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

[benedictus2]

**For me it is more what is missing in RCC.Covenant Theology **

Covenant Theology? That was Scott Hahn’s pet topic when he was a Presbyterian and he thought he was being original. Then he started reading Catholic authors and to his dismay he found out that the Church has taught this for hundreds of years. Every single one he thought was his own original thinking regarding covernant theology, he would later find out has already been taught by a Pope there or a Church Father here.

You should read “A Father Who Keeps His Promise” by Scott Hahn. It is a wonderful book on covenant theology.

His and Kimberley’s “Rome Sweet Home” since he goes through all the reasons that made him convert. And he found out that it was all because he did not really know what the Church taught.

**
** and if the Eucharist is truely the REAL PRESENCE of Jesus Christ why aren’t Catholics like John was in Revelation Chapter one when he met Jesus,fell on his face. Lutherans are on there knees when they recieve.Why did so many Catholic Churches chaing that?****
I think the change has more to do with the facilitation of reception. I will read up on that and get back to you.

Also, if you remember, the apostles reclined at table with Him although I can think of a few good arguments why this is not a good argument

We still kneel at consecration and we kneel when we pray before the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[benedictus2]

I wouldn’t say teachings but more of the churches mindset on issues. I feel the RCC has a mindset stuck 2000 years in the past and can’t seem to evolve much with the modern world.

Objective truth does not evolve. Murder is still murder. Adultery is still Adultery. Idolatry is still idolatry. The trappings of modernity does not nullify objective Truth.

But who am I? With 1 billion Catholics in the world and let’s say 50% are devout my opinion isn’t going to matter much. My issues are actually very small when it comes down to it. Condoms for example. Now I am not a promiscuous person but to honestly say that using a condom for** any** reason or a woman to use the pill is a Mortal Sin really turns me off. I won’t even debate the issue of abortion because I can understand life is life and I respect the churches protection of life but I have a viewpoint that a person should be able to decide their own body’s fate not a church.

I forgot to check your denomination but am assuming you are Christian.

I would suggest that before you knock down the teaching on condoms you read the reasons for the Church’s banning of them. A lot of people disagree with Humanae Vitae and yet I would conjecture that these objectors do not even thoroughly understand the Church’s position.

The Churh does not merely say this is not permissible, She also says why.

I suggest you read Rome Sweet Home or else click on this link and listen to her discuss contraception. http://www.bringyou.to/JHKimberlyHahn.mp3

You say that “I have a viewpoint that a person should be able to decide their own body’s fate not a church.”

This is supreme arrogance. Our bodies are not our own. God created our bodies so they belong to God. The life in the woman’s womb is not hers, she is merely it’s custodian. She has no right over it because she is not it’s Author. If you are an atheist then it is understable that you will hold that view. But as I have said since I forgot to check your religious affiliation this comment is made under the assumption that you are Christian.
Those who come up with this argument sin the sin of Adam and Eve all over again. The sin of pride. The failure to acknowledge their creaturedness We are not the arbiters of morality. That is God’s domain ALONE.

The link below is about priestesses but Peter Kreeft ties this in with abortion so this is might be enlighten you on why abortion is a big No No in the Catholic Church.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm

I was happy when Pope JPII stated that the church could respect the viewpoint of evolution as long as it was accepted that God was the influence behind it. Reason why is because I felt the church took a step forward from ancient thinking and found a middle ground between two beliefs.

There is no such thing as a middle ground. There is no compromising Truth.

All JPII is saying is that we are created by God. Evolutionary theory does not support that because die hard Darwinian evolutionist has chance for a god.

Try to get Scott Hahn’s and Benhamin Wiker’s “Answering the New Atheistm”

But at the end of the day it’s not the church but its members who point their fingers at me and judge me because I don’t agree with them on every church doctrine. They say “why become Catholic your beliefs condemn you?”, and other spiteful things to where I must ask "who are you to judge me?” **So why would I want to place myself into an environment where I would constantly be a battle with the doctrine I swore an oath to follow? **

If you believe in Christ then yes, you have to believe in the doctrines of the Catholic church because she is His Church.

