Posted on 03/08/2013 9:01:51 PM PST by daniel1212
Caracas, Venezuela, Mar 6, 2013 / 12:01 pm (CNA).- A source in Venezuela has revealed to CNA that President Hugo Chavez died “in bosom of the Church” and received spiritual direction and the sacraments in his last days.
In announcing Chavez’s death to the nation on March 5, Vice President Nicolas Maduro said the Venezuelan leader died “clinging to Christ.” The source in Venezuela told CNA that during the last weeks of his life, Chavez requested spiritual direction and asked to receive the sacraments.
Ever since he assumed power in 1999, Chavez butted heads continuously with the Catholic Church over statements by the bishops warning of the risks and excesses of his Socialist agenda. In 2002, Chavez accused the Venezuelan bishops of being a “tumor” for his revolutionary goals and demanded that the Vatican not intervene in the internal affairs of the country.
In recent years, Chavez occasionally took part in the religious services of distinct denominations, but he surprised the press in April 2012 when he showed up at a Catholic church in his hometown of Barinas to attend Holy Week services. He wore a rosary around his neck and prayed for strength to fight his illness. Last July, Chavez made public his request to meet with the Catholic bishops.
After Chavez’s death, the Archdiocese of Caracas, led by Cardinal Jorge Urosa who is currently in Rome for the conclave, sent its condolences
The secretary general of the Bishops’ Conference of Venezuela, Bishop Jesus Gonzalez de Zarate, called for national unity. “At this time let us all put forth our best sentiments,” he said during an interview on Venezuelan television. “Death is not the end of our life,” he added. “Death only opens the way to a life of complete happiness, at the side of God our Father.”
Jesus said that those who ate His body and drank His blood would never die. Do we see people die or do we see people 2,000 years old? John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. Do people who partake of communion thinking that it is changed into His literal body and blood ever get hungry or thirsty again? And I'll betcha, when people go home from church, they get hungry and thirsty.
Well, we both know that Jesus' REALITY was well beyond the demarcation of a coffin, or defining what we "live on" beyond the oven:
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” (Matthew 4:4)
My query is along the lines that perhaps we cannot readily assume that themes in the Bible can always readily be shaped by our "literal vs. metaphorical" schemes.
Example: 60 Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9)
Now is Jesus talking literally here? Metaphorically? Both? Commentators usually say both: "Let the spiritually dead bury their own physically dead." (Yet Jesus didn't take the time to explain this mid-sentence switch, now did He?)
So my encouragement is to ask "Why?" Why didn't He plainly say, "I am speaking spiritually with that initial reference to 'dead?'"
And...what I may suggest is that Jesus simply speaks upon what is.
What is...REAL.
To Jesus, the spiritually dead are dead.
To us, that means we have to make an adjustment and distinguish between spiritually-dead existence and life.
But to Jesus, "life" isn't life outside of knowing Him (John 17:3).
And death is death outside knowing Him.
What I am also suggesting is that we need to allow for wee bit more "mysteries" within certain teachings than trying to nail down all the nth degree of dogmatic detail.
Allow me to provide another example:
Jesus BOTH said: Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. (John 16:7)
...while also saying: "And surely I am with you ALWAYS, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:20)
So which is the "literal" there? A Jesus who went away, even if temporarily, or a Jesus who never left?
Dogmatists on both sides of this could claim their "proof text" of either verse.
Mysteries -- paradoxes -- allow for seeming discrepancies to both be so.
Here's another one:
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. (John 6:46)
Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? (John 14:9)
So, which is it. Has only Jesus seen the Father? Or, have those who have seen Jesus also seen the Father?
Isn't it a bit of "mystery" that God is omnipresent, and yet the Bible makes it clear He has a local Presence -- a Local Glory -- that makes the Sun uncontrastable?
How can God be both immanent and transcendent? How can God be both local and omnipresent?
So...to get back then to John 6...
Verse 55: 55 For my flesh IS REAL FOOD and my blood IS REAL DRINK.
It seems to me that Catholics get "caught up" with the literal...and it seems to me that Evangelicals get "caught up" with the metaphorical. Yet to Jesus, explaining Himself as the Sacrifice was neither simply "literal" nor "metaphorically." Jesus REALLY died. And yet He REALLY died more than a simple death that any other man goes thru.
