|
Author
|
Topic: communion and confession etc which churches have it?
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
Roman Catholicism's doctrine of "transubstantiation" -- the bread and wine actually turning into God, and therefore "adorable" (Holy Souls Book, p. 221) -- is based on Jesus' statement, "This is My Body."
However, in John 10 Jesus said, "I am the Door..." and elsewhere he spoke figuratively ("I am the Light," etc.) in the same way. He did not mean the door was literally being transformed into him/God, or that we should worship a door.
The true purpose of the celebration of the Lord's Supper is threefold:
1) fellowship, 1 Corinthians 10:16;
2) remembrance, 1 Corinthians 11:24; and
3) proclamation of His death till he comes again, 1 Corinthians 11:26.
Acts 20:7-11 sheds light on the informality of first-century "church services."
1 Corinthians 10:17 says we are the bread.
1 Corinthians 10:16, 17 indicates it is still bread, not God, even after the words were spoken.
1 Corinthians 10:18 partakers
1 Corinthians 11:25 "this cup is ..." (signifies)
John 6:27 decomposes
In only Matthew and Mark is it recorded that Jesus said both "This is my body" and "This is my blood." No account is given whatsoever of the Lord's Supper in John. Luke's account speaks only of the bread being claimed as symbolic (the same is true of 1 Corinthians.) And Paul clearly states that he personally derived understanding/revelation of the supper from the Lord Himself.
Leviticus 12:23 The Levitical laws clearly show that drinking the blood of anything is abominable in God's sight.
1 Corinthians 10:17 We partake of the bread, etc., not flesh. And the body spoken of is the church, not Jesus' physical body.
John 6:47, 48, 53 This must be symbolic, not literal, because otherwise it says we can't have life unless we receive or take the "host" (blessed bread).
John 6:54, 55, etc. In the same way that the above would eliminate salvation to those never receiving the "Holy Eucharist," if translated literally, assurance of salvation would be possible simply for eating the "host" once (if Catholicism's literal interpretation were applied here)!
Having once recognized these truths, we must depart from the partaking of pagan sacrifices. "Are not those who eat the sacrifices partners of the altar?" 1 Corinthians 10:18
Jesus simply meant that he alone should be our sustenance. John 6:48, 55
The next verses show the disciples' confusion -- and Jesus' explanation. John 6:63
John 6:33, 35, 41 "I am the Bread ..." NOT the Bread is me!
Jesus said He would not again drink of the fruit of the VINE until the kingdom, indicating the wine does not become his blood, but is just plain old wine.
..
Thomas Aquinas used the philosophy of Aristotle to support his doctrine of transubstantiation. This doctrine having its rudiments in the world and not in Christ was brought about to spoil, that is rob men of their salvation. It teaches men to worship and bow before a piece of bread and call it “God”. This is idolatry and a tradition of men. It’s interesting that in Matthew 15, Jesus, knowing all things beforehand, exposed the false doctrine of transubstantiation in the same breath he was condemning man‘s traditions.
Jesus clearly taught that the god of Roman Catholicism is cast out in the draught! That’s right all you Catholics out there that love to take the literal meaning...Jesus literally said that “whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?” Does the Roman eucharist enter in at the mouth? Does it go into the belly? Then, according to Jesus, the Roman eucharist or the Roman god is cast out into the draught. Jesus, who cannot lie, made it clear when He literally condemned Rome’s tradition of literally eating a god.
--------------------
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 | 
|
|
Philip James
unregistered
|
posted
Hello Caretaker,
Before examining the Gospel of John and especially 'the Bread of Life discourse, let me provide a little context for Augustine's teaching on the Eucharist.
quote:
Originally posted by Caretaker:
The following quotations prove that Augustine taught that the Jews did not understand correctly:
*
The Jews, therefore, strove among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" They strove, and that among themselves, since they understood not… (Augustine, Tractate 26).
*
Therefore ‘it is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing,’ as they understood the flesh, but not so do I give my flesh to be eaten (Augustine, Tractate 27).
*
For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: "when ye shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;" certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting (Augustine, Tractate 27).
*
They understood not who believed not…they were offended through their understanding spiritual things in a carnal sense (Augustine, Tractate 27).
*
It seemed unto them hard that He said, ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:’ they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, ‘This is a hard saying.’ It was they who were hard, not the saying… (Augustine, Psalm 99).
In other words, the Jews understood literally…but wrongly and foolishly! Moreover, Jesus corrected their crass literalism but their hearts were hard and they would not listen.
It was not their literalism, but there carnal perceptions (the flesh counts for nothing) that was the problem. For they could only concieve of the Lord 'cutting of parts of His body and giving it to them', as Augustine pointed out.They did not know how the Lord would 'dispense His Body' and they failed to trust Him to do so. But how does Augustine teach that the Lord dispenses His body? Through the Eucharist!
I pomised you who have now been baptized a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord's Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know that you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. 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....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.
(sermon 272)
Christ was carried in HIs own hands when, referring to His own Body, He said 'This is My Body' For He carried that Body in His hands. (expositions on the Psalms 33:1:10)
Could “eating flesh” be a figure of something positive?
With that in mind let us turn to the Gospel of John.
quote:
Moreover, if eating flesh and drinking blood means taking the Eucharistic elements, as Catholics assert, then eternal life is received by participating in the sacrament, for Jesus said, “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life” (John 6:54). If this interpretation is correct, we would expect that the author of the gospel to give due prominence to the Lord’s Supper, especially since his stated purpose for writing was to teach us how we may have eternal life (John20:30,31). It is therefore highly significant that the evangelist John does not even include an account of the institution of the Eucharist.
Consider here that John's Gospel was written long after the other 3 which were extant throughout the christian commmunity. Further they would all be quite familiar with the words of institution that were said at every 'breaking of the Bread' for which they gathered. John has no need to provide them again and instead provides the theological and eschatological significane behind them. John's Gospel proclaims Jesus 'The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world' and in the 'Bread of Life discourse' speaks of what it means to partake of our paschal meal.
quote:
In the light of this conspicuous omission, one should reconsider whether eternal life is obtained in some way other than the Eucharist, and hence if Jesus’ words should be understood spiritually rather than literally.
