What part of your 'fullness' do we Prots lack to receive salvation?
I've tried to get Mormons to show the FULLNESS the BoM supposedly has; but they can't seem to answer it either...
Posted on 04/04/2015 1:59:27 PM PDT by Steelfish
The Resurrection & The Eucharist by Fr. Rodney Kissinger S.J. (Former Missouri Synod Lutheran) http://www.frksj.org/homily_ressurection_and_the_eucharist.htm There is an important connection between the Resurrection and the Eucharist. The Eucharist IS the Risen Jesus.
Therefore, the Eucharist makes the Resurrection present and active in our lives and enables us to experience the joy and the power of the Resurrection. The Resurrection is the reason for the observance of Sunday instead of the Sabbath. According to the Gospel it was early in the morning on the first day of the week that the Risen Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene.
It was also on the evening of that first day of the week that the Risen Jesus appeared to the Apostles when Thomas was not present. Then a week later, on the first day of the week, he appeared again when Thomas was present.
So the Apostles began to celebrate the first day of the week, Sunday, as the beginning of the re-creation of the world just as they had celebrated the Sabbath as the end of the creation of the world. Originally the Liturgical Year was simply fifty-two Sundays, fifty-two celebrations of the Eucharist, fifty-two celebrations of the Resurrection. Today the Eucharist is still the principal way of celebrating the Resurrection and proclaiming the Mystery of Faith: “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.”
As we have seen the joy and the power of the Resurrection is not found in the empty tomb or in the witness of some one else it is found only in a personal encounter with the Risen Jesus. The Eucharist, the Risen Jesus, gives us an opportunity for this personal encounter. Will all who receive the Eucharist have a personal encounter with the Risen Jesus? Yes they will. Unfortunately, not all will recognize the Risen Jesus. Mary Magdalene had a personal encounter with the Risen Jesus but did not recognize him. She thought it was the gardener. It was not until she recognized Jesus that she experienced the joy and the power of the Resurrection. The two disciples on the road to Emmaus had a personal encounter with the Risen Jesus and thought that it was a stranger. It was not until they recognized him in the “breaking of the bread” that they experienced the joy and the power of the Resurrection.
The Eucharist is also a pledge of our own resurrection. “I am the living bread come down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” The Eucharist tells us that in death life is changed not ended. It is not so much life after death but life through death. Death is the door to life. This takes away the fear of death and gives us consolation at the death of a loved one.
The Eucharist also continues the two fold effect of the Resurrection which is to confirm the faith of the Apostles and to create the Christian Community. These are two sides of the same coin. To believe is to belong. Community was an integral part of the life of the first Christians. They were of one mind and one heart. When the Apostles asked the Lord to teach them how to pray, he taught them the “OUR Father.” In the Creed we say, “WE believe.” It is a personal commitment made in the community of believers.
The Eucharist also confirms the faith of the recipient and is the principle of unity and community. Without the Christian Community we lose our roots and our identity and our ability to survive in our culture which is diametrically opposed to Christ.
Through the Eucharist the Risen Jesus continues his two fold mission of proclaiming the Good News and healing the sick. Every celebration of the Eucharist proclaims the Good News and heals the sick. The Liturgy of the Word proclaims the Good News and the Liturgy of the Eucharist heals the sick. If people were healed simply by touching the hem of His garment how much more healing must come from receiving His Body and Blood?
How ridiculous it is then when people ask, “Do I have an obligation to go to Mass on Sunday?” If obligation is going to determine whether or not you go to Mass forget the obligation. You have a greater problem than that. Your problem is faith, you don’t believe. You don’t believe that the Eucharist IS the Risen Christ.
You just don’t realize the connection between the Resurrection and the Eucharist. In just a few moments we will receive the Eucharist and once again have an opportunity for a personal encounter with the Risen Jesus.
