What teachings would the Catholic Church have to drop for you to be a catholic

[Singinbeauty]

How will you know when God leads you to it?

When I feel the pull to it. Right now I don’t have any inclination to join, even after prayer. I believe God has a purpose on the path that I am on, until I have a pull to the catholic church (which could happen) I will stay where I believe God needs me.

 

[joe370]

Hey Eternaly Secure, you said:

I’m afraid that catholics are the hardest to get through to as they believe about the Lord Jesus, but dont realise that he is the ONLY way to heaven and think they have to work their way there.

Show me the official teaching of the C.C. that states that Christians belonging to the C.C. must work their way into heaven. I thought it was a free gift my friend?

All our works get their merit only from Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf; I agree with you!!! We can do “works” 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year for the rest of our lives, but without Christ’s grace, they are nothing. Works have no merit in and of themselves!!! However, thanks to this free gift, by our Lord, Jesus Christ, "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Eternaly Secure, is faith without works —DEAD?

I live in Northern Ireland, so trust me, I know how hard it is to get them to accept the Gospel and to trust the Lord Jesus Christ alone. They are blinded by religion.

Blinded by religion??? If the C.C. possesses zero authority, then I respectfully say: surely you don’t command any, either; if that is the case, then why are you attempting to get them to accept the Gospel…as you interpret it?

The C.C. codified and canonized your/my Holy Bible; if she, as the bride of Christ, can’t properly understand/interpret and accept what she collected, selected and compiled, why on earth would you trust that she accurately, selected and compiled, out of a bevy of pseudo-gospels and letters, the genuinely correct books, as opposed to the pseudo-books, floating around for hundreds of years??? My friend, that makes no sense at all!!

It breaks my heart as I have found the Roman catholics I Know and have met to be very friendly people, but they refuse to listen.

I know what you mean; it breaks my heart, as I too have met really cool and friendly protestants, who sadly embrace the 16th century man-made doctrine of sola scriptura via private interpretation {a big no no, as per your bible} --but they just refuse to listen to what their one and only authority commands, and of course that is the bible, again, through private/individual interpretation, but —what a ya gonna do, my friend!

Looking forward to your response, my friend and brother in Christ!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, 1beleever,

i do not know about Joe370… but, I will be happy to very clearly state: NO ONE’S SALVATION IS SECURE in the sense that there is nothing YOU can do to void the tremendous price paid by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Joe370: The onlyeason I implied that you were shouting, or screaming, was because I received a warning on another thread for using all capital lettersI was told, that it was tantamount to shouting! But let’s agree on one thing; no one can tell anyone else that they’re not saved, or their salvation isn’t secure !

Matt 10:20 - Christ tells us that he who persevers to the end will be saved. This is hardly a stirring endorsement for a guaranteed ending. Note, He did have some less then reassuring words for those who cry out, “Lord, Lord” in Matt 7:23.

God is Faithful - human nature is not! Christ was quite clear that we had to do more then believe if we were join Him in heaven.

God bless

 

[guanophore]

Yes, the comment could easily be seen as belittling - but, your assumption that the list was honest, is taking a lot on faith in and of itself.

If you are trying to point out that a person who would post such a list has not made an intellectually honest examination of the Catholic faith, then we are in agreement.

Personally, I saw this list as offensive and simply a litany of why she is no longer a Catholic and a bitter and self-serving explaination at that.

Yes, of course! However, the OP did not exclude bitterness and self service.

In fact, I would venture that the vast majority of people who reject the Catholic faith into which they were baptized are motivated by self service, and most of that, below the waist.

the content or tone expressed in this list really belong on CAF as a forum for those primarily interested in knowing more about the CC.

God bless,

Yes, except that I think we will all agree that this member is not genuinely interested in learning the truth about the Catholic faith - just making excuses for rebellion.

 

[joe370]

Hey Bob…

bobzills;4963026]Here’s my opinion on it, but I could be wrong. Before Vatican II, limbo was taught in the Baltimore catechism. And it was taught that someone who was not baptised had the stain of original sin. And it was taught that if you died with original sin on your soul…

Does this include unbaptized babies as well? If so, could you give me the source quote; this is very important to me!!!

