|
Author
|
Topic: Bishops of Illinois call for removal of Left Behind books and videos
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
Bill Gilman - The concept of an evolving doctrine and that somehow popes have the god-given authoity to add new rules and regulations outside what is written in Scripture is ludicrous and heretical.
Very true but how does one chop through the fog and get these people to realize this?
Mark 9:29 So He said to them, "This kind can come out by nothing but prayer and fasting."
Guess I answered my own question.
IP: Logged | 
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
Clearly what the Bishop of Illinois objects to is the non-Catholic theology employed in the Left Behind series of books - not specifically that the books are a fictional account of a coming event.
The Roman Church likes to believe that they cannot error doctrinally, but the Left Behind books are based on imagery from Revelation that would indicate that the institutionalized church prior to the Second Coming of Christ would be an apostate church. They would not believe that their church - the largest in Christendom, could become part of an apostate church with doctrinal error. That would sort of screw up their theory of infallibility.
Basically what the Roman Church would like to believe is that they can conquer the world for Christ prior to His return but clearly Scripture does not support their view.
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
Originally posted by Gospel_Syntax:
I say 'good for the Bishop'!
Why? Because I find too many Christians believe works of Christian fantasy and fiction because they do not spend the time to read the Bible to see if what they are reading in the books is true.
Well said Gospel_Syntax! We should stick to what the scriptures tell us. The same can be said about that new book out called "The Da Vinci Code" ... I do not know much about the book except that it is supposed to contain secrets kept by the early Christian Church that threaten to destroy Christianity as we know it. It is marketed as fiction but people nowadays tend to read into things.
When you finish reading the Left Behind series, it is still FICTION and FANTASY whether there are prophecies of rapture or not. Prophecies are not true until they happen. If the rapture comes it will be a moot point for Christians because, if it is true, we won't be here. I think Christians being murdered everyday results in a rapture for each one of them. By all means, hope and pray for Christ's return but when it comes to writing, fiction is just fiction
I completely agree with you!
IP: Logged |
|
|
Gospel_Syntax
Advanced Member
Member # 2252
|
posted
I say 'good for the Bishop'!
Why? Because I find too many Christians believe works of Christian fantasy and fiction because they do not spend the time to read the Bible to see if what they are reading in the books is true.
When you finish reading the Left Behind series, it is still FICTION and FANTASY whether there are prophecies of rapture or not. Prophecies are not true until they happen. If the rapture comes it will be a moot point for Christians because, if it is true, we won't be here. I think Christians being murdered everyday results in a rapture for each one of them. By all means, hope and pray for Christ's return but when it comes to writing, fiction is just fiction
--------------------
Gospel_Syntax
Posts: 21 | From: Wyoming | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
No, I would only say that as a denomination, the Roman Catholic church was established at the Council of Trent. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
No, I rather doubt anyone would say that Protestantism preceeds Catholicism. But clearly Biblical Christianity did indeed preceed Roman Catholicism particularly as we see it today. The early church had only the apostles and their appointed deacons & elders - no Roman Catholic pope or bishops to tell them what to believe. Of course, besides the apostles they had the OT Scripture and incipently the letters of the apostles and their close associates. ![[wave3]](graemlins/18.gif)
Your quotes by Martin Luther is probably those he made before he got kicked out of the Roman Church and maybe even before his trial or the indulgences issue. It would be interesting to see those quotes in context.
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RioLion:
Bill Gilman That said, I DO NOT believe catholics worship an idol by believing in the transubstantiation.
I have to take a differing view as it becomes an idol in their Eucharistic ceremony.
Transubstantiation is "the [magical] change in the eucharistic elements from the substance of bread and wine to the substance of the body of Christ with only the appearances of bread and wine remaining" - Webster's dictionary.
I think that INRI would agree that the Roman Church teaches that the faithful are to "hold the Eucharist in highest honor ... worshipping it with supreme adoration" and with "the same worship of latria or adoration that we offer to God" (Catechism 147, 148, 1178, etc.)
The 2nd Vatican Council states the following -
"There should be no doubt in anyone's mind 'that all the faithful ought to show to this most holy sacrament the worship which is due to the true God, as has always been the custom of the [Roman] Catholic Church. Nor is it to be adored any less because it was instituted by Christ to be eaten.'"
The bread after consecration is placed into a container called a "monstrance", which resembles a sunburst and placed on an altar for the faithful to adore.
Worship of anything but God, by definition is idolatry. Even worship of the Bible itself is idolatry in the strictly sense of the definition.
Yes I agree, but the Eucharist unlike the Bible is JESUS CHRIST [Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity] who is GOD so this is not idolatry.
This was the concern of some of the Reformers in that they viewed the Eucharist or Lord's Supper as a memorial and the elements as symbolic; viewing the Roman Church interpretation as idolatry of bread and wine.
That would be Zwingli who thought the Eucharist to be merely symbolic, but keep in mind both Luther and Calvin believed in the Real Presence of JESUS CHRIST in the Holy Eucharist, holding almost Catholic views on this issue.
I do agree with you that most Roman Catholics in the streets are only intend upon believing in God and living a good ethical life,
I agree, thank you.
simply believing the Eucharist as symbolic.
NO, any informed Catholic knows that the Blessed Sacrament [The Holy Eucharist] is truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior JESUS CHRIST.
This is one of the reasons that I have to respect those Roman Catholics that are genuinely born again Christians
Yes we are indeed born-again, scripture tells us that we are born again through baptism.
as they are my brothers or sisters in Christ.
Yes all of us Christians are brothers and sisters in CHRIST.
Their Lord is Christ, not some denomination which had its birth at the Council of Trent.
RioLion, your interpretation of Church history truly amazes me ... I have never heard anyone claim what you do, that the Catholic Church was established at the Council of Trent? The Council of Trent was called in response to the attacks levied against orthodox Christianity by the Protestant Reformation. If your claim is true, you must take your argument to the next logical step, that Protestantism actually PRECEDES Catholicism! ![[biglaugha]](graemlins/biglaugha.gif)
Also, I know the Catholic Church not to be a denomination but rather the one, true Church that our Lord established 2000 years ago.
Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. [The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyraeans, 107 A.D.]
“For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic
Church” [St. Augustine]
"I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted . . . It is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better." [Martin Luther - Letter to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519]
"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics) that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it." [Martin Luther - His Commentary on St. John, Chapter 16]
IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
Bill Gilman That said, I DO NOT believe catholics worship an idol by believing in the transubstantiation.
I have to take a differing view as it becomes an idol in their Eucharistic ceremony.
Transubstantiation is "the [magical] change in the eucharistic elements from the substance of bread and wine to the substance of the body of Christ with only the appearances of bread and wine remaining" - Webster's dictionary.
I think that INRI would agree that the Roman Church teaches that the faithful are to "hold the Eucharist in highest honor ... worshipping it with supreme adoration" and with "the same worship of latria or adoration that we offer to God" (Catechism 147, 148, 1178, etc.)
The 2nd Vatican Council states the following -
"There should be no doubt in anyone's mind 'that all the faithful ought to show to this most holy sacrament the worship which is due to the true God, as has always been the custom of the [Roman] Catholic Church. Nor is it to be adored any less because it was instituted by Christ to be eaten.'"
