a study on the term heresy used in the Bible. I intended to give a reference that showed the many threats of heresy to the Way.

As for John 6, we have discussed it at length. I believe Jesus was calling His followers to a very challenging decision. The “primary” matter (to put it in your terms), was if those in His presence believed in Him and His words or were looking for proof which meant Jesus had to meet their demands.

What you call the “secondary” cause, I understand more as His means to perpetually feed His flock. We don’t eat and drink this meal to satisfy our bellies. We eat and drink to participate in the life of our Lord. We do this in faith and receive His life, or we do it as betrayal and receive condemnation.

Those who abused the Supper were like those who walked away from His John 6 call. They ate for their fill, not for His life.

 

[adrift]

I know your point of view in the matter of His Eucharist. I was posting a study on the term heresy used in the Bible. I intended to give a reference that showed the many threats of heresy to the Way.

As for John 6, we have discussed it at length. I believe Jesus was calling His followers to a very challenging decision. The “primary” matter (to put it in your terms), was if those in His presence believed in Him and His words or were looking for proof which meant Jesus had to meet their demands.

What you call the “secondary” cause, I understand more as His means to perpetually feed His flock. We don’t eat and drink this meal to satisfy our bellies. We eat and drink to participate in the life of our Lord. We do this in faith and receive His life, or we do it as betrayal and receive condemnation.

Those who abused the Supper were like those who walked away from His John 6 call. They ate for their fill, not for His life.

Well said! Although I knew this I could hardly have put it as well as you have done.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I know your point of view in the matter of His Eucharist. I was posting a study on the term heresy used in the Bible. I intended to give a reference that showed the many threats of heresy to the Way.

As for John 6, we have discussed it at length. I believe Jesus was calling His followers to a very challenging decision. The “primary” matter (to put it in your terms), was if those in His presence believed in Him and His words or were looking for proof which meant Jesus had to meet their demands.

What you call the “secondary” cause, I understand more as His means to perpetually feed His flock. We don’t eat and drink this meal to satisfy our bellies. We eat and drink to participate in the life of our Lord. We do this in faith and receive His life, or we do it as betrayal and receive condemnation.

Those who abused the Supper were like those who walked away from His John 6 call. They ate for their fill, not for His life.

How does your pp 3 support transubstantiation? The secondary cause. We DON’T eat to satisfy our bellies, but to participate in the life of Christ. Doesn’t this make it be more spiritual than literal??

Fran

 

[rcwitness]

How does your pp 3 support transubstantiation? The secondary cause. We DON’T eat to satisfy our bellies, but to participate in the life of Christ. ** Doesn’t this make it be more spiritual than literal??**

Fran

His literal flesh took on the sins of the world, not by the power of flesh, but because His Spirit made His body and blood subject to the will of the Father. The literal understanding is actually the most Spiritual!

 

[rcwitness]

Well said! Although I knew this I could hardly have put it as well as you have done.

Thank you. I appreciate benhur for pushing me to constantly try to express what we believe, regarding His Eucharist. Ben, I believe, represents a large and growing denomination of Christianity which validly believes in Jesus. I still believe there are “imperfections” in these which, although can produce much good and salvation, also is tainted by the enemy so that he can cause disfunction and discord within Christianity. Not to deny that disfunction and discord doesn’t happen within the walls of our own Catholic religion!

 

[PJM]

The issue, Fran, was whether or not all miracles produce visible results. Especially with regard to the Eucharist.

Eazy claims that all miracles have changes visible to the senses. We do not see any changes externally when a person is bapized (especially an infant) but by faith we believe that these supernatural events have occurred.

I the same way, we do not see a change in the accidents of bread and wine, but by faith we believe what Jesus has said “this is my Body, ,this is my Blood”. Somehow Eazy is separating “believing in Him” from believing in the Real Presence of the Eucharist.

Wouldn’t it demonstrate better scholarship to say that all the evidence is not pursuasive?

It is like saying that the Hitler’s final solution and the genocide of Jews did not occur. No evidence? :bigyikes:

When do you think the disciples went off the track? Evidently, since you don’t believe what they wrote in the NT means what they taught their disciples, the disciples then wrote about it from the first century to this one. The ones who denied it were referred to as heretics.

You are right, Patrick Eazy is categorizing the change of the bread and wine into Body and Blood as a “miracle”, and claining that no miracles were ever done by Christ that were not perceptible by the senses, therefore, this change does not really happen, since it is not visible to him (there are people who have reported being able to perceive it).

Blessed are those who do not see, and yet believe.