They are spritual AND literal. Let us examine them in this light beginning with Jesus words:
'It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. ' (6:63)
who's flesh is Jesus speaking of here? it cannot be His for it is His flesh which suffers and dies for us. That is offered as the unblemished sacrifice to 'take away the sins of the world'. It is the shedding His blood though which we are cleansed. Further it would make the whole preceding narrative 'he who eats my flesh has eternal life' meaningless. Jesus'flesh counts for everything! He must then be speaking of our flesh. That is, He is saying that our carnal perceptions, what we see, how we think, what we touch, according to the flesh are worthless!
What matters are His words!!! for 'they are Spirit and they are life'
and what are those words again?
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. (6:545-56)
Now because men, according to the flesh, cannot conceive how Jesus can do this other than to 'cut off an arm' and have them cannablize Him, they are scandalized and leave Him in droves. They do not believe He can do this, because they do not believe He is who He is!
'Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? ' (6:67)
Jesus makes this a cental doctine of His teaching. The apostles must either accept it or leave. There is no middle ground here. This is significant because the apostles are also, no doubt, shocked and confused by His words.
But they remain because they believe!
Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.(6:68-69)
Because they KNOW Jesus is the messiah, they put their faith in Him and His words. They know what He says is TRUE! So then when he says ' you must eat my flesh and drink my blood' they accept it even if they don't understand how this is possible. By Faith they acknowledge that His words are 'the words of eternal life!.
And at the last supper Jesus shows them just how He will give them His body and blood to eat and drink!.
'This is My Body, take and eat', 'This is My Blood', take and drink'
And Jesus words are Spirit and they are Life! We believe that these things are True because HE spoke them! Our Faith in Him as God the Son, as Messiah, as the Lamb of God who suffered and died for us is proven in accepting His words and partaking as he commanded us.
So then we base our Faith not upon what is seen (appearence of bread and wine) but was is unseen (Our Lord and Our God!). We walk by faith (in the words of our Lord which are Spirit and life!) and not be sight (according to our flesh which counts for nothing!).
Is the Eucharist literally the Body and Blood of Christ? Yes! And this spiritual food sustains and upbuilds us as we walk in union with our God and one another! Alleluia!
Peace and Love!
Philip James
p.s. I hope to address the questions raised regarding the Mass as a sacrifice as soon as possible.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
Amen bygrace!!!!
Catholic Catechism
816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsist it in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267
The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268
824 United with Christ, the Church is sanctified by him; through him and with him she becomes sanctifying. "All the activities of the Church are directed, as toward their end, to the sanctification of men in Christ and the glorification of God."292 It is in the Church that "the fullness of the means of salvation"293 has been deposited. It is in her that "by the grace of God we acquire holiness."294
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403
883 "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Greek word used for rock (petra) is played against Peter (petros). Some use this passage to teach that Peter was the foundation stone of the church, that he had a primacy among the apostles, and that he became bishop of Rome. The verse will scarcely bear the first of these propositions, and certainly none of the others. Peter may be meant by the rock, but he was not the exclusive foundation.
The twelve-fold foundation of the apostles of the church:
Ephesians 2:
19
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21
In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22
In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
Rev. 21:
14
And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
This seems borne out by the fact that the words spoken unto Peter in Matt. 16:18, were spoken to all of the disciples in Matt. 18:
Matt. 18:
18
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19
Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
The rock or foundation of the church is the confession (ultimately the doctrine) of the apostles, which became normative for the true church.
The word church (Greek ekklesia), means literally “ a chosen or called out assembly”. Thus the use of the word as a technical term for an assembly or group of believers in Christ was quite natural. It was not viewed as an external organization, denomination, or hierarchical system. The New Testament Church is a local autonomous congregation or an assembly which is a church in and of itself. John writes to 7 churches, in His Revelation, not to one.
Scofield commentary:
16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Peter
There is the Greek a play upon the words, "thou art Peter petros-- literally 'a little rock', and upon this rock Petra I will build my church." He does not promise to build His church upon Peter, but upon Himself, as Peter is careful to tell us
(1 Peter 2:4-9)
2:4 Coming to Him, a living stone--rejected by men but chosen and valuable to God--
2:5 you yourselves, as living stones, are being built into a spiritual house for a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
2:6 For it stands in Scripture: Look! I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and valuable cornerstone, and the one who believes in Him will never be put to shame!
2:7 So the honor is for you who believe; but for the unbelieving, The stone that the builders rejected-- this One has become the cornerstone, and
2:8 A stone that causes men to stumble, and a rock that trips them up. They stumble by disobeying the message; they were destined for this.
2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His possession, so that you may proclaim the praises of the One who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.
church:
2 (Greek - ajpovllumi (ek=="out of," kaleo =="to call"), an assembly of called out ones). The word is used of any assembly; the word itself implies no more, as, e.g., the town-meeting at Ephesus Acts 19:39 and Israel, called out of Egypt and assembled in the wilderness Acts 7:38. Israel was a true "church," but not in any sense the N.T. church--the only point of similarity being that both were "called out" and by the same God. All else is contrast.
Romans 5:1,9 “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:” “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” Man’s legal standing with Heaven is one of condemnation, and worthy of the righteous wrath of almighty God. Romans 3:23 “ For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God;”
Justification is the act of God whereby He accepts the blood of Christ as the complete and satisfying sacrifice for all human sin, propitiation, thus changing our legal status and establishing a means of reconciliation with man.
Believers are justified by the grace of God through faith. Titus 3:7 “That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” Romans 3:28 “ Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” We see that the status of man is changed from that of the condemned to that of an heir, one who is able to inherit. Thus man is reconciled to God through the propitiation of Jesus Christ and restored to full legal righteous standing.
The RCC has set itself up as the dispenser of grace, and the only means of salvation. The Word declares differently:
Romans 10:
9: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10: For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11: For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12: For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13: For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
--------------------
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 |
|
|
bygrace
unregistered
|
posted
How shall I worship Christ?
He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
At the last supper, Christ asked his followers to take bread and wine to remember Him.
These were to serve as symbols of His body and blood. Such symbols have help Christians focus on the cross. In this way they would "proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (1 Cor. 11:26)
The Roman Catholic Church has changed this simple act into a mysterious ritual.
No longer is the goal merely to remember
Christ with bread and wine around a table.
Now, following Tradition, the priest supposedly sacrifices Christ on an altar.
This occurs during the Mass when the priest repeats Christ's words at the Last Supper.
The church claims that at that moment the bread and wine change into Jesus' actual blood. Those present are to adore them as divine.