The bread after consecration is placed into a container called a "monstrance", which resembles a sunburst and placed on an altar for the faithful to adore.
Worship of anything but God, by definition is idolatry. Even worship of the Bible itself is idolatry in the strictly sense of the definition.
This was the concern of some of the Reformers in that they viewed the Eucharist or Lord's Supper as a memorial and the elements as symbolic; viewing the Roman Church interpretation as idolatry of bread and wine.
I do agree with you that most Roman Catholics in the streets are only intend upon believing in God and living a good ethical life, simply believing the Eucharist as symbolic. This is one of the reasons that I have to respect those Roman Catholics that are genuinely born again Christians as they are my brothers or sisters in Christ. Their Lord is Christ, not some denomination which had its birth at the Council of Trent.
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bill Gilman:
I won't say whether I know that the bread and wine are or are not the actual body and blood of Christ. (Though why is it that the congreagation in a catholic church is never allowed to share in the wine, just curious, that one's bugged me since I was a kid)
Bill Gilman,
I have read your post and I must say that I appreciate your openness and tolerance towards Catholicism [even though you may not agree with it] not shown by many others I have encountered in the past, so I thank you.
That being said, it must be a long time since you investigated Catholicism for Catholics have partaked in both the Lord's Body AND Blood for some 40 years since Vatican II. This is merely a practice of the Church [something able to change] for the early Church received under the Body only to dispel some early heresies in the Church. We know that by either receiving the Body or the Blood we receive the same JESUS CHRIST. I believe the scripture cannot be ignored in regards to the reality of JESUS in the Eucharist if you truly read it without prejudice.
But I will say this, no one is infallable on any subject.
The Church understands that John 14:26 teaches us that JESUS sent the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles and successors [the Church] to guide and protect her from error in regards to faith and morals.
Peter may be considered the first pope but no where in scripture does it say that Peter was infallible on matters of faith. In fact, Paul vehemently rebukes Peter on a faith matter.
This proves that the first Pope St. Peter was not perfect as we know he was not. St. Paul's rebuke on St. Peter in regards to those "of the circumcision" was not a correction on faith or morals but rather on the personal practice/discipline Peter had fallen into.
The concept of an evolving doctrine and that somehow popes have the god-given authoity to add new rules and regulations outside what is written in Scripture is ludicrous and heretical.
Development of Doctrine is merely the act of more clearly defining known truths as the Church grows to understand them over the centuries so that these truths are more palletable for the faithful. This development is never a departure from a previous truth but rather and outgrowth or flowering from what was previously understood. Afterall, the Church was not bestowed with immediate and infinite knowledge about GOD. It took the Church 800 years to formulate fully her doctrine on the Trinity [three persons in one GOD: Father, Son and Holy Spirit]. This is merely one of many examples.
That said, I DO NOT believe catholics worship an idol by believing in the transubstantiation.
Thanks once again for your tolerance ... I do believe scripture is very clear on this. Thanks for your reply.
I am still waiting for a reply from RioLion on my last post, I would like to hear what he has to say about what I wrote. Thanks and GOD Bless!
IP: Logged |
|
|
Bill Gilman
Advanced Member
Member # 2002
|
posted
I won't say whether I know that the bread and wine are or are not the actual body and blood of Christ. (Though why is it that the congreagation in a catholic church is never allowed to share in the wine, just curious, that one's bugged me since I was a kid)
But I will say this, no one is infallable on any subject.
Peter may be considered the first pope but no where in scripture does it say that Peter was infallible on matters of faith. In fact, Paul vehemently rebukes Peter on a faith matter.
The concept of an evolving doctrine and that somehow popes have the god-given authoity to add new rules and regulations outside what is written in Scripture is ludicrous and heretical.
That said, I DO NOT believe catholics worship an idol by believing in the transubstantiation.
--------------------
Lord, save me!
Posts: 56 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
I have been made aware that the subject on this particular tread concerns the Left Behind books being banned by the Bishop of Illinois. If we wish to discuss other things we need to establish a different tread in that way others can better participate.
![[clap2]](graemlins/clap2.gif)
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RioLion:
In regard to ancient interpretations of the Eucharist -
The Didache simply refers to the Lord's Supper as spiritual food and drink with no indication that the elements are transformed in any way. Outside of Scripture this is probably the oldest document we have on this subject.
So the Didache is silent on the issue, this does not mean it was symbolic but rather maybe that this belief was not questioned at this time.
Irenaeus of Lyons clearly believed the elements became the body & blood of Jesus at consecration but he also stated that they were composed of 2 realities - one earthly and the other spiritual.
I don't know about the latter for you did not reveal your source. This is what I know:
Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the
Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).
Tertullian spoke of the elements in the Eucharist as symbols or figures which represented the body & blood of Christ. He specifically stated that these were *not* the literal body and blood of the Lord. He maintained that Jesus was speaking figuratively and that he consecrated the wine 'in memory of his blood'. This is first century.
I am not familiar with these claims from Tertullian, just those claims he made as a Christian writer [and they do not indicate a symbolic understanding].
Tertullian
"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
If this is the same Tertullian, he could not have written any works in the 1st century because he was not born until well into the 2nd century but if you refer to his early works they were probably as a pagan for he was pagan and then converted to Christianity and then later Montanism and then started his own sect.
A pagan until middle life, he had shared the pagan prejudices against Christianity, and had indulged like others in shameful pleasures. His conversion was not later than the year 197, and may have been earlier. He embraced the Faith with all the ardour of his impetuous nature. He became a priest, no doubt of the Church of Carthage. Monceaux, followed by d'Ales, considers that his earlier writings were composed while he was yet a layman, and if this be so, then his ordination was about 200. His extant writings range in date from the apologetics of 197 to the attack on a bishop who is probably Pope Callistus (after 218). It was after the year 206 that he joined the Montanist sect, and he seems to have definitively separated from the Church about 211 (Harnack) or 213 (Monceaux). After writing more virulently against the Church than even against heathen and persecutors, he separated from the Montanists and founded a sect of his own. The remnant of the Tertullianists was reconciled to the Church by St. Augustine.
Clement of Alexandria called the elements symbols of the body & blood of Christ, and taught that the communicant received *not* the physical but the spiritual life of Christ.
Clement of Alexandria
"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Origen, the castrated saint, spoke of the elements in the Eucharist in spiritual & allegorical terms.
Origen
"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:56]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).
Eusebius of Caesarea identified the elements with the body & blood of Christ, but like Tertullian, saw the elements as being symbolical or representative of spiritual realities. He specifically states that the bread & wine are symbols of the Lord's body and blood and that Christ's words in John 6 are to be understood spiritually & figuratively as opposed to a physical and literal sense.
Please site this source for me so I can look it up. I really know Eusebius to be nothing more than a Church historian, not a theologian. He was the first to compile a history of the Catholic Church in his work "Ecclesiastical History of the Church" ~ which I own.
Interestingly, Webster goes on to show that the views on the Eucharist by St. Augustine are obviously in direct opposition to those of the Council of Trent. Augustine gave very clear instructions and principles for determining when a passage of Scripture must always be interpreted in the light of the entire revelation of Scripture, he concluded and he use John 6 as a specific example of passage that should be interpreted figuratively. He argued that the sacraments including the Eucharist are *signs and figures* which represent or symbolize spiritual realities. He made a distinction between the physical, historical body of Christ, and the sacramental presence, maintaining that Christ's physical body could *not* literally be present in the sacrament of the Eucharist because he is physically at the right hand of God in heaven, and will be there until he comes again.
