Posted on 08/18/2012 9:13:06 PM PDT by Salvation
Hi SR,
I asked earlier, how come non-Catholic Christians can
accept on faith something supernatural...the Incarnation
but say “no” to accepting on faith something else supernatural, Our Lord’s presence in the consecrated host?
To set it off better, it could be good to use something more than just a
---
particularly when we are more than a hundred comments deep, from an original article from a day before.
Have you repented of your false prophets? If not, we have nothing to talk about.
“Did you copy and paste that from elsewhere?
If so, please give credit where credit is due. The writing, and the reasoning, even if you agree with it, does not appear to be what I know to be your style, judging not only from what has appeared on FR, but on other forums, too, under different aliases.”
~ ~ ~
Sorry, I didn’t put quotes around it, it is there in the OP. Excuse me, your last comment, what are you trying to say, you sound like a fan or a creeper?
I want you to believe in the Real Presence and so does John Salza.
“Have you repented of your false prophets? If not, we have nothing to talk about.”
~ ~ ~
I am being hit with the “personal.” 2nd time now, the question goes unanswered. You believe in the Incarnation. God can do anything...so why the disbelief in the His presence in the consecrated host? And...
Protestants run away from basic questions about so many verses in the Gospel. Makes no sense brother.
Our Lord’s middle coming is soon, prophecy helps you better understand God’s plan. A human prediction, I know someone
who will convert at the “awakening”, the Great Warning.
God bless you,
It's a quote of God Himself. His statement covers all possibilities and the statement is logically consistent with every other relevant statement given on the matter. That includes those in John 6, which is the topic of this thread. Jesus' Spirit is the Holy Spirit. Those concepts and values of the Holy Spirit are common to every Person in The Trinity. Those concepts and values are the Spirit spoken of in John 6:63 and are what is to be eaten in community in the symbols of bread and wine. In order to make a rational decision, one must refer to their valued concepts and other valued truths before any decision can be made.
"What if, hypothetically, I were to take the position that Matthew got it all wrong, and only Paul was right on this particular subject?"
Logic is independent of the being presenting the claim or evidence. The rational analysis is to be done on the hypothesis, or what is claimed. In this case those statements that indicate salvation is based on belief in Jesus is but a subset of the set that contains all possibilities that can arise under Matt 12:7, or Matt 12:32, or MArk 3:29, or Luke 12:10, or Matt 25 31:46, or John 6:63.
"Am I not a sovereign individual, empowered to pick and choose only those Scriptures that support my position?
Logic requires that all evidence be examined. Honesty applies and is a concept that God values greatly. If one has faith in what the Church says and ignores John 6:63 as if it was a piece of non-evidence, then nibbling on imaginary fingers and toes, ect... one will gain salvation. If one ignores Ezekiel 18 and John 9, they can believe in original sin. If one ignores the list above starting with Matt 12:7, they can believe in sola fide.
I have been reading and posting on FR for a long time.
I left some clue as to what I believe (as per one of your questions) in my first comment, this thread. If there is not enough there for you to properly surmise the answer --then perhaps you may not know the subject matter well enough for me to desire (or acquiesce) to further discussing it in any post addressed to you.
“Repost or direct me to your objection to the meaning of anamnesis. Looks like the Protestant Bibles agree, anamnesis has a sacrficial meaning. The KJV changes a few words from the original, the Vulgate. “Remembrance” is now “memorial.”
“The Greek term for “REMEMBRANCE” is anamnesis, and every time it occurs in the Protestant Bible (whether in the New Testament or the Greek Old Testament), it occurs in a sacrificial context.” See the word changes in the KJV
from the original, the Latin Vulgate.”
I already demonstrated that it is not always used in the context of ‘sacrifice.’ It is used always in the context of ‘remembering.’ You guys just insist it does because a Catholic post told you so. I’ve even answered it the last time it came up, and the usual response is silence.
You will find my correction on this... ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THIS THREAD!