Elevating the bread and wine above the altar, the priest then re-presents Christ in His victimhood to the to the Father.
The Church says this offering makes satisfaction for the sins of the living and the dead. It is a real sacrifice, the Church claims, the sacrifice on the cross.
THis ritual has no Biblical basis. Nowhere do we read in the Scriptures of the first Christians attempting to sacrifice Christ with bread and wine. The cross was a horrific event in which Jesus' enemies tortured Him to death. Why would Christians want to continue it?
ONce was enough.
As Jesus died on the cross, He said, "it is finished" (John 19:30).
He "offered for all time one sacrifice for sins" (Hebrews 10:12)
"There is no longer any sacrifice for sin" (Hebrews 10:18)
Further, Christ is now glorified in heaven.
He is not a victim to be offered in continual sacrifice.
The Bible says that "since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over Him" (Rom. 6:9)
Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic church says that the sacrifice of the cross must be continually renewed.
This is necessary, it claims, to carry out the work of redemption. That is why Catholic priests perform the Scarifice of the Mass some 120 million times each yr.
Each of us must choose how we will worship Christ. Our understanding of Salvation will affect this decision. If we hope to get to heaven through a lifelong process of sacramants, obedience, and good works, then we will probably feel the need for an ongoing sacrifice, such as the Mass. If, on the other hand, we are trusting Christ's death on the cross as the perfect and sufficient offering for our sins, we will want to celebrate His finished work.
Our desire will be to worship with Christians who use bread as symbols to remember Christ not to sacrifice Him.
Pray about this mysavinggrace...You have been given ample amounts of advice, and facts. Please read these things, look them up !!!! THe Bible is our letter from God!
You know, it does say "do not call anyone on this earth "father".
bygrace
IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
The Bread of Life
Jesus is the Bread of Life. Just as bread nourishes our physical bodies, Jesus gives and sustains eternal life to all believers. The day after He had miraculously fed five thousand men, the Jews sought Him eagerly, but their motives were all wrong. They only cared about physical needs. Jesus tells them that He came down from heaven to give eternal life, and that they could have this life by believing in Him. “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst” (John 6:35).
As He was accustomed, Jesus used figurative language to emphasize these great spiritual truths. “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” However the Jews and many of His followers did not believe that He was the Son of God. They could not understand how He came down from heaven or how He could give us His flesh to eat. Because of their unbelief, they misunderstood His words, as if He was going to literally give them His flesh to eat and His blood to drink. They were offended and left Him. On the other hand, the apostles rightly understood, and Peter, speaking on behalf of the apostolic group, confessed their faith in Him.
Jesus Himself explains the sense of the entire passage when He says, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63). The literal interpretation is absurd and revolting, leading to cannibalism and the drinking of blood contrary to the commandment of God. No eating of any flesh can give spiritual life. The spiritual sense is full of light and sweetness. By faith we partake of Christ, and the benefits of His bodily sacrifice on the cross and the merits of His shed blood, receiving and enjoying eternal life.
Eating and drinking is not with the mouth and the digestive organs of our bodies, but the reception of God’s grace by believing in Christ, as He makes abundantly clear by repeating the same truths both in metaphoric and plain language. Compare for example the following two verses:
*
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life” (v47).
*
“He who eats this bread will live forever” (v58).
“He who believes” in Christ is equivalent to “he who eats this bread” because the result is the same, eternal life. The parallel is even more striking between verses 40 and 54:
*
“Everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (v40).
*
“Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (v54).
Seeing and believing in Christ is equivalent to eating and drinking His flesh and blood, for the result is the same: possession of eternal life and resurrection at the last day.
The Eucharist
There is an obvious similarity between the discourse in John 6 and the Eucharist. Jesus speaks of eating His flesh and drinking His blood which is similar to eating the bread and drinking the wine at the Lord’s Supper. However, Jesus’ discourse is not primarily a reference to the Eucharist but to His sacrifice on the cross. He says, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” This expression is similar to others in John’s gospel (3:15,16; 10:11,17,18; 12:24), all of which undoubtedly refer to His death on the cross. This explains the resemblance between Jesus’ discourse on the bread of life and the Eucharist, which is a proclamation of His death. Both of them are pointing to one great event, the sacrifice of the cross.
However it would be a great mistake to see the fulfillment of this passage in the Eucharist rather than in the sacrifice of Christ, as if one can only feed on Christ by partaking of the Eucharistic bread and wine rather than by believing in Him. For Jesus declares this eating and drinking to be absolutely necessary for salvation, but not even Roman Catholics believe this to be true of the Eucharist.
Moreover, if eating flesh and drinking blood means taking the Eucharistic elements, as Catholics assert, then eternal life is received by participating in the sacrament, for Jesus said, “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life” (John 6:54). If this interpretation is correct, we would expect that the author of the gospel to give due prominence to the Lord’s Supper, especially since his stated purpose for writing was to teach us how we may have eternal life (John20:30,31). It is therefore highly significant that the evangelist John does not even include an account of the institution of the Eucharist. In the light of this conspicuous omission, one should reconsider whether eternal life is obtained in some way other than the Eucharist, and hence if Jesus’ words should be understood spiritually rather than literally.
John states, “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:30,31). The feeding of the five thousand, along with the other signs, was recorded so that we may believe that Jesus is the divine Messiah, and through this faith we may have eternal life. This agrees perfectly with Jesus’ explanation of eating His flesh and drinking His blood – “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst…Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life” (John 6:35, 47).
We do not belittle the importance of the Eucharist in the Christian experience, yet we must assert the primary importance of faith in Christ for eternal life.
Rebutting Catholic arguments - with a little help from Augustine
Was Jesus speaking figuratively?
1.
Catholic apologists assert that Jesus was speaking literally when He spoke of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. This is evidently not so. Jesus was using figurative language as He usually did. In John’s Gospel, Jesus referred to His body as the temple (2:19); He called Himself the Light of the world (8:12), and we are called to follow Him; He is “the door” (10:9) through whom we enter for salvation; He is the “good shepherd” (10:11) and “the true vine” (15:1) and the disciples are compared to sheep and branches. That Jesus is the bread of life and that we should feed on Him is but a similar figurative expression illustrating the great spiritual truth that Jesus is the Divine Messiah who gives eternal life to all who believe.
2.
