Posted on 02/03/2017 9:58:51 PM PST by nickcarraway
Oh but FRiend, I am attending to the words of Christ. For he referred to the wine as blood in Mark 14:24,and in the next verse says:
“Verily I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” Mark 14:25
And the emphasis on repentance, and baptism in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, found several times in the book of Acts, as well as referred to in many places in the epistles, shows how one is one with Christ.
The Books in the Bible did not fall from the skies and robotically assemble themselves into the various chapters and verses. Among the thousands of manuscripts, texts, and written evidence, the Holy Spirit bestowed upon the Catholic Church to sort out and put together what is the true Word of God, while casting aside hundreds of other questionable or contradictory writings. This process took nearly three hundred years beginning with early Church fathers and successors to St. Peter.
That authority of the Holy Spirit to locate, cite, and interpret the true Word of Christ did not suddenly disappear with the advent of the Lutheran heresies. This is why the Church has among its adherents, thousands of scholars and theologians who have become converts from every other faith and religion under the sun.
Well sir, whoever compiled the books saw fit to include the passage from Mark, and this one as well, from Luke 22:31,32...
“And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”
The Lord just made it clear right there, that even after the disciples ate the bread, and drank of the cup (verses 19 and 20), they were not yet converted. The conversions would happen after the Lord ascended, for the Holy Ghost would not come until the Lord physically departed. (John 16:7)
By your lights Paul, the early Church fathers, saints, martyrs, theologians, scholars, all got it wrong in believing the literal terms of Eucharistic consecration.
A sign of the reality of Presence of Christ in the Eucharist may be seen in what St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, in which he not only repeated the words and actions of the Last Supper but notes the punishment upon those who unworthily receive the Holy Eucharist:
11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 11:25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 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. 11:28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 11:29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
The references I pointed to, in Mark and Luke, are not be ignored so that other teachings can take preeminence. There is harmony in the scriptural teachings. That is why Paul’s teachings to the Corinthians is further proof of the ‘Lord’s supper’ being done “in remembrance of” Christ. These people have already been baptized into Christ. The Lord’s supper is a solemn event done in remembrance of him. The chapter starts with his rebuke of the members chowing down at the church house, and shortly thereafter partaking of the Lord’s supper in a nonchalant manner. Paul ends the rebuke by referring again to eating of meals to satisfy hunger, and that it should be done in their own homes, completely apart from church service.
If it’s simply a reference to “remembrance,” Christ would not have doubled down on his teaching when the Jews who took His word literally began to leave him. You may like to pay some close attention to the earlier posts.
It would seem from your line of reasoning that not only was Christ misunderstood, but so was Paul, Paul’s teachings, and the early Church fathers. And, those leading Protestant theologians and scholars who after years of scholarship and had converted to the Catholic Church, were all wrong.
Also remember that Paul begins the epistle by addressing them as “the church of God, which at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints....(1Cor. 1:2)
Those intros are commonly ignored by many that claim Christian conversion is taught exclusively in the epistles, completely sidestepping the commands of Peter that were initially taught in Acts 2:38.
So you think “your” interpretation overrides all of these below?
THE DIDACHE
The Didache or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” is a manuscript that was used by 2nd century bishops and priests for the instruction of catechumens. Many early Christian writers have referenced it making this document relatively easy to date.
“Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’”.
-Ch. 9:5
“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. “In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.”
-Ch 14
ST. IGNATIUS SUCCEEDING ST. EVODIUS, WHO WAS THE IMMEDIATE SUCCESSOR OF ST. PETER
He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.
“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.” (Letter to the Ephesians. 80-110 A.D.)
ST. CLEMENT WAS THE THIRD SUCCESSOR OF PETER AS BISHOP OF ROME
“He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours.” (St. Clement, bishop of Rome, 80 A.D., to the Corinthians.)
ST. JUSTIN MARTYR WAS BORN A PAGAN BUT CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY AFTER STUDYING PHILOSOPHY.
He was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest defender of the faith from the 2nd century. He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D.
“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” (A.D. 148-155.)
And yes, we cannot leave out St. Irenaeus
ST. IRENAEUS
St. Irenaeus is best known for refuting the Gnostic heresies. Yet he never could have imagined the Protestant heresies that would follow centuries later. But here’s what he wrote:
“[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.”
Source: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D.:
In John 6:63, the Lord points out that this is a spiritual partaking, “for the flesh profiteth nothing”.
