Posted on 04/23/2018 7:28:38 AM PDT by Salvation
credit: J. Lippelmann, Catholic Standard
Last week in the Office of Readings of the Liturgy of the Hours we read from St. Justin Martyr who said:
No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes what we teach is true; Unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ (Apologia Cap 66: 6, 427-431)
St Justin may also have in mind a text from the Letter to the Hebrews which links proper doctrine to the reception of Holy Communion:
Brethren, Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace and not by their ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those devoted to them. For we have an altar from which those who serve at the [old] tabernacle have no right to eat. (Heb 13:9-10)
Thus Communion points to doctrine, not merely to hospitality. The Eucharist comes from a basic communion of belief and serves to strengthen that belief. It is no mere ceremony, it is, as we shall see, a family commnuion rooted in a common belief that makes us brothers and sisters in the Lord and in communion with who He is and what He teaches.
In the modern debate about who can and should receive Holy Communion there is generally the presumption that everyone has a right to approach the Eucharistic Sacrifice and partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Thus, to limit or discourage indiscriminate reception of Communion is not only dismissed as unjust, but also, contrary to the practice of Jesus Christ who “welcomed everyone,” even the worst of sinners.
In this sort of climate, it is necessary to explain the Church’s historical practice of what some call “closed communion.” Not everyone who uses this terminology means it pejoratively, though some do. But to some extent, it is fair to say, that we do have “closed communion.” For the Catholic Church, Holy Communion is not a “come one, come all” event. It is reserved for those who, by grace, preserve union with the Church through adherence to all the Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God. Our response of “Amen” at Holy Communion signifies our communion with these realities along with our faith in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
But many today have reduced Holy Communion to a mere sign of hospitality, such that if the Church does not extend Holy Communion to all, we are considered unkind. There is often a mistaken notion about the nature of the Last Supper (and the Eucharist that proceeds from it) that lurks behind this misconception. Many years ago, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger articulated the misunderstanding well. I summarize the description here from his Collected Works, Vol 11, Ignatius Press pp 273-274:
Nowadays [some] New Testament scholars … say that the Eucharist … is the continuation of the meals with sinners that Jesus had held … a notion with far-reaching consequences. It would mean that the Eucharist is the sinners’ banquet, where Jesus sits at the table; [that] the Eucharist is the public gesture by which we invite everyone without exception. The logic of this is expressed in a far-reaching criticism of the Church’s Eucharist, since it implies that the Eucharist cannot be conditional on anything, not depending on denomination or even on baptism. It is necessarily an open table to which all may come to encounter the universal God …
However, tempting the idea may be, it contradicts what we find in the Bible. Jesus’ Last Supper was not one of those meals he held with “publicans and sinners”. He made it subject to the basic form of the Passover, which implies that the meal was held in a family setting. Thus, he kept it with his new family, with the Twelve; with those whose feet he washed, whom he had prepared by his Word and by this cleansing of absolution (John 13:10) to receive a blood relationship with him, to become one body with him.
The Eucharist is not itself the sacrament of reconciliation, but in fact it presupposes that sacrament. It is the sacrament of the reconciled, to which the Lord invites all those who have become one with him; who certainly still remain weak sinners, but yet have given their hand to him and have become part of his family.
That is why, from the beginning, the Eucharist has been preceded by a discernment … (I Corinthians 11:27ff). The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles [the Didache] is one of the oldest writings outside the New Testament, from the beginning of the Second Century, it takes up this apostolic tradition and has the priest, just before distributing the sacrament saying: “Whoever is holy, let him approach, whoever is not, let him do penance” (Didache 10).
Thanks to Pope Benedict’s writing prior to his papacy, we can see the root of the problem: the failure to see the Eucharist for what it truly is—a sacred banquet wherein those who enjoy communion with the Lord (by His grace) partake of the sign and sacrament of that communion. Holy Communion serves to celebrate and deepen the communion already operative through the other sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Confession.
If you want to call this communion “closed,” fine, but at its heart it is more positively called a “sacrum convivium,” a sacred meal of those who share a life together (con = with or together + vivium = life). This is not a “come one, come all” meal; it is a Holy Banquet for those who wear the wedding garment. The garment is righteousness and those who refuse to wear it are cast out (cf: Matt 22:11-12 & Rev 19:8).