A Catholic apologist presents this argument: “The Greek word he used for ‘eats’ (tragon) is very blunt and has the sense of ‘chewing’ and ‘gnawing.’ This is not the language of metaphor.” Well, why not? Metaphors are intended to be graphic and impressive. Trogo stresses the slow process of eating. In the New Testament it is also used for ordinary eating (see Matthew 24:38; John 13:18; etc). Moreover, Jesus also uses the ordinary word for eating (phago) in the same passage (verses 50,51,53 etc). Since the two terms are used to make the same point – e.g. compare verse 53 (phago) and verse 54 (trogo) – they are practically equivalent.
3.
In his discussion on the interpretation of figurative expressions, Augustine uses “eating flesh and drinking blood” as a typical example of a metaphor! He explains: “If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, "and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us” (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, III).
Did the Jews understand literally and correctly? Would not Jesus have corrected them if they had misunderstood?
1.
Initially Jesus spoke plainly about the necessity of believing in Him. Yet the Jews would not believe. They were seeking Jesus for carnal motives. They asked Him for a sign even when their stomachs were still full of the miraculous bread he had fed them the day before. They objected that He could not have “come down from heaven” as they knew (or thought they knew) His father. Jesus never corrected them. Later on He spoke to them in veiled speech as He used to do in the case of unbelief and reasserted His claims in bold language. Knowing that the disciples grumbled among themselves, Jesus warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually – He foretold His ascension into heaven (and therefore He was not speaking about literal flesh eating). His words are spirit and life. He accused them of unbelief and exposed their hardness of heart stating that no-one would come to Him unless drawn by the Father. At that point, many of his followers left. The underlying reason was unbelief and not some innocent misunderstanding. Externally they were “disciples” – inwardly they were unbelievers like the other Jews. Jesus knew their heart: “Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe.”
2.
The following quotations prove that Augustine taught that the Jews did not understand correctly:
*
The Jews, therefore, strove among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" They strove, and that among themselves, since they understood not… (Augustine, Tractate 26).
*
Therefore ‘it is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing,’ as they understood the flesh, but not so do I give my flesh to be eaten (Augustine, Tractate 27).
*
For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: "when ye shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;" certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting (Augustine, Tractate 27).
*
They understood not who believed not…they were offended through their understanding spiritual things in a carnal sense (Augustine, Tractate 27).
*
It seemed unto them hard that He said, ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:’ they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, ‘This is a hard saying.’ It was they who were hard, not the saying… (Augustine, Psalm 99).
In other words, the Jews understood literally…but wrongly and foolishly! Moreover, Jesus corrected their crass literalism but their hearts were hard and they would not listen.
Could “eating flesh” be a figure of something positive?
1.
Catholic apologists argue that the figurative meaning of eating flesh and drinking blood as used by the Jews is always negative, implying inflicting injury, calumny or false accusation. Therefore in John 6 eating and drinking cannot be taken figuratively and must be understood literally.
2.
There is no doubt that figurative “eating flesh” is used negatively, but the conclusion that it can never be used in a positive sense is absurd. Depending on the context, the same figure is often used to express opposites. Augustine writes: “For things that signify now one thing and now another…They signify contraries, for example, when they are used metaphorically at one time in a good sense, at another in a bad…Bread is used in a good sense, ‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven;’ in a bad, ‘Bread eaten in secret is pleasant.’ And so in a great many other case” (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine). We know that eating flesh could mean a physical injury or a false accusation by looking at the context in which it is used. Similarly, if we examine the context of John 6, it is hard to miss Jesus’ explanation that eating flesh and drinking blood should be understood spiritually as coming and believing on Him.
3.
Augustine corrects the literal interpretation and affirms that “eating” is a positive metaphor for believing.
*
This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already (Augustine, Tractate 25).
*
For to believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again (Augustine, Tractate 26).
Conclusion
John 6 does not afford any support to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. On the contrary, it is an emphatic statement on the primacy of faith as the means by which we receive the grace of God. Jesus is the Bread of Life; we eat of Him and are satisfied when we believe in Him.
© Dr Joe Mizzi. Permission is given by the author to copy this article without any changes.
--------------------
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 |
|
|
Philip James
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by MySavingGrace:
I was also wondering what places do confessions since I don't wanna join that faith then. I don't mind priests if you don't have to do confession, but maybe that's part of being a priest (not just for Catholics.) My biggest problem with Cahtolocism is using a priest for bieng "absolved" and pennecne and sanctifying grace. God has 'amazing grace" and its he alone who does it I see nothing wrong in spiritual guidance from priests but god grants me forgiveness, not a person. We are to have a personal relationship, no middle man.
Hi MSG,
We do indeed have a 'personal relationship' with God. In the Eucharist we have the most intimate moment with Him that we can experience in this world.
As for God working through 'men' to forgive our sins consider John 20:23:
"If you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven them; if you hold them bound, they are held bound."
Peace and Love!
PJ
p.s. the chaplet of Divine Mercy is a wonderful prayer!
IP: Logged |
|
|
Philip James
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by bygrace:
Phillip James writes:
Yes it really IS the risen Christ, (Body, Blood Soul and Divinity) that we share in. And if one partakes who 'fails to recognize the Body' they 'eat and drink a judgement on themselves'. (1Cor 11:29)
So the Church tries to ensure only those who know this partake. It is done to spare them, who would drink without recognizing the Body, this judgement.
So you believe that the communion bread literally becaomes the body?
Am I understanbding this correctly, are you saying you are Catholic?
bygrace
Hi by grace,
Yes.
Peace and Love!
PJ
IP: Logged |
|
|
MySavingGrace
Advanced Member
Member # 4697
|
posted
I was asking what other faiths do communion. I want to do communion but part of why I wouldnt be Catholic is them not letting non catholics do communion. They feel they need to confess for sanctifying grace etc. But, to me God grants grace to all who belive and I confess and ask for forgiveness form him, no mortal middle man. I wanted to know what other places do it. I may also just use grape or cranberry juice and crackers for my own at home.
The rosary still does "our father who art thou in heaven thy kingdom come" etc there's also chaplets with Jesus for divine meercy and stages of the cross. I don't belive Mary has power over others. I dont know why or how she was named holy queen or what it means relaly. I'm new to christianity too. My faincee's fmaily is all catholic and italian so i feel i should learn mroe since its their beliefs.