I am not sure where you got that old Augustine [as you call him] taught a figurative belief and that it was in opposition to the Council of Trent, certainly not! Even if they were in opposition, I must add that the teachings of one individual saint are not infallible unlike a Council and rather the writings of the Church fathers should be taken in their entirety to see how the early Church believed.
[b]Augustine
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
...
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).
All the above is from William Webster "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History" pages 118-121. I would suggest that you get yourself a copy of his book.
RioLion, why would I read that book? The author is well-known for his bias against the Catholic Church and is known for selective quoting of Church fathers and not taking their works in their entirety, he is basically looking for one-liners taken out of context that may sound damaging to the Church. You should take a look at the book by Stephen K. Ray called "Upon this Rock" where he refutes Webster's claims and points out his selective quoting probably in the same way I have already done in this post. Of course Steve is a Catholic convert but he is revealing the truth he has found, he definitely does not have an axe to grind with Fundamentalism for he loves the faith from whence he came. Maybe you should pick up a work from an Orthodox who would know history but not accept the papacy as Rome understands it for an unbiased view of this?
In any case, there are good logical reasons why I reject the transubstaniation viewpoint as it smacks of something along the lines of what a witch doctor or shaman would perform. It seems ludicrous to believe that the body of Jesus is scattered all over the world and is handled by some priest or mere man.
GOD often chose to use the lowly to do His work. JESUS often used PHYSICAL things like water, wine, bread, fish, mud, etc to perform his miracles ... He had no need to do this for He could just do it but He CHOSE to do it and so this continues even to this day. JESUS cannot be in more than one place at one time??? He can't? Is this not GOD we are talking about???
Straight from the mouth of JESUS:
Matthew 19:26
26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
JESUS was quite clear in John 6 stating that the Eucharist is truly His Body and Blood something like 6 times no less. We should be lead by faith, not human logic.
Now as I pointed out, you must rely on the interpretations of your church in what you believe about the Eucharist as clearly, even the ancient Fathers held diverse views.
You adhere to the teachings of your non-Catholic Church, same thing. The Catholic Church was given authority to teach and that is the difference. Diverse views? They may have differed slightly between individuals in the Church as our understanding grew on the awesome reality of JESUS in the Eucharist; however, if look you at the entirety of the early Church fathers it becomes abundantly clear that they believed that the Eucharist is truly the flesh and blood of our Lord JESUS CHRIST. What an intimate relationship with our Lord you are missing out on. I suggest you read those early Christian fathers you quoted from in their entirety so you can see for yourself.
If you wish to believe the Roman Church that they truly speak for God and trust your eternal salvation to them - in light of the morally degenerative history of that institution, then you are free to do so. To say that they are correct in doctrine and not practice is much like trusting a former bank robber with your life savings. No thanks!
You are to use the Church as a "guide", not the chauffer as many Christians including Catholics think. We are all adults here, we cannot expect to be spoon fed.
"your elders not practicing what they preach" ... did JESUS say anything about this? YES.
Matthew 23:1-3 (RSV)
[1] Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples,
[2] "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat;
[3] so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
Peace brother.
IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
Why then of all churches do Satanists steal the Eucharist from the Catholic Church for use in their black mass? Because it is the real deal my friend.
No, not at all! The Satanist would mock anything that the religionist considered sacred including the Eucharist, rather it is in reality sacred or not.
One has to bear in mind that the church prior to the Reformation has murdered literally thousands of people accused of witchcraft or Satanism. After all they got thousands of 'confessions' from their victims on how Satan has involved himself with them. It is no wonder that they would mock anything religious or considered sacred by any church. They have little love for the church or for anything the church deems sacred or holy.
As for the Eucharistic miracles on record, this belongs to a study known as the occult. One only has to analyze the messages coming from these occultic events and compare them to scripture to determine their source. ![[Bible]](graemlins/bible.gif)
The occurrence of a miracle does not in itself establish itself as being from God contrary to what most Roman Catholics would believe. The Biblical Christian that has a relationship with the Lord does not need to fear or believe in those kinds of things as many simply depict the facts that we are at the end of the end times in which miracles will also be wrought by the demonic. There are few in the church today that are able to discern these kinds of things. ![[crying]](graemlins/crying.gif)
IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
In regard to ancient interpretations of the Eucharist -
The Didache simply refers to the Lord's Supper as spiritual food and drink with no indication that the elements are transformed in any way. Outside of Scripture this is probably the oldest document we have on this subject.
Irenaeus of Lyons clearly believed the elements became the body & blood of Jesus at consecration but he also stated that they were composed of 2 realities - one earthly and the other spiritual.
Tertullian spoke of the elements in the Eucharist as symbols or figures which represented the body & blood of Christ. He specifically stated that these were *not* the literal body and blood of the Lord. He maintained that Jesus was speaking figuratively and that he consecrated the wine 'in memory of his blood'. This is first century.
Clement of Alexandria called the elements symbols of the body & blood of Christ, and taught that the communicant received *not* the physical but the spiritual life of Christ.
Origen, the castrated saint, spoke of the elements in the Eucharist in spiritual & allegorical terms.
Eusebius of Caesarea identified the elements with the body & blood of Christ, but like Tertullian, saw the elements as being symbolical or representative of spiritual realities. He specifically states that the bread & wine are symbols of the Lord's body and blood and that Christ's words in John 6 are to be understood spiritually & figuratively as opposed to a physical and literal sense.
Interestingly, Webster goes on to show that the views on the Eucharist by St. Augustine are obviously in direct opposition to those of the Council of Trent. Augustine gave very clear instructions and principles for determining when a passage of Scripture must always be interpreted in the light of the entire revelation of Scripture, he concluded and he use John 6 as a specific example of passage that should be interpreted figuratively. He argued that the sacraments including the Eucharist are *signs and figures* which represent or symbolize spiritual realities. He made a distinction between the physical, historical body of Christ, and the sacramental presence, maintaining that Christ's physical body could *not* literally be present in the sacrament of the Eucharist because he is physically at the right hand of God in heaven, and will be there until he comes again.
All the above is from William Webster "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History" pages 118-121. I would suggest that you get yourself a copy of his book.
In any case, there are good logical reasons why I reject the transubstaniation viewpoint as it smacks of something along the lines of what a witch doctor or shaman would perform. It seems ludicrous to believe that the body of Jesus is scattered all over the world and is handled by some priest or mere man.
Now as I pointed out, you must rely on the interpretations of your church in what you believe about the Eucharist as clearly, even the ancient Fathers held diverse views. If you wish to believe the Roman Church that they truly speak for God and trust your eternal salvation to them - in light of the morally degenerative history of that institution, then you are free to do so. To say that they are correct in doctrine and not practice is much like trusting a former bank robber with your life savings. No thanks!
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RioLion:
Yes, yes, I can see that the Roman Church believes in 'development of doctrine' and that continual add-ons are necessary for one to believe for salvation. In other words, the Roman Church truly believes that doctrines derived from Scripture alone simply are insufficient for salvation in light of the revealing of “new” truths.