Many moderns surely would prefer a “no questions asked” invitation to all who wish to come. We moderns love this notion of inclusiveness and unity. But to a large degree it is a contrived unity that overlooks truth (the opposite of which is falsehood, not just a different viewpoint). Yes, it overlooks the truth necessary for honest, real, and substantive unity. Such a notion of communion is shallow at best and a lie at worst. How can people approach the Eucharist, the sacrament of Holy Communion and unity, and say “Amen” when they differ with the Church over essentials such as that Baptism is necessary; that there are seven Sacraments; that the Pope is the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ on Earth; that homosexual acts, fornication, and adultery are gravely sinful; that women cannot be admitted to Holy Orders; that there is in fact a priesthood; that Scripture must be read in the light of the Magisterium; and on and on? Saying that there is communion in such a case is either a contrivance or a lie, but in either case, it does not suffice for the “Amen” that is required at the moment of reception of Holy Communion.
Such divisions do not make for a family meal or a “sacrum convivium.” Hence, to share Holy Communion with Protestants, dissenters, and others who do not live in communion with the Church is incoherent. To paraphrase Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict), the Eucharist is not a table fellowship with publicans and other “sinners”; it is a family meal that presupposes grace and shared faith.
Tomorrow we can look to the need to receive Holy Communion, free of grave or serious sin.
OK, first off, you are depending heavily on a passage of Scripture that is of uncertain authenticity.
There is a lot of debate as to whether that part of Mark 16 was even in the original as the earliest manuscripts do not contain it and the writing style is different, leading to the conclusion that they were added on later.
But just as with ANY who use that passage, including the pentecostals and word of faith people, they pick what they want and ignore or outright deny the rest.
In the case of Catholicism, they depend heavily on that passage for support of baptism being required for salvation, yet as ealgeone pointed out, Jesus said that whoever does not BELIEVE is not saved.
Also, since y’all accpet that passage about baptism, what about the rest of the verse?
Where is Catholicism demanding that all believers speak in tongues? That they can snake handle or eat poison and be OK? What about healing the sick and casting out demons? I don’t see Catholicism insisting on those signs also following salvation of the believer and I certainly do not and never have seen any Catholic practice such things.
The pentecostals err in the opposite way. They ignore the part about baptism and focus instead on the signs as though that should be the normal Christian experience.
But sin is not counted against the believer so it doesn't matter if every specific sin is confessed at or by the time of death.
Romans 4:3-8 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
Scripture references for such claims are?
I know it's been beat into your head there are mortal sins....however, the NT is clear....all sin is mortal. The little lies you tell...the things you do everyday you don't even realize you've done...just one of those, apart from faith in Christ, is enough to separate you from God.
Recommend you read Colossians 2....pay special attention to vv13-14.
Read Ephesians 1 with special attention to vv13-14.
Once the believer is sealed by the Holy Spirit, they are not unsealed....ever. There is nothing in the NT to indicate otherwise.
Based on conversations with other Roman Catholics, and ya'll are all over the board on this issue it seems, one does not have to be baptized.
Example....if a person is about to die and professes faith in Christ, some of your fellow RCs say that person is saved through what RCs call a "baptism of desire"....even though that is not a NT teaching.
So water baptism is not what saves you based on that.
What this comes down to is faith.
Do you believe John 5:24?
Jesus told Nicodemus that whosoever believed in Him would not perish but have everlasting life. He didn't put any qualifiers on that to Nicodemus.
Either Jesus told him the truth...or told him a lie.
I going with the former...He told him the truth.
We come to Christ through belief in Him.
Just admit that you are wrong. So you know better than the God inspired Bible what are incorrect passages. Jesus told the Apostles Go forth Preach and Baptize.
Catholics have the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles in the oral tradition.
Just because you left the Catholic Church doesn’t make you more authoritative than the 2000 years of tradition that the Holy Spirit protects from error.
Don’t misrepresent that the Catholic Church doesn’t teach the importance of Faith in God and keeping His commandments.
Yes priests still exorcise the demons and devil from individuals. I know a priest (now a Bishop) that from the pulpit (a English speaker) spoke in Spanish to a Spanish audience and made an error in pronunciation that was brought to his attention. The next week the Holy Spirit gave him the ability to clearly speak and understand Spanish. Yes God still works miracles including Eucharistic miracles.
It seems to me that many preach that little faith is the same as a true faith in God. That implies that having a little faith allows one to ignore the teachings of Jesus that they don’t agree with.
If you do not believe in Baptism and that it forgives sins and it is necessary for salvation, then you may want to determine the effect on your soul.
May you truly understand the Truth and live it.
However, Rome does not have those oral teachings. Rome cannot definitively say, "xyz was said by Paul."
If Rome believes the ECFs are in 100% agreement on the issues they are deceiving themselves as these are not in agreement on the issues near and dear to Rome as has been demonstrated on these threads.
