Posted on 08/20/2016 7:45:03 AM PDT by Salvation
Msgr. Charles Pope Catholic, August 28, 2016
Question: How will God judge non-Catholics at the time of their death? — William Bandle, Manchester, Missouri
Answer: Scripture says, “God does not see as a mortal ... The Lord looks into the heart” (1 Sam 16:7). Thus, God, who knows our hearts, will judge us based on what is there. Not all have had the same opportunity to come to know the Lord, his Church and the help of the sacraments. God is just; he knows this and will judge accordingly.
Jesus says, “That servant who knew his master’s will but did not make preparations or act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely and the servant who was ignorant of his master’s will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating, shall be beaten only lightly” (Lk 12:47-48).
In terms of non-Catholics who lacked some knowledge or sacraments of the Church, God will look into their hearts and judge them based on what they reasonably could have known and their actions based on that.
Therefore, to say that God looks into the heart does not mean that he merely looks to a person’s feelings or disposition. Rather, as Scripture says, we will be judged by our deeds (see Rom 2:6-11). Did our actions correspond to what we knew was expected of us or not?
|
|
Thus, the degree of a person’s knowledge of God’s will and his obedience to that knowledge in deeds will be key on the Day of Judgment. This does not mean all non-Catholics and other nonbelievers simply get a pass. Their ignorance of full Catholic teaching must be what is called “invincible ignorance,” meaning a lack of knowledge that they could not reasonably overcome. Thus, if one is lazy or makes excuses when seeking the truth, God will take it into account.
Since the Lord alone sees into our heart, he alone will be our just judge.
Yes, BB. I agree. It is the same way I responded when I was a Catholic. Praise Jesus, I am now an ex Catholic. I am sure you and MM are glad to be ex Catholics too. 😇
2,000 years of Christian teaching holds that Jesus was referring to the Eucharist which he instituted at the Last Supper.
You disprove it.
My apologies for the big words but I’m not trying to intimidate anyone.
Don't eat the blood, the life is in the blood
Genesis 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life , that is, its blood.
Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.”
Leviticus 7:26-27 Moreover, you shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwelling places. Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people.”
Leviticus 17:10-14 “If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.
“Any one also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.
Leviticus 19:26 “You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes.
Deuteronomy 12:16 Only you shall not eat the blood ; you shall pour it out on the earth like water.
Deuteronomy 12:23 Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life , and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.
Deuteronomy 15:23 Only you shall not eat its blood; you shall pour it out on the ground like water.
Acts 15:12-29 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
“‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter:
“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
Jesus called the cup *the fruit of the vine*.
Matthew 26:29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Mark 14:25 Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
Luke 22:18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
In John 6, at the end, Jesus tells that it is not physical eating that gives life, but Catholics wholesale ignore that verse, although it is part of the same passage.
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not break it or do away with it.
He could not have either drank the cup if it were blood or commanded or demanded that the apostles do without making Him a lawbreaker, which would have meant He wasn't the spotless lamb of God.
He would have sinned.
Peter himself also said that he had never eaten anything unclean. Eating blood would have made him unclean and if he thought someone were telling him to eat blood, being an observant Jew wishing to celebrate the Passover, he would have refused.
Acts 10:14But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.”
Your Old Testament quotes have no bearing. It seems you just flail illogically. Let’s stop discussing like this.
No, you made the statement.
It’s YOUR responsibility to prove it is valid.
It’s not a matter that someone has to accept any statement that someone throws out there until it can be disproved. It’s up to the person making the claim to provide proof that they are correct.
As that famous FReeper Iscool stated once......
“Why do you think we should have to run all over the internet searching for something that you claim is the truth??? You got something? post it...”
Neither is dan.
That’s just his posting style.
It constantly amazes me the casual and callous attitude Catholics have to Scripture.
God will not change or deny Himself or violate Himself.
Besides, the Council at Jerusalem is NEW Testament and the prohibition against eating blood was reiterated there by John, who headed up the council. The Holy spirit reiterated the command and John passed the message along.
Here's the passage in Acts 15, again......
Acts 15:12-29 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
“‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter:
“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
Now,you still need to prove that Jesus was referring to the Last Supper that early in His ministry.
Your comment: “Furthermore, I don’t agree that just because the word “is” is used necessarily equates the words. “
Must be the Clinton lawyer definition of “is”.
The Real Presence of Jesus after the consecration of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus has been an accepted doctrine of the Catholic Church since the beginning of the Church.
Your religion can either accept this doctrine or not, but Jesus did say very clearly that this was food and drink for our salvation. The actual Transubstantiation does require valid Holy Orders.
This may help explain the difference.
There is a lot of confusion (even among Catholic clergy, I’ve found) about the difference between the Catholics teach about Communion and what other churches (like the Lutheran teach about Communion).
To understand the difference, we have to understand the difference between “accidents” and “substance” .