And maybe I'm wrong to of even gotten one rosary, i dounno. I'm still really confused on things. but, lighting a cnalde prayer, others pray for the "intention" though not knowing what it is and I like that.
I was also wondering what places do confessions since I don't wanna join that faith then. I don't mind priests if you don't have to do confession, but maybe that's part of being a priest (not just for Catholics.) My biggest problem with Cahtolocism is using a priest for bieng "absolved" and pennecne and sanctifying grace. God has 'amazing grace" and its he alone who does it I see nothing wrong in spiritual guidance from priests but god grants me forgiveness, not a person. We are to have a personal relationship, no middle man.
I may do lighting a cnadle prayer and communion but not necessarily communion in my own church. I like lots of things with Catholocism, but certain things not so much. I am not sure but is it true they belive other faiths wont have slavation? the Catholic church is the true chruch and others cant have it cause its the true and sactifying grace etc?
Maybe i am contradicting myself, I dunno. I'm still really confused and low on sleep. I have to not give up on God just for my sleep to straighten out, let alone understand other things. I know its not the prayer request form but please plople I need all the prayers I can for my sleep. Its a long battle getting over sedative medications to sleep so I have racing thoughts and am confused quite often ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/forum
Support the mother who lost her son protest the war
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/
here are my comments, I am UHaventDoneNothin
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/node/121
Posts: 426 | From: United States | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
bygrace
unregistered
|
posted
Phillip James writes:
Yes it really IS the risen Christ, (Body, Blood Soul and Divinity) that we share in. And if one partakes who 'fails to recognize the Body' they 'eat and drink a judgement on themselves'. (1Cor 11:29)
So the Church tries to ensure only those who know this partake. It is done to spare them, who would drink without recognizing the Body, this judgement.
So you believe that the communion bread literally becaomes the body?
Am I understanbding this correctly, are you saying you are Catholic?
bygrace
IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
Why should one play around with the counterfiet trappings of religion, when one can have a full and complete relationship with God through Christ alone, through faith alone.
There is ONLY ONE pathway to Glory, and His name is Jesus. One does NOT come to the Creator God through Mary, or through any other of His sinners saved by grace. One does NOT come to God through any man or woman, for ALL have sinned and fallen far short of the glory of God. One can only come to God through God manifest in the flesh, our Lord and our Savior Jesus.
Romans 10:
9: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10: For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11: For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12: For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13: For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
--------------------
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 |
|
|
bygrace
unregistered
|
posted
mysavinggrace writes:
I mean I may occasionally do somehitng with Mary but not always. I see nothing wrong in these thing socassionally but its necessary to know that nothing is higher than God or Jesus.
I don't understand why you would do this? Do you not know that it is wrong to pray to anyone other Jesus? You say you don't get Catholics etc...yet you participate in this idol worship.
???????
IP: Logged |
|
|
MySavingGrace
Advanced Member
Member # 4697
|
posted
^^^^ I don't get how non Cahtolics don't "undersatnd" it. I understand if its cause of not having sanctifying grace thorugh ocnfession and/or believing in all the teahcing sof Cahtolocism. But, I dont see how we can't udnertand
with me still getting rosaries,
I mean I may occasionally do somehitng with Mary but not always. I see nothing wrong in these thing socassionally but its necessary to know that nothing is higher than God or Jesus. My main thing with cahtolocism I don't agree with is having a preist for confesson and forgiveness instead of going to God yourself.
--------------------
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/forum
Support the mother who lost her son protest the war
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/
here are my comments, I am UHaventDoneNothin
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/node/121
Posts: 426 | From: United States | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Philip James
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
But, until recently I didnt even know about this one thing that really ticks me off aobut Cahtolocism: if I'm not Catholic I CAN'T take communion. I can't "udnerstand" its ltierally Christ's blood and bread etc.
[/QB]
Hi MSG,
I am sorry that this 'ticks you off', but you have to understand why it is done:
Yes it really IS the risen Christ, (Body, Blood Soul and Divinity) that we share in. And if one partakes who 'fails to recognize the Body' they 'eat and drink a judgement on themselves'. (1Cor 11:29)
So the Church tries to ensure only those who know this partake. It is done to spare them, who would drink without recognizing the Body, this judgement.
For the Eucharist's significance in refrence to the unity of the Church, see my tag line.
Peace and Love!
PJ
IP: Logged |
|
|
TEXASGRANDMA
Advanced Member
Member # 847
|
posted
"Anyways, I was wondering what other faiths do these thigns and which let you take part in communion even if you're not a member?"
-----------------------------------------
In the Assembly of God Churches, Southern Baptist, Swedish Baptist, and Moasic Church, you can take communion if you are a Christian. I have taken communion several times at my son's Church (Mosaic)
betty
--------------------
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 |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
The Roman Catholic Church in their own teaching has elevated Mary and given her the title of Mediatrix, contrary to scripture which says that their is ONE Mediator between God and man, and that is Christ alone.
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a78.htm
Is Mary a mediator?
Question Who told you that Roman Catholics believe that Mary and the Saints are mediators to God? As Roman Catholics, we believe that Jesus Christ is the only mediator to God. Just curious to know how you came up with that.
Answer Here are a few excerpts from the book "The Glories of Mary" written by St. Alphonsus Liguori. All quotations are taken from the chapter entitled "Mary Our Mediatrix."
* Mary, the most faithful mediatrix of salvation.
* She has been made the ladder to paradise, the gate to heaven, the most true mediatrix between God and human beings.
* No creature has since received any grace from God except through the hands of Mary.
* Are we then going to scruple to ask her to save us when (as St. Germanus says) no one is saved except through her?
Moreover, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 969, affirms that Mary is a mediatrix:
Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.
In contrast, the Bible declares that there is one mediator:
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:5,6).
Catholic apologists invent all sort of excuses to explain how Mary could be a mediator when the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is the only mediator. Mary, they say, is a mediator because she prays for us, just as we pray for one another.
Apart from the fact that the Bible does not mention anything about Mary and the saints in heaven praying for us, our intercessions does not make us as mediators of salvation. Jesus is mediator because he gave himself on the cross as a ransom, paying the price for the liberty of his people. He reconciles man with God because He took away sin.
We may certainly pray for one another, but ultimately your salvation or damnation depends on your personal relationship with Jesus Christ. "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36). All the prayers of all the saints in heaven and earth, and all the curses of all the lost and all the demons in hell, cannot secure or threaten your salvation if you are resting by faith on Christ Jesus.