…you would go to a place in hell, called limbo. However, after Vatican II, this teaching has been changed, so that at the present time, it is said that there is hope and possibly good reason to believe that this original sin may be remitted in some other way, so that the person would not end up in hell.

You asked me if a baby is born into this world with the stain of original sin? If the C.C. teaches it {which BTW, most protestant churches teach} --then it must be so; isn’t the Holy Spirit, as per acts 2, guiding Jesus’ church, to which He is the Head and Savior, in perpetuity, as per John 14??? Ironically, the words original sin can be found no where in the Bible, yet protestants {NOT ALL} – believe in the stain of “original sin.” What happened to: if it’s not in the bible, it’s not to be believed? The concept is based on Paul’s statement in his first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 15, verse 22, in which he says, *“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” *He builds beautifully on that concept in the fifth chapter of his letter to the Romans.

Catholic teaching regards original sin {THE FIRST SIN COMMITTED} --an action of the first human beings, is traditionally understood to be the cause of “original sin,” the fallen state from which human beings can be saved, only by God’s grace. This is also called Adam and Eve sin.
as the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. It explicitly states that original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin; AUGUSTINE WAS DEAD WRONG; That is why the church as a body of teachers, guided by the Holy Spirit, convoke and define doctrines, AND NOT ONE PERSON. Augustine’s formulation of original sin was popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, and also, within Roman Catholicism, in the Jansenist movement, but this movement was declared heretical by the Roman Catholic Church.

Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that in “yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state … original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed”—a state and not an act” (404).

This “state of deprivation of the original holiness and justice … transmitted to the descendants of Adam along with human nature” (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 76) involves no personal responsibility or personal guilt on their part (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405). Personal responsibility and guilt were Adam’s, who because of his sin, was unable to pass on to his descendants a human nature with the holiness with which it would otherwise have been endowed, in this way implicating them in his sin.

The C.C. argues that original sin is not imputing the sin of the father to the son; rather, it is simply the inheritance of a wounded nature from the father, which is an unavoidable part of reproduction.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261 declares: “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them, allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.” But the theory of Limbo, while it “never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium … remains … a possible theological hypothesis”.

So, I ask again: where, in any of the 16 councils, does it say that unbaptized babies go to hell? I have been going through each one and I’m finding nothing, vis-a-vis unbaptized babies going to hell; if I do find something incriminating, my conscience won’t allow me to remain a member of the C.C.

 

[Cinette]

If you are trying to point out that a person who would post such a list has not made an intellectually honest examination of the Catholic faith, then we are in agreement.

Yes, of course! However, the OP did not exclude bitterness and self service.

In fact, I would venture that the vast majority of people who reject the Catholic faith into which they were baptized are motivated by self service, and most of that, below the waist.

Yes, except that I think we will all agree that this member is not genuinely interested in learning the truth about the Catholic faith - just making excuses for rebellion.

The poster of the list is Janet1983 dumped the list and fled. why?

 

[Cinette]

I’m afraid that catholics are the hardest to get through to as they believe about the Lord Jesus, but dont realise that he is the ONLY way to heaven and think they have to work their way there.
I live in Northern Ireland, so trust me, I know how hard it is to get them to accept the Gospel and to trust the Lord Jesus Christ alone. They are blinded by religion.
It breaks my heart as I have found the Roman catholics I Know and have met to be very friendly people, but they refuse to listen.

The Irish have made a major contribution to the world. Many Priests and nuns have left Ireland to minister and serve the Church all over the world. Such self sacrifice is unequalled.

After a lifetime of service the nuns remain to live out the rest of their lives. They go back to visit their families every 2 or 3 years in their retirement but they always come back.

Priests give up everything - as Jesus’suggested to the rich young man - and follow the Lord. It cannot be an easy life - lonely at times also. I happen to know that here in South Africa priests “earn” the grand sum of R1 200 (divide by ten to get the $). They have board and lodging and use the Parish car which is often a Toyota Corolla, Nissan or VW. There have been a spate of attacks on Priests because it is perceived they must have money. This week I attended the funeral of one such priest who was so well loved by the community - he was attacked and strangled and his TV and car were taken and he was dumped in the veld. The Archbishop broke down twice - once for more than a minute. He read out the name of every priest who has been killed for a few bucks. The very next day the priests take up their crosses and carry on with their work.

