P
pickguard1
Guest
Just curiosity SSTeacher, what drew you to the Orthodox Church, rather than say, an Eastern Catholic Church?
peace,
Will
What do you think is the biggest obstacle to unity between Catholic Christians and non–Catholic Christians?
- Status
peace,
Will
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
Sharing communion is the one thing that should bring us together more than anything else, yet communion seems to be where we place our biggest barriers.
If Jesus can offer bread and wine to Judas , who are we to say who we can and cannot share communion with.
In the spirit of praying to One Jesus Christ
Eric
If Jesus can offer bread and wine to Judas , who are we to say who we can and cannot share communion with.
In the spirit of praying to One Jesus Christ
Eric
P
pickguard1
Guest
You are right, that sharing communion should bring us together. But we aren’t the ones who share it - it is Christ who shares His Body and Blood with us, through His Church. He could have institued the Eucharist at one of His many sermons before crowds of people - but He chose to do so with His twelve chosen Apostles - the future leaders of His Church. He gave THEM the instructions and authority over this sacrament - not just anyone in general. To reduce Holy Communion to a simple community sharing event robs the Eucharist of its true meaning. Encouraging our separated bretheren to continue in the denial of the authority of the Church Jesus founded, and its doctrines on the Eucharist is to do a disservice to their spriitual well-being.
Yes, Judas received the Eucharist, too.
The difference is that Judas had not separated himself from Christ yet. Jesus didn’t have the pharisees, or just anyone at the Last Supper with Him, but the leaders of the Church He established.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Eric,
To add another thought to what I said before, I believe that at the very least, communion ought to be denied to anyone who thinks it just plain bread and wine.
So, in particular, if I went to an Anglican priest and said “I would like to receive communion at your liturgy, but I believe it isn’t a valid eucharist” then I would hope that he/she would – out of charity – respond “I’m sorry, but you shouldn’t receive our communion unless you consider it to be a valid eucharist.”
To add another thought to what I said before, I believe that at the very least, communion ought to be denied to anyone who thinks it just plain bread and wine.
So, in particular, if I went to an Anglican priest and said “I would like to receive communion at your liturgy, but I believe it isn’t a valid eucharist” then I would hope that he/she would – out of charity – respond “I’m sorry, but you shouldn’t receive our communion unless you consider it to be a valid eucharist.”
B
Bob_McKissick
Guest
With all the churches doing the fragment thing, how are we to know what is what when it comes to Scripture? The only sure way to know with certitude is if the Church is the Infallible Author and Interpreter of the Scriptures!!! Without this Christ instituted Church, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, Scripture becomes what St. Peter indicated, “twisted to their damnation!” When St. Philip came upon the eunuch reading the Old Testament, he asked him if he understood what he was reading. The eunuch’s reply was, “How can I know unless some man tell me!” Keep praying, bob
B
Brother2
Guest
Hello Peter J nice to read you. Um someone said Martin Luther had no problem with the Eucharist, that could be right I have not read his Thesis lately…I tend to lump all the Reformers in together and used M L by mistake. So I stand corrected on that one…
However, I would like to ask, How do you know that the the Wafer and the Wine actually changes when you eat it?? Reason and Scripture tells me that God does not operate that way, maybe a ‘stomach pump’ is the answer and then get it analyzed, that could prove it??
No intention of being crude or disrespectful, I just wonder how you prove that it actually becomes the Body and Blood of Lord Jesus Christ…to me it is re-crucifying Lord Jesus every Mass, no human organization has the power that the Roman Catholic Church claims, not to mention papal infallibility which is just Pagan really, no human being is infallible, only God…!!!
Nothing personal intended!! The Reformation happened because God had rejected His original church because it had apostasized…pagan beliefs had crept in with Constantine and then went from bad to worse. Just like He had to reject the Jews as His chosen people because they had rejected Him…
Even the Apostles talked of error creeping into the Church even in their time…Lucifer the arch enemy is always left out of these discussions, NEVER is he mentioned and he is the father of lies and had never stood idly by and let the Church get on with it…he and a third of the angels are working every day to spoil the work of God in this world and has sown many tares amongst the wheat of pure doctrine over the last 2000 years.
Just a pity most of the ‘weeds’ are in the Roman Catholic Church…
As I say nothing personal I am trying to present Truth…
Michael.
P
pickguard1
Guest
What evidence do you have to “prove” these claims, since you are so insistent on “proof”?As I say nothing personal I am trying to present Truth…
Unfortunately I don’t have enough time to address the rest of your post. Perhaps I will have time over the weekend or next week.
J
jam070406
Guest
Malachi 1:11
11 My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and **pure offerings **will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations," says the LORD Almighty.