Rome claims these teachings don't contradict Scripture yet that is not the case....in many instances they do.
The Immaculate Conception is not even supported in Scripture per the Catholic Encyclopedia Online.
If Rome truly believed the ECFs writings were inspired they would have incorporated them in their canon at Trent. That Rome did not is telling.
It is also telling the early church did not consider these texts to be inspired and did not include them in the canon.
Rome has done what the Mormons have done....they've added to Scripture.
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
So if baptism were required for salvation, then why would Christ send Paul to preach the gospel and NOT baptize?
If baptism were required for salvation that would mean that the finished work of Christ on the cross was not enough to save people.
Anything you add to the cross in order to be saved is what you are trusting in.
If baptism were enough to save someone, Christ died for nothing. All we'd have to do then is be baptized and Jesus did not need to suffer.
Claiming that ANYTHING besides the cross ensures salvation makes a mockery of the suffering and death of Jesus. It makes all He endured meaningless and useless.
That’s not an answer to the question.
You claim that those 15 things are needed to be saved.
IOW, Jesus death on the cross is not enough.
What if someone gets all but one?
God says, “Tsk, tsk, tsk, too bad. No heaven for you.”?
And Paul CLEARLY says that circumcision is no longer required because ht at is law keeping.
Therefore, what some people have done is replaced circumcision with baptism and set up their own Law and law keeping requirements.
If the Law that God Himself gave from Mt. Sinai wasn't good enough to save anyone, then any new law anyone else sets up is certainly not going to.
Tell me, why did God give the Law? Do you know?
I did NOT say that "A total of 15 things are needed to be saved," as if this were a test requiring a numerical passing score. What I did say, which is quite verifiable and unobjectionable, is (exact quote) "How Scripture proclaims we are saved".
Every one of those citations of Scripture answers the question, sometime explicit in the text, "Lord, what must I do to be saved?" - "Lord, what must I do to gain eternal life?" - or even the straight assertion, "The Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these."
All of the items listed in that post are parts of ONE THING, which is how Christ saves us through faith.
Whatever I say,myself, is sure to fall short. But I think the Scriptures themselves are pretty clear. And I could have doubled the number of verses: the Scriptures on "how we are saved" are just so rich. Altogether, they make for beautiful reading, and much reason to glorify Christ our Savior and our God.
Examining Scriptures, How Scripture proclaims we are saved:
By believing in Jesus Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)
By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)
By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)
By eating His flesh and drinking His blood (Jn 6)
By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)
By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)
By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)
By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)
By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)
By His blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)
By His righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)
By keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17)
By our words (Matt 12:37)
By compassion toward the needy (John 10:25-37; Matthew 25:31-46)
By enduring to the end (Matt.24:13)
Of COURSE Peter was talking about “water” baptism (which pretty much everyone just calls baptism...) if you read the whole verse:
“18 For Christ also suffered[b] once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which[c] he went and proclaimed[d] to the spirits in prison, 20 because[e] they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.”
1. Peter compares baptism to Noah’s flood. I mean, he literally says that baptism corresponds to the water of the flood. So of course there’s water.
2. If there was no water involved, why would Peter feel it necessary to mention that the removal of dirt isn’t what saves you?
And well since “water” baptism is the ONLY Christian baptism there is (since the death of John the Baptist, anyway), the idea of separating the two is more than kind of ridiculous. Because... you can’t.
And well, Communion does forgive your sins (because Jesus said it did), so yeah, in that way, it does save you.
And actually - faith doesn’t save, at least, not directly. Jesus by his grace through his death and resurrection saves you, and this salvation is given to you through faith.
You can’t pit faith against baptism and communion. They’re all one in the same.
And I’m not Catholic.
Examining Scriptures, How Scripture proclaims we are saved:
(15 ways listed)
So the question remains, if you don't take communion as Catholicism says must happen, then are you saved?
What about if you do all the rest but communion?
What if you do communion and not the rest?
Do you get to pick and choose which ones you want to do or do you have to do them all?
Oh geez, metmom.
Tagline
“Scripture references for such claims are?”
Washes away your sins:
Ezekiel 36:25-33
Acts 2:38
Bestows upon us the Holy Spirit:
John 3:5
Acts 2:38
Grants us new life in Christ:
Romans 6:2-6
Colossians 2:12
Galatians 3:27
Titus 3:5
1 Peter 3:21
Absorbs us into the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church:
Matthew 28:19
Ephesians 5:25-26
Probably could include the four from the proceeding section in here too (since if you’re given new life in Christ, you’re part of the Mystical Body fo Christ, the Church)
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.