A young Irish Priest came forward a couple of years ago and offered himself as a guinea pig for testing a virus for HIV/AIDS. Then sometime after that he was attacked. He went home to Ireland to see his family and then came back to South Africa to work among the people.

When it comes to charity and good works the Catholic Church have had outreaches from the beginning. They give food and medical services and provide education to the needy and they don’t ask what their religion is. They just do it!

So please don’t attack the Catholic Church because if one were to delve into the history of the Church one would not make the kind of accusations and insinuations which I have seen on this thread.

 

[guanophore]

There is one thing the pope has that renders him fallible:F-L-E-S-H!!!

Such statements are frequently made by persons who do not understand the teaching of the Church on infallibility. That which is of the Spirit is Spirit, that which is of flesh is flesh. There is nothing in the flesh of humanity that can make the Teaching of Christ fallible.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Such statements are frequently made by persons who do not understand the teaching of the Church on infallibility. That which is of the Spirit is Spirit, that which is of flesh is flesh. There is nothing in the flesh of humanity that can make the Teaching of Christ fallible.

Hi guanophore,

Although we are not in complete agreement on some issues concerning the Christian Faith, I do read your posts with interest and I can respect your integrity and your commitment to the position you adopt.

I do not, myself, believe in papal infallibility; however I find myself nodding in agreement when you assert:

“That which is of the Spirit is Spirit, that which is of flesh is flesh. There is nothing in the flesh of humanity that can make the Teaching of Christ fallible.”

How true! The teaching of Christ is INFALLIBLE! Well said and point well made.

By the way, I see on your profile you state your Religion as BYZANTINE. Can you please spell out what you precisely mean when you say this? What does this mean and what are the implications? I am genuinely interested to hear your answer.

Cheers, In Christ Craig

 

[bobzills]

Hey Bob…

bobzills;4963026]Here’s my opinion on it, but I could be wrong. Before Vatican II, limbo was taught in the Baltimore catechism. And it was taught that someone who was not baptised had the stain of original sin. And it was taught that if you died with original sin on your soul…

Does this include unbaptized babies as well? If so, could you give me the source quote; this is very important to me!!!

…you would go to a place in hell, called limbo. However, after Vatican II, this teaching has been changed, so that at the present time, it is said that there is hope and possibly good reason to believe that this original sin may be remitted in some other way, so that the person would not end up in hell.

You asked me if a baby is born into this world with the stain of original sin? If the C.C. teaches it {which BTW, most protestant churches teach} --then it must be so; isn’t the Holy Spirit, as per acts 2, guiding Jesus’ church, to which He is the Head and Savior, in perpetuity, as per John 14??? Ironically, the words original sin can be found no where in the Bible, yet protestants {NOT ALL} – believe in the stain of “original sin.” What happened to: if it’s not in the bible, it’s not to be believed? The concept is based on Paul’s statement in his first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 15, verse 22, in which he says, *“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” *He builds beautifully on that concept in the fifth chapter of his letter to the Romans.

Catholic teaching regards original sin {THE FIRST SIN COMMITTED} --an action of the first human beings, is traditionally understood to be the cause of “original sin,” the fallen state from which human beings can be saved, only by God’s grace. This is also called Adam and Eve sin.
as the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. It explicitly states that original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin; AUGUSTINE WAS DEAD WRONG; That is why the church as a body of teachers, guided by the Holy Spirit, convoke and define doctrines, AND NOT ONE PERSON. Augustine’s formulation of original sin was popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, and also, within Roman Catholicism, in the Jansenist movement, but this movement was declared heretical by the Roman Catholic Church.

Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that in “yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state … original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed”—a state and not an act” (404).

This “state of deprivation of the original holiness and justice … transmitted to the descendants of Adam along with human nature” (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 76) involves no personal responsibility or personal guilt on their part (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405). Personal responsibility and guilt were Adam’s, who because of his sin, was unable to pass on to his descendants a human nature with the holiness with which it would otherwise have been endowed, in this way implicating them in his sin.

The C.C. argues that original sin is not imputing the sin of the father to the son; rather, it is simply the inheritance of a wounded nature from the father, which is an unavoidable part of reproduction.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261 declares: “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them, allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.” But the theory of Limbo, while it “never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium … remains … a possible theological hypothesis”.