The link I gave on Peter Kreeft’s talk regarding Women’s priests touches on this as well.

Do download it and listen.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe370

This was an excellent response - and, a real pleasure to read.

For those who say confessing to a sinful fallible holy man, would have to be dropped for you to be a catholic, I say: why were the first apostolic ministers via the Holy Spirit, sent out into the world to forgive or retain sins; were they, upon their demise, to continue sending confessors out into the world, as the Father sent the son, and as the Son sent His Apostles, or did Jesus only have in mind, ministers of the apostolic age to forgive or retain sins, even though the H.S. is still with Jesus’ church?

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, 1beleever,

Excellent presentation! It has been a while since I have seen BOTH convoluted reasoning combined with ad hominem argumentation on this list. So, let’s see if we can take this step by step and arrive at a logical presentation with a scriptural basis.

Okay, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the interpretation of John 20:23, was Jesus giving mortal men, the power and authority to forgive sin(something that is God’s realm).

Great idea … and, in fact, here are the words right here. Please note their total lack of ambiguity:

**"When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. (Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” **

It is what it says it is: the delegation of a Power of God by God to frail men. God could have used any method He wanted to - and He Chose to Act through sinful men (are there any other kind?)! Praise God! Becasue He Chose this method for men to have their sins forgiven (or not forgiven, as the case may be) it must be the most perfect of all methods. I am reminded of the quote from Lewis that appeared on this list in reference to the Insitution of the Holy Eurhcarist. Fortunately for us, Christ said, “Take and eat” and not “Take and understand”.

Can we infer from scripture, because it is not specifically noted, that there is a duty or obligation to visit these priests?

Yes, we can make such an inference. The basis for such reasoning is both inductive and deductive - and all can be found in the Bible.

Christ is the fulfillment of the OT (Luke 24:44, Rom 8:3-4, Col 2: 14-16) He gave us both this tremendous Gift of His Life in reparation for our sins and new instructions (NT) on what he wanted us to do. Confessing our sins to the frail and sinful men that He Chose to be His Apostles - and thier successors - is the only way listed in the NT. If you have another method clearly identified in the NT as your source, then please, do not keep us in suspense: what is it and in what chapter and verse?

We have a duty to not offend God - to be free of sin. This is a positive duty, clearly identified by Christ:

John 8: 10-11 **"Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more.” **

Here we have Christ telling the woman caught in adultery not to sin anymore. By extension, Christ is telling us not to sin - not to offend God.

Matt 5:43-48 - "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect."

And, not only not sin - but, to be perfect! The 5th Chapter of Matthew takes us from our sinful ways of thinking and doing to what Christ expects us to be - shining examples of His Love. Well, the only way to get to that point is to leave the point where most of us find ourselves: in sin. Knowing this in advance, Christ gave His Church - and, that would be the Catholic Church - the delegated power to forgive sin. Truly a most wonderful Gift from a Most Wonderful God.

Can we be sure that they themselves are without unconfessed sin? Or in the case of the sex abuse scandals; what about priests who were found guilty, what becomes of any sins they may have “forgiven?”

You will have to provide the scriptural reference for the requirement for these already identified sinful men to be without unconfessed sin. Do you think that God is limited in His Actions? I do not know about your view of God, but in the CC, God is ALL POWERFUL and if He can make everything out of nothing - surely He can get ‘water through a leaky pipe’ (work through sinful human beings).

The sex abuse scandal is truly sinful, shameful, and a major scandal. Innocent people were permanently scared by the sinful actions of people whom they trusted. Do you think that God knew what would happen by these sinful Priests? Of course He did - and the sacraments these sinful Priests administered were valid! Remember, God is ALL POWERFUL and working through weak human beings is the way He has chosen.

