Posted on 12/04/2005 9:19:10 PM PST by jecIIny
Thank you very much for that explanation. I read through the passages you cited and I can see where there could be disagreement. I noticed some other verses in that passage. John 6:50-51 -
"50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
I equate "live forever" with salvation. So, is salvation achieved through the literal eating of the bread, or is it achieved by symbolically appropriating "All" of Jesus (nature, blood, and flesh) through true belief in Him?
Also, John 6:63 -
"63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life.
It seems to me that He is focusing on the truth of the Word and not on the mechanical ingestion of food and drink. In any event, I think I see the argument more clearly now so thank you again.
"Thank you Claud, that is exactly what I meant. I thought I'd remembered some teaching that either the Romans or the Pharisees (or both) used the cannibalism argument to discredit the disciples. So, I didn't see how Christians could use it positively."
I see I misunderstood what you wrote. And you are quite right...nobody Orthodox or Roman Catholic are s[eaking about cannibalism! :) You know, that calumny continued on after the Apostolic era. Several of the Fathers were forced to address it.
Catholics agree that "live forever" in these verses means salvation. This salvation is achieved through the literal eating of the bread of life - Our Lord. It is a necessary condition, though not a sufficient condition for salvation. Obviously other things are necessary for salvation besides partaking of the Eucharist - grace, baptism, faith, repentence, keeping the commandments, etc. Receiving the Eucharist and nothing else will not get one into Heaven - in fact if one is unrepentant and therefore receiving the Eucharist unworthily, his eternal destination might be quite the opposite (see 1st Corinthians).
is it achieved by symbolically appropriating "All" of Jesus (nature, blood, and flesh) through true belief in Him?
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Are you trying to say that by belief in Jesus, we "eat" and "drink" his body and blood? Catholics believe that there is a distinction between believing in Christ and receiving the Eucharist. Both are essential for salvation, but they aren't the same thing. One doesn't "eat" the flesh of Christ in any other way but through the Eucharist. His flesh is "true food."
"63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life.
It seems to me that He is focusing on the truth of the Word and not on the mechanical ingestion of food and drink. In any event, I think I see the argument more clearly now so thank you again.
"Flesh" in verse 63 doesn't refer to Christ's flesh. This is flesh that counts for nothing. Who could say that the flesh of Christ counts for nothing? Christ gave up His body on the cross for our salvation, so His body (i.e. His flesh) is very important. Furthermore, Christ has just commanded His disciples to eat his flesh. It would be very odd if Jesus was basically saying "You must eat my flesh for eternal life, but flesh counts for nothing."
Instead, the flesh in "flesh profits nothing" refers to human flesh. It refers to our inclination to think using only what natural human reason can tell us. Often Christians use the term "carnal" (literally meaning "fleshly") to describe this attitude.
Basically Jesus is saying that using your own human capabilities you cannot believe in this. Many people in the crowd that day did act carnally and left Christ. But through God's grace, one can follow Jesus whose words are spirit and life. One can believe the "hard teaching" of the Eucharist (as well as the many other hard teachings of Our Lord). And through that, one can have eternal life.
Hope this helps!
Wow! That is a hugh statement. I'm a Southern Baptist and we believe that Baptism has nothing to do with salvation. (How ironic :) Do Catholics really hold that keeping the commandments is necessary for salvation? Isn't that living under the old law? What is the Catholic view of the meaning of the new covenant?
Are you trying to say that by belief in Jesus, we "eat" and "drink" his body and blood?
Yes, that is fair enough. The level of appropriation grows through sanctification, and we remind ourselves of the importance of the sacrifice Jesus made for us by taking the Lord's Supper.
I agree with your assessment that verse 63 "flesh" was referring to weak human flesh. I was unclear in my point that Jesus was speaking of his Word(s) being actual life, as opposed to any action taken by human flesh.
I'm not sure what a "mortal sin" is. Is that the same as "unforgivable"? I sure hope not, else I'm in a whale of a fix :)
No, mortal sin can be absolved. Mortal sin is a sin that concerns a grave matter and is committed intentionally. The traditional list of cardinal mortal sins are Pride, Envy, Wrath, Sloth, Lust, Avarice, Gluttony. The other kind is venial, that is a sin done without intending to sin. Venial sins do not have to be formally absolved at confession.