Let us ask for the faith to recognize him in the “breaking of the bread” so that we are able to say with Thomas, “My Lord and my God,” and in so doing experience the joy and the power of the Resurrection.
Actually if you follow the thread back far enough you will see that I was quoting one of the prots. And yes it is an exact quote since I copied and pasted. I did not paraphrase.
Thank you for demonstrating the Knee Jerk reactions that prots are so good at.
As for Mrs. Don-O's "standard" of correcting Protestants' "provocation" on these threads, I'd say she stands amid a very small minority here that can explain what Catholicism teaches without being nasty, disagreeable, insulting and un-Christ like. It's not really anyone's place to control what others freely say on these threads - the Moderators do a difficult job as fairly as they can with those who disobey forum rules - because we should police ourselves. We're all adults here, right? But, by the same token, if someone is representing the beliefs of others and making absolute statements that do NOT match with reality, then others should step in and remind them that they speak only for themselves and not the collective - like what Mrs.Don-o did. She shouldn't be criticized for that - especially not by those who admit they rarely participate.
Jesus said something quite profound that applies here:
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
“Mindreading” is a form of making it personal.
I hope it doesn't surprise you, but I can completely get behind that kind of prayer! Everything about it IS Biblical. The "perfect offering" is already spelled out IN Scripture:
Well said. I couldn't agree more.
There's a false claim...It is our mind that perceives what the senses tell it...The mind knows the 'accidents' as well as the substance...Cut the spinal cord and your senses won't know anything...
Left to itself, the mind assumes that the substance is that which, in all its past experience, has been found to have that particular group of accidents. But in these two instances, the bread and wine of the Eucharist, the mind is not left to itself. By the revelation of Christ it knows that the substance has been changed, in the one case into the substance of his body, in the other into the substance of his blood.
So Jesus reveals to far less than half of Catholics (in their mind) that what they see, touch, taste, feel, ect., is not what they get...And those majority of Catholics who don't believe in your Eucharist just haven't been enlightened by God, I guess...
The senses can no more perceive the new substance resulting from the consecration than they could have perceived the substance there before.
And why not??? The bread isn't spiritual, it's physical...If it tastes like chocolate and the texture feels like cake, it's probably chocolate cake...If the texture turns to liquid and the taste is sweet and lemony, it's likely lemonade...
Jesus never said any of this bread changes in substance but not in 'accidents'...That's made up...And why would Jesus not change the accidents to fit the substance??? When Jesus turned water into wine, those at the wedding didn't drink a clear, tastless liquid...
It's all invented by human philosophers to try to justify some scripture that in no way fits this Eucharist philosophy...
So who says this stuff is so??? Jesus never said any such thing...This article itself admits that this idea was invented by Catholic humanist philosophers
Col_2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
We cannot repeat too often that senses can perceive only accidents, and consecration changes only the substance.
And again, senses don't perceive anything...It's the mind that perceives...If the substance changes, the 'accidents' must change...And of course there is no command nor suggestion from Jesus Christ that there is any consecration or transubstantiation that takes place...It is an invention...And not by God...
The accidents, then, remain; but not, of course, as accidents of Christ's body. It is not his body which has the whiteness and the roundness and the softness. The accidents once held in existence by the substance of bread, and those others once held in existence by the substance of wine, are now held in existence solely by God's will to maintain them.
With not a lick of evidence from scripture...
This very sketchy outline of the doctrine of transubstantiation is almost pathetic.
You can say that again...