The “accidents” of bread and wine are how it looks and how it tastes. The “substance” of the bread and wine are what it IS i.e. bread and wine.
We can further divide substance into physical substance and non physical substance. Humans are interesting because we are a combination of:
accidents (what we look like)
physical substance (our human bodies - what we are)
spiritual substance (our souls created in the Image and Likeness of God)
We can change the accidents of bread by for example, putting it in the toaster. Now it looks different but it STILL is bread. We can change our own accidents by coloring our hair or losing weight (or gaining weight) or even putting makeup on. But whatever our hair color is or what our faces look like, or our bodies look like, we remain human in physical substance, and individuals (”US”) in spiritual substance.
Bread and wine are not human so they only have TWO parts, a physical substance and the accidents or what they look like.
What Lutherans believe about Communion seems to vary, not only with the conference the church belongs to but also with the individual Lutheran. I have encountered many Lutherans who not only feel it is merely a symbol for Jesus’ Body and Blood but say that this is what they were taught in their Confirmation classes. (Even one from the Missouri Synod told me this).
However, the official belief seems to differ. Apparently “Consubstantiation” or the idea that the Presence of Christ is added to the elements ONLY DURING THE SERVICE and leaves after the service is ended, is not taught in the two largest conferences, the ELCA and the LCMS. They teach, according to one theologian I have dialogued with, that during the service, the elements remain bread and wine but also contain the Body and Blood of Christ, Soul and Divinity. This theologian also told me that if there is any Sacrament left over after Communion, it must either be consumed by the minister (whom he called a priest) or else reserved in a place of dignity and safe from defilement (for example, Sacrament taken to the sick later). The ELCA is trying to encourage Communion at every service. The LCMS may already HAVE Communion at every service.
If in fact the churches TEACH this, it is very close to Transubstantiation, however, there still exists the question of whether it really DOES become the Body and Blood of Christ if a non Catholic priest who has not been ordained “in succession” is presiding in a Community which still rejects some important Catholic beliefs (like salvation by grace alone THROUGH faith and good works and “Salvific Universal” or Baptism of Desire and of Blood)
From my readings and studies, it appeared that Martin Luther went back and forth about Transubstantiation and in the end of his life, felt it WAS true. The following might have been written years earlier when Luther was in the mood to feel that Communion was a symbol and no more:
Martin Luther wrote:
As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread, as Paul himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10, 16: The bread which we break. And 1 Cor. 11, 28: Let him so eat of that bread. (Smalcald Articles, Part III, Article VI)
In other words, Luther says because St Paul referred to Communion as bread, that means Paul was saying the SUBSTANCE of Communion was NOT changed during the Mass and it always remains Bread and Wine. But taken IN context this doesn’t make much sense because if it was JUST bread, why did Paul in 1 Corr 11:27 ff write:
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.
If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment;
In the Augsberg Confession which many orthodox Lutheran churches of today follow however, it defines Communion as the Body and Blood of Jesus but does not elaborate.
Now let’s look at what Catholics believe about Communion.
In transubstantiation, the SUBSTANCE of the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus so that, although it retains its “accidents” (the way it looks and tastes) it is no longer bread and wine. And once thus changed, it cannot go back to being bread and Wine again.
Let’s look at this a bit closer.
Here is a diagram of what the bread is before transubstantiation:
We can notice several things about this. The bread is finite (limited) and physical BOTH in looks (accident) and substance (what it is).
Now let’s look at Communion AFTER transubstantiation:
And as we notice, the Bread is still finite and limited in its accident (how it looks) BUT in its substance, it is no longer PHYSICAL as it becomes the entire Person and Divinity of Jesus! That means the substance of the Eucharist is INFINITE! (By logical deduction it must be like this because otherwise, if it were still physical, we would ask what PART of Jesus’ Body did we receive, an ear or a finger). The substance of the Eucharist is NON physical even though the accidents (how it looks) remains physical.
So what happens when we consume the Eucharist. We don’t know exactly what happens to the accident since in Communion only the accidents are physical (what it looks like) but Jesus in His total Body, Soul and Divinity combines with OUR non physical part, our soul, in the most intimate Embrace ever!
Which is why we say before Communion “Happy are They who are called to His Supper”.
Since the Communion Bread is permanently changed, if we have any left after Mass, we must keep it in a special place and we respect it as the Body and Blood of Our Lord because that’s exactly what it IS!
Perhaps this is why it is called, the “miracle of transubstantiation.”!
If you read John 6, Jesus explains that He was going to give us His Body and Blood and that those who did not eat and drink of it “had no life within them”. His listeners, well familiar with symbols, understood Jesus to be TALKING LITERALLY and they remarked “Lord these words make no sense!” Jesus did NOT correct them but simply repeated what He had said before. At the end of John 6, it states that MOST OF JESUS’s Disciples LEFT him and Jesus did NOT call them back and correct them at all. He allowed them to leave and turned to Peter and asked if Peter was going to leave also and Peter said his famous “Lord to whom shall we go - for You alone have words of Eternal life”
So what the Catholics teach about Communion and what has been taught since the earliest writings of the church is correct according to the 6th chapter of John!