And as far as baptism, every church or denomination, should strongly encourage baptism, as it not only solidifies your salvation(a public profession of you faith, and committment to follow Christ), but it is an act of obedience! And Jesus was baptized, full immersion, so we should follow His example, if we want to bemore like Him:thumbsup:

This appears to be a jump in topic… but… it looks like you need some help here, too…Actually, *“encourage” *really falls short of the command given to us by Christ. We have to be baptized to become sons and daughters of God - to have Christ as our Brother (Born Again - through water and the spirit as Christ identified to Nicodemus (John 3:1-5) It is not just a ‘nice idea’ but an obligation.

God bless

 

[1beleevr]

As I read 1 Cor 3:14(3 times), what I got from it was this: we “build” a house while we are in this body(vessel). If we are smart, and after our old self “dies” in Christ, our new foundation is Him! We then grow in Christ, and begin adding additions to our house! When we sin, the structure is tainted, but when we confess(to Him), He will help smooth out the imperfections! Are we ever completely sin free? Not until that day, where the fire will expose any unconfessed sins. I believe that sins of the past, already forgiven, “are as far as the east is from the west”. Purgatory? Still not sure:thumbsup:It says that the builder(us) will be saved, but barely escape as through a wall of flame!

 

[Christian7801]

We believe that in the Eucharist we receive the true Body and Blood of our Lord. How the bread and wine become the Body and Blood is a mystery to us but we have no doubt that Christ comes to us under the forms of bread and wine.

That depends on individual congregations although the teaching of the church is that weekly communion is the norm. However, for a variety of reasons, this is not universally observed.

Mary’s birth is not really an issue. Certainly, we believe that the Holy Spirit came upon her and she conceived and gave birth to Jesus while being a virgin.

Amen to that.

I have a question. Do you use John 6 as an authority from Scripture concerning the “real presence”? If so; how do you reconcile John 6:63? Thanks in advance.

 

[guanophore]

Okay, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the interpretation of John 20:23, was Jesus giving mortal men, the power and authority to forgive sin(something that is God’s realm). Can we infer from scripture, because it is not specifically noted, that there is a duty or obligation to visit these priests?

Frankly, I think not. Those of us who have received the Apostolic Teaching can understand the Scriptures in the light by which they were written, but it really does not see explicit to me. I think this is why those who are separated from the Apostolic Succession have abandoned this Teaching. Along with the Marian doctrines, I would describe the Scriptural evidence as rather thin.

Can we be sure that they themselves are without unconfessed sin?

Fortunately God can work through broken clay vessels.

Actually, it is BECAUSE they are able to fall into sin that makes this such an extraordinary gift. Look how God worked through so many of the OT saints who were fallible.

Or in the case of the sex abuse scandals; what about priests who were found guilty, what becomes of any sins they may have “forgiven?”

This is a good question. Since they were authorized and empowered by God, and acting in the person of Christ, the Sacrament is valid, whatever their personal state of mind. Look back to the foreshadowed example in the OT, of Aaron and his sons. Their service was accepted, even though they fell into disobedience.

And as far as baptism, every church or denomination, should strongly encourage baptism, as it not only solidifies your salvation(a public profession of you faith, and committment to follow Christ), but it is an act of obedience! And Jesus was baptized, full immersion, so we should follow His example, if we want to bemore like Him:thumbsup:

Amen!

The understanding and practice of Baptism is a good example of what happens when people are separated from the Apostolic succession. I have been told by some members of this forum that Baptism has nothing to do with water! When people try to interpret the scriptures in isolation from the Teaching of the Apostles, all kinds of errors result.

 

[guanophore]

I have a question. Do you use John 6 as an authority from Scripture concerning the “real presence”? If so; how do you reconcile John 6:63? Thanks in advance.

First some critical elements. Authority is something that requires a person, since it includes the assignment of responsibility.