Howbeit, Biblical Christians believe that the faith delivered by the apostles was " the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. ". Jude 3
While the Roman Church has yet to demonstrate that their created doctrines are on par with Scripture, there will continue to be a barrier erected between them and those that truly believe that the word of God is to be found only within Scripture. Again, this is in line with their belief that they alone are the channels of God truth and continued revelation.
I think that enough has been said on this subject.
Well before we move on I would like you to address the content of my last post [you did not], in particular
[1] the overwhelming scriptural [1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71] and patristic [Church fathers] support for the Real Presence of JESUS in the Eucharist and the fact that it being merely symbolic was not taught until after the Protestant Reformation some 1500 years after CHRIST. Based on scripture, how do you arrive at a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist [John 6, 1 Cor 11:23-30]???
[2] How does "spirit" in John 6 mean "symbolic"?
If I remember correctly even pagan Rome [persecuting the early Church] acknowledged this reality for they claimed that Christians were cannibals because "they eat their God" [I need to find the exact source of this though].
[3] What about the Eucharistic Miracles throughout the ages in the Church, how can you explain them?
[4] How is it that the Orthodox Churches [even though they split from the Catholic Church in 1054 - The Great Schism] have an almost identical understanding of the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST? Afterall, they split from Rome before the doctrine of Transubstantiation was formally defined?
[5] In the face of all this evidence, how can you believe otherwise?
RioLion, please answer these questions for me. Peace.
IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
Yes, yes, I can see that the Roman Church believes in 'development of doctrine' and that continual add-ons are necessary for one to believe for salvation. In other words, the Roman Church truly believes that doctrines derived from Scripture alone simply are insufficient for salvation in light of the revealing of “new” truths.
Howbeit, Biblical Christians believe that the faith delivered by the apostles was " the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. ". Jude 3
While the Roman Church has yet to demonstrate that their created doctrines are on par with Scripture, there will continue to be a barrier erected between them and those that truly believe that the word of God is to be found only within Scripture. Again, this is in line with their belief that they alone are the channels of God truth and continued revelation.
I think that enough has been said on this subject.
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RioLion:
From the beginning of the Church the Fathers generally expressed their belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist in that they identified the elements with the body & blood of Christ, and also referred to the Eucharist as a sacrifice, but there was considerable difference of opinion among the Fathers on the precise nature of these things, reflected in the fact that the ancient Church produced no official dogma of the Lord's Supper.
The early Church was under heavy religious persecution by the Roman Empire until the 4th century so I would suspect their focus would not have been promugating official dogma. Also, as I have stated before, the Catholic Church was not endowed with instantaneous and infinity knowledge about the truth of GOD. She is guided to all truth and protected from error in regards to faith and morals but these truths are revealed at a rate the human mind can understand often taking centuries for some of the fundamental Christian beliefs held by all Christians. For example, it took 800 years for the doctrine of the Trinity to be formally defined. Does that mean that it is invalid? NO, it is something that our lowly human minds have a difficult time comprehending so it takes us time to formulate this truth into something paletable for everything to understand. This concept is known as "Development of Doctrine" and was applied to all the tenets of the Christian faith. It is never a departure from what was previously taught but rather an outgrowth [a step forward] from what was previously understood.
Interpretation of the meaning of the Eucharist in the writings of the Fathers must be done with great caution for it is very easy to take a preconceived theology of the Eucharist and read it back into their comments & teachings .... an objective analysis will reveal is that the views of the fathers are very consistent with the differing views represented by the RCC and those of the Reformers.
I recall you mentioning that the fathers did not teach but now you are conceding that their teachings may be interpreted as such. This caution in looking at the fathers with a preconceived theology applies much more to Protestants, for their Reformation 500 years ago was a departure from the Christian faith that had always been taught for 1500 years. These Church fathers illustrate the written history and development of the Catholic Church, and since the "novel doctrine" of the "Eucharist being merely symbolic" was never taught until after the Reformation by Zwingli, we must concede that those with this viewpoint are doing exactly what you are warning us not to, to go into the Church fathers with your preconceived theology and try to gleen your viewpoint from their writings.
Some of the fathers taught that the elements are symbols of the body and blood of Christ and that his presence is spiritual, while others maintained that the elements are changed into Christ's body & blood and that his presence is physical." pages 117-118 Webster. ![[youpi]](graemlins/youpi.gif)
Who taught that the Body and Blood of our Lord is merely symbolic?
While it is true that one cannot 'prove' any one position, and that one must rely on faith that the teachings of his denomination represent the closest to the truth; perhaps it really does not necessarily matter as we are to simply obey the command to 'do this in remembrance of Me.' - 1 Cor. 11;24. This was the view of CS Lewis who after studying the matter decided that the essence of it all was that one must participate in the Eucharist as it is a simple command of the Lord.
It does matter, anymore in today's society, truth is subjective / relative [the work of satan in my opinion]. As an engineer, I know that truth is not relative, but rather absolute.
The truth that GOD has revealed to us is not flexible, it is not open to personal interpretation so that we may distort it, his truth is one, it is absolute. Therefore, it is all the more important to know that we indeed have the truth.
At least this would not be one in which one would commit idolatry in worshipping bread & wine.
This is a leap of faith not possible if we choose to only rely on our senses my friend. But scripture and the testimonies of the early Church fathers give us the confidence that what we are doing is what the Lord asked of us.
1 Corinthians 11:23-30 (KJV)
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
Being guilty of someone's body and blood is synonymous with murder ... very strong words here. St. Paul knew that the Eucharist was truly the Body and Blood of our Lord, he cannot state it anymore clearly in 1 Cor 11:27-30, "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body". "Unworthily" refers to being in sin, having fallen from a state of grace. "Not discerning the Lord's body" means not realizing that this truly is His Body, not just a symbol. "Drinks damnation" tells us that this is a gravely sinful act unto sickness and death. Based on scripture, I think it is much "safer" actually to believe that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of our Lord JESUS.
Here is some more scripture for you.
John 6:32-71 (KJV)
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
48 I am that bread of life.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
How can JESUS make it anymore clear that the Bread and Wine truly BECOME His Body and Blood??? If you choose to ignore the entirety of
John 6 you may wish to appeal to John 6:63 to defend your position, that the flesh does not profit and the words He speaks are spirit and life. He is saying OUR flesh profits nothing, he certainly does not mean HIS OWN FLESH profits nothing! Think about it. And yes the words He speaks to us are spirit and life, of course but that does not take away from what He has just revealed to us, nowhere in the Gospel has JESUS emphasized [repeated] something so much. Nowhere in scripture is "spirit" equated to something being merely symbolic. Also, would He make such a dramatic case repeating Himself over and over and over again just to say at the end, nah I was just kidding??? That would make Him out to be foolish. And here is the clincher, His disciples stop following Him over this issue because they cannot accept the teaching "how can this man give us his flesh to eat?" and He does not correct them like he had in the past when they did not understand. Here is another reason why arguing from a symbolic sense does not make sense using John 6:63, because He says this BEFORE His disciples leave!!! AFTER he is supposedly clearing up this difficult teaching his disciples LEAVE FOREVER. This means that if the reason they were leaving Him was because they could not believe that He was truly giving them His actual Body and Blood to eat, they certainly would not have left after He just clarified that it was symbolic in John 6:63! Those disciples knew what JESUS meant, He did not correct them because He knew they knew what He meant but that they could not accept it so He let them leave.