Matthew 26:26-28
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 **This is my blood **of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 14:22-24
22 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”
23 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.
24 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them.
Luke 22:19-20
19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
John 6:53-56
53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
1 Corinthians 11:23-29
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
Perhaps your “Reason” is flawed in thinking that you know exactly how God operates.
Your exegesis certainly is flawed.
Stick around, you need to learn Truth before you can present it.As I say nothing personal I am trying to present Truth…
J
James1982
Guest
My guess is, not under Benedict. Not for any particular shortcoming of Benedict’s (I think if one reads Ratzinger’s prior scholarly work, it reveals a man who has a deep understanding of Church history and has clearly put some thought into the concept of unity), but simply because I’m not sure with his age he will be so ambitious as to convene a council that might saddle his successor with something they might not be 100% into. Just as a simple matter of courtesy, I would think the next Pope will probably be the first opportunity to see any meaningful departure one way or another from the post-Vatican II/John Paul II status quo.Hi Steven,
According to some Catholics the Second Vatican Council made a lot of concessions. With the principle lex orandi lex credendi in mind wouldn’t you concedethat they have a point? A Third Vatican Council focused on Christian Unity is a possibility, don’t you think?
Ecumenically,
Mick
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
It’s not ‘could be’ anything that’s how it was.
Scripture tells us we become new creations in Christ… Perhaps we should take before and after DNA examples to prove it? Don’t be so disrespectful towards this belief. A belief that you clearly do not understand.
You’re right, no “human organization” has the power to “re-crucify” our Lord. What does this have to do with us? No human being is infallible? Were Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter ect ect infallible when they were inspired to write Scripture? You sound like you are making infallible judgments about our faith… Or is all of this just opinion? In which case; why should we care for your opinion?
Boy, I cannot imagine why you feel you need to keep repeating this… Are you trying to convince us, or yourself of this?
Not possible. See Matt. 16:18
Uh-boy here we go. :hypno:
Maybe you are in error?.. No personal offense intended or anything.
God bless
B
Brother2
Guest
Thanks for all that brother, we use those texts all the time in our Communion Service. Still I am not convinced that it actually happens as Roman Catholic Church says, it was one of the issues in the Reformation. (though not by Martin Luther:blushMalachi 1:11
11 My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and **pure offerings **will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations," says the LORD Almighty.
Matthew 26:26-28
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 **This is my blood **of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 14:22-24
22 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”
23 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.
24 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them.
Luke 22:19-20
19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
John 6:53-56
53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
1 Corinthians 11:23-29
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
Perhaps your “Reason” is flawed in thinking that you know exactly how God operates.
Your exegesis certainly is flawed.
Stick around, you need to learn Truth before you can present it.
It is symbolic you don’t actually ‘eat’ the Flesh and Blood of Lord Jesus…its blasphemy to say that it is. (no offence meant brother
I understand what you are saying in quoting those texts of course I do…but Protestant view is that what our Lord meant is that we accept His death on our behalf, accept that His body was broken for us, that His Blood was shed for us, and then allow Him to live His perfect life in us…that it all becomes part our being AS IF we were eating It. The Bible is called the same, the Bread of Life, we have to EAT the Bread of Life every day to remain true to Lord Jesus!! And of course we Drink the Water of Life also, the Samaritan women at the well, ‘Drink this Water and you will never Thirst again’…it is all symbolic of making IT All part of us, PART OF OUR SOUL if you like.
Now I am very aware that I am a Visitor on a Roman Catholic Website and as such I understand that you are convinced of what you say…ha ha, as convinced as I am of what I say…but I STILL LIKE YOU…
Its nothing between friends eh
Michael.
L
lindalout49
Guest
when i took RCIA classes 13 yr ago at age 34. i could never comprehend purgatory. i could never find scripture that really convenced me. I always think of Jesus on the cross and to one of the other two men on the cross Jesus says “You will be with me in eternity this day.” I can not ever free that from my mind. To me that says plainly that there is no purgatory.
when the nun who taught my RCIA classes asked me at completion if i wanted to join the church or not, i said, I do want to join, but i can not say i believe in purgatory. she told me i did not have to believe in purgatory to join the Church.
7 yr prior to taking RCIA, i came to know the Lord as referred to as being Born Again. I understand why it is called Born Again, because you are a new person in Christ Jesus. He became that night the most important person in my life.
I have baggage i brought with me that i do not intend on denieing just because i joined the Catholic church. God have spoken to me several times directly and many times before i was Catholic and several times since i became Catholic.
when the nun who taught my RCIA classes asked me at completion if i wanted to join the church or not, i said, I do want to join, but i can not say i believe in purgatory. she told me i did not have to believe in purgatory to join the Church.