Second, the Catholic Church is not a “bible based” Church in the sense that modern man made churches are. It is based on it’s founder, Jesus, and was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. Therefore, the NT reflects what the Catholic Church believes and teaches, but is not the “source” of that belief. Jesus is the authority, and the Source of our faith.

The NT is written out of the Catholic faith, that is why there is nothing in Scripture that contradicts the Teaching of the Apostles that has been preserved in the Church. There is no need to “reconcile” the Scripture.

What needs to be “reconciled” is the misunderstanding of those who have become separated from the Apostolic Teaching.

 

[guanophore]

As I read 1 Cor 3:14(3 times), what I got from it was this: we “build” a house while we are in this body(vessel). If we are smart, and after our old self “dies” in Christ, our new foundation is Him! We then grow in Christ, and begin adding additions to our house! When we sin, the structure is tainted, but when we confess(to Him), He will help smooth out the imperfections! Are we ever completely sin free? Not until that day, where the fire will expose any unconfessed sins. I believe that sins of the past, already forgiven, “are as far as the east is from the west”. Purgatory? Still not sure:thumbsup:It says that the builder(us) will be saved, but barely escape as through a wall of flame!

What you have described here is the Catholic understanding of Purgatory. Most Protestants do believe in purgatory, they just don’t call it that. This sins have already been forgiven by Christ (otherwise the soul would be in hell) and the soul just needs to be purified by fire in order that nothing unclean can enter heaven.

Oh, my goodness, do catholics seriously use 1Corinthians 3:14-15, to justify creating a word like purgatory?

Indeed not! All of the Catholic faith is “justifed” by virtue of having been delivered to the Apostles by Christ. The faith was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. The bible does not “justify” our faith, but reflects what has been handed down to us.

The word “purgatory” is a uniquely Latin conception and word. It is not used in the Eastern Catholic Rites. It comes from the root for purging, just as you have described abofe.

Verses 11-13, I believe strongly remind us that we must lay no other foundation, than the one we have-Jesus Christ!

This being the case, why have you embraced a theology that was created 1500 years after Jesus trained the Apostles?

And that ON the day of judgement, fire will reveal, what type of work each builder has done:D The fire will show if each person's work has value;) If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer great loss! He will be saved, but it will be like a man, barely escaping through a wall of flames!

Yes, this is Purgatory.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Christian7801,

OK, let’s see what we have…

I have a question. Do you use John 6 as an authority from Scripture concerning the “real presence”? If so; how do you reconcile John 6:63? Thanks in advance.

In order to properly answer your question, I think we need to back up just a bit to make sure we are reading the scripture within the context it was given.

The Eucharistic Discourse can be identified at John 6: 23-71. In this section, Christ challengs those who are thinking in a 'flesh’y manner - with the stomach and here to see Jesus for a second free meal. Christ then proceeds to tell them that HE is the Bread of Life and they are to eat HIs Flesh and drink His Blood if they are to have life in them. Most of the people who heard Jesus say this were hungry and now frustrated. We now pick up at John 6:60-66

**Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. **

This is the same group of hungry Jews who had come for a second free meal - and they were hungry - and here is Christ - starting off with insults by calling them freeloaders - but, then **refuses to give them what they consider to be food! **To my way of thinking, this is the key to answering your question about reconciling verses (which as Guanophore so excelletly explained, is not an issue with the CC who put the Bible together in (almost the same…) form as you have it. The Protestant Bibles have been edited with parts of the Inspired Word of God removed for political - not religious - reasons

These hungry Jews were not thinking with their heads - only their empty stomachs - and responded by growling (grumbling) at Christ. So, what did Christ do? He focuses on the source of their error - thinking in only material ways - and getting caught on their own limited view in the process.