It is unfortunate that the Roman Church has decided to compel all to believe in one interpretation and make it a necessity for salvation itself under penalty of one of their infamous anathemas. But one must realize that the popes who resided over the Council of Trent were fornicators and murderers, not Christians.
JESUS established the Church and entrusted her with the truth and she is bound to protect that truth. She is merely doing what JESUS wanted.
The Church does teach that "there is no salvation outside of the Church" but it means something other than you might understand. It does NOT mean that those people who are not officially part of a Catholic parish are going to hell. Certainly NOT! It really applies to those who know that the truth is in the Catholic Church but yet they refuse to join her. This judgement would be stricker for ex-Catholics for they had access to the sacraments and should have known better but for non-Catholics who do not know better [because of lack of knowledge, misinformation, prejudice, etc.] they can be saved through what is called "invincible ignorance". We hoever will leave the judging up to GOD.
There does not exist this dichotomy between Christian and sinner, but rather "saint and sinner". We are all sinners [Popes CAN be "infallible", not "impeccable"] even though we try to follow JESUS CHRIST the best we can. Scripture tells us that the Church will be composed of both saints and sinners [the wheat and the chaff]. Who are we to exclude sinners from the Church for they are in the greatest need of the divine physician?
You never mentioned what you thought about the Eucharistic Miracles that have occurred in the Church throughout the ages, in particular Lanciano, Italy. Let me know.
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html
Peace brother.
IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
From the beginning of the Church the Fathers generally expressed their belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist in that they identified the elements with the body & blood of Christ, and also referred to the Eucharist as a sacrifice, but there was considerable difference of opinion among the Fathers on the precise nature of these things, reflected in the fact that the ancient Church produced no official dogma of the Lord's Supper. Interpretation of the meaning of the Eucharist in the writings of the Fathers must be done with great caution for it is very easy to take a preconceived theology of the Eucharist and read it back into their comments & teachings ....an objective analysis will reveal is that the views of the fathers are very consistent with the differing views represented by the RCC and those of the Reformers. Some of the fathers taught that the elements are symbols of the body and blood of Christ and that his presence is spiritual, while others maintained that the elements are changed into Christ's body & blood and that his presence is physical." pages 117-118 Webster.
While it is true that one cannot 'prove' any one position, and that one must rely on faith that the teachings of his denomination represent the closest to the truth; perhaps it really does not necessarily matter as we are to simply obey the command to 'do this in remembrance of Me.' - 1 Cor. 11;24. This was the view of CS Lewis who after studying the matter decided that the essence of it all was that one must participate in the Eucharist as it is a simple command of the Lord. At least this would not be one in which one would commit idolatry in worshipping bread & wine.
It is unfortunate that the Roman Church has decided to compel all to believe in one interpretation and make it a necessity for salvation itself under penalty of one of their infamous anathemas. But one must realize that the popes who resided over the Council of Trent were fornicators and murderers, not Christians.
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RioLion:
Just a thought or two on what you stated about he Eucharist.
In Roman Catholicism, the bread is changed into the very body of Christ, and then it often is put into a container known as a monstrance and worshipped. This is done at the incantations of a priest similar to what one sees in shamanism.
(Shaman - a priest or priestess who uses magic to cure the sick, to divine the hidden, and to control events).
The bread and the wine change into the Body and Blood when the priest speaks the words of consecration spoken by our Lord JESUS Himself "this is my body ... this is my blood". Never heard of shamanism, but from what I can tell you equating JESUS' words and actions with it is blasphemy. There will never be priestesses in the Catholic Church.
If you were to spend some time reasoning about that, you may very well be worshipping an idol if the bread was *not* changed into the body of Christ for whatever reason.
We are told to be lead by FAITH and not by emotion or reason. Catholics do and believe this because JESUS told us so.
The devil, I am sure, would still be laughing at God in seeing His children worship a bread crumb.
Why then of all churches do satanists steal the Eucharist from the Catholic Church for use in their black mass? Because it is the real deal my friend.
The safe ground is with Biblical Christianity that believes the Bible is the very words of God.
Does JESUS tell us to be complacent or play it safe, NO. This is a reality our weakened human intellects cannot comprehend so we must lead by FAITH. Catholics are not obsessed with the End Times as much as Protestants for we know that we are already with JESUS in the Blessed Sacrament, the Holy Eucharist.
If we base all our doctrines solely on Scripture we certainly cannot go too far wrong. In Roman Catholicism, there are doctrines not based upon Scripture, nor even hinted of in Scripture or even found within the traditions of the early church.
This reality is very scriptural and this understanding has been a cornerstone of the Christian faith for 1500+ years until the reformation. Both Luther and Calvin believed in the REAL PRESENCE of JESUS CHRIST in the Holy Eucharist. Luther believed in Consubstantiation and Calvin a similar thing. ONLY Zwingli believed the Eucharist to be merely symbolic.
"not even hinted in scripture"
Scriptural proofs: 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71
-- Show me where scripture tells us that this IS NOT His Body and Blood?
"not even found within the traditions of the early church"
Oh my gosh, the support here once again is OVERWHELMING. The early Church, how early would you like, how about St. Ignatius of Antioch [Apostolic Father] who learned the Christian faith directly from the beloved disciple, St. John the Evangelist? The list goes on and on but here are a few ... even old Augustine [as you refer to him] chimes in here. Look at the dates, these quotes start from 110 A.D! Is that early enough for you?
Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the
Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).
Clement of Alexandria
"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Tertullian
"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Hippolytus
"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
Origen
"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:56]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and
threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).
Council of Nicaea I
"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).
Aphraahat the Persian Sage
"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).
Ambrose of Milan
"Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
Theodore of Mopsuestia
"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
Augustine
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
...
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).
Council of Ephesus
"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the
Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
Clearly it is foolish to base any important doctrine on one or two verses such as believing we can handle snakes, drink poison, etc. in order to have the 'fullness' of the faith.
Later.....
And lastly if ye still doubt, what about the Eucharistic Miracles like the one in Lanciano and others, check out these links I implore you, you may have never heard of this ... the Eucharist truly became and remains the Flesh and Blood of our Lord to this day, something that even our senses cannot deny!
EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES
http://www.thedivinemercy.org/devotions/euchmiracles.htm
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html
http://members.aol.com/bjw1106/euchmir.htm
IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
Just a thought or two on what you stated about he Eucharist.
In Roman Catholicism, the bread is changed into the very body of Christ, and then it often is put into a container known as a monstrance and worshipped. This is done at the incantations of a priest similar to what one sees in shamanism. (Shaman - a priest or priestess who uses magic to cure the sick, to divine the hidden, and to control events).
If you were to spend some time reasoning about that, you may very well be worshipping an idol if the bread was *not* changed into the body of Christ for whatever reason. The devil, I am sure, would still be laughing at God in seeing His children worship a bread crumb.
The safe ground is with Biblical Christianity that believes the Bible is the very words of God. If we base all our doctrines solely on Scripture we certainly cannot go too far wrong. In Roman Catholicism, there are doctrines not based upon Scripture, nor even hinted of in Scripture or even found within the traditions of the early church.