So, I ask again: where, in any of the 16 councils, does it say that unbaptized babies go to hell? I have been going through each one and I’m finding nothing, vis-a-vis unbaptized babies going to hell; if I do find something incriminating, my conscience won’t allow me to remain a member of the C.C.

See: catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea5.asp
catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Craig, your view on salvation is much closer to the Catholic position than you might think.

1. Saving is accomplished (made possible and ultimately done) through Grace Alone
2. Saving is realized (accepted and effected) by the gifts of Grace - faith and good works

Your view is slightly different on point #2. You would say, accepted by faith…but not effected by good works. Rather, you would say, good works “naturally flow” and prove (show evidence of) the faith…and this somehow “proves” that one has proper faith, and is therefore saved. And we say, no, what naturally flows is our “awareness” of the good works laid out before us, through Grace. Without Grace (and the subsequent gift of faith), our motivation to do even charitable work, is done as an attempt to earn God’s favor, without our confession of His sovereignty in our lives. We first must come to him, submit our lives to His will (and of course we believe also, be baptized), and the grace and faith flow…and then with constant care and attention given to these gifts, we see the works we are to accomplish, and we do them.

Whether or not we do them is not an automated response based merely on our profession of belief. We are still free to choose to do them, or not to do them. Even you admit that personal responisibility is a critical part…but you seem to limit that responsibility to simply having belief, and if you do that, then your works will automatically come. This is not real responsibility…nor real obedience. This actually diminishes free will, which God does not do. He expects a freely chosen response to the good works He enlightens through His Grace.

This is a subtle, yet important distinction about Catholic belief in works. Because it outwardly appears that we rely on good works, we are blamed of trying to “merit” our salvation without belief, nor real commitment to our Lord. Quite the contrary. Grace and faith always precede works…and yet the works are a free-will cooperation…and doing them doesn’t really “prove” anything about our salvation. This is a lifelong process…but what Catholics DO have is a “reasonable”…or “moral” assurance of salvation…This is certititude based on perserverance in faith and obedience. In other words, I say, “I am certain I am saved IF I perservere in faith and obedience through the Grace of God”. I cannot say that “I know that when I die, I will be saved”, for this presumes I will never stumble and fall from the hand of God. This is why we don’t share in your “absolute assurance”.

God Bless

Hi SteveGC,

I must say that I was most impressed with your post and I felt it dealt with the “differences” between us fairly and with integrity.

If this, indeed, is your position then the differences between us are LESS than at first thought. I, too, believe in Free Will and the need to PERSEVERE in the Christian Faith.

I repeat my position, viz: that any professing Christian in whom SIN REIGNS HABITUALLY is not one of Christ’s. Christ will say to them “I never knew you, you workers of iniquity”. Any professing Christian who EXHIBITS A LIFESTYLE GOVERNED BY SIN is not a true believer and will be cast out by Christ.

Your post demonstrates excellent analytical skills, and I am grateful for it. You see, at the end of the day, both of us believe:

1. In the absolute NECESSITY OF GOOD WORKS
2. In the absolute need to PERSEVERE IN THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
3. In the absolute reality of FREE WILL AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY.

If any practising Catholic adopts the position you do and lives the Christian Faith in the manner you state, my heart warmly embraces that person as a true Christian; as a true Brother or Sister In the Lord.

This is an OUTSTANDING POST and I have saved it to my computer. I will refer to this time after time again, throughout my lifetime. I think you can understand my position better now. I am neither a Calvinist or an Arminian ; I have no loyalty or admiration for these “human systems”. I simply go as far as scripture goes on a subject, no more and no less.

May God richly bless you, In Christ Craig

 

[joe370]

Hey 1beleevr…

I was just reading your open dialog with Cinette, and was hoping you could help me out!

Hello, again, Cinette: Yes, I admit, that I am stubborn! My mother and my siblings have been telling me that all my life! But aren’t we all, to a certain degree? Iam my most stubborn when defending the Cross where our beloved Saviour gave His life for us! He paid a price we couldn’t afford, for a crime He didn’t commit!

Don’t all Christians believe this to be the crux Christianity!!!

And your comment about Protestants not understanding of Matthew 25:31-46, was a bit narrow-minded! I can tell you that many non-catholics out there on the streets, in the nursing homes, and feeding, visiting! :thumbsup:In the one street ministry that I volunteer with, in the three years I have been there, we have had no catholics come out.