If verse 63 had said something like, “Quit thinking with your stomachs. I am talking about a tremendous Gift of Myself that I am about to give you and all you guys want is another free meal.” I think the context would be maintained - and, maybe it would answer your question. It must be noted, however, that verse 63 is not being re-written by me - just trying to give you a clarification. If you were to go back and think about this crowd - who had just tried to make Jesus their (political) king - and He left them … and then He sees through their efforts to seek Him out as only wanting food - not spiritual noursishment - then he refuses to feed them! Well, my guess is this is an angry and frustrated group that is not especially mentally sharp or focused on what Christ is saying.

Hope this helps.

God bless

 

[Christian7801]

First some critical elements. Authority is something that requires a person, since it includes the assignment of responsibility.

Second, the Catholic Church is not a “bible based” Church in the sense that modern man made churches are. It is based on it’s founder, Jesus, and was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. Therefore, the NT reflects what the Catholic Church believes and teaches, but is not the “source” of that belief. Jesus is the authority, and the Source of our faith.

The NT is written out of the Catholic faith, that is why there is nothing in Scripture that contradicts the Teaching of the Apostles that has been preserved in the Church. There is no need to “reconcile” the Scripture.

What needs to be “reconciled” is the misunderstanding of those who have become separated from the Apostolic Teaching.

First, I was asking the Lutheran pastor this question, but thank you for answering as well and I hope the OP responds.

Secondly, you sated: “Teaching of the Apostles that has been preserved in the Church”. What are these teachings you are referring to specifically?

 

[Christian7801]

Hi, Christian7801,

OK, let’s see what we have…

In order to properly answer your question, I think we need to back up just a bit to make sure we are reading the scripture within the context it was given.

The Eucharistic Discourse can be identified at John 6: 23-71. In this section, Christ challengs those who are thinking in a 'flesh’y manner - with the stomach and here to see Jesus for a second free meal. Christ then proceeds to tell them that HE is the Bread of Life and they are to eat HIs Flesh and drink His Blood if they are to have life in them. Most of the people who heard Jesus say this were hungry and now frustrated. We now pick up at John 6:60-66

**Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. **

This is the same group of hungry Jews who had come for a second free meal - and they were hungry - and here is Christ - starting off with insults by calling them freeloaders - but, then **refuses to give them what they consider to be food! **To my way of thinking, this is the key to answering your question about reconciling verses (which as Guanophore so excelletly explained, is not an issue with the CC who put the Bible together in (almost the same…) form as you have it. The Protestant Bibles have been edited with parts of the Inspired Word of God removed for political - not religious - reasons

These hungry Jews were not thinking with their heads - only their empty stomachs - and responded by growling (grumbling) at Christ. So, what did Christ do? He focuses on the source of their error - thinking in only material ways - and getting caught on their own limited view in the process.

If verse 63 had said something like, “Quit thinking with your stomachs. I am talking about a tremendous Gift of Myself that I am about to give you and all you guys want is another free meal.” I think the context would be maintained - and, maybe it would answer your question. It must be noted, however, that verse 63 is not being re-written by me - just trying to give you a clarification. If you were to go back and think about this crowd - who had just tried to make Jesus their (political) king - and He left them … and then He sees through their efforts to seek Him out as only wanting food - not spiritual noursishment - then he refuses to feed them! Well, my guess is this is an angry and frustrated group that is not especially mentally sharp or focused on what Christ is saying.

Hope this helps.

God bless

Hi Tqualey,

You stated: “The Protestant Bibles have been edited with parts of the Inspired Word of God removed for political - not religious - reasons.” Can you be specific with examples? thanks

I see John 63 as the explanation of to how he was speaking, since that is His exact words. Jesus specially said the things, what things, all the things He just said were spiritual, not fleshly. This concurs with the rest of the gospel. Again; I ask the question; how do you reconcile verse 63; Jesus own words and explanation?
verse 63; ""It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

 

[gcnuss]

I have a question. Do you use John 6 as an authority from Scripture concerning the “real presence”? If so; how do you reconcile John 6:63? Thanks in advance.