“Logic is independent of the being presenting the claim or evidence. The rational analysis is to be done on the hypothesis, or what is claimed. In this case those statements that indicate salvation is based on belief in Jesus is but a subset of the set that contains all possibilities that can arise under Matt 12:7, or Matt 12:32, or MArk 3:29, or Luke 12:10, or Matt 25 31:46, or John 6:63.”
Here is my official response:
Let us continue to suppose that this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34). For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of any interest, the natural general principle that will subsume this case is not to be considered in determining a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. Thus a descriptively adequate grammar does not affect the structure of the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that this selectionally introduced contextual feature is rather different from irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. It may be, then, that a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort is, apparently, determined by the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon.
http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl
I think that you are so impressed with the way you describe things, that you don’t even realize that it isn’t even on the level of common sense. You are basically ignoring all scripture that disagrees with you, even those within Matthew, and then claiming to be logical.
boatbums said that this "miracle" should be literally provable EVERY time it is performed
I realize this comment wasn't addressed to me, but Jesus said no sign would be given apart from his resurrection. Did he not tell Thomas that those who believed without seeing are blessed? Isn't a lack of proof scriptural?
I think it is shameful that Catholics have used this as a way of convincing ignorant people into believing that the Roman Catholic church is the ONLY true church of Jesus Christ
I hope you aren't saying that Catholic believers are ignorant!
- insisting that ONLY by joining and doing all the steps commanded of them they can hope to be saved.
That's not what the Church teaches. My confessor gives me recommendations for growth in the spiritual life. He doesn't insist that I do something. The Church instructs me on the ORDINARY means of salvation (such as regular communal worship at Mass, regular confession;etc) but teaches that these are the ORDINARY means. God is free to work outside the ordinary, and I don't know a single Catholic who believes otherwise.
When all along the Bible is so clear that to be saved we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ
Then respectfully, may I ask why faith alone in His word about His Eucharistic presence isn't sufficient? Why proof is required?
When all along the Bible is so clear that to be saved we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ
“Then respectfully, may I ask why faith alone in His word about His Eucharistic presence isn’t sufficient? Why proof is required?”
~ ~ ~
Great response. Look up the definition of faith.
Absolutely, belief in Our Lord’s presence in the Eucharist takes true faith.
You do not SEE a change in the consecrated host, you believe
Our Lord’s words, “this IS My body” on faith alone.
What I object to most of all is not that someone believes in the "real presence" but that participating in the communion service and receiving the host MUST be done in order to have an infusion of sanctifying grace AND that only those who believe in the LITERAL presence ARE given grace to save them. This is NOT what Catholics believe. We do NOT believe that only the Eucharist imparts sanctifying grace. We believe, for example, that it's received at Baptism, including Protestant baptisms conducted with a valid Trinitarian formula. God's sanctifying grace is imparted in many ways, not just via reception of Holy Communion. I don't know any Catholics who think nonCatholics can't/don't receive grace. I do know a number of nonCatholics who don't believe in sanctifying grace, is that what you meant?
If you read some of the early fathers of the Christian faith you will see that they were not in agreement about what the Roman Catholic Church says todayThe Fathers aren't infallible sources. They are valuable references showing us how the early Church worshiped. They're useful for insights in scriptural interpretation, etc. Isn't it true that some of the Reformers' writings conflict with current teachings of some of the mainline Protestant denominations today?