Contrary to the fanciful human imaginations, the Bible teaches that Jesus is the mediator of the new coventant (Hebrews 12:24); He is the door to salvation (John 10:9); and all God's grace and kindness are given "through Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:7); no-one is saved through Mary; all are saved who call on the name of the Lord (Romans 10:13).
Dear friend, since you believe that Jesus is the only mediator, and that Mary is not, what are you going to do now? Would you remain in the Catholic Church that places a host of "mediators" along with Christ, or join an Evangelical church where people really believe in Christ as the one and only mediator?
Copyright Dr Joe Mizzi. Permission given by author to copy this article without changes. < BACK TO Q&A
--------------------
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 |
|
|
bygrace
unregistered
|
posted
mysavinggrace writes:
I may do a rosary prayer once a week with Mary but the other times stages of the cross or divine mercy. I'm also interested in a rosary in a few months of the holy spirit in a yellow color scheme.
I don't get this. What do you mean?
You are going to do this even after you sought counsel on this very thing and was given the reasons why you should not?
Please explain, maybe I am misunderstanding...
bygrace
IP: Logged |
|
|
MySavingGrace
Advanced Member
Member # 4697
|
posted
I've heard of something called the cult of mary
Just like the Buddha never intended to be worshipped or have statues or be like a god, the same has happened iwth mary.
I may do a rosary prayer once a week with Mary but the other times stages of the cross or divine mercy. I'm also interested in a rosary in a few months of the holy spirit in a yellow color scheme.
I see nothing wrong with occasionally honoring saints but to put them and mary extremely high is borderline "false idol." though they were real poeple and good people, nobody should replace God with our time. The same with Jesus.
how the rosary talksa bout Haily Mary pray for us sinners etc..... I may change it to Father God or Lord Jesus instaed when I do it. I've heard at times Cathlics feel unworthy of God when they are sinning or what have you and use mary as the "messenger" to tell him too.
by the way, whats a mediatrix?
--------------------
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/forum
Support the mother who lost her son protest the war
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/
here are my comments, I am UHaventDoneNothin
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/node/121
Posts: 426 | From: United States | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
Catholic Cathechism:
969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."512
47. The RC teaches: Mary is the co-mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions. (Catechisms 968-970, 2677).
The Bible teaches: Christ Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions. I Timothy 2:5, John 14:13&14, I Peter 5:7.
Main Entry: me•di•a•trix
Pronunciation: -'A-triks
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin, feminine of mediator
Date: 15th century
: a woman who is a mediator
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pray0685.htm
Prayer to Our Lady, Health of the Sick
Virgin, most holy, Mother of the Word Incarnate, Treasurer of graces, and Refuge of sinners, I fly top your motherly affection with lively faith, and I beg of you the grace ever to do the will of God.
Into your most holy hands I commit the keeping of my heart, asking you for health of soul and body, in the certain hope that you, my most loving Mother, will hear my prayer.
Into the bosom of your tender mercy, this day, every day of my life, and at the hour of my death, I commend my soul and body.
To you I entrust all my hopes and consolations, all my trials and miseries, my life and the end of my life, that all my actions may be ordered and disposed according to your will and that of your Divine Son. Amen.
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a64.htm
Every Christian should consider Mary with respect. She is forever to be called blessed. Yet, I think it is a sign of disrespect when people expect from her things that she cannot give. Why would people pray to her, when the Bible clearly teaches us that we should pray to God and that God alone knows our hearts (1 Kings 8:39)? Why would people ask grace from Mary, when the Bible teaches us that all grace comes from God (1 Peter 5:10)? Why should people call her "our life" and "our hope", when the Bible teaches us that the Lord is our life and hope (Colossians 3:4; 1 Timothy 1:1)? Why would people make her a mediator, when the Bible says that there is one mediator, Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5)? And why should people trust even the hour of their death wholly to her care? Isn't the Good Shepherd of the sheep willing to keep His own and bring them safely to glory (John 10:27,28)?
Sadly, in practice many Catholics worship Mary because they pray to her, trust in her and attribute to her titles and honors, which belong to God alone. May God grant them repentance. Rather than looking unto a creature, we should follow Mary in her godly example and apply to the Lord for salvation and all spiritual blessings.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a07.htm
The Rosary
Question I was taught that the rosary is scriptural because all 15 mysteries tell about the life of Christ. The "hail Mary" (the first part anyway) is taken directly from the Bible. Your thoughts?
Answer Consider first of all, the form of the rosary. It is 10 repetitions of the 'Hail Mary' for five times. What did our Lord say about repetitious prayer? "When you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words" (Matthew 6:6,7). Prayer is the spontaneous expression of the heart before God - of praise and thanksgiving, confession and petition. Repeating the same prayer over and over again tends to dull the mind. Such repetitions are vain and pagan.
Secondly, and more importantly, note that Jesus told us to address our prayer to God. "Pray to your Father." There is no example or permission in the whole Bible of Christians praying to anyone except God. And for a good reason. God is able to hear our prayers from heaven (there must be thousands of people praying at this very moment), because He knows all things. "whatever prayer, whatever supplication is made by anyone...then hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and forgive, and act, and give to everyone according to all his ways, whose heart You know - for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men" (1 Kings 8:38,39). God knows our heart and He hears our prayer. But Mary is not God. She is a finite human being. She does not know the hearts of all people. God alone knows them. "For You ALONE know the hearts of all the sons of men."
Thirdly, when Catholics pray to Mary: "Pray for us sinners, now and in the hour of our death," they are placing their trust for salvation in the hands of a creature, rather in the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Mary herself did not do so because she acknowledged God as her Savior (Luke 1:47). The Catholic Catechism explains the significance of the 'Hail Mary': 'Our trust broadens further, already at the present moment, to surrender the hour of our death wholly to her care' (paragraph 2677). Please find Act 7:59 in your Bible and read about a Christian at the very moment before his death. To whose care did he commit his spirit before he died? And then ask yourself, to whom am I surrendering the hour of my death - to Mary (a saved creature) or to the Lord Jesus (our God and Savior)?