Clearly it is foolish to base any important doctrine on one or two verses such as believing we can handle snakes, drink poison, etc. in order to have the 'fullness' of the faith.
Later.....
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by INRI:
Originally posted by RioLion:
His views on the Eucharist do not fit exactly what the Roman Church holds today but that is another subject.
These quotes from some of his writings seem to correspond with what the Church teaches today and has always taught in regards to the Blessed Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist] which truly is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior JESUS CHRIST, who is the source and summit of our Catholic Christian faith and life.
St. Augustine
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
...
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).
Even if his views were not exactly the same as what the Church teaches today, that should not alarm us because [unless we see a complete departure] we must understand that the Church was not enlightened with instantaneous and infinity truth ... many doctrines upon which all Christians accept [the two natures in one person of CHRIST, the Triune GOD "the Trinity" Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and many others] took the Church and her Church Fathers [like St. Augustine] many centuries to comprehend and subsequently formulate into doctrines palatable to the illiterate church-going masses. This idea of incorporating our growing understanding of realities into doctrines as learn and understand more about them is known as "Development of Doctrine" and this idea is applied to all walks of life from theology to science and everywhere in between.
What I wanted here was the eschatological views held by the Roman Church.
RioLion, I believe it was you that complained that there was only three quotations in the Catechism of the Catholic Church pertaining to the Second Coming so to appease your desire to learn more about the Catholic understanding I thought I would pass along that link to St. Augustine "City of GOD". This work of his is highly regarded as a concise, scriptural view of the Second Coming. Since Augustine is a Saint and Doctor of the Church, I felt that this would supplement your understanding of the Catholic view on the Second Coming of CHRIST.
Apparently the Roman Church holds the view that their church will conquer the world and then hand it over to Jesus at His second coming rather than the views found within the book of Revelation.
Conquer? Scripture tells us that JESUS established one, visible Church [thus establishing his millenial Kingdom] protected by the Holy Spirit to guide us to all truth, not to conquer the world. Follow the below St. Augustine "City of GOD" link [Ch. 6 & 7 if you do not want to read it all] for all the scriptural incites to this claim.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120120.htm
Peace.
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RioLion:
His views on the Eucharist do not fit exactly what the Roman Church holds today but that is another subject.
These quotes from some of his writings seem to correspond with what the Church teaches today and has always taught.
St. Augustine
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
...
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).
Even if his views were not exactly the same as what the Church teaches today, that should not alarm us because [unless we see a complete departure] we must understand that the Church was not enlightened with instantaneous and infinity truth ... many doctrines upon which all Christians accept [the two natures in one person of CHRIST, the Triune GOD "the Trinity" Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and many others] took the Church and her Church Fathers [like St. Augustine] many centuries to comprehend and subsequently formulate into doctrines palatable to the illiterate church-going masses. This idea of incorporating our growing understanding of realities into doctrines as learn and understand more about them is known as "Development of Doctrine" and this idea is applied to all walks of life from theology to science and everywhere in between.
What I wanted here was the eschatological views held by the Roman Church.
RioLion, I believe it was you that complained that there was only three quotations in the Catechism of the Catholic Church pertaining to the Second Coming so to appease your desire to learn more about the Catholic understanding I thought I would pass along that link to St. Augustine "City of GOD". This work of his is highly regarded as a concise, scriptural view of the Second Coming. Since Augustine is a Saint and Doctor of the Church, I felt that this would supplement your understanding of the Catholic view on the Second Coming of CHRIST.
Apparently the Roman Church holds the view that their church will conquer the world and then hand it over to Jesus at His second coming rather than the views found within the book of Revelation.
Conquer? Scripture tells us that JESUS established one, visible Church [thus establishing his millenial Kingdom] protected by the Holy Spirit to guide us to all truth, not to conquer the world. Follow the below St. Augustine "City of GOD" link [Ch. 6 & 7 if you do not want to read it all] for all the scriptural incites to this claim.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120120.htm
Peace.
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gilman:
Catholic church or no Catholic church I tend to disagree with the pre-trib rapture espoused by the Left Behind Series.
We're told that as believers we are going to suffer greatly in the name of the Lord. Well, as much as we tend to complain sometimes, we haven't seen real suffering yet.
I know that people will argue that we are not meant for God's wrath and I agree. The first half of the tribulation won't be GOD's wrath, it will be the persecution by the anti-christ.
Then we will be raptured mid-trib, then God's wrath will be poured out.
Personally, I think we sholuld look forward to suffering in the Name of the Lord.
My main argument hinges on Revelation speaking of the tribulation martyrs under the throne who ask when Jesus will avenge their blood.
Well, if there are going to be tribulation martyrs, then Christ hasn't returned for His church pre-trib, unless there will be a second, second coming.
I know that some folks believe that the rapture isn't actually Christ returning but I think once He arrives for His church, He's here for good.
Again, just my thoughts.
Bill Gilman,
Thanks for your input, you made some very good points, especially Christians having to endure much suffering, and in Revelation the martyrs in heaven asking JESUS when will He avenge their blood, and the 2nd Second Coming of CHRIST espoused by the Left Behind series. This would make for the Second and Third Comings of CHRIST and that is NOT scriptural. Peace and GOD Bless!
IP: Logged |
|
|
Bill Gilman
Advanced Member
Member # 2002
|
posted
Catholic church or no Catholic church I tend to disagree with the pre-trib rapture espoused by the Left Behind Series.
We're told that as believers we are going to suffer greatly in the name of the Lord. Well, as much as we tend to complain sometimes, we haven't seen real suffering yet.
I know that people will argue that we are not meant for God's wrath and I agree. The first half of the tribulation won't be GOD's wrath, it will be the persecution by the anti-christ.
Then we will be raptured mid-trib, then God's wrath will be poured out.
Personally, I think we sholuld look forward to suffering in the Name of the Lord.
My main argument hinges on Revelation speaking of the tribulation martyrs under the throne who ask when Jesus will avenge their blood.
Well, if there are going to be tribulation martyrs, then Christ hasn't returned for His church pre-trib, unless there will be a second, second coming.
I know that some folks believe that the rapture isn't actually Christ returning but I think once He arrives for His church, He's here for good.
Again, just my thoughts.
--------------------
Lord, save me!
Posts: 56 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
If my memory serves me correctly, did not St. Augustine believe in his City of God that the Lord would return prior to the end of the first millenium?
Truly Augustine made contributions to theological thought however, not all that he believed was correct or accepted today. His views on the Eucharist do not fit exactly what the Roman Church holds today but that is another subject.
What I wanted here was the eschatological views held by the Roman Church.
Apparently the Roman Church holds the view that their church will conquer the world and then hand it over to Jesus at His second coming rather than the views found within the book of Revelation. of course, some of the views of the Roman Church have a habit of conflicting with the plain messages of Scripture.
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by RioLion:
INRI - in brief could you explain the end time theology of the Roman Church?
RioLion,
Please refer to this work by St. Augustine called "City of God" for a very good example of Catholic thought on the end times. If I understand correctly, Protestants respect a lot of his contributions to our developing understanding of Christianity.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120120.htm
St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430)
City of God
Book XX
30 Chapters [32 pages long]
Chapters 6 & 7 [if you do not feel like reading the entire book]
I hope you find this insightful. Peace.
IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
INRI = ]The assertion was that the Pope denounces his Catholic faith as expressed in Sacred Scripture and Tradition and embraces "sola scriptura" and accepts JESUS CHRIST as his personal Lord and Savior [as if Catholics do not have a personal relationship with JESUS, especially the Pope]!
No, I do not read that assertion into the book. It is possible that the pope mentioned believed that faith alone was sufficient for salvation with works only a reflection of that faith.
Perhaps that pope is liken to many Roman Catholics today who believe in God, have a personal relationship with Him, try to live a good moral life and simply ignore many of the heretical beliefs that have become embedded in the Roman Church.
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Andie:
Thanks INRI. Here's another interesting viewpoint, this time from the Orthodox Church:
www.orthodoxonline.com/leftbehind.htm
Andie,
Thanks for the link, the Catholics and Orthodox share most if not all the same beliefs about the end times.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Andie
Community Member
Member # 2064
|
posted
Thanks INRI. Here's another interesting viewpoint, this time from the Orthodox Church:
www.orthodoxonline.com/leftbehind.htm
--------------------
For now we see as through a glass darkly; but then face to face. 1CR13:12
Posts: 19 | From: West Virginia | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
Andie,
Thanks for your input ... much of what you state makes good sense.
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RioLion:
The only thing that I can recall that may be considered 'anti-catholic' in the Left Behind books is that there was a statement to the effect that the pope at the time was one that was also caught up in the rapture, however, his views were closer to Martin Luther's than those of his predecessors.
RioLion,
The assertion was that the Pope denounces his Catholic faith as expressed in Sacred Scripture and Tradition and embraces "sola scriptura" and accepts JESUS CHRIST as his personal Lord and Savior [as if Catholics do not have a personal relationship with JESUS, especially the Pope]! These are some of the biggest points of contention between Catholics and Protestants so asserting that the Pope would embrace Protestantism is rather anti-Catholic.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Andie
Community Member
Member # 2064
|
posted
As a United Methodist I have been taught that the book of Revelations was an underground political tract. The author was in prison at the time that he wrote the book and all the symbolic language was meant to disguise the fact that he was talking about the Roman Empire (the Beast) and Nero Ceasar, etc. We were taught that just as many of the Psalms were about the triumph of Israel this was a similar dream or vision about a battle in the near future.
I know that many Christians believe in the Rapture theology and while I agree that Jesus will return someday I don't think it is for us to know the day or the hour. I imagine that when every man woman and child in some villages died from smallpox or during the Irish potato famine when the whole country was starving or during the many times in history when war was going on in every country; Christians must have believed that the end times were near - but still we go on.
I don't worry about whether Rapture theology is true or not, because I believe that when the end does come we will be judged by the state of our hearts and souls and not by whether our predictions were correct. I am glad to hear that the Left Behind books have brought some people to Christ , though.
--------------------
For now we see as through a glass darkly; but then face to face. 1CR13:12
Posts: 19 | From: West Virginia | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
The only thing that I can recall that may be considered 'anti-catholic' in the Left Behind books is that there was a statement to the effect that the pope at the time was one that was also caught up in the rapture, however, his views were closer to Martin Luther's than those of his predecessors.
Of course, the authors go on to portray a false religious system with a new pope but that results in the creation of a religion that is significantly different from present day Roman Catholicism. It is possible that the offence by the bishop is that the books portray a Roman Catholicism that is capable of doctrinal error - they believing that that is an impossibility - recall that belief that the 'gates of hell' will never prevail against the 'one true church established by Jesus Christ' ![[pound]](graemlins/pound.gif) .
The Rapture - a belief based upon 1 Thess. 4:17 -simply does not fit Roman Church theology. But that has always been a problem with the Roman Church in that they place themselves and their theological beliefs above the Scripture or they simply ignore the content of Scripture; claiming themselves to be its sole interpreter. But the book series did not identify Rome with Babylon like some other books on end times.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
IP: Logged |
|
|
promises
Advanced Member
Member # 1993
|
posted
Have a lot of you read the books? I have read them all and I certainly didn't walk away from them with an "anti-Catholic sentiment" or "an unhealthy and immature belief in a harshly judgmental God whose mercy we earn by good behavior". With all the criticism that I hear about "fundamentalist agendas" that Bishops' Statement sure sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.
--------------------
His Alone
Posts: 144 | From: Southern CA | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
INRI - I went over to the Catechism website you referenced and found that there are only 6 references to 'end times'. We can only conclude that the Roman Church acknowledges that there will be an 'end times', howbeit, does not really have any other scenario based upon scripture or anything else to comment.
I think that the Left Behind series by LaHaye and Jenkins at least offers some kind of scenario based upon scripture. There is something that is lacking within the Roman Church; simply not being able to get beyond their belief in purgatory.
If I recall, St. Augustine was certain that Christ would come during his time - City of God book (papocaesarism?), I think. He theorized that the Church would conquer the world before the second coming with rule by the pope in Rome.
IP: Logged |
|
|
drixane
Community Member
Member # 1783
|
posted
Regardless of whomever is right, all I can say is that if I had never wound up reading the series, I would still be wandering aimlessly lost without Christ in my life.
While there may be descrepancies with what is discussed within, it is still a valuable tool to get Christians (and especially non-Christians) into thinking about Christ's second coming.
While I do not use this series as a study tool, I will continue to recommend it to those who still have lots of questions and have not committed their lives to Him.
Posts: 14 | From: Lewisville, TX | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by RioLion:
INRI - in brief could you explain the end time theology of the Roman Church?
RioLion,
Please refer to the Catechism for the official answer. Here is a good link to the CCC online.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
INRI - in brief could you explain the end time theology of the Roman Church?
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kindgo:
If the RCC is against it, it must be okay.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Kindgo,
I am sorry to hear that, being consistent with your statement you must then support abortion and homosexual marriage in the church. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
IP: Logged |
|
|
phaze
Advanced Member
Member # 1688
|
posted
Ah Ha! So then it is the Catholic Bishops of Illinois who aim to deceive. Yes, they didn't think people would come to a message board and question their false claims, let alone read the bible themselves.
Now that we have this info, what do we do? Challenge these bishops?
--------------------
Don't be a doubting Thomas
Posts: 69 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
The concept of the Rapture is clearly supported in scripture, Thessalonians 4:17 for example, but the amillenianism and the replacement theology of the RCC denies the Word and places emphasis upon their own traditions.
In the Rapture our Lord Jesus gathers His Bride, in whom His spirit dwells, (He who now letteth), from
the earth prior to that man of sin being revealed, "2 Thess.2:
2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out
of the way.
2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth,
and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
In verse 2:7 we see the term "he who now letteth", this is a direct reference to the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit, who indwells all believers. Until He be taken away, and THEN that man of sin is revealed.
Please note that the lifting away of believers is NOT the second Advent for Christ does not set foot upon
the mount of Olives, we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds,
to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
The Rapture
Matt. 25:1-13
25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went
forth to meet the bridegroom.
25:2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.
25:3 They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:
25:4 But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.
25:5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.
25:6 And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.
25:7 Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.
25:8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.
25:9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather
to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.
25:10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to
the marriage: and the door was shut.
25:11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.