There IS a firm set of beliefs that identify genuine Christians. They are ALL Biblical, have been believed always, everywhere and by all and have never changed from the start. Creeds, on the other hand, HAVE changed as well as their interpretation on each point. How we know what is the truth is found in God's word. Like many of the ECFs stated:
"Every sickness of the soul hath in Scripture its proper remedy." - Augustine (Expositions on the Psalms, 37:2)
"But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves." - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:16)
"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)
Earlier in this thread you asserted that ALL Catholics believe the Eucharist is the literal body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. However, many polls have consistently shown that it is NOT a universally held belief by all Roman Catholics. I guess your reply might be, "Then they aren't true Catholics.", but they sure do identify as such, attend Mass and call themselves Catholics. It would seem having a "single, infallible teaching authority" is not a guarantee of unity of the Roman Catholic faith. Here are some of those studies:
A 1992 Catholic-funded Gallup Poll found only 30% of American Catholics affirmed: "When receiving Holy Communion, you are really and truly receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine. Poll of 519 American Catholics, 18 years or older, conducted from December 10, 1991, to January 19, 1992, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-79305248.html
Responding to the questions on the Roman Catholic Eucharist, “Which of the following comes closest to what you believe takes place at Mass: (1) The bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, or (2) The bread and wine are symbolic reminders of Christ? 63% of Roman Catholics overall, and 51% of weekly attenders, and 70% of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 affirmed the Roman Catholic Eucharist is a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus [it is, of His death], indicating they do not believe it is really Jesus body and blood [as Rome erroneously teaches]. New York Times/CBS News poll, Apr. 21-23, 1994, subsample of 446 Catholics, MOE ± 5% http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_n2_v122/ai_16233123/pg_8/ 1995 Commonweal Foundation
In a survey by the Pew Forum, 55% of Catholics affirmed that their church teaches that the bread and wine in their liturgy of the Lord's supper become Christ’s body and blood, while (41%) said that the church teaches that the bread and wine are symbols. http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx
A study by the Roper Center and commissioned by Catholic World Report reported that 82% of Catholics who attend Mass at least once a week agreed with the statement that "the bread and wine used at Mass are actually transformed into the body and blood of Christ." . Catholic World Report; 1997 survey of 1,000 Catholic Americans by Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut. http://www.adoremus.org/397-Roper.html
A Catholic polling service reported that 57 percent of adult Catholics (and 91% of adult weekly Mass attenders), said their belief about the Eucharist is best reflected by the statement “Jesus Christ is really present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist,” [a statement which Lutherans could assent to] versus to 43 percent who said their belief is best reflected in the statement, “Bread and wine are symbols of Jesus, but Jesus is not really present.” Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University, 2007, commissioned by the Department of Communications of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) (taken from http://www.peacebyjesus.com/RC-Stats_vs._Evang.html)
I think it's pretty obvious that only an idiot would really believe different denominations means EVERY one has their “own” version of the Bible and interpretation of the basic tenets of the Christian faith. Sometimes, the inanity is so ridiculous it makes me wonder if the ones who post such drivel are only here to cause discord and dissension among brothers and sisters in Christ.
Are you innocent and totally undeserving of such? Swept that doorstep lately?
Because Jesus wasn't speaking English???
Perfectly good word that would have completely clarified it and left no doubt, instead He used a word that in every other instance means "from above."
Gnat straining can be detrimental to ones health. Why are you not acknowledging that EITHER translation of the word is true? Why don't you just admit you don't like the term "born again"? You have a right to your own opinion.
Did God REALLY say....?
Where would a Catholic be without a fast held misunderstanding of what sola Scriptura means no matter how many times they've been corrected?
I sure hope you have your response copied and pasted for future use because I would put everything I own on the fact that the same argument will surface again from someone who has already been corrected on the matter.
It never ceases to amaze me that the same group that loves to take credit for Scripture is so eager to diminish it as not good enough or complete in itself that it needs to be supplemented.
Honestly, if the Catholic church couldn't get Scripture correct in the first place, whatever possesses them to think that we should trust them now with their *sacred tradition*? Why should we think they're doing a better job with that than the Scripture they claim is inadequate when they claim they gave it to us?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3275781/posts?page=297#297
So then, by that reasoning, (because a specific word or phrase is not found written down in Scripture it's not Scriptural), the Bible must not be “scriptural” and the Holy Trinity must not "scriptural".