Copyright Dr Joe Mizzi. Permission given by author to copy this article without changes. < BACK TO Q&A
--------------------
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 |
|
|
Shofar
Advanced Member
Member # 4788
|
posted
quote:
find it very sad how some Cahtolics feel people wh oaren't in Catholic chruch won't have salvaton Their church is the right way the only way and if you're not in it you don't have salvation and sanctifying grace.
Dear MyGrace,
Catholics aren't the only one who do this. Other denominations do this as well. I moderated the "Catholic and Evangelical" boards for Christianity Today before they left AOL.
AND, as far as communion goes ... I practice communion in my home. My goal is to do this on a daily basis.
I have often tried to put myself into Mary's place ... ::: shudders ::: Can you imagine being one so young with such a profound calling? Indeed, she was blessed to have been given the opportunity to be the earthly mother of our Lord Jesus. I can't imagine what that was like; however, with that blessing must have come much heartache. Don't you think?
It really is a shame how many belief systems have embraced Maryology. I am sure Mary would be horrified at how she has been idolized and lifted to a position above her Savior by some. Can you believe it? There are some who would rather fellowship with Mary than Jesus Christ in their quiet time!
On another note ((sheesh, and not for this board)) but I believe that Maryology is one of the keys to ushering in a one world acceptance of an apostate Christianity when the Anti-Christ and False Prophet merge. I believe there is strong evidence that the "Anti-Christ" will be of the Muslim faith and the "False Prophet" will be apostate Christianity. These two will tie our two main belief systems together, IMO.
--------------------
Shofar
Posts: 24 | From: New Mexico | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
MySavingGrace
Advanced Member
Member # 4697
|
posted
My mother told me her brother and his wife had to bow down to and/or pray to mary at their wedding for their not yet conceived but to be born children.
One thing I don't get with Catholocism is they put mary so high (which is great to have a relgion put a woman high up for once) yet don't want women as priests .They say no disciples were priests etc. I say its cause that was ages ago and women had no rights.
I see nothing wrong (for me) with saying things about mary or even a couple saits socassionally but not over God. God gets the full attention and the fully praise. Jesus is where we get salvation by God Not a priest and not mary. Mary was proabably a great person (I've heard there's literature written by her not put in the bible too) but Jesus is the numbe rone! nobody who's lived on earth can be above the son of God. And, nothing can be above God either.
I find it very sad how some Cahtolics feel people wh oaren't in Catholic chruch won't have salvaton Their church is the right way the only way and if you're not in it you don't have salvation and sanctifying grace. Even if it was the ":right" way, that doesnt make other christians any less I feel it as a form of anti semitism but towards people not of their faith. I really feel bad for peole who belive that and they need prayers more than they realize.
--------------------
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/forum
Support the mother who lost her son protest the war
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/
here are my comments, I am UHaventDoneNothin
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/node/121
Posts: 426 | From: United States | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
bygrace
unregistered
|
posted
There is so much to say, but I'll start with this:
THe new Testament presents Mary as a dedicated servant og God. When the angel Gabriel told her that God had chosen her to to bear the Christ-child, she humbly accepted. "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. 'May it be to me as you have said' " (Luke 1:38.
The scriptures mention Mary briefly in relation to several events in Jesus' life.
At the wedding feast at Cana, when the wine ran out, Mary asked Jesus to help, instructing the servants, "Do whatever he tells you" 9John 2:5).
(Good advice for us all)
As Jesus hung on the cross, Mary was standing nearby (John 19:25). After Christ's ascension, ahe returned with the disciples to the upper room. There she devoted herself to prayer (Acts 1:14).
The Bible says nothing about the remainder of Mary's life. Indeed, taken as a whole, it has little to say about her.
The Catholic Church, by contrast, has a great deal to say about Mary, often going far beyond the Biblical record.
For example, the church says that Mary was born free of original sin.
It calls this the "Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception." In 1854, Pope Pius IX declared it dogma, an official teaching allegedly received from God.
Though the Bible says that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom.3:23)
the church says that Mary never sinned. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
The church also teaches that at the end of Mary's life God took her bodily into heaven.
This is the "Doctrine of the Assumption of Mary". Pope Pius declared it dogma in 1950.
The Bible makes no mention of God taking Mary into heaven.
The church says that Mary sits enthroned in heaven as "Queen of Heaven and Earth". It instructs the faithful to praise her as "Virgin most Powerful", "Mother of Mercy", "seat of Wisdom", and "All Holy".
People are to direct their prayers to her as "Advocate", "Helper", "Mother of Grace", (through whom all blessings flow), and "Mediatrix" (the feminine form of mediator).
The Bible reserves such titles for God.
It teaches that there is "one mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"
(1 Tim.2:5)
It tells Christians to bring their needs directly to their heavenly Father in Jesus' name. (John 14:13,14).
Nowhere in the Bible is there an example of anyone praying to Mary or to the Saints.
Finally, the church says that Mary is the "Refuge of Sinners".
Catholics should surrender thier souls at the hour of their death wholly to her care, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church . By contrast, the Bible says that we should put our complete trust in Christ to save us (Rom.10:8-13)
This is some of the material I have on this...I have been witnessing to my Catholic sister-n-law and I pray that you will do the same to those members of the family that are caught up in this false religion.
bygrace
IP: Logged |
|
|
MySavingGrace
Advanced Member
Member # 4697
|
posted
by idol do you mean the pope as being like god or saints and mary as "false idols?"
I've heard there's things in the Dead Sea Scrolls locked in the Vatican casue it talks against the Catholic church.
It says in the bible to go to God yourself for forgiveness. I see nothing wrong with seeing a priest for guidance and psiritual direction but not to be forgiven. I feel that is God's job alone. We are to have a personal relationship with him and it doesn't seem possible that way. I've figured why non-cahtolics can't do communion: since they don't do confession they are not "absolved" of their sins mostly. I'm really into the idea of the divine mercy chaplet and even stages of the cross rosary. I find nothing wrong with researchig Saints as many (like the shrine I found's St. Therese) were great people. I've also heard some werer pagan gods and goddesses. when telling CAtholics paganism influenced it a lot, many flip out like you attack them personally.