First, it is clear that Jesus says in John 6 –

[53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
[58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

He states very clearly that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood if one is to have eternal life.

The reference to flesh in verse 63 points to something else entirely. He is no longer speaking of his flesh, the flesh we are told to eat. He is speaking of our flesh, the flesh that causes nothing but trouble as it gets in the way of the spirit.

As far as authority for the Real Presence goes, we have our Lord’s own words at the Last Supper – “This is my body” and “this cup is the new covenant in my blood.” In our understanding, “is” means “is.”

 

[Christian7801]

First, it is clear that Jesus says in John 6 –

He states very clearly that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood if one is to have eternal life.

The reference to flesh in verse 63 points to something else entirely. He is no longer speaking of his flesh, the flesh we are told to eat. He is speaking of our flesh, the flesh that causes nothing but trouble as it gets in the way of the spirit.

As far as authority for the Real Presence goes, we have our Lord’s own words at the Last Supper – “This is my body” and “this cup is the new covenant in my blood.” In our understanding, “is” means “is.”

Thanks Pastor,

However you overlooked an important part in verse 63 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. Jesus tells us the context of the message " the words that I have spoken to you are spirit”; by your own standard is means is, then spirit is spirit and is not flesh…how do you reconcile? thanks again

 

[guanophore]

First, I was asking the Lutheran pastor this question, but thank you for answering as well and I hope the OP responds.

Secondly, you sated: “Teaching of the Apostles that has been preserved in the Church”. What are these teachings you are referring to specifically?

Yes, I know. I tend to insert myself.

In this case, the Teachings regarding how the words of the Scripture are to be interpreted.

 

[bobzills]

As I read 1 Cor 3:14(3 times), what I got from it was this: we “build” a house while we are in this body(vessel). If we are smart, and after our old self “dies” in Christ, our new foundation is Him! We then grow in Christ, and begin adding additions to our house! When we sin, the structure is tainted, but when we confess(to Him), He will help smooth out the imperfections! Are we ever completely sin free? Not until that day, where the fire will expose any unconfessed sins. I believe that sins of the past, already forgiven, “are as far as the east is from the west”. Purgatory? Still not sure:thumbsup:It says that the builder(us) will be saved, but barely escape as through a wall of flame!

I guess that the wall of flame that the saved will have to go through refers to the Purgatorial cleansing fire of the saved.
Purgatory makes a lot of sense to me. A wicked person may be saved on his deathbed if he repents and says Lord, Lord, I accept you as my Personal Savior, but, I don’t see how in all justice, that person will go directly to heaven, whereas the man who led a good life, but made the mistake of not returning a 15 cent pen and did not repent of that will go to eternal hell fire. I can’t buy a scenario without Purgatory. Purgatory is also impled by II Maccabees 12: 46: "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. "

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Christian7801,

You stated: “The Protestant Bibles have been edited with parts of the Inspired Word of God removed for political - not religious - reasons.” Can you be specific with examples? thanks .

The Bible was established as it is today (the Catholic Bible) about 300 years after Christ was born. Prior to this there was the only the OT - and certain Jewish groups did not agree on what should and should not be included. It really is a lengthy story - and here is a link to spare me from a lengthy explanation… cmri.org/00prog11.html

It would simply be incomplete to identify the 16th Century ‘Reformaiton’ as a religious event and not take into account the political (governmental, economic and military) aspects of this experience. The heart of the religious matter in my opinion lies with the Protestant denial of Purgatory and the removing of books that had any reference to this in the OT. The heart of the political matter is that, at least in theory, this entire event was put on to counter the sale of indulgences (and this relates to Purgatory) and there was this incredible building and remodeling and art program going on in Rome at the time (the Vatican and St. Peter’s) that was in need of cash. Well, a lot of money from Germany, Francc, England, etc was leaving their country and enriching the Italians. Local princes were coming up short on the money they expected - and when Luther decided the time was right to post his 95 Thesis - he did not do this in a vacuum. This disgruntled Augustianian monk would not have gotten very far if he had not been supported and defended by the local political powers. A note-worthy event is that while Luther transcribed the Bible from Latin to German, he made changes and wanted to purge the NT of items that offended (the Epistle of St. James comes immediately to mind) that put up obsticles to the new gospel he wanted to proclaim (solo fidie). But, this is just my opinion and does not represent anything more then that.