7 yr prior to taking RCIA, i came to know the Lord as referred to as being Born Again. I understand why it is called Born Again, because you are a new person in Christ Jesus. He became that night the most important person in my life.
I have baggage i brought with me that i do not intend on denieing just because i joined the Catholic church. God have spoken to me several times directly and many times before i was Catholic and several times since i became Catholic.
N
NCSue
Guest
I think there are quite a few “biggest obstacles”, most of which result from a lack of understanding. Protestants believe that:
*** Catholics worship saints… or statues… or Mary. **(Of course we don’t. I think many Protestants don’t get the distinction between admiration, reverence, and worship and therefore misinterpret what we’re doing.
*** What we mean by the term “papal infallability” is misunderstood as well. **Protestants don’t realize that the doctrine of infallability doesn’t indicate that the Pope is free from sin or that he is incapable of any sort of error.
*** A different understanding of Eucharist. Catholics place great emphasis on the words, “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood”; Protestants put great emphasis on the words “Do this in memory of me”.
*** Sola scriptura. We don’t accept that the Bible alone contains the full story of our faith.
*** Faith versus works. **Many Protestants believe that ONLY faith in Jesus is required for salvation. We believe that faith will result in a changed heart, which will cause a changed life that manifests itself as “works”. They believe it’s not necessary for the Christian to change. We believe its impossible for the Christian to remain the same.
*** Catholics worship saints… or statues… or Mary. **(Of course we don’t. I think many Protestants don’t get the distinction between admiration, reverence, and worship and therefore misinterpret what we’re doing.
*** What we mean by the term “papal infallability” is misunderstood as well. **Protestants don’t realize that the doctrine of infallability doesn’t indicate that the Pope is free from sin or that he is incapable of any sort of error.
*** A different understanding of Eucharist. Catholics place great emphasis on the words, “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood”; Protestants put great emphasis on the words “Do this in memory of me”.
*** Sola scriptura. We don’t accept that the Bible alone contains the full story of our faith.
*** Faith versus works. **Many Protestants believe that ONLY faith in Jesus is required for salvation. We believe that faith will result in a changed heart, which will cause a changed life that manifests itself as “works”. They believe it’s not necessary for the Christian to change. We believe its impossible for the Christian to remain the same.
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
This is not the protestant view at all. There is no “protestant view” on this. This is your view, that some protestants agree with you on. However, as I said earlier, I would guess there are more protestants who disagree with you on this than there are that agree with you.
God bless
B
Brother2
Guest
PS. Surely bro. one flaw with the meaning of those verses is LORD JESUS HAD NOT DIED YET…as I said above He meant Make My Death, My Flesh My Blood part of you as IF you were eating it…Thanks for all that brother, we use those texts all the time in our Communion Service. Still I am not convinced that it actually happens as Roman Catholic Church says, it was one of the issues in the Reformation. (though not by Martin Luther:blush
It is symbolic you don’t actually ‘eat’ the Flesh and Blood of Lord Jesus…its blasphemy to say that it is. (no offence meant brother
I understand what you are saying in quoting those texts of course I do…but Protestant view is that what our Lord meant is that we accept His death on our behalf, accept that His body was broken for us, that His Blood was shed for us, and then allow Him to live His perfect life in us…that it all becomes part our being AS IF we were eating It. The Bible is called the same, the Bread of Life, we have to EAT the Bread of Life every day to remain true to Lord Jesus!! And of course we Drink the Water of Life also, the Samaritan women at the well, ‘Drink this Water and you will never Thirst again’…it is all symbolic of making IT All part of us, PART OF OUR SOUL if you like.