You obey Christ quite commendably, when it comes to selfless deed and good works; I really admire you for that; what about John 6, where Jesus is even more explicit, than He is in Matthew 25; He repeats Himself 7 times, and yet the grumblers still walked away, while Jesus’ apostles did not! Why do you think that was; why didn’t He stop them?

Why can’t catholics and non-catholics seem to get along? Perhaps they didn’t come out, because they didn’t think they would be welcomed! When I left the Lutheran church, I was chastised and utterly rejected by my supposed Lutheran, brothers and sisters in Christ; I was verbally reproached, and told not to return, and the things these brothers and sisters in Christ said about the C.C. cannot be repeated here, due to CAF rules and regulations. When I told them that I believed John, just as he believed Jesus, in John 6 {remember, the apostles didn’t walk away like the grumblers did; why do you think that is} —when he wrote, what Jesus commanded:

“…unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.’”

They called me a cannibal; I guess they forgot that Jesus issued the command, not ME!

The impetus that pushed me off the proverbial fence was: if this teaching wasn’t to tough for the apostles, why is it too tough for me? Is this teaching too tough for you, as it is for my sister, as it was for the grumblers that turned their backs on our Lord and Savior, in John 6, or do you believe Jesus, as did, the Apostles? My sister tells me, as per her teacher, that these words are “tantamount” to eating and drinking the “word.” If He meant, we are to eat His word, and drink His word, why didn’t He use, those words? Instead he said:

“…unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.’”

Why didn’t Jesus say, this is a symbol of my body; it sure would have made Christian life more unified; don’t you think???

“Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.’” (Matthew 26:26-28)

Jesus said, He was/is the living bread, not an inactive, dead symbol, and we are to eat this living bread; how does one achieve this, if not through the holy Eucharist? What ever you think this means, Jesus said you must do it, and if you do it, you will live forever; pretty powerful stuff!

*“I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is My Flesh.” *

Jewish life is rich in symbolism. The Seder table is filled with symbolic foods. Jesus said, Mt 26:23 “He who has dipped his hand in the dish with Me, will betray Me.” He referred to the urhatz, the first washing; slaves eat quickly without stopping to wash their hands, but now Jews wash their hands in a bowl of warm water as a symbol of their freedom. The moror, bitter herbs which remind Jews that the Egyptians made their ancestors’ lives bitter with hard labor, are dipped in charoset, a sweet mixture of chopped apples, nuts, and wine, to recall that even hard lives have their sweet moments. The matzo is the bread of haste that the Hebrews ate as they fled from Egypt. The karpas, green vegetables, represent the coming of Spring with its renewal of life, symbolizing the journey from slavery to the promised land; Jews dip them in salt water before eating to recall the tears shed along the way. Even If Jesus had said the Holy Eucharist {which simply means, thanksgiving; giving thanks} --was a symbol the Jews at Capernaum would not have accepted it, for they new to symbolically eat someone in the O.T. was tantamount to hating and reviling ones enemy!

continued…

 

[joe370]

The grumbling Jews knew that Jesus was speaking literally. Jn 6:52 “How can this man give us his Flesh to eat?” On other occasions when our Lord spoke of Himself as a Jn 10:9 “door” or a Jn 15:1 “vine,” nobody said, “How can this man be made of wood?” or “How can this man be a plant?” They recognized that he was speaking in metaphor. But when Jesus insisted repeatedly, Jn 6:53* “Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.” *The unbelieving Jews who heard this said, Jn 6:60 *“This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” *They remembered God’s command to Noah and all mankind, Gn 9:4 “Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” God spoke more forcefully to His chosen people. Lv 17:10 “I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.” It was only after Christ’s redemptive sacrifice and the Holy Spirit’s enlightenment that the Apostles saw the full meaning of our Father’s next words. Lv 17:11 “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.” In the Old Covenant our Father in heaven had commanded His children not to eat the blood of animals because we are not to participate in the life of animals. Animals, having no immortal souls, are lower than man in the order of created nature. However, in the New and Everlasting Covenant we consume the Blood of Christ to participate in Christ’s eternal life, as per Jesus’ very words.