Thanks,

I agree and it is why I have posted this teaching from Father Hardon:

"Truth is the condition of grace; it is the source of grace; it is the Chanel of grace; it is the divinely ordained requirement of grace."

And being that Faith comes through grace; it seems evident that God is withholding some of his grace from those not connected directly to His Catholic Church…

May God help us!

Patrick

 

[frangiuliano115]

Thanks,

I agree and it is why I have posted this teaching from Father Hardon:

"Truth is the condition of grace; it is the source of grace; it is the Chanel of grace; it is the divinely ordained requirement of grace."

And being that Faith comes through grace; it seems evident that God is withholding some of his grace from those not connected directly to His Catholic Church…

May God help us!

Patrick

You see PJM, when you wander away from biblical, christian teachings you always get into trouble.

You say:

“Truth is the condition of grace; it is the source of grace; it is the Chanel of grace; it is the divinely ordained requirement of grace.”

Interesting. You said in a previous post that Mary is the conduit, or chanel, of all grace. Which is it? Truth or Mary?

Was Jesus the truth? Or is Mary the truth?

And you think God is withholding grace from some people who believe in Him?
God help us indeed.

I do believe you and I are serving two different Gods.
My God has sufficient grace for all. My God desires that all believe in Him. My God does not hold back on His graces since He created us and loves us.

Please read John 3.16 again.
For those reading along:

John 3:16

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Fran

 

[PJM]

I am willing to be scholarly and look at any evidence there in Ch 6 that the apostles took it literally. We have been discussing that discourse. Please show me also where there is evidence of Jewish genocide in the "ch 6’ Third Reich time frame, say around 1937.

The only heresy (it) back then was Gnostic, to deny Christ died in the flesh, not whether you had symbolic/spiritual, consubstantiation or transubstantiation view of communion.

Blessings

I

am willing to be scholarly and look at any evidence there in Ch 6 that the apostles took it literally?

I LOVE a challenge

Here they are IF your able must be God granted] to be enabled to correctly understand them.

[1] John 6:"[61] Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?" [67] After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him."

[2] John 6: 68-70 "Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? [69] And Simon Peter answered him:** Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. [70] And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.**

[3] The Early Church called today’s Eucharist [Catholic Holy Communion]; :the Breakng of the Bread":

**Luke 24:35 **“And they told what things were done in the way; and how they knew him in the breaking of the bread.”

Acts 2:42 "And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers".

"Clement of Rome (80 A.D.) in Corinthians 36:1 refers to the Eucharist as the ``offering of the gift.’’

St. Clement, bishop of Rome, 80 A.D., to the Corinthians, 40:
Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will."
**
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D**.:
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God … They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes”.

: The only heresy (it) back then was Gnostic, to deny Christ died in the flesh, not whether you had symbolic/spiritual, consubstantiation or transubstantiation view of communion

Perhaps; but this is ONLY because they failed to recognize; as you SEEM to also do; the Real Presence.

Because this is literally Jesus Christ/ God; … knowingly or unknowingly THIS TOO IS DENIAL OF GAO; the one unforgivable sin.

I have no idea of the genocide your speak of, unless that is the capture and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD?

Pary for humility friend; with it grace is in a VERY limited supply

God Bless you,
Patrick;

.

 

[PJM]

Well yes and no.

I find that CAF Catholics in general tend to be closest to dogmatic Catholics I’ve ever known. In the sense that they follow the Church’s teaching as closely as possible, and are pretty darn informed about RCC teachings.

I’ve found in real life most Catholics I’ve known are far more selective about what Church teachings they emphasize or even follow (some intentionally so, some through lack of proper Catholic catechism).

So while CAF Catholics might not be representative of what the majority of Catholics IRL do or say, it doesn’t mean CAF Catholics aren’t a closer representation of what Catholicism is supposed to be in general.

Thanks, nicely done:thumbsup:

Mary Christmas

PAarick

 

[rweidn]

I strugge with the concept of the Immaculate Conception.

Also that Catholics in Church don’t sing with more gusto. It’s pretty flat sometimes, such a shame, at least it is where i go…

 

[PJM]

You see PJM, when you wander away from biblical, christian teachings you always get into trouble.

You say:

“Truth is the condition of grace; it is the source of grace; it is the Chanel of grace; it is the divinely ordained requirement of grace.”

Interesting. You said in a previous post that Mary is the conduit, or chanel, of all grace. Which is it? Truth or Mary?

Was Jesus the truth? Or is Mary the truth?

And you think God is withholding grace from some people who believe in Him?
God help us indeed.