Now, on to your main issue:

I see John 63 as the explanation of to how he was speaking, since that is His exact words. Jesus specially said the things, what things, all the things He just said were spiritual, not fleshly. This concurs with the rest of the gospel. Again; I ask the question; how do you reconcile verse 63; Jesus own words and explanation?
verse 63; ""It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

In all honesty, I do not understand your first sentence … and, while I think I can put it together to bring about a question - I run the risk of doing it incorrectly. In my previous attempt to answer your question I gave you three items to consider:

1- The guys that showed up expected a free meal - and they were hungry.
2- Christ tells them that they are only here because they want to eat again for free - and they are insulted
3- Christ provides the foundation for the Eucharist (which He then puts into practice at the Last Supper )

Now, if this did not answer your question, you are going to have to restate it - and, in such a way that I understand that you understood what I originally said… or, else we get this endless loop of repititions.

To simply wave one’s hand at verse 63 in an effort to dismiss everthing that preceeded it (e.g., My Flesh is REAL FOOD, My Blood is REAL DRINK…) only flies with those who simply do not believe that Christ was serious. [Or, there may have been those who realized that you need a Priest to act in the Person of Christ to validly consecrate common, unleavened bread into the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ - and if you are breaking away from Rome, sooner or later you will have no Priests. So, now where are you? Best break completely by denying 1500+ years of history and say, 'We don’t need it!"]

The Jews thought He was serious - they walked out on Him. You notice, they did not say that the “Sower and the Seed” or “I Am The Vine You Are The Branches” were ‘hard sayings’. You just have to take a moment, and think this through: why did they stick around for that - yet walk out when He said, ‘I Am The Bread Of Life’? They actually understood Him - and rejected Him because they understood Him AND COULD NOT ACCEPT what it was He was saying. If it was just a simple misunderstanding…(just pretend that the Author of Life could verbally make a mis-statement ) and now you have all of these folks were walking out because of the verbal ‘blunder’!! Don’t you think Christ would have said something like, “Hold on, you guys obviously have misunderstood me - this is just a spiritul thing! You know that cannibalism is forbidden. I Am not talking about the flesh…no matter how many times I mentioned it!” Not only did he not try to talk them back into staying - He was in their face with yet another repitition of what He meant. Just how much clearer could Christ be? Since these guys are thinking cannibalism (flesh) and not focused on Christ and the physical/spiritual reality He will fully develop at the Last Supper - they missed the point. And, yes, their 'flesh’y thinking profited them nothing.

So, you have a chance right now - be like the Jews and deny that Christ was actually giving us His Flesh for the life of the world - or - be like Peter and believe and know that you don’t know exactly what Christ is talking about - but, He has the words of evelasting life. That quote form Lewis really applies - “Fortunately Christ said, ‘Take and eat’ and not, ‘Take and understand.’”

God bless

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by Christian7801 View Post
I have a question. Do you use John 6 as an authority from Scripture concerning the “real presence”? If so; how do you reconcile John 6:63? Thanks in advance.

---

“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”

Good question Christian7801; if you choose to answer these questions, please do so without any preconceived notions; remove the teachings of the C.C. FROM YOUR MIND; REMOVE THE TEACHINGS OF YOUR CHURCH FROM YOUR MIND; SIMPLY EMPLOY REASON AND LOGIC TO DRAW YOUR CONCLUSION!!!