The three Gospel narratives of the Last Supper are absolutely consistent. Matthew: 26:26 “This is My Body.” 26:27 “This is My Blood…” Mark: 14:22 “This is My Body.” 14:24 “This is My Blood…” Luke: 22:19 “This is My Body.” 22:20 “This … is the New Covenant in My Blood.” Jesus’ next words instituted the ministerial priesthood, just as Paul performed his “priestly” duties: Lk 22:19 “Do this in remembrance of Me.”

Jesus assured the Apostles that the Holy Eucharist is a reflection of the heavenly banquet. Mt 26:29 “I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

After His resurrection, Jesus walked with two disciples to Emmaus. When they arrived, He celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for them; Lk 24:30 *“While He was at table with them, He took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them.” *

The apostles celebrated the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist. Acts 2:46 “Day by day, attending the Temple together and breaking bread in their homes…”

The Apostles were visibly religious Jews. They wore the kippah (prayer hat), the tallit (prayer shawl with fringes) and the tephillin (phylacteries). Long after Jesus ascended to the Father, Peter protested that he had never in his life eaten anything unkosher. Acts 10:14 When these Jewish Apostles remembered Christ’s command, Lk 22:19 “Do this in remembrance of Me,” they added it to their synagogue worship. They began with synagogue prayer and Scripture readings, {O.T. OF COURSE} --and then went to their homes to celebrate the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood; THEY DID AS HE INSTRUCTED! To this very day, the Introductory Rite and Liturgy of the word, came directly from Jewish synagogue worship, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist comes directly from the Apostles’ breaking bread in their homes.

At Troas, Paul spoke all night, but he made sure to receive the Holy Eucharist. Acts 20:7 “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight.” Acts 20:11 “And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed.”

Acts 20:11 “When Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten…” St. Paul explained clearly what “breaking bread” meant. 1 Cor 10:16 “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ?” St. Paul continued, 1 Cor 11:27 “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord.” St. Paul in these words confirmed the Eastern, Catholic and {some Lutheran} --teaching that the “bread … of the Lord” is truly Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, and that the “cup of the Lord” is the same substance: “Whoever … eats the bread or drinks the cup … will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord.”

St. Paul added, 1 Cor 11:29 “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the Body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” If we receive the Holy Eucharist without acknowledging, at least in our hearts, that it is His true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, we drink judgment upon ourselves.

In the beginning God had said of marriage, Gen 2:24 *“Therefore a man … cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.” *Jesus assured us, Jn 6:56 *“He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” *God prepared us first through natural marriage and then through the Holy Eucharist for the supernatural marriage to come at the end of time, Rev 20:7 *“For the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride [the Church] has made herself ready; it was granted her to be clothed in … the righteous deeds of the saints.”

How many brides should Jesus have?

The Holy Eucharist, through which Christ abides in us and we in Him, as per scripture, will be our wedding feast. Rev 19:9 “Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” *

Do you think the Catholic Church should drop this teaching???

 

[joe370]

When I look at the pope, I see only a man, not Christ, so much. Like other MEN who have been ordained to minister to all of us! And Mathew 28:19-20, although spoken directly to the disciples, I believe,was directed to us! While we are not all shepherds, we are, as the body of Christ, His representatives on this earth; and as such, should also, “feed His sheep.” The pope is a very influential man, and like all other pastors, priests, he has been anointed to serve as a leader. I would shake his hand, if I ever met him:thumbsup:And I am sure that if you polled most non-catholics, they would probably say that the pope speaks only for the catholic world

1beleevr, you seem like a very kind and level-headed guy, with a lot of class, who seems to see beyond all the unnecessary Christian wrangling, in the world today, however, do you think Jesus would be happy to hear the words, if you polled most non-catholics, they would probably say that the pope speaks only for the catholic world? --considering the fact that Jesus and His disciple fervently prayed that His establish church, circa 33 AD, would always be ONE AND UNITED…in agreement, in constant harmony, peace and union; unity was to be the very staple of Christianity, as per the Holy Bible, given to all, by the C.C…

JOHN 17 truly conveys what Jesus Christ wants for His One Church; don’t you think; do you think it will ever happen???