the ONLY way that anyone can be counted among the followers of Jesus Christ is by their faith in what Scripture says about Him My Bible says that Scripture is useful but doesn't say it's the sole authority. In fact, it instructs me to follow apostolic tradition (2 Thes 2:15, 3:6; 1 Thes 2:13; 1 Cor 11:2; Phil 4:9). If all that's required is faith that scripture is accurate, and belief that Jesus is who He said He was, even the demons would be saved, wouldn't they? (James 2:19)
and the Apostles and their designated disciples taught what is contained in the Bible. "Designated disciples?" You accept some degree of apostolic authority then, eh? If the Apostles taught ONLY what is in the Bible, then they were limited to the Old Testament as the Church preceded the New by decades. If you meant that every single one of their teachings is contained in the New Testament, then Scripture doesn't back you up. In Mt 28:19, Jesus tells the apostles to to teach all he commanded them. He never said such teaching had to be written to be authoritative. John tells us all the books in the world couldn't contain everything Jesus did (Jn 21:25). And Paul tells us to adhere to what he's said and done(Phil 4:9, 2 Thes 2:15). Paul even goes so far as to say in 1 Thes 2:13 that his spoken word is "the word of God." It is the Bible that, as God-breathed, is our authorityYes, I understand the Bible is YOUR sole authority. I agree that the NT is God-breathed, therefore I accept what it says about oral teaching (tradition) and apostolic authority. I respect your right to reject these, but I don't accept any assertion that my adherence to them is unscriptural.
early theologians that stayed true to the faith held that NOTHING they taught should be received if it could not be proved by Holy Scripture. The Church precedes the New Testament and is its custodian. Jesus granted authority to the apostles, and he commanded them to teach. He never specified it had to be in writing. And "stayed true to the faith" is a subjective thing, as you evidence by invalidating aspects of teaching that are scriptural, such as apostolic authority and tradition. If your definition of "stayed true" means something comports with scripture, then none of the earliest Christians before the writing of the NT were "true," even those hand-picked by the Lord Himself!
As you may know, the Reformation came about because of the apostasy of the Catholic Church and because its leaders had strayed from the clear Gospel of Jesus Christ, putting the traditions of men ABOVE what the Bible said.Again "putting the traditions of men above what the Bible said" and "clear gospel" are subjective criteria. Yes, there was corruption in the Church. Just as there was corruption (Judas selling out Jesus) from the start. Doesn't make it right, as some of the reformers rightly noted. But it's also true that in breaking with apostolic succession, the Reformers assumed an authority that wasn't scriptural.
I would rather follow the faith as it is taught in Scripture than a church that only claims it IS the true church.Yes, I understand your preferences :) And I wish you much peace, joy, and intimacy with the Most Holy Trinity.
That should be ALL of ours criteria for truth claims.My Bible says in 1 Tim 2:15 that the Church is the "pillar and bulwark of truth." Nowhere did Jesus say that criteria for truth was to be found in something written decades after he ascended. Rather, he told his apostles at the Last Supper (Jn 13:20) that anyone who receives one he sent receives him. I'm sure you know that "apostle" means "one sent." And it is Peter he sends out to tend his flock in Jn 21. In Mk 16:15, it's the Eleven who are sent to preach. In Mt 28:16-20, it is the Eleven who are sent to teach "all that I have commanded you." The NT hadn't yet been written, so oral tradition was the only means of passing on the faith. And as I noted above, Paul tells us this was indeed the "word of God."
Anyway, I thank you for the civil dialogue. Threads like this remind me that we all read Scripture with our own biases. We each consider our viewpoints scriptural, yet we each cannot be correct. Even so, I know one day in Paradise we'll be overwhelmed at the majesty and mercy of the Most Holy Trinity and totally comfortable worshiping together. Come, Lord Jesus :) And peace to you, boatbums.
If you read some of the early fathers of the Christian faith you will see that they were not in agreement about what the Roman Catholic Church says today The Fathers aren’t infallible sources. They are valuable references showing us how the early Church worshiped. They’re useful for insights in scriptural interpretation, etc. Isn’t it true that some of the Reformers’ writings conflict with current teachings of some of the mainline Protestant denominations today?
~ ~ ~
If the earliest Christians didn’t know, how can non-Catholic
Christians who revolted many centuries later know the Truth?
The Early Fathers, some of them Apostolic Fathers ALL agreed on the True Presence.
boatbums, you can, go sit in the Church, kneel if you wish, do not partake of the Eucharist yet...when you take your mother to to Mass. Jesus will give you the grace, the desire to come home to the faith of your Baptism.