The apostle Paul said Jesus was "made to be sin" (2 Cor. 5) and a "curse" (Gal. 3). Hence, an understanding of Jesus' death that focuses ONLY upon the physical aspects doesn't fully understand the cross. Jesus REALLY was sin. Jesus REALLY was a curse. (And He wasn't just metaphorically "sin" and a "curse.")
He was made to be a sin and a curse on our behalf.
Our substitute.
Likewise, Jesus' body is REAL Food.
Jesus' blood is REAL drink.
Jesus isn't playing word games here...otherwise, He would never let those disciples go (John 6:66-67)
Evangelicals need to review their dogmatism as focused on ruling out the "real."
And for Catholics: Jesus' Body & Blood doesn't need to do undergo some transmutation within wine & wafers for Him to be REALLY present within them. The atoms of the elements don't need to substantially change for Jesus to REALLY be there.
The omnipresent Jesus who "went away" (John 16:7) doesn't need to yield His omnipresence (Matt. 28:20) just because some Evangelicals can't live with mystery-paradoxes. And the omnipresent Jesus (Matt. 28:20) doesn't have to create a "Jesus-free" zone -- of all places -- on the altar of churches as they serve the Eucharist/communion...just because some Evangelicals think that gets "too close" to Catholic "transsub" teaching!
My conclusion is that what happens in communion is what happens. It’s not dependent on our believing it or not for it to happen.
So if the bread and wine change into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus at some point, they do regardless of whether of the people who deny it.
Likewise, if it doesn’t change into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus, it’s not going to no matter how much some people believe it’s going to.
The actual facts of the event are what they are, independent of any of mankind’s belief otherwise.
Having been on both sides of the equation (for lack of a better term) I can understand the Catholic’s acceptance of transubstantiation. However, I don’t find enough Scriptural support for it and it does cause direct conflict with other passages of clear teaching elsewhere in the Bible. Which is why I now believe that it’s a ceremony of remembrance, just as the Passover was.
The big problem I see with the way the Catholics interpret the passage, is that that allows for someone like Kennedy or Chavez to partake of communion and be saved.
If eating and drinking is the requirement for eternal life, it works, all the time. Therefore, it would give eternal life to whoever takes it regardless of who they are and what they’ve done.
That’s the reason that God drove Adam and Eve out of the garden and put cherubs to guard the Tree of Life. The Tree of Life would give eternal life to them, meaning they would be eternally sinful, they would never have the opportunity to die and be free of the curse of sin.
The Tree of Life would work because it’s its nature to work, regardless of the state of sin of Adam and Eve. Same for the body and blood. It would have to work because it is its nature to work.
STUFF THAT LOGIC.
The Apostle Paul; Galatians 2
17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not!
18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.
19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”
continuing in chapter 3
We defend the belief by saying that one who has faith will have works/fruits/deeds which reveals that faith
Though that may be common enough in Catholic settings, it is not the Gospel Paul preached, is subtly different, but not insignificantly "different."
Matthew 25:31-46
New International Version (NIV)
The Sheep and the Goats
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Works of the Law are DIFFERENT than the good deeds/works God has prepared for us to do in His name.
28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. 30 By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.
These are the words of Jesus clearly speaking of the believer’s actions/behavior/works and not the works of the law.
This is such a small minded and petty post which barely deserves better than to be placed immediately into the circular filing cabinet.
Catholic means universal and “nyah, nyah, nyah” is not a refutation of the facts that the universal Church believed in the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist from the beginning.
I have little patience for that. The Muslims have their scales, with one's sins on one side, weighed against "right action" or works on the other. We know that's not the way...
The Mormons interperate as being only after one "does all that they can do". I'm not sure you don't know that's not the way, but I am sure that's not the Way and is certainly not the Gospel.
But you say:
Then what did he need die for? For a one-time baptism? Then after that, one sin again separates?
To which must be answered, that if one is born of the spirit and the water (another requirement spoken by Christ) then those "works which are not works" which you speak of shall follow....yet still not justify.
Would you like the scriptures which indicate that? Casting out devils, healing the sick in his name...but still lacking a certain something? When one finds what that "something" is, then they can know.
Don't throw out Paul for reason of not being able to fully understand him, for he was chosen to explain the difference between the law and the spirit. And no, he didn't give license to sin, either...but as he plainly enough said, one simply cannot finish by way of flesh or works what was begun of spirit in the first place! Substituting one set of works for another still becomes "works of the law" as soon as it is sought to be enforced. Be careful for the language used when speaking of works.