I believe, the Catholic theology explains that if a sin is confessed, then it cannot be against the Holy Spirit, and so every sin can be forgiven if it is sincerely confessed.
Yes, one must keep the commandments of God, which are summed up in Mark 12:30-31: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength . . .You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these."
Christ did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). Christians are not obligated to keep kosher, sacrifice animals, and such, but this does not mean that they can commit idolatry, adultery, theft, murder, etc without consequence. The Gospel and the rest of the New Testament are replete with admonitions that our conduct in this life (i.e., our keeping or breaking of the commandments) will effect our eternal destination.
As for the new covenant, we believe that it is being part of the body of Christ, sharing in His death and sharing in His resurrection. This is intimately connected to the Eucharist; at the Last Supper, Christ speaks of the "new covenant in my blood" (Luke 22:20)
And the key distinction is the call for each individual to examine himself, not for church leaders to determine who is or is not worthy.
Me, too.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. I guess the critical distinction is between "eternal destination" and "eternal reward". I assume you are referring to the very many passages along the lines of "... and the adulterer will never see the Kingdom of Heaven...". We would both say that this is true, unless the sinner has been forgiven.
I suppose Protestants believe that at the point of salvation, all sins, past, present, and future, are forgiven. One proof text is John 19:30 -
"30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, 'It is finished.' With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."
The literal Greek word means "paid in full". From what you have said, it appears that Catholics believe in a partial works-based (keeping of commandments, baptism) salvation. In Catholicism, can salvation be won and lost on a week-to-week basis dependent upon one's confessional status? What about sins committed after the last confessional before death? I think that the Last Rites solves some of this problem, but clearly not every good Catholic has the opportunity to receive them before death.
Also, with a partial works-based salvation model, how do Catholics interpret Ephesians 2:8-9? -
"8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast."
So you are eating bread that is Christ, but is no longer bread...that is unless you view the DNA and then it's shown to be bread but it can't be bread because it's not real bread but the appearance of real bread but ...ahhh I give up...(please note the previous text is ALL sarcasm)
I read your post twice and I felt like I'd just taken a 4 hour accounting exam...I believe in the Real Prescence...I believe I am eating the Body and Blood of Christ. It is a mystery that I cannot grip in my puny mind, I just believe it. I know that when I take eat the wafer and drink the wine I, somehow by the miraculous ways of God, am receiving Christ's Body and His Blood. Whether the bread is still there via DNA tests or not matters not to me, it's the sustinance to my soul from eating the flesh and drinking the blood that matters...
I am a WELS member...we are very strict about sharing communion with others outside our synod...unfortunately it's done, but I suspect it happens in many many churches...my wife goes to a church that has open communion...she seems to be ok with it, but i'm working on her...fortunately I am making some headway on the most important doctrines...well, at least from a Lutheran point of view ;-)...
God's Blessings to you and yours...
Question I do not know the answer to so I ask...when was it determined that a mortal since, as you listed, Pride, Envy, Wrath, Sloth, Lust Avarice (not sure what this is?) and Gluttony are unforgivable?
I don't recall in scripture that being described...the only sin i recall being mentioned as being unforgivable was a sin against the Holy Spirit...
Scenario...I'm wondering if this is what is meant by your post...If those sins you listed are not forgivable it seems to me that just about every single person on this planet that is and has ever live could not be forgiven...those listed sins cover a ton of acts we do and very often intentionally...for instance...let's say a woman goes to a movie because she thinks Johnny Depp is hot and has "thoughts" of him and her together in a sexual manner...she is now condemned forever because you say this sin is unforgivable? Am I mis reading what you posted or is that an accurate conclusion of what you meant to say?
Just curious...thanks!
Blessings in Christ...
To expound on the nature of the elements, between the Roman Catholic view and the Baptist view, there are two additional positions. The Lutheran view is quite close to the RC view. It holds that the body and blood are really physically present, without the bread and wine losing their identity as such. The Reformed view is that there is a real, but spiritual rather than physical, presence in the bread and wine or grape juice.
"30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, 'It is finished.' With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."
The literal Greek word means "paid in full".