I’m indebted to you for this post.
First of all, it’s not long and full of links, references, quotes and the like.
Secondly, you have graciously responded with simplicity and clarity the points made in the post made to you (those in italics). Without a lot of heavy theology and multiplication of words, you have prudently answered without rancor, sarcasm or accusation.
Thank you so much for giving such clarity to what practicing Catholics know and believe,
I’ve printed it out as a “keeper”.
God bless you.
Thank God for your input also.
....And they seem to be far less concerned over the vast multitudes of liberal RCs whom Rome treats as members in life and in death, than those who convert to become conservative evangelicals.
As regards other aspects of the article, the author’s attack on SS, argues that “this doctrine says essentially that Scripture is plain enough for anyone to easily understand, yet when it clearly teaches something that is not to the liking of some readers, rather forced attempts to bend the plain meaning are introduced.”
Yet in reality, SS does not teach that all Scripture is plain enough for anyone to easily understand it, but as Westminster states, “all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all,” but that “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means [in which the church is a part, which Scripture provides for and Westminster affirms], may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”
And besides barely interacting with the arguments against the Catholic interpretation, rather than having to “bend the plain meaning” to understand Jn. 6 as referring to the words men are to live by, comparing Scripture with Scripture reveals the meaning cannot be that of literally eating the Lord’s physical body and blood, but that “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.” (John 6:57) And Jesus “lived” by every word of God, (Mt. 4:4), quoting Scripture to the devil as being just that, with His “meat” being to do the Father’s will. (Jn. 4:34)
And such metaphorical use is plenteous in Scripture, and doctrinally this is what is esp. consistent in John’s writing, not only in his gospel but also in his epistles and the rest of the NT, in which eternal life is not received by eating something physical, but by believing the Words of Christ, they being spirit and life, which is how souls were made alive and by which they were to live by, rather than having to wait until the Lord supper to have”life” in them by receiving the Holy Spirit.
The Jews who walked away were like Catholics in understanding Jesus was referring to eating His corporeal flesh, like as the Jews thought Jesus was referring to the physical temple in Jn. 2 (destroy this temple), and Nicodemus thought Jesus was referring to physical birth in Jn. 3 (born again), and the Samaritan women thought Jesus was referring to physical water in Jn. 4, (give me this water, that I thirst not), and in other examples, but in each case the Lord was using such to bring them to the analogical spiritual plane, and likewise in Jn. 6.
As the apostles were Jews they would have no problem understanding “this is my body” as the elements referring to representing Christ, like as water represented blood, and the word of God was eaten, and the Canannites were “bread” for Israel, etc., in the OT. rather than that of literally consuming human flesh and blood. And contrary to lesser things, not question novel and radical act, in which Jesus Himself would be also be consuming Himself. And which would be unlike any other physical miracle, for in these there was an actual detectable change.
Nor is there a separate class of clergy in the NT church entitled “priests” (versus bishops/elders) thru whom the elements are changed, but as shown in 1Cor. 11, they work to bring the church to better manifesting the risen Lord, loving in conformity to His sacrificial death. In which we (I) yet come too short.
Please be patient with me-—I come back with a PS :-)
As I grow closer to my appointed time to meet the Lord, I have come to appreciate the value of simplicity in faith.
He says:
“Come........”
“Go.......”
“Love one another....”
“I am with you always....”
“Behold your mother.....”
“I am the bread of life.....”
“Father, forgive them.....”
“I thirst....”
“Could you not watch one hour with Me?....”
And those believers who spoke:
“I am the handmaid of the Lord...let it be done to me....”
“Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?.....”
“A sword shall pierce your own soul, too-—that the secret thoughts of many will be laid bare...”
“Jesus, remember me when You come into your kingdom.....”
I am the good shepherd ...
How many of them? And how well must I value them? I like flowers, God likes flowers ... am I saved?
Transubstantiation happens at every Mass -- that alone is a miracle -- even though one cannot see, or taste it.
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.