                      The Bible says the Church Must be One:

Jn 10:16; – there shall be one fold and one shepherd
Eph 4:3-6; – one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father
Rom 16:17; – avoid those who create dissensions
1 Cor 1:10; – I urge that there be no divisions among you
Phil 2:2; – be of same mind, united in heart, thinking one thing

Rom 15:5; – God grant you to think in harmony with one another
Jn 17:17-23; – I pray that they may be one, as we are one
Jn 17: 23; – that they may be brought to perfection as one
1 Cor 12:13; – in one spirit we were baptized into one body
Rom 12:5; – we, though many, are one body in Christ
Eph 4:4; – one body, one Spirit, called to one hope
Col 3:15; – the peace into which you were called in one body

 

[Filioque]

As to what Jesus said:

John 6:23-53 - A symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?

But if Protestants still protest that it is just a Spiritual eating, Jesus goes on and says,

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

At the institution of the Eucharist He tell the Apostles, and they relate to us:

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is “Touto estin to soma mou.” This phraseology means “this is actually” or “this is really” my body and blood.

Having been raised a Jew, and having celebrated the Seder, (Passover) each year, we are instructed at the Seder, (Order or Ritual of the Passover) that anyone who fulfills the minimum requirements of the Seder, should consider that he to has participated in the Exodus. The meaning was not a symbolic participation but what in greek was called an Anmensis, (translated in the Last Supper narrative as remembrance.) But really meaning to make present again, so just as I as a child participated in the Exodus each year, at Mass I participate in the Sacrifice of the New Covenant. Why, well because God makes it so.

 

[1beleevr]

Hey, Joe370: Thanks for those kind words; but everything that I am and everything I have is by the unparalled grace of God:thumbsup:And like most Christians,I am still being shaped and groomed for what God has planned for me(Phil 1:6) I don’t mean for my comments about the pope to come across as crass or disrespectful, because that’s not the type of person I am! And although I don’t hate anyone, I sometimes feel like the label, catholic hater has been attached to my nameIt really doesn’t matter, because the most important thing in my life is serving and worshipping my God! One of the hardest things I ever told my wife, was that I love God more than Her! As I go along this path called life, I cannot lift any man to a position, that would be equal to Christ! No offense, but I just disagree wit youse! Viva OSAS!

 

[1beleevr]

Communion was something that I really didn’t understand until later in life! In many churches, it is celebrated as an acknowledgement of the enormous sacrifice that Christ made for us For some, it is a somber occasion, marked by dim lights, and music that would rival most funeral dirges! While I have never been to a regular catholic mass, I have been to a funeral, at a catholic church, and was puzzled to see the priest putting wafers on the tongues of parishioners, who had lined up before him At the Last Supper, didn’t Jesus pass the cup of wine around, and tell His disciples, “This my blood, for the New Covenant, that is shed for the remission of sins”? And didn’t each disciple break off his own piece of bread, and eat it! I don’t believe in transsubstantiation; sounds weird( I know John 6:51-57) So why is the priest, the only one who drinks from the cup? Is this a Biblical practice or a catholic doctrine?

 

[joe370]

Hey 1beleevr…

Hey, Joe370: Thanks for those kind words; but everything that I am and everything I have is by the unparalled grace of GodAnd like most Christians,I am still being shaped and groomed for what God has planned for me(Phil 1:6) I don’t mean for my comments about the pope to come across as crass or disrespectful, because that’s not the type of person I am! And although I don’t hate anyone, I sometimes feel like the label, catholic hater

**Why would anyone want to attach that label to you?
**

… has been attached to my name It really doesn’t matter, because the most important thing in my life is serving and worshipping my God! One of the hardest things I ever told my wife, was that I love God more than Her!

Uh oh…I bet you’re in the dog house now. LOL LOL…

As I go along this path called life, I cannot lift any man to a position, that would be equal to Christ! No offense, but I just disagree wit youse! Viva OSAS!

Now I am confused; who is lifting the pope, who is a fallible sinner just like you and me, to a position that would equal Christ??? Surely not the C.C. --If so, could you show me the official documentation in the catechism of the C.C. that says, the pope is = to Christ. I just chuckled as I typed that; it’s just so so silly; I wasn’t chuckling at you, just those words; no mere man or woman can climb to the station of God! Could you please tell me who told you that!!