Now I am very aware that I am a Visitor on a Roman Catholic Website and as such I understand that you are convinced of what you say…ha ha, as convinced as I am of what I say…but I STILL LIKE YOU…
Its nothing between friends eh
OK it is not the Protestant view it is the Biblical View…
J
jam070406
Guest
How bout St. Augustine? I know he was just after Constantine so he falls within the apostasy, pagan worship, etc etc conspiracy theory that your “church” teaches. But take a look:PS. Surely bro. one flaw with the meaning of those verses is LORD JESUS HAD NOT DIED YET…as I said above He meant Make My Death, My Flesh My Blood part of you as IF you were eating it…
OK it is not the Protestant view it is the Biblical View…
St. Augustine (about 354-430 A.D.) is perhaps the greatest of the Early Church Fathers and is unfortunately often misunderstood for his discussion of sign and sacrament. The word “sacrament” for him does not mean precisely what it would in later theology, but it was a sign that contained a divine reality. The sign was visible (bread and wine) but the “reality” and the “power” of the sacrament were not. Commenting on John 6, he acknowledged that both Jews with their manna and Christians with the Eucharist had sacraments, although they were different in visible appearance or sign value. Thus, both represent Christ, but those who received the manna receive only a figure, while those who receive the Eucharist receive the Reality in truth. Hence, for Augustine sacrament is the term for “ the sign considered in itself.” But he testifies to the reality and power behind the sign telling the newly baptized:
Code:
... I promised you who have been baptized a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which you now behold and which you became partakers of last night. You should understand what you have received, what you will receive, indeed what you should receive daily. The bread you see on the altar and that has been sanctified by the word of God is the Body of Christ. Through these things the Lord Christ wished to entrust to us his Body and his Blood which he shed for us unto the remission of sins. If you receive them well, you are that which you receive. The Apostle says, ‘One bread and we, the many, are one body.’ [1 Cor 10: 17]
Code:
On that account are we supposed to hate knowledge? Far from it. Then what does it mean to say “knowledge puffs one up’? It does that when it is alone, without charity. And so it is added, ‘charity indeed edifies.’ Therefore add charity to knowledge and knowledge is useful, but not of itself but through charity. And so in this case where it is said, ‘Flesh profits nothing’. It refers to flesh by itself. Let spirit be added to flesh–as charity is added to knowledge–and the flesh profits very much. For, if flesh profited nothing, the Word would not have become Flesh so that he might dwell among us. If Christ has been such profit to us through the flesh, how is it that flesh profits nothing? Rather, through the Flesh the Spirit has acted for our salvation.
J
jmcrae
Guest
So then, how is the New Testament greater than the Old? Since under the Old Testament, the people actually partook of the flesh of the Sacrifice that had been offered for their sins, to join it to the flesh of their bodies, for the redemption of their souls.PS. Surely bro. one flaw with the meaning of those verses is LORD JESUS HAD NOT DIED YET…as I said above He meant Make My Death, My Flesh My Blood part of you as IF you were eating it…
But now, we only pretend to partake of the Sacrifice? How is this a superior means of joining the Sacrifice unto our bodies, for the redemption of our souls? It seems inferior, to me.
I don’t see anything in Scripture telling us to pretend to join ourselves to Christ by means of empty symbols, but not to do it for real.OK it is not the Protestant view it is the Biblical View…
A
Agabriel
Guest
Well, I agree - we diverted. But, I must say you said his life in a much nicer way than I could have ever said it!Thanks for the above.
I first explored Islam and read the Qur’an a decade ago when I began seriously to seek God. Muhammad is an interesting study. There was the Mecca period when he spent his time on religion and the later Medina period when he was primarily a political and military leader. Summing up the man isn’t easy. At the outset, he seems to have been a really religious man. Freed from polytheism by Jewish and Christian influences, his ideas centered on the person of the One God and the reality of things to come in the future life. But at Medina, he was perhaps overcome by his own success – success with men and success with women. The Prophet became the Head of a State and thanks to his political genius the Arabs became conscious of their national identity, abandoned their divisions and anarchy and began to prepare for their entry into history and civilization.
Eventually, I rejected Islam and chose Evangelical Christianity. Part of my reasoning at the time was the contrast between Muhammad‘s life and that of our Savior’s.
Anyway, I fear I’m off–thread. Peace be with you.
Cordially,
Mick
I am glad you chose Jesus though. When I was searching, I couldn’t even fathom chosing Islam, but was looking more for something within Christianity and realized that I am a Catholic ‘to the bone’. So, once I realized that fact about me, I was much more at peace. And studying Islam actually makes me more aware that even when I was doubting, I should have opened up the Bible. It is all in there, Jesus’ divinity, the Message from God, and Salvation. It is not in the Quran and in fact, I think that path is the path in the opposite direction.
The Protestant religions had it right all along - crack open a Bible!
It is something that Catholics, at least during my time, were not used to doing - cracking open a Bible! (I went to Catholic schools in the 50s-60s.)We actually have a Bible study group at our Church which pleasantly surprised me when I came back (to the church).
P
Peter_J
Guest
It doesn’t.
The bread and the wine become the body and blood of Christ at the time of the consecration.
As for your having misconceptions about Catholicism, I would say that’s natural, seeing as Catholicism and SDA have little in common – I’m sure I, as a Catholic, have my share of misconceptions about SDA.
Michael,It is symbolic you don’t actually ‘eat’ the Flesh and Blood of Lord Jesus…its blasphemy to say that it is. (no offence meant brother
Somewhere here a while back a Catholic, whose handle I don’t remember, quipped that he wouldn’t want to be the one at the Last Supper to respond to Christ’s words, “this is my body”, by saying, “Wait, Lord, no it’s not. It’s only a symbol.”
Jon
- Status