But go ahead, stay under the law if you like. One of these days, you may find that much of or all the "works" outlined in your reply are still filthy rags (if they be not predicated upon and following direct leading of His spirit).
It's not a combo-pack, with us earning by our later works His favor. Without His light, we can't even see what "works" need doing in the first place. Yet when we are shown, then follow and do, then we can be seen as His people, His children.
The emphasis here is to not put the cart before the horse. I'm not sure if you know what I mean by that...but I am certain there are others whom are acquainted with His spirit whom know what I mean.
Even then, those under His blood, are passed over at the judgment, with Christ Himself being the only worthy to open the book [of life]. We that can plead only His blood, need be mindful that it is to Him whom painfully shed it that we make the plea. Such realization can be sobering, yet even then must be grasped, or else what is this blood and this body we eat? Do we eat as even in part justified by our works? No, for the Spirit does not inhabit that sort of approach to His throne. Coming more fully into the light, it is seen that even those works-not-works of law which you seem to be laying down as law (or can be received as again law & duty) are but graces allowed us to extend in His very name towards others.
****Then what did he need die for? For a one-time baptism? Then after that, one sin again separates?****
Not at all and a not unusual misunderstanding of Scripture and Catholic doctrine.
Before His birth, life, death and resurrection when the people of God were under the Law, there was no one who could perfectly fulfill that Law. No one who could perfectly follow that Law.
Even with the yearly sacrifices of atonement by the high priest, the gates of heaven remained closed until that one sacrifice that was the perfect sacrifice, Jesus.
But, again, the works of the Law are not the works which Jesus speaks of in those verses.
I do not throw out Paul, he is very much a part of any Catholic’s life and prayer and Scripture reading. Paul’s message of faith and salvation through grace is no different than the words of Jesus I quoted here.
Faith is a gift of grace and so is salvation, neither can be earned or merited. Both given freely out of love.
But, Jesus clearly says we must obey his commandments. He clearly says, you are my friends if you keep my commands.
Jesus said the two most important commandments are to love God with all your heart, mind, and strength and to love your neighbor as He loves you.
Does this mean that salvation is conditional? Or that God’s love has strings?
Not at all.
Sin weakens our ability to love God and love our neighbor and thus, threatens our friendship with Jesus. He has not stopped loving us but sin may lead us to harden our heart toward Him, even though we not be aware of that hardening.
But, are those sins enough to cause Jesus to deny us on judgement day? St. John’s first letter speaks of sins which lead to death and sins which do not lead to death. Further along in that letter, John mentions not having the love of God if one does not care for his brother/sister who are in need. John also speaks of those who have faith but no works and those who have works but no faith. He definitely connects the two.
In conclusion, faith, grace and salvation are indeed freely ours through Jesus when we make the choice to follow Him and obey His commandments. If we are condemned, it is by our choice to reject salvation through our action or non action. Jesus does call us but we must answer that call.
When you wrote *universal Church* you capitalized *church* thus distinguishing it as Catholics do, as THE Catholic Church.
Nowhere in Scripture is the church, the body of Christ, ever capitalized. It is only capitalized by Catholics when referring to the Catholic church.
If indeed you meant merely universal when you said catholic, then there was no need to add the word universal to *Catholic* as it would have been redundant.
Your excuse for wanting to trash the post fails.
Another verse out of John 6 that should be taken literally if we're expected to take the verses about eating His flesh and blood literally.
So which is it?
We're told that people have to be baptized to be saved and that if you're baptized, you're saved. Except when you're not.
Then we're told that it's taking communion that saves us, which means that baptism isn't necessary since communion does it.
Oh, but wait a minute.... Now it's works that save us? If we don't have the works, we're not saved? What happened to eating Jesus' flesh and blood saving us? Is that not good enough now after all?
So which is it that saves us?
How many hoops to Catholics think they have to jump through to earn eternal life?
Works of the Law are DIFFERENT than the good deeds/works God has prepared for us to do in His name.
No, they're not.
Read the Beatitudes. They are not a new law but reveal the intent of the Law.
Jesus sets the bar even higher than the Law did. If it was impossible for men to be saved by obeying the Law when it was outward obedience, it's even more impossible to obey the Law as Jesus set the standard, from the heart.
The Law was never meant to be a means of justification before God anyway. It's whole intent was to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.
The old Law couldn't be kept, and what Catholics consider the new works that Jesus established cannot be kept either.