**The C.C. can teach infallibly, vis-a-vis faith and morals…vis-a-vis the teachings of Jesus Christ, ONLY, and it has nothing to do with the fallible men that make up Jesus’ Mystical Body to which Jesus is the Head and Savior; We see in Acts 2 that Jesus’ church was endowed with the Holy Spirit and He was/is “teaching” and “guiding” Jesus’ apostolic church in perpetuity, as per John 14; this is the very reason why St. Paul said that the church is the Pillar and Foundation of truth; those words are in your bible; do you believe them, or do you, as my sister does, transfer those words to the Holy Bible, and thereby, altering sacred scripture? - The fact that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth, is the very reason why you and I can trust that we possess the Holy word of God -Is that a fair assessment; do you trust that your church is being guided by the H.S.? **

**Remove the Holy Spirit from the equation…remove Jesus as the Savior of Hie established church and I would not be a Christian; mere men are powerless; mere men are the reasons why His church is so fractured in the protestant assemblies! If Jesus is the Savior of His Body, which is being gently, intimately and stealthily, I might add, guided by the H.S., she, as the bride of Christ can’t fail, regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat - Is that a fair assessment? **

**I mean absolutely no disrespect when I say: where was the OSAS church for the first 1500 years; did Jesus build the OSAS church on Pentecost, because, as per the bible, that was when He built His Ekklesia, and said, even the gates of hell will be powerless to My Mystical Body, to which I am the Head and Savior? If Jesus said nothing would ever vanquish His established Ekklesia, shouldn’t we believe Him, and attempt to find that one church He built 2000 years ago, on Pentecost? That is one of the reasons why I left the Lutheran church; she was built by Martin Luther, not Christ, not to impugn the work of his church, of course; I simply, in my heart of hearts, new I would never find the fullness of faith, if I remained there. If you new me, you would believe me WHEN I SAY, I MEAN NO DISRESPECT; I respect all churches regardless of denomination or non-denomination. **

**When you get a chance, could you take a look at posts 667 and 668; I can’t seem to get a viable answer from anyone, vis-a-vis John 6, other than, of course:

*“Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.” ***

Do you think the Catholic Church should drop this teaching; I thought I would throw that in there, just to be faithful to the thread???

God bless my friend, and stop ticking off the wife. LOL LOL… Looking forward to your response vis-a-vis this post and the preceding posts…

 

[joe370]

Communion was something that I really didn’t understand until later in life! In many churches, it is celebrated as an acknowledgement of the enormous sacrifice that Christ made for us For some, it is a somber occasion, marked by dim lights, and music that would rival most funeral dirges! While I have never been to a regular catholic mass, I have been to a funeral, at a catholic church, and was puzzled to see the priest putting wafers on the tongues of parishioners, who had lined up before him At the Last Supper, didn’t Jesus pass the cup of wine around, and tell His disciples, “This my blood, for the New Covenant, that is shed for the remission of sins”? And didn’t each disciple break off his own piece of bread, and eat it! I don’t believe in transsubstantiation; sounds weird( I know John 6:51-57) So why is the priest, the only one who drinks from the cup? Is this a Biblical practice or a catholic doctrine?

Both the ministerial priest and all of as part of the “royal priesthood,” partake of both the bread and the wine; first the priest and then all of us. What did Jesus mean when He said, *“Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.”
*
What happens to us if we don’t do this??? It might sound weird, but Jesus did say --we must do this; the C.C. didn’t make it up! The apostles believed them, otherwise they too would have walked away. Why is IT that the first brothers and sisters in Christ, beyond a shadow of a doubt, truly believed Jesus when He said:

• “Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.” What happens if we don’t do this? Of course the apostles could break off their own bread and eat; they are His chosen ministers, just as Paul was…just as all ministerial priests are! *

DID THEY ALL GET IT WRONG RIGHT FROM THE WORD GO? YIKES

 

[benedictus2]

The angels and saints in heaven are all members of the Catholic Church. Now, if all these angels and saints will get extinct, then perhaps you will be correct that there is a possibility that the Church will cease to exist.

I don’t think the angels are part of the Church but the saints certainly are. The Church is comprised of the the Church trimphant (saints), the the Church suffering (those in purgatory) and the Church militant (us here on earth).

And yes, your point is very well made. For one thing how can a Church founded by Christ cease to have members. He who knows everything would not have started one in the first place.