25:12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.
25:13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
Thess. 4:17-5-6
4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel,
and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet
the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
4:18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail
upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
5:5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of
darkness.
5:6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.
2 Thess.2:
2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out
of the way.
2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth,
and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the
love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
"Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the
twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised
incorruptible, and we shall be changed." (1 Cor. 15:51-52)
The Coming of the Lord
Matt. 24:29-31
24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall
not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the
earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great
glory.
24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his
elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Rev. 19:11-16
19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called
Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name
written, that no man knew, but he himself.
19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen,
white and clean.
19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall
rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty
God.
19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD
OF LORDS.
Rev. 19:8
"To her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
Rev. 19:14
"And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean."
Notice the fine linen white and clean is the righteousness of saints, which are in heaven.
We will then return with the Lord to the earth, and He will destroy the wicked and establish the Millennial Kingdom, and His saints will reign with Him on earth for one thousand years (Rev. 20:1-7).
Zech. 12:10
12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of
grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall
mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in
bitterness for his firstborn.
Zech. 14:4-9
14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the
east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west,
and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and
half of it toward the south.
14:5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto
Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of
Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
14:6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
14:7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come
to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
14:8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward
the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his
name one.
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
1 Tim. 3:
16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..
Posts: 3978 | From: Council Grove, KS USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
phaze
Advanced Member
Member # 1688
|
posted
The article states that "This belief is not supported in Scripture."
Is this true, and if so, where did the concept originate?
--------------------
Don't be a doubting Thomas
Posts: 69 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Kindgo
Advanced Member
Member # 2
|
posted
I use to have some mild doubts about the series, but this confirms it for me: the series must be right on target and rooted deeply in God's Word.
If the RCC is against it, it must be okay.
Wonder what the Bishop's will say when they are 'Left Behind'
--------------------
God bless,
Kindgo
Inside the will of God there is no failure. Outside the will of God there is no success.
Posts: 4320 | From: Sunny Florida | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
TEXASGRANDMA
Advanced Member
Member # 847
|
posted
Unfortuantly, some people will not believe in the rapture until it is too late. I pray that the Lord Jesus returns soon for His Church. ![[wiggle7]](graemlins/wiggle7.gif)
--------------------
Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
http://www.indieheaven.com/artists/mm (son-in-law)http://www.myspace.com/mireles
Posts: 4985 | From: Washington State | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Kindgo
Advanced Member
Member # 2
|
posted
Bishops of Illinois call for removal of Left Behind books and videos
Here is the article:
ZENIT - The World Seen From Rome
Date: 2003-06-25
Illinois Bishops' Statement on "Left Behind" Books and Videos
"Theology of the End Times in Conflict With Catholic Teachings"
CHICAGO, JUNE 24, 2003 (Zenit.org).- The Catholic Conference of Illinois is taking on the Rapture.
The Rapture, according to many fundamentalist and evangelical Protestants, is the fast-approaching secret and silent disappearance of Christians from the earth before a time of tribulation. The notion has soared in popularity with the "Left Behind" novels, which have sold tens of millions of copies. Recently the Catholic conference issued this statement on the phenomenon.
* * *
Statement on Left Behind Books and Videos
When Jesus told us to be alert and ready for his return, he also warned there would be false prophets. One of the most attractively marketed recent false "prophets" has been the Left Behind series, published by Tyndale House Press in Wheaton, Illinois. Since 1995, the series by Mr. Tim LaHaye and Mr. Jerry B. Jenkins has been a tool for active promotion of a fundamentalist theology of the end times in conflict with Catholic teachings. More than that, the series has been a vehicle for anti-Catholic sentiments by the way Catholics are characterized and treated in the plot line.
Promoted nationally in grocery checkout aisles, discount outlets and bookstores, over the Internet and even through book sale fundraisers in Catholic schools, these novels are now in the tenth installment of the adult series and the twenty-fourth volume of the children's version. There are also two videos, (produced by Cloud Ten Productions) a board game, and other marketed items. These materials, about fictionalized end-times, popularize a common fundamentalist belief in a time of tribulation after the "rapture" (when the "good people" are secretly taken up overnight to Heaven) and before the Second Coming of Christ. This belief is not supported in Scripture.
Responding to similar fundamentalist agendas back in 1937, Pius XI, in "Divini Redemptoris" said any such speculations about a period when a remnant of the Church progresses towards its own ultimate victory might of themselves be a sign of the Antichrist:
The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism ...
The Catechism of the Catholic Church continues:
The kingdom will be fulfilled then, not by a historic triumph of the church through a progressive ascendancy, but only in God's victory over the final unleashing of evil ... (676-677)
The scenario in Left Behind, of a "tribulation force" of born-again former sinners who attempt personally to derail the progress of the Anti-Christ, is broadly classifiable as pre-millenarianism. The pseudo-historical backdrop for the story ties apocalyptic scripture to specific events in history, an error known as pre-millennial dispensationalism. In later books in the series, the new Pope is depicted as instrumental in establishing a relativistic world religion encouraged by the AntiChrist and operated from New Babylon (formerly Rome). The Left Behind series is anti-Catholic in content and form, consistent with Mr. LaHaye's other writings, in which he associates the Church with "Babylonian mysticism."
Tyndale House, and by association Cloud Ten Productions, have made clear in their marketing that they feel divinely inspired to promote their theological agenda among the most vulnerable. A recent promotional mailer, created by the Christian Film and Television Commission for their second Left Behind video, claims: "God is using the "Left Behind" films, as He has used the books, to reach out and touch the lives of people who won't go to church, but in their hearts are looking for the answers to life's questions." If there are any doubts that the aim of the Left Behind series is as much to promote a fundamentalist agenda as to make money, these marketing techniques should put them to rest.
Attractively packaged proselytization
While many adult Catholics are secure enough in their faith to avoid being proselytized by such works, or by the direct preaching of fundamentalists, the real danger of Left Behind is its attractiveness as a story of good people in a heroic battle against ultimate evil. Readers lacking a full understanding of Catholic scriptural teaching about the end times in many cases have internalized this fictional post-rapture time of tribulation when sinners are left to battle the Anti-Christ, because it sounds familiar and "biblical."
Overall, these books reinforce an unhealthy and immature belief in a harshly judgmental God whose mercy we earn by good behavior. In response to reading them, Catholic catechists have been observed confusing and even frightening children in religious education programs by teaching the "rapture" as if it were an article of Catholic faith. There is also real danger that Catholics persuaded by this agenda may judge other people on spiritual fitness for the "rapture."
A call for better catechesis about the end times
We, the Catholic Bishops of Illinois, call upon those responsible for faith formation to provide planned, coherent, and informed catechesis to all age groups about Church teachings on the end of the world, based on scripture and tradition. We also call upon Catholic institutions -- libraries, bookstores, schools, and parishes -- to remove any Left Behind books and videos from their shelves, to prohibit the sale of these materials in Catholic venues, and to provide the faithful with information that these materials are, in fact, a marketing tool for fundamentalist preaching about the end times and a thinly disguised polemic against the Catholic Church.
http://www.zenit.org/english/
--------------------
God bless,
Kindgo
Inside the will of God there is no failure. Outside the will of God there is no success.
Posts: 4320 | From: Sunny Florida | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