There's also the pesky fact that one sin is enough to condemn men. Once you've sinned, you're a sinner and no amount of good works can erase or pay off the debt that is owed for that sin.
The only was to be rid of sin is through forgiveness. Working the sin off is not in God's economy.
That is absurd,. Regardless of the autocratic nature of Rome, what she deemd as true does not make it so. What Church fathers believed on the Eucharist has little weight, as they were in error about some other things as well, and both are judged by Scripture as supreme.
And indeed , we must take into account ALL the words Jesus AND the rest of Scripture spoke regarding this subject, all of which are NOT unflinchingly supportive of the Catholic belief in the actuality of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist, but best support the language as allegorical .
The use of metaphors and the contrast between the earthly and the spiritual, and the concept of believing as being what obtain life, and as being the means which one is to live by, is consistent with what John teaches.
In John 1:29, He is “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”
In John 3, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15).
In John 4, Jesus is the living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14).
In John 5, Jesus is the Divine Son of God “making himself equal with God”, and the prophesied Messiah (vs. 18, 39).
In John 6, Jesus is the bread of God “which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” “..that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day” (vs. 35,40). This bread is called His flesh, “which I will give for the life of the world” (v. 51). And as He is the “living bread,” and “the life of the flesh is in the blood,” so the soon to be crucified Christ is metaphorical bread and blood.
In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11).
In John 12, He is the LORD who Isaiah saw high and lifted up in glory, when Isaiah uttered the prophecy which as given in it’s fulfilled sense in Jn. 6 (Is. 6:1-10; Jn. 12:34b-50). To God be the glory.
In John 15, Jesus is the true vine.
Moreover, Contextually, the LORD is speaking to Jews and the Jews (and Greeks, which influenced Jews during the time of Christ, and whose language was common) were well acquainted with the use of symbolic language, with the O.T. often speaking of eating in a figurative manner.
*When the fearful Israelites exclaimed that the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof,”
* or when Joshua exhorted the Israelites, “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 13:32; 14:9), it is not to be supposed that the land or the Israelites would become cannibals.
* And when Jeremiah proclaims, Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart" (Jer. 15:16),
* or Ezekiel is told, "eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel" (Ezek. 3:1),
* or (in a phrase most similar to the Lord's supper) John is commanded, "Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it" (Rev. 10:8-9 ), then it is not speaking of literal eating.
* And it is certain that cannibalism was not looked upon favorably in Israel, and is only portrayed negatively, even metaphorically, as David declared, "When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell." (Psa 27:2)
Thus the use of metaphors in Jn. 6 to denote believing and living by the Word of God, and most essentially Christ, is consistent theologically, culturally and and grammatically, whereas eating something to gain eternal life is distinctively pagan. The Jewish passover did not impart life, and Jesus analogy in Jn. 6 was not to the passover, but the miraculous bread from Heaven, which gave physical life, which corresponds to spiritual life under the New Covenant.
Third, we must consider the story of Ezekiel and the eating of the scroll which the Lord gave him. The story is similar to what Jesus says of His flesh, that those who ate of it would never be hungry.
That is eating one of my points; the eating of the scroll was also allegorical, (Ezek. 3:1-3) as that of the book in Rv. 10:9,10) and in other places, as was the Lord's "meat" in Jn. 4:24, and believers life by Christ as He lived by the Father. (Jn. 6:57) And nowhere does eating physical food satisfy spiritually.
In addition is the absurdity that the apostles would passively consume real blood and human flesh, which they had to understand it was, without the usual questioning in such a context, such as Peter exampled when called to eat unclean flesh. But conspiratorialitists also have answers for everything
Fourth, we see that the first Christians regularly shared in the breaking of the bread and that bread was not just ordinary food. Some of it was reserved and taken to those who were not present.
Where do you see that?! It should be obvious that the church was coming together to communally eat in one place, but as in Acts 6, some were going hungry while others feasted - in complete contradiction to the Lord's unselfish death. Therefore to avoid this disparity due to the selfishness of some, and rather than taking food to those who did not come to the assembly, they were instructed to eat their own normal supper at home if they were hungry before they came to the communal sharing of bread, and to wait for each other when they did. Nothing is said about taking food out.
"When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. " (1 Corinthians 11:20-22)
"Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. " (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)
The Lord's supper itself was part of a larger sharing of food, and Jude speaks of the believers "feast of charity," and of which your sanctioned notes state: which were associated with eucharistic celebrations at certain stages of early Christian practice; cf. 1 Cor 11:18–34 and the note on 2 Pt 2:13. (http://usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Jude&ch=#73001012-1)
So we see that there is abundant support for the Catholic belief from the OT, the NT and the early writings of the those who learned from the Apostles themselves.
