F
Feel
Guest
What don’t you believe is correct in a non Catholic religion denominations?
What do you think they got wrong?
What do you think they got wrong?
Last edited:
- Status
S
stpurl
Guest
Everything that is correct is from the Catholic ‘start’ from which they went on to diverge.
All that is incorrect is what they then diverged from.
Most protestants do not believe in the Real Presence, but only a symbolic Eucharist.
Many protestants believe in women priest/ministers, abortion being either morally neutral or even good in some circumstances, in remarriage after divorce, often multiple times, in artificial contraception (thank the Lambeth Conference in 1930 for THAT one). . .to name just a few things I do not believe are ‘correct’ in nonCatholic Christian denominations.
However, I’d like to mention more what I think is CORRECT, for example, worship of the Triune God, belief in salvation through Jesus Christ, love of the Bible, love of one’s fellow human beings, for example.
A lot more unites us than divides us.
All that is incorrect is what they then diverged from.
Most protestants do not believe in the Real Presence, but only a symbolic Eucharist.
Many protestants believe in women priest/ministers, abortion being either morally neutral or even good in some circumstances, in remarriage after divorce, often multiple times, in artificial contraception (thank the Lambeth Conference in 1930 for THAT one). . .to name just a few things I do not believe are ‘correct’ in nonCatholic Christian denominations.
However, I’d like to mention more what I think is CORRECT, for example, worship of the Triune God, belief in salvation through Jesus Christ, love of the Bible, love of one’s fellow human beings, for example.
A lot more unites us than divides us.
V
Vico
Guest
What is incorrect in non-Catholic religious and spiritual beliefs is anything that is counter to Catholic dogmas of faith. See the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and dogmas from the councils of the Catholic Church (about 255 dogmas of faith).
Only Christianity recognizes original sin and the atonement of Jesus Christ by his death and resurrection, and that man stands in need of salvation from God. Only some Christians recognize free will cooperation with grace leading to salvation.
Only Christianity recognizes original sin and the atonement of Jesus Christ by his death and resurrection, and that man stands in need of salvation from God. Only some Christians recognize free will cooperation with grace leading to salvation.
Last edited:
U
Unique_name
Guest
The Eucharist is the big one for me. I don’t understand a lot of Catholic dogma and frankly I have a hard time reconciling a lot of what I’m learning with what I had always believed, but my devotion to the Eucharist keeps me here.
H
huck
Guest
It would be there attachment of saved and eternal life to the afterlife. In the Garden Jesus defines eternal life and it’s later defined similarly by John in his letters in way that has nothing to do with the afterlife. In the book of acts the word saved was used to describe receiving the HG. Neither of these terms were used to describe any afterlife benefits.
V
Vico
Guest
John 3Feel:
It would be there attachment of saved and eternal life to the afterlife. In the Garden Jesus defines eternal life and it’s later defined similarly by John in his letters in way that has nothing to do with the afterlife. In the book of acts the word saved was used to describe receiving the HG. Neither of these terms were used to describe any afterlife benefits.
Mark121359
Well-known member
You literally knocked it out of the ballpark with that one!!!
L
lexscripta
Guest
I am curious as to how you can read “this is my body, …this is my blood” as literal when Jesus was standing there holding grape juice in a cup and bread in His hand. If it wasn’t really his blood and body then, why do you think it is now?
U
Unique_name
Guest
Because it was no longer bread and wine once He declared it otherwise. As the Son of Man, He has the power to declare it otherwise. He told us that His body is real food and His blood is real drink, and that unless we ate the Body of the Son of Man, we would not have life in us. Because He wasn’t speaking figuratively.
Also, because I’ve tasted the Eucharist. I’ve experienced it. I’ve experienced profound changes that didn’t happen until I returned to the Church.
Also, because I’ve tasted the Eucharist. I’ve experienced it. I’ve experienced profound changes that didn’t happen until I returned to the Church.
L
lexscripta
Guest
No need to get defensive. I didnt accuse you of denying anything. I am trying to understand.
So you think Jesus was actually holding in his own hand , his own blood and his own flesh? And this before it had any redemptive power, since he had not yet been given for the sins of the world?
So you think Jesus was actually holding in his own hand , his own blood and his own flesh? And this before it had any redemptive power, since he had not yet been given for the sins of the world?
Last edited:
U
Unique_name
Guest
I’m not sure why that’s so hard to believe. The Son of Man had the power to forgive sins (before He was crucified), heal the sick, and cast out demons. Why couldn’t He have been doing what He said He was doing, holding His own body to be given up for many?
Last edited:
L
lexscripta
Guest
I see. So you are actually eating his flesh and drinking his blood when you engage in the sacrament of the Eucharist?
When Jesus was with the Woman at the Well, he also said that the water He would give her would be as a well springing up into eternal life. Was this also literal?
Last edited:
U
Unique_name
Guest
Yes.
No. I don’t think so, anyways. Read the entire Bread of Life discourse in John chapter 6. How many times does He say that His Body is real food? And why did He compare Himself to the Mana that the Israelites ate, which was “Supernatural food from heaven”?
If you want a comprehensive understanding of it, I highly recommend the book, “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist” by Brant Pitre. He goes into detail about why the Jews at the time knew very well that He was speaking of His actual body and blood, and that is why some of them left Him.
I’ve got two kids and a third on the way and a sick husband so that’s all I can contribute to the conversation. Peace.