Then that must mean that these things are not Scriptural either.
catholic
pope
eucharist
sacraments
annulment
assumption
immaculate conception
mass
purgatory
magisterium
infallible
confirmation
crucifix
rosary
mortal sin
venial sin
perpetual virginity
apostolic succession
indulgences
hyperdulia
catechism
real presence
transubstantiation
liturgy
free will
holy water
monstrance
sacred tradition
apostolic succession
Benefactress
Mediatrix
Queen of Heaven
Mother of God
beatific vision
invincible ignorance
Divine Office
guardian angel
Corporal Works of Mercy
Petrine authority
What is striking from this coterie of Protestant folks is more of what they are unable to refute. Not one word about how the early Church Fathers believed that the risen Christ is in the consecrated bread and wine in the Catholic Mass. These are the same early theologians whose combined work for nearly three centuries examined and studied the hundreds of written textual fragments and cross-checked these against the received oral tradition and gave the world what they identified as the true Word of God. They cannot refute what St. Irenaeus wrote about 185 AD, about the Church’s realistic interpretation of the Eucharist as the risen body of Christ.
The historical timeline works against any possibility of refutation. Protestantism washed ashore with its cluster of heresies eleven centuries later. It cannot be said that we had to await the ONE truth of God for eleven centuries, and all those early followers of Christ including those who assembled the Bible were either misled or misinterpreted the Word of God.
So let’s begin by responding to the multiple posts of boatbums received at this eleventh hour of the night.
In one of his latest post, boatbums unreservedly asserts: (I kid you not: the caps are his)
“There IS a firm set of beliefs that identify genuine Christians. They are ALL Biblical, have been believed always, everywhere and by all and have never changed from the start.”
boatbums explains that his B.A. degree in divinity study was simply to show that Catholics did not have a monopoly on the “intellectual side.”
Of course the real issue was in connection with theologians who for four centuries leading up to the formal recognition of the canonical texts, and ever since.
These include the likes of Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, and Benedict (whose work form part of the theological curriculum of major colleges) AND eminent Lutheran and Protestant theologians who converted to Catholicism, to say nothing of the constellation of brilliant lay minds who converted to Catholicism have embraced the risen Christ in the consecrated host.
boatbums, a few questions for you:
During your degree study did anyone ask if Christ taught ONE truth? How do we know the ONE truth from Christ’s written and unwritten Word? Did Christ establish ONE Church to teach this truth? If so, was this Church in existence for the first fifteen centuries before Protestantism? If it was not the Catholic Church, what Church was it? Were all the saints, martyrs, and stigmatists, to say nothing of the theologians, in error by their recognition of the risen Christ in the Eucharist? How did Christ make sure that His one truth would last until the end of time?
If your instructors ducked these questions, I’d make a claim for spiritual false pretenses and ask my money back.
boatbums scours the internet to produce polling data that a high percentage of Catholics do not believe in the Eucharist. But this is more a reflection of the knowledge of how well one reads, learns, and knows the true Word of God or the teachings of the Catholic faith. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what is the true Word of God as taught by the Catholic Church.
boatbums cannot rebut the fact that eminent Protestant theologians who have studied, taught, and written on Christianity have upon further study and reflection converted to Catholicism while noting the inherent inconsistencies of Protestantism and its inherent contradictions. It might come as a shock to boatbums that Catholics don’t take a poll to validate its Credo and Catechism. No one can claim the Catholic label if they do not believe in the Eucharist. Catholicism has a Credo, a Magisterium, and Catechism.
Protestants on the other hand from Rev. Jeremiah Wright to Rev. Billy Graham feel free to dispute the Eucharist, and so does every other Tom, Dick, and Harry and the pastors of Foursquare neighborhood churches who believe they can crack open the pages of the Bible and offer us their “definitive” interpretation of Scripture. And we don’t need to go far. We see now several mainline denominations use a scriptural warrant to validate their ordination of married of gay and lesbians pastors. This explains why Protestantism today is a caricature.