In one sense Christ's sacrifice on the cross forgives the sins of all people, in the past, the present, and the future. His sacrifice is outside of time, He is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world, per the book of Revelations, so the forgiveness from this sacrifice applies across time as well.
But at the same time, forgiveness is not forced upon us and it is not completely unconditional. Namely, one must repent of his or her sins in order to be forgiven, in order to receive the forgiveness that was won for them on Calvary. Those who sin but do not repent won't be forgiven, as many passages in the Gospel and the rest of the New Testament note.
This applies to everyone, especially Christians. Nearly all of the passages in Scripture that stress the need to seek forgiveness and avoid sin are addressed to Christians. We are all still obligated to avoid sin and seek forgiveness when they sin. One will certainly be forgiven of future sins if one repents of them. If a person comes to Christ and repents of his past sins this does not mean he doesn't have to seek forgiveness anymore for sins he may commit in the future.
In Catholicism, can salvation be won and lost on a week-to-week basis dependent upon one's confessional status?
It could be, though hopefully one is not losing it every week! The confessional status you might be thinking of is what Catholics call being in a "state of grace." One is in a state of grace when he has repented of his sins and is reconciled to Christ. Note the emphasis on grace. We need the grace of God to keep the commandments of Christ; we cannot do it on our own. We need the grace of God to be aware of when we've fallen and are in need of forgiveness. God's grace sustains us in all we do; one cannot be saved without it. But God doesn't force His grace upon us. We can reject it. When a person rejects God's grace and sins, he may very well lose his salvation, if the sin is serious and he refuses to seek forgiveness before he dies.
What about sins committed after the last confessional before death? I think that the Last Rites solves some of this problem, but clearly not every good Catholic has the opportunity to receive them before death.
If a person has at some point repented of his sins, but later sins and doesn't seek forgiveness, then he won't be forgiven when he dies and faces Jesus. Obviously it is very important to always examine oneself and not fall into a state of unrepentant sin. Catholics should pray that they have the grace to be truly contrite and the opportunity to receive the sacrament of Confession as part of Last Rites before they die.
However, as you pointed out, not all Catholics have the opportunity to receive this sacrament before they die. We do not believe that God would hold this against a contrite soul. If someone needs Confession but, through no fault of their own, cannot receive this sacrament before they die, they can still be forgiven of their sins. If one is truly sorry for their sins and wishes to be reconciled again with Christ, then they will be forgiven.
This is sometimes referred to as "making an act of perfect contrition." We believe that Christ has established the sacrament of Confession for the forgiveness of serious sins, but while we are bound to that, He is not. He can forgive contrite souls who, for whatever reason, were not able to approach him through the sacrament of Confession. The good thief crucified next to Jesus is one example of this
This applies to non-Catholics too. We hope and pray that every soul, Catholic, Protestant, or non-Christian, will at some point receive the grace to be aware of Christ's love for them, to be aware of their sins, and to repent of those sins and be reconciled to God. As a popular Catholic prayer goes, "Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell. Lead all souls into Heaven, especially those in most need of your mercy."
Also, with a partial works-based salvation model, how do Catholics interpret Ephesians 2:8-9?
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
It doesn't conflict with Catholic belief at all. As I mentioned earlier, we believe that God's grace is absolutely necessary in order to be saved. Without grace we cannot do anything good and we cannot be saved. We cannot say "yes!" to the gift of salvation Christ offers us from the cross. We cannot do as Christ commands us - all our good works are a result of God's grace. Grace is definitely a gift of God; there is nothing we can do to earn it and there is nothing we can do to earn our salvation. Jesus offers salvation to us. We can accept it or reject it; but we can't earn it on our own independently of Jesus.
How do we accept the salvation Christ offers us? Through faith - but by faith we don't just mean intellectual assent to certain beliefs about Christ. Faith must be lived out, and doing this includes following the will of God.
Hope this helps!
I hope that Annalex is OK with me fielding this one, but since I'm here now, I thought I may as well. Annalex did NOT say that "No mortal sin can be absolved". Instead, Annalex said: "No, mortal sin CAN be absolved" (emphasis added). It was in response to my question in post 46, in which I was asking if a mortal and an unforgivable sin were the same thing. Annalex said 'no', and explained it to me. (See also posts 48-50.)
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.