L
lexscripta
Guest
Of course, Jesus is God. He can do anything. It just doesn’t make sense to me within the context of the Bible narrative - my opinion of course. I do not see for one thing - how can His blood have any redemptive quality prior to Him shedding it? That is the whole purpose of shedding of Blood and the giving of Himself (His Body). The Bible says. “…without the shedding of Blood there is no remission of sin”. (heb 9:22) With the idea of the Eucharist we have Christ, before the atonement was actually made , offering the atonement to his disciples.
And in light of verses such as: Heb 10:10 that says “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
Also, Jesus said during the last Supper; "This do in remembrance of me. It sounds like a memorial. Why would he say that if we were supposed to eat His actual body and drink His actual blood every time?
Jesus also said, I am the door,” “I am the vine,” “You are the salt of the earth,” and “You are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:13-14) Everyone knows we don’t take such statements literally. Why should we take the Eucharist literally - Especially since Jesus clarified that it was a memorial at the same time he said “this is my body, …this is my blood”?
What about the other Gospel narratives of the Eucharist? In Luke’s Gospel: “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” (Luk 22:20). Here, if we were really to take Christ literally, the “cup” is the new covenant, not the work of Christ. But we know that would be an absurd construction of the passage.
Then we have the Book of John and this verse: John 20:31 “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” Here we have John saying that the book was written so that we may be saved, yet not one mention of the Lords supper in the entire book. This is really weird if the Eucharist is that important to our salvation.
It is just very hard to take the Eucharist at face value when there are such verses in contradistinction to it. While I respect the people of the Catholic church, I must admit how hard it is for me to believe that a doctrine that is so difficult to defend biblically is held to such a degree that abiding anathemas are pronounced on those who disagree.
And in light of verses such as: Heb 10:10 that says “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
Also, Jesus said during the last Supper; "This do in remembrance of me. It sounds like a memorial. Why would he say that if we were supposed to eat His actual body and drink His actual blood every time?
Jesus also said, I am the door,” “I am the vine,” “You are the salt of the earth,” and “You are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:13-14) Everyone knows we don’t take such statements literally. Why should we take the Eucharist literally - Especially since Jesus clarified that it was a memorial at the same time he said “this is my body, …this is my blood”?
What about the other Gospel narratives of the Eucharist? In Luke’s Gospel: “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” (Luk 22:20). Here, if we were really to take Christ literally, the “cup” is the new covenant, not the work of Christ. But we know that would be an absurd construction of the passage.
Then we have the Book of John and this verse: John 20:31 “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” Here we have John saying that the book was written so that we may be saved, yet not one mention of the Lords supper in the entire book. This is really weird if the Eucharist is that important to our salvation.
It is just very hard to take the Eucharist at face value when there are such verses in contradistinction to it. While I respect the people of the Catholic church, I must admit how hard it is for me to believe that a doctrine that is so difficult to defend biblically is held to such a degree that abiding anathemas are pronounced on those who disagree.
Last edited:
D
DeSales111
Guest
No disrespect here. Why of course it’s hard for you to believe biblically when you try and pick other verses to disprove the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Who can pick up a book 2000 years later and fully understand such hard teachings? It was hard for the Jews even back then. You are relying on “your” interpretation, and you are disregarding the fact that the Church was well established before the Bible. There are about ten churches on one street I know of, why? Because there are at least ten differences on interpreting the Bible. Each one clings to the “tradition” of their founder. Well, we Catholics cling to the tradition of our founder too, Jesus Christ. That is why you can not give me a date or any names of who invented such a hard belief as the Real Presence. It was understood from the beginning. Where is the backlash from other early Christians for coming up with such a notion??? There isn’t any because it was understood.
Now about Jesus saying He was a door, a vine, and living water. Did he hold a door up in His hands and command us to do the same? What about a vine? It is very plain to see the difference in context. Go one step further, did St. Paul warn the Church that they would profane the BODY & BLOOD of Christ if they opened a door unworthy, or cut a vine unworthy? No, the early Christians knew and believed, it’s why even a secular authority, way before a single Bible existed, accused them off being cannibals, even they knew the early Christians believed in the Real Presence and understood that was their worship.
As far as Jesus holding Himself, He is God. Did He not already prove He can transfigure? That He can remain hidden even if in front of those who knew Him? That His Spirit could become flesh? Every miracle it takes to make Himself present in the Holy Eucharist He has already done and proven. It’s all right there in Scripture.
Now about Jesus saying He was a door, a vine, and living water. Did he hold a door up in His hands and command us to do the same? What about a vine? It is very plain to see the difference in context. Go one step further, did St. Paul warn the Church that they would profane the BODY & BLOOD of Christ if they opened a door unworthy, or cut a vine unworthy? No, the early Christians knew and believed, it’s why even a secular authority, way before a single Bible existed, accused them off being cannibals, even they knew the early Christians believed in the Real Presence and understood that was their worship.
As far as Jesus holding Himself, He is God. Did He not already prove He can transfigure? That He can remain hidden even if in front of those who knew Him? That His Spirit could become flesh? Every miracle it takes to make Himself present in the Holy Eucharist He has already done and proven. It’s all right there in Scripture.
Perhaps you should narrow your question to specific communions. A number of answers quite inaccurately describe the beliefs of many non-Catholic Christians, including me.
S
Sursumcorda1
Guest
Christ is not limited by space and time so interpret his words that way.
S
Sursumcorda1
Guest
'Why read the bible like an instruction manual? It is clear in I Corinthians 11:27 and the Early Church Father writings that the Christian community was a Eucharistically-centered community.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Have you examined the bread of life discourse in the Greek? The terminology Jesus uses like the word “Trogo” is very graphic. Greek is painstakingly accurate. They have a word for everything. Had it been symbolic in meaning then different language would have been used to reflect that.
- Status