Catholics too believe with Rides_A_Red_Horse that the “sole focus” of salvation is the risen Christ. But to Catholics, belief in the Eucharist is essential for salvation. The resurrection is not some historical belief in a dead man having come to life.
In John 6:35 “And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.” ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day’ (John 6:53-54)
Rides_A_Red_Horse finds it hard to appreciate the distinction between scriptural interpretation and personal lives. It’s not a question of Protestants being “tied” to the likes of anyone. Rather, it is the inescapable fact that the Billy Grahams, Jim Jones’, Joel Osteens, David Koreshs,’ all believe that “their” view of scriptural interpretation is the authentic word of God.
The Church is not some nebulous “body of followers” each holding different and contradictory beliefs. It would be just as absurd and simplistic if all nations claim to believe in human dignity and march under the banner of UN flag as followers of one truth.
boatbums echoes this simplistic view as well confusing personal lives with scriptural interpretation and authenticity by offering this comment in his recent post that, David Koresh like the “bad popes” are all dead. And yet you would think that with his B.A. degree in Divinity he would be able to make the distinction between personal lives and authority to infallibly and authentically interpret scripture as one truth.
Surely we can agree Christ taught ONE truth. To Catholics this ONE truth- includes the risen Christ in the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacraments. These beliefs did not dissolve into multiple “truths” some fifteen centuries later. Such a notion collapses under the weight of its own absurdity and explains why even brilliant lay minds from all varieties of non-Christian beliefs have converted to Catholicism.
Different scriptural interpretations is a necessary concomitant of Protestantism and why the renowned essayist Hillaire Belloc in his book, “The Great Heresies,” wrote that unlike other heresies, Protestantism “spawned a cluster of heresies.”
To refute the Eucharist, Ravenwolf offers this gem from Matthew 4:4 “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”
So true but this is exactly what Christ was elaborating in John 6:53 and what the early disciples and Church Fathers believed as the Eucharist, the “living bread of Christ Himself.” This is what the Resurrection is all about.
netmom insists that proof be shown how she and ealgeone have differing interpretations of Scripture.
The comment on different interpretations was based on the assumption they are not members of the same Episcopal or Protestant sect or sub-sect and do not attend the same local foursquare church or the same First Baptist, or First Presbyterian; or First Calvary; or First Emmanuel; or First Church of God. There are so many “Firsts” each differing from the other. We must know whether they are Baptists or Presbyterians.
For example some believe in Rapture others don’t. Neither sect believes in the Eucharist but both engage in the parody of serving communion with Baptists using only grape juice, while Presbyterians use either grape juice or wine. Southern Baptists hold to the “Baptist Faith & Message” as their doctrinal statement. Presbyterians hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith. You can see the tangled mess wrought in these clusters of heresies. Maybe netmom and ealgeone will explain.
I don’t think we need Protestants to inform us on the Eucharist when we have our own Theological Einstein of our times. Below is a link to his expostulation. But it comes with a warning. This is not material for kindergartners. It requires a minimum intellect to read, comprehend, and digest..
They cannot refute what St. Irenaeus wrote about 185 AD, about the Church’s realistic interpretation of the Eucharist as the risen body of Christ.
During your degree study did anyone ask if Christ taught ONE truth?
I have never been to a Catholic Church, but from reading the threads if there is one truth which the Catholic Church teaches it may well be the Resurrection & The Eucharist.
Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day’ (John 6:53-54)>>>>
If the apostles took these words literal why were they silent about it? why was it 150 years later that anything was written about it? ( using your information St. Irenaeus wrote about 185 AD )
What part of your 'fullness' do we Prots lack to receive salvation?
I've tried to get Mormons to show the FULLNESS the BoM supposedly has; but they can't seem to answer it either...
Some like to allude otherwise.
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.