Thus, although the beliefs sound similar and may well be similar, fact remains, many Lutherans not only don’t believe in the “True Presence” but also, it seems that some pastors in all Conferences of Lutherans are still teaching that Communion is just a symbol. As I have shown above, whether you are really getting the Body and Blood of Jesus outside of a Catholic church is a leap of faith. Jesus told us that branches which break off the vine, wither and die off. He said HE is the vine but he also has closely identified Himself with the church He founded (for example He asked Saul who was persecuting Christians, “Saul Saul, why persecutist Thou ME?”
A miraculous change occurs which we call “transubstantiation.” But note: the King of Glory does not descend in order to “enter” the bread and wine. No, instead of his coming down, he draws the essence of the elements to where he is, at the right hand of the Father. The risen Lord draws the inner reality of the bread and wine in all celebrations of the Mass unto himself and indeed into himself. Thus he maintains his own bodily unity. In other words, Jesus Christ himself is not changed into the essence of the elements of bread and wine. Rather, the essence of those elements is changed into him.
and
But in no non-Catholic church (excepting the Eastern Orthodox) can you receive Jesus Christ himself, Body and Blood, Soul and divinity. Because of the lack of apostolic orders for their ministers, none of the non-Catholic communion services is the Eucharist. Therefore, in no non-Catholic church can you be literally united with Jesus Christ. (”JESUS GIVES HIMSELF TO US: TRANSUBSTANTIATION” By Fr. Ray Ryland
(In the above passage, Ray Ryland hinted at the problem I brought up i.e. that even if the Communion beliefs are correct theologically, we cannot be sure that it IS really the Body and Blood of Jesus in churches which have been the branches which broke off the Vine.)
NOTE: Ray Ryland’s pamphlet (quoted above) can be purchased on The Coming Home Network, a site run by ex-Lutheran clergy
http://net-abbey.org/luthcomm.htm
I disagree with your analysis.
And you disagree with a principal Catholic doctrine that has passed down through the Catholic faith that was established by Jesus Christ.
So I accept the words of Jesus and not your comments.
Catholic obsession with good deeds is one of our differences and has led at times to progressive quasi Catholics I see and hear
In my life of almost 60 year old southerner who lived in New Yawk 8 years and Latino Catholic nations
I found Catholics more socially moderate to liberal than my own peers and more likely to leave or ignore their faith
Personally I think Catholics have been watered down
This is something I noticed all my life
My mom who was half Catholic at birth always explained they have confessional.....we don’t
In any event .....the most conservative devout Catholics I’ve ever known have been here on free republic
Not in my real world experience
My upbringing religious creed was more about obedience than good works once one had accepted Christ as his savior
Non of this Jewish style leave the world in a better place that some Catholics adopted I guess who knows when
We were taught Christian charity like Samaritans purse but were taught a life for Christ was more about the hereafter and like I said....in laymans terms .....obedience
Not near the focus on good deeds
Yet another striking divergence....for what it’s worth
I applaud muscular Catholicism....,they kept Islam at bay and preserved traditions and knowledge and history....hat tip for that
Indeed, as there is no contention that this was addressed to believers, but who can fall away, (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; 10:38) and only location condition of any unfaithful servant is with the lost, with the latter two dealing with the degree of punishment. It is up to you to prove that this refers to purgatory. Just accept that this text does not teach that.
You censorious mind-reading rant is not only wrong, but is another poor excuse for avoiding answering the questions which you need to face since you chose to enter the debate here, and chose to present the pope as the solution to division. I contend because faith is the most important subject, with Scriptural Truth being life, and thus Scripture itself spends far more words on it than politics, philosophy, sports, etc. And if you complain about verbosity, then you must abhor most encyclicals, including the latest one. But while you chose to enter the debate here your avoidance of pertinent questions confesses your position is indefensible.
The Ten Commandments, the foundation of our Moral Order, which governs Mankind, aggregates 75 words in sum.
So having presented the pope as the solution to division, and being asked what level of teachings require assent, you now simply present the The Ten Commandments? Quite the retreat, and which is not all that Scripture teaches in all its details of love for God and man, and is not a solution to the issue of interpretation.
Meanwhile, the pretentious charge of disguising ignorance w/verbiage is pure bombast, as the verbiage of mine which he implicitly attacks is what refutes ignorance, while his silence indicates his own ignorance of the problems of presenting the pope as the solution to division.
Here you go, by the grace of God. But once again disdain for extensive refutation can be excused as disdain for verbosity. By a RC no less.
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.