I do believe you and I are serving two different Gods.
My God has sufficient grace for all. My God desires that all believe in Him. My God does not hold back on His graces since He created us and loves us.

Please read John 3.16 again.
For those reading along:

John 3:16

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Fran

Well now that I have been given my chuckle for the day; for which I thank you

While I;m delighted to be associated so close to Father John Hardon who BTW, is the author of that quote; your question stems from.You seem to have a significant misunderstanding. ; and OR, I’m just not clear enough in my explainations:shrug:

God is, always has been and always will be the SOURCE of Grace:)

**Mary is as I indicated the dispenser of all of God’s Grace. She does NOT determine who is to receive what kind or how much grace; THAT TOO is God’s; BUT She is the conduit of all graces. **

Does this make it more clear to you Fran?

Was Jesus the truth? Or is Mary the truth?

They BOTH are Truth; BUT in different way’s.

I have never EVEN suggested that Jesus in NOT “the Way; the Truth and the Life” Of course He is. BUT if your suggesting that HE CAN"T or that He Didn’t give the keys all of them to Peter and through Peter to today’s Catholic Church; your wrong.

If your saying that God cannot choose Mary to distribute all of the Grace he makes available; again your wrong.

While “Truth” is as it must be SINGULAR per defied issue; there are Fran more than one issue.

God Bless you!
Patrick

 

[PJM]

I strugge with the concept of the Immaculate Conception.

Also that Catholics in Church don’t sing with more gusto. It’s pretty flat sometimes, such a shame, at least it is where i go…

Thanks for asking

In an absolute sense Mary did not NEED to be conceived without the stain of Original sin.

Likewise, God had no obligation to preform this Miracle. It was a freewill choice of his.; who felt that Mary MERITED this grace.

WHY?

Because God who knows all things; KNEW but DID NOT force in any way Mary to always; every-time and in every-way; without failing even one time to accept fully and completely accept and correctly apply God’s gifts of Grace to her.

God KNEW that Mary would NEVER sin; but could not force this condition upon Her. It HAD to be Mary’s Freewill choice. And because Mary choose to never sin; it was God’s view that She Merited to be conceived without sin.

Does that hel you?

Mary Christians!

 

[benhur]

]I know your point of view in the matter of His Eucharist. I was posting a study on the term heresy used in the Bible. I intended to give a reference that showed the many threats of heresy to the Way.

As for John 6, we have discussed it at length. I believe Jesus was calling His followers to a very challenging decision. The “primary” matter (to put it in your terms), was if those in His presence believed in Him and His words or were looking for proof which meant Jesus had to meet their demands.

ok

What you call the “secondary” cause, I understand more as His means to perpetually feed His flock. We don’t eat and drink this meal to satisfy our bellies. We eat and drink to participate in the life of our Lord. We do this in faith and receive His life, or we do it as betrayal and receive condemnation.

yes, it is a spiritual eating. Not sure you can spiritually eat as betrayal, though Judas did appear to eat for three years and betray. I see the perpetual eating as in Christ and the Holy Spirit being with us 24/7, His feeding us thru the word, or a brethren, or the sun shining, or in prayer, as well as Eucharisting.

Anyways, if you see John 6 as literal eating of His flesh then of course the Last Supper is literal eating, and Paul/Corinthians is literal eating, and Ignatius is literal eating. Same holds with any other view of Eucharisting, including symbolic, that it runs thru all the evidential writings

Those who abused the Supper were like those who walked away from His John 6 call. They ate for their fill, not for His life

Kindly disagree. If I recall the story, Paul was addressing the Corinthians as believers, all of them, those that discerned properly and those that did not. Paul would not rebuke a non believer for not being a Christian, but he would rebuke a Christian for not acting Christ like. The disciples that left in john 6 , did not properly believe from the beginning. They were not sheep acting like goats (as in Corinthian case) but goats portraying as sheep.

Blessings

 

[Wannano]

Thanks for asking

In an absolute sense Mary did not NEED to be conceived without the stain of Original sin.

Likewise, God had no obligation to preform this Miracle. It was a freewill choice of his.; who felt that Mary MERITED this grace.

WHY?

Because God who knows all things; KNEW but DID NOT force in any way Mary to always; every-time and in every-way; without failing even one time to accept fully and completely accept and correctly apply God’s gifts of Grace to her.

God KNEW that Mary would NEVER sin; but could not force this condition upon Her. It HAD to be Mary’s Freewill choice. And because Mary choose to never sin; it was God’s view that She Merited to be conceived without sin.

Does that hel you?

Mary Christians!

Pjm, you seem to be slurring your words? Hope you are ok.