Prior to saying, it is the Spirit who gives life, what does Jesus command us all to do, repeatedly? We are to eat His flesh and drink His blood if we want eternal life, as per John 6 -right?

Are we in agreement that we are to eat something and drink something, IF WE WANT ETERNAL LIFE?

If Jesus ascended into Heaven, and prior to that, nobody carnally ate Jesus’ flesh or drank His blood, do you think they probably understood the meaning of John 6:63, after His ascension?

Doesn’t it make sense to think that Jesus was speaking spiritually when He said: unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood…After all, Jesus’ true form is of the spirit, not the flesh, however He became flesh, and profits SOMETHING, NOT NOTHING --Agreed! !

If all things are possible for God, do you think God could transform bread and wine into His flesh and blood, or is this feat to great for God?

Is it Jesus’ spiritual flesh and spiritual blood we are to eat and drink, or is it His carnal flesh and blood we are to eat and drink?

If Jesus wanted to, could He convert the bread and wine into His carnal flesh and blood, or is this beyond His scope?

Did the Jewish grumblers walk away, thinking that Jesus was speaking in metaphor, as you think and do, or did they walk away thinking He was speaking in a literal sense? The difference between you and the grumblers is that they believed, and you do not. Is that a reasonable assessment?

Why did they walk away -period, after witnessing an incredible miracle??? Why did they walk away even though He said:

*“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.” *

Christian7801, why didn’t the Jewish grumblers interpret John 6:63 as you do?

Did Peter, a Jew and the Apostles, also Jews, walk away after Jesus said, unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood…

When Jesus said: “Do you also want to leave?” --did they leave, or did Simon Peter say:

“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.”

Seven times Jesus said, unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood…Do you think Peter believed that these are **words of eternal life **considering the fact that Jesus said:

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.”

Do you believe that Jesus’ flesh profits nothing, or is it our flesh that profits nothing?

At any time did Jesus say: It is the symbol of my flesh who gives life…it is a symbol of my flesh you are to eat??? How does one eat a symbol?

Looking forward to your responses…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe370,

Nice post … but you are going to have to take a number and wait in line…

Looking forward to your responses…

My post appeared before yours…

God bless

 

[joe370]

Hi, Joe370,

Nice post … but you are going to have to take a number and wait in line…

My post appeared before yours…

---

Hey tqualey…

That’s cool, I’ll just queue it out. LOL…Nice post yourself…

Here are a couple things non-Catholics insist that the C.C. must drop…

Most non-Catholics insist that a mere man cannot be called a Rock because this title is for God alone, however, God is called the light of the world, as are all Christians:

Jesus said: “‘While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.’”

Jesus said of His people: *"'You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden… *"

Most non-Catholics insist that a mere man cannot be called a ministerial priest because this title is for Jesus, the High Priest alone, however we are all called priests:

But you are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may announce the praises” of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

…and, like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

If non-Catholics are correct and Peter cannot be called Rock, because God is called Rock, then logically speaking, ALL Christians cannot be called the light of the world, and the bible is flawed… If there is only one priesthood in the new covenant, and that is Jesus’ High Priesthood as opposed to a ministerial priesthood, then why can all Christians be called priests? The same Greek word used to describe Jesus Christ as the High Priest, is the same word used **to describe all Christians as priests? **

Is the bible flawed? Does the “royal priesthood” supplant Jesus’ High Priesthood? If not, why does the ministerial priesthood reputedly supplant Jesus’ High Priesthood?

Many protestant churches have pastors which means shepherd, [see Greek lexicon] --yet Jesus is called the good shepherd: I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me…

If we are all to take it straightway to Jesus Christ, the Shepherd, the light of the world, the High Priest and the Rock, **and not **to ministerial priests, royal priests, individual lights of the world, the Bishop of Rome, as the Rock and pastors, then what are all these teachers and witnesses for Christ doing?