Rather, what we see is more RC eisegesis, reading into texts what is not there, and in other passages excluding any other interpretation other than Romes, even though allegory is what is most supported. Do not claim you are being objective, as you are not and you cannot if you will defend Rome.
Is it any wonder that Catholics say they can’t know they are saved for sure? What a perverted misrepresentation of scripture the RCC has developed. Now watching the sickening spectacle of emotion and adulation surrounding the appointment of this Pope is amazing.
The big problem that the RCC runs into with John 6 is that the entire chapter cannot be taken literally. It works allegorically, but not literally.
But to try to interpret a passage allegorically, then literally, then again allegorically, then literally, and so on, picking and choosing on a verse by verse basis which ones to interpret which way, is extremely poor exegesis.
Rather than using Scripture to determine doctrine, it smacks of cherry picking verses to support already predetermined doctrine.
Funny you should put it that way...
While Catholics believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it is true, one cannot take individual biblical quotes or passages and say each one is literally true, Pope Benedict XVI said....In his message, the Pope said clearer explanations about the Catholic position on the divine inspiration and truth of the Bible were important because some people seem to treat the Scriptures simply as literature, while others believe that each line was dictated by the Holy Spirit and is literally true. Neither position is Catholic, the Pope said.
-- from the thread How to Read the Bible as a Catholic [How? Don't take indv. verses as "literally true", says Pope]
Each verse in the Bible is literally true, the entire Bible is true, every verse of it, but that does not mean that it has to be READ and INTERPRETED literally.
That argument, that the Bible has to be read either/or, is simply disingenuous debating technique, attempting to discredit Bible interpretation.
Jesus sets the bar even higher than the Law did. If it was impossible for men to be saved by obeying the Law when it was outward obedience, it's even more impossible to obey the Law as Jesus set the standard, from the heart.
The law reveals in certain aspect to us, the nature of God. This standard when turned inwardly, can show us where we are wrong, what is not of Him. Of course the Holy Spirit needs show us too (or we remain blind, if only partially) yet for us to be better able to discern His Spirit from imposters...the revelation of His nature found in the Word sets a standard by which such may be held up towards, examined and compared.
It doesn't have to be complicated, nor heavy and burdensome. The Lord promised his yoke would be easy and his burden light.
One verse that does not mean what non Catholics want it to mean.
The work of God is to believe in Jesus and if you believe in Jesus WHAT DO YOU DO?
You follow His commands and His commands are to love God and love neighbor.
Love is action, not abstract belief, feeding the poor, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, giving drink to the thirsty, comforting the sorrowful.....
DEEDS! GOOD WORKS!
Read Matthew 25. Read of the good servant who took was given him and multiplied it many times and the one who buried what was given him.
God wants us to rejoice in our redemption by sharing His love, compassion and forgiveness with others. If we don’t it’s like burying it away thinking that when the master comes for it, he will be pleased that we have not used it or increased it but let it languish.
We have come full circle here. Chavez believed in Jesus, the one whom God has sent. Was he saved? And if not, why not?
*****What? So now eating his flesh and blood isn’t really enough to gain eternal life after all? It’s works?****
Holy Communion unites us with Jesus and with each other and imparts to us His grace, the grace we need to be true followers of Christ. It is not just the motion/action but a true reception of Him that is an aid in our journey on the path of life. Jesus said if we abide in Him, He will abide in us and in John 6:54-59 He tells us that if we eat His flesh and drink His blood we will abide in Him and have eternal life because of Him, just as He has life because of the Father.
****We’re told that people have to be baptized to be saved and that if you’re baptized, you’re saved. Except when you’re not. ****
Baptism if the moment when we become children of God, brothers and sisters of Christ, but it is the start of our journey not the end all and be all.
****How many hoops to Catholics think they have to jump through to earn eternal life?****
What you call hoops, Catholics call the commands of Christ. And no one earns eternal life, it is freely given.
****The old Law couldn’t be kept, and what Catholics consider the new works that Jesus established cannot be kept either.****
So, no one can feed the poor, visit the sick and imprisoned, forgive others, cloth the naked, care for the widow and the orphan?
It must be a dreary Christianity which you live.
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.