This isn't a faith vs works thing, if that's what you mean. I don't "do" anything at communion except internally express faith, love, desire for unity, etc. What I "do" is heart-related, not an action per se. Christ freely gives me grace in the Eucharist. If you understand the Catholic concept of grace as God sharing his very self, that he shares his very own LIFE with us, then yes, we are given Life in the Eucharist. Disbelieve that if you like, but I think it's a stretch to portray an internal receptivity to God's action in us as a "work," if that's what you're saying.
Which makes a mockery of Biblical hermeneutics.
I am grateful for having a magisterium competent to make Biblical interpretations that sync with oral teachings passed down through the ages. I understand you don't accept the magisterium, but I thank God for not forcing me to rely on my own understanding. (Prv 3:5; 2 Pt 1:20).
Meanwhile RCs will expend great effort in trying to disallow the normal "plain meaning" of Mt. 1:25 from even possibly meaning that.
I assume you're referring to "heos" in Greek, translated as "to" or "until," also used in 2 Sam 6:23: "And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death." Does this mean she gave birth on the day she died? Or Dt 34:6, did we discover Moses' burial place today? Does Lk 1:80 mean John the Baptist left the wilderness? We have copious examples of "to," "til," and "until" being used in ways that tell us "plain meaning" doesn't necessarily indicate future change. In fact we use it that way until this very day. We both understand when I say "until this day" that it will also be used this way tomorrow too.
Peace be with you.
If you understand the Catholic concept of grace as God sharing his very self, that he shares his very own LIFE with us, then yes, we are given Life in the Eucharist.
No, this would be valid if Eucharistic theology was Scriptural, which it is not, but the text says “no life in you,” not simply additional grace, and many RCs use it as supporting the necessity of the Eucharist as if for salvation. In contrast, John teaches that those who do not yet believe the gospel, and or deny that Christ is I AM, are dead in their sins, and shall die in their sins. , but are made alive by faith in Him. (Jn. 3:36; 8:24; Acts 15:8,9; Eph. 2:1)
I assume you're referring to "heos" in Greek, translated as "to" or "until," also used in 2 Sam 6:23...:
I referred to Mt. 1:25 even though "heos" sometimes, if rarely, may denote a terminus allowing for or indicating a change, but because while advocating a “plain meaning" literalism that would also literally turn John the Baptist into Elijah, etc., RCs fight tooth and nail to disallow the most natural meaning of heos in Mt. 1:25, as that is how it is almost always used, especially in the NT and in such a construction (i have done an extensive word study on this, examining the purported other uses, some of which are seen here).
Yet rather than objectively dealing with this and other texts which most naturally denote Mary as not being a perpetual virgin, which is not taught therein, and the Holy Spirit characteristically manifests such notable exceptions to the norm, RCs must utterly disallow this even as a possibility in order to support tradition that developed, and that also renders her sinless. Which has been and would be another thread.
I am grateful for having a magisterium competent to make Biblical interpretations that sync with oral teachings passed down through the ages.
We also affirm the magisterial office, but not as assuredly infallible, which Rome has infallibly declared she is (when speaking in accordance with her infallibly defined scope and content based criteria). And which office on one hand requires assent of faith to what she infallibly teaches, and yet on the other hand this still requires interpretation as to even how many things are infallibly taught, and which ones, and after, that, the meaning of both infallible and noninfallible teachings. And yet this also leaves you with multitudes of things you can disagree on, and great liberty to interpret the Bible in seeking to defend Rome.
And therein is the problem, as you are not allowed to objectively examine the Scriptures and be willing to go wherever the Truth leads, which is why souls as the Bereans examined the apostles preaching thereby, and thus Christianity began by dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses who also presumed to teach tradition of men as doctrines, and instead truth-seeking souls followed an Itinerant Preacher whose authority they rejected, but who established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation. Instead you are bound to defend whatever you think Rome authoritatively teaches (though this can vary among RCs).
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question...
“The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit..
Who else can teach him religious truth when he believes that an infallible Church gives him God's word and interprets it in the true and only sense? — (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York; http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18438/18438-h/18438-h.htm )
“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..”
“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”
“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” “Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ; http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm)]
And at one time lay Catholics were forbidden to engage in debates such as this.