What is dwelling in every cell of the Son’s flesh and blood? The Father. Christ made that as plain as possible, especially in John chapter 14. He further explains that that is how they will overcome the world; by the power of God’s own Spirit.
So your personal interpretation contradicts all of those whom I mentioned? And the authority of the Holy Spirit that guided the Church to assemble the true written Word of Christ suddenly vanished with Luther! and the 30,000 different and contradictory sects he spawned?
He may come to his senses, but he cannot leave Islam. It is not permitted.
If you regard Peter as the first ‘pope’, why do you speak little or nothing of his actions and words, concerning obedience to God?
False teachings in the post Pentecost (Acts 2) era had already begun in his days, as well as during the ministries of Paul, John, Jude, and even James, who closes his epistle out with the instruction about “if any of you err from the truth”.
Paul and Barnabas encountered, on their FIRST missionary journey, one that would “not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord”.
On his last missionary tour, Paul warned that some of the followers in his midst would lead souls into perverse teachings.
Peter pounded home the Acts 2:38 conversion, even aluding to it many years later in his writings (1Peter 3:20,21). Where is his ‘Lords supper communion, or hell’, that you seem to adhere to?
None of the aforementioned, and neither the Son of God himself, ever used the phrase “God the Son”, in defining Jesus Christ. Do you?
These kinds of scattered references to scripture make no sense. You apparently cannot answer the clear teachings of Christ as understood by his early followers. And of course, the thousands of theologians, scholars, historians, philosophers, writers, and essayists both Catholic, and non-Catholics who converted to Catholicism, after years of research, teaching, and deep contemplation, were all misled!!!!
And apparently you think the Holy Spirit that guided the Church to determine the True written Word of God for over 300 years that helped assemble the Books in the Bible suddenly vanished when Luther appeared on the scene! And abandoned the Church to allow anyone and everyone from Luther to Calvin to Joel Osteen, Billy Graham, and Rev. Jeremiah Wright the “authority” to crack open the pages of the Bible and give their own “authoritative” interpretation! Christ established one Church to preach and teach His one truth and for all times and even the gates of hell shall not prevail against the teachings of His Church.
Here’s a partial list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Catholicism
Since you seem to know who is sanctified, then maybe you can tell me what percentage a ‘few’ is, as in the Lord’s declaration: “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that make it.” Matthew 7:14
Lists of people, most whom you have probably never met, do not make you a judge of men’s souls.
I gave you simples facts and questions concerning scriptural conversion. You chose to stand with the long held RCC traditional talking points, some of which contradict the words of the very scriptures you claim your church preserved.
This quote is wholly irrelevant. We are talking about who gets to decide what is truly God’s Word and who get to interpret it. The Church selected the written Word and gets to interpret it. Every other contradictory interpretation is by false prophets and I am sure you know the scripture verses on that aspect.
We will have agree to disagree, for God’s Spirit moved men to prophesy, and write the words that were inspired. He would see to it that the words would be preserved. Even as Elijah thought that he was the only prophet left in Israel, God told him otherwise.
Even as king Josiah thought he was doing as God intended, he was without the complete instructions of the Law. It had been there in the temple all along, but hidden from view by carelessness of some sort. I would say that the Levites in charge of the temple were not faithfully following the Lord.
Church leadership is no different. They can say that they are representing God and his Word, yet be as wrong as Elijah, or the priestly order during Josiah’s reign.
Jesus Christ’s words in Matthew chapter 23, has a strange foreshadowing of what, IMO, is the RCC. The parallels are almost jaw dropping.
Dr. David Anders, a Protestant theological and Biblical scholar set out to show why the central beliefs of Catholicism were in error at Wheaton College. This was the specific purpose of his research venture. He was born, raised and educated as an Evangelical.
After years of extensive study and research, he ended up converting to Catholicism. Here is what he wrote;
“Once I understood the Catholic position on salvation, the Church, and the saints, the Marian dogmas also seemed to fall into place. If the heart of the Christian faith is God’s union with our human nature, the Mother of that human nature has an incredibly important and unique role in all of history. This is why the Fathers of the Church always celebrated Mary as the second Eve. Her “yes” to God at the annunciation undid the “no” of Eve in the garden. If it is appropriate to venerate the saints and martyrs of the Church, how much more is it appropriate to give honor and veneration to her who made possible our redemption?”
You are free to visit his site to have some of your questions answered:
http://calvin2catholic.com
Two wrongs don’t make a right. As a former Calvinist myself, I can see how shallow his roots were to begin with. Tumbling into more man made tradition is a common occurrence. Perhaps I shall contact him soon. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.