Rosaries are beautiful. Tehre are some that are amazing. I may get one in a few months of the holy spirit with a yellow color scheme and the dove. I'm more into getitng rosaries iwth God and Jesus. My stations of the cross one has portrait drawings of the staions and wood beads then the cross has God with Jesus in it and the dove for the holy spirit above Jesus's head. It is sad how some are brainwashed though. Some feel that I (and many here) wil not have salvation cause the Catholic chruch is the real "truth." And we don't have sactifying grace etc. But, I tell them if I know God exists and accept Jesus as my saviour and the messiah and even belive in Father, Son, Holy Ghost how am I "wrong?" to them I think it comes down to a priest granting forgiveness. I can see a priest telling someone how to avoid doing thigs in the future and giving guidance but not to absolve me.
I'm thinking of dedicating one day a week for doing communion at my home then going to that shirne for light a candle prayer nad silent prayer there. And, then one day a week at a regular church. I couldn't see myself becoming Cahtolic because I feel that its sad how people are brainwashed to belive these dogmas. I have nothing against the people or even the priests, just the system.
--------------------
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/forum
Support the mother who lost her son protest the war
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/
here are my comments, I am UHaventDoneNothin
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/node/121
Posts: 426 | From: United States | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
BrazilianMommy
Advanced Member
Member # 4787
|
posted
Anyone can take the communion in Catholic churches in Brazil.
Catholic communion is a little strange anyway, they say that the bread actually becomes the body of Christ, it is not a simbol. I could not believe it when I friend of mine told me that they handle the left over communion in a special way. That is all in Brazil, don't know how it is here.
*** You CAN and maybe should have the communion in your house. That is an AMAZING IDEA Redkermit!!***
About the confession, it is biblical to confess to one another, but the 'another' can not forgive your sins. As far as I know , in the Cath.Churtch, the priest is the only one that can hear your confession and telling you how many 'prayers' and 'candles' that you need to do so you can be forgiven. It is all men imaginagion. So, in my opinion, a waste of time.
I used to go to a catholic church while growing up and after I got to know Jesus and read the bible and I could make a long list about the wrongs of the catholic church. I am not talking about CATHOLICS, but the institution itself, that has too many men rules. I am not even going to talk about the carrying the idol here and there, kissing the pope's whatever, canonizations and...Wow...as I said I am not even going to talk about the other things ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Jesus loves you
Posts: 83 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
bygrace
unregistered
|
posted
mysavinggrace,
I'll get back to you with some info on this.
In short:No, I do not agree with Catholic Doctrine. There are many many things that are dangerously idol, etc.
I had at one time a "roseary" collection, before I realized what it was all about and threw them out.
I collected only because I thought they were pretty though, not for use with prayer.
But I still got rid of them.
I will go through my notes, and get back to you.
bygrace
IP: Logged |
|
|
MySavingGrace
Advanced Member
Member # 4697
|
posted
what I mean is the rosary and cahplets I've gotten a divine mercy chaplet which really hasn't got anything to do with anything Marian at all My parents don't believe and II want to meditate/pray about that. I also love the concept of Jesus's Divine Mercy. And, the light a candle prayer I like it and how others ee it and pray for the intentions even if they don't know what the prayer is for.
I have joined this one cahtolic message board to learn more an dits really sad with this one thing some are doctored to believe:
some of them feel Jewish people won't be saved and they had their "chance." some believe non-cahtolics won't be saved. Its really sad how people believe that. I see no place in the bible that says Jewish people (aka Gods children) won't be saved. I think its anti-semitism and some don't even know it. I've been baptised and accpet and love Jesus as my saviour and the mssiah and know God exists. To me that plus trying to be a good person is enough. I think its a "dogma" they're brought up with. REally sad
I really love the idea of divine mercy and got a stages of the cross rosary. I'm not too into using Mary when I pray but stages of the cross is about Jesus. Also, since my fiancee's family is one hundred percent Italian and one hundred percent Catholic I feel I should learn more.
It is sad though how they're programmed to feel the only way to be forgiven (absolved) from sin is by confesson and not going to God yourslef. God is supposed to be a close relationship. How can you be close to someone if you use a middle man? I have a professor in world religions that I found out is an Anglican priests. He says they do confessions when I asked Not sure if they do rosaries and communion and lighting a candle too.
To Catholics, the role of priests are laid out and that it says in the bible they have a role and can absolve your isns etc Yet, that same bible says come ot God yourself. Some feel it talks about the "hcurhc" in the bible and that church was the Cahtolic church and no other way. Some feel I can have actual grace yet not sanctifying grace since I'm not Cahtolic. I personally odn't belive it and feel sorry for and think we hsould pray for these people who are brainwashed that way. The reason I want to adopt things like divine mercy chaplets and light a candle prayer is I really do love them and what they represent But, I don't want to joion a church that doesn't let non members do communion or feels other faiths are not saved. I may even attend a couple of masses with his family to see what its like and understand their faith more.
I've thought about doing communion myself. I'm also thinking of a weekly day to go to this shirne and do light a candle with my faincee and meditate with rosary there and maybe do communion myself earlier that day with cranberry juice and a regular cracker. To me what things symbolize dont have to be actually the same as th "correct" wafers or wine I like certain things with Catholocism and other things I don't. The more I learn on it, the worse I feel for people in the faith doctored to believe "dogmas" that are brainwashing them. God has more power than any priest can or will.
Bygrace,
do you feel that catholocsism is demonic and satanic under a mask?
--------------------
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/forum
Support the mother who lost her son protest the war
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/
here are my comments, I am UHaventDoneNothin
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/node/121
Posts: 426 | From: United States | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
redkermit
Advanced Member
Member # 4059
|
posted
My only confession is to God (and any I may have wronged), but no confession to a priest. A priest cannot forgive my sins.
Communion is a part of almost all churches. Probably not done much, though. As someone else pointed out in a previous discussion about communion, you can do it in your home. I know there are some denominations out there that require you to be a member of their church to partake in communion, but in the Nazarene church, the only requirement is that you are a professing believer.
--------------------
I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of the wicked. (Ps. 84:10b)
1 John 2:6
Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.
Listen Online:
www.wmuz.com
www.997flr.org
Posts: 604 | From: Michigan | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
bygrace
unregistered
|
posted
Communion is used in the Baptist Churches, and others.
As for confession, that is in the Catholic Church.
Why would you "get into Catholic things" if you do not believe as they do?
Confession is as you said, between you and God. So leave it at that.
Don't let the Devil keep up the confusion since you are still a new Christian.
Pray about where He wants you to go.
IP: Logged |
|
|
MySavingGrace
Advanced Member
Member # 4697
|
posted
Though I don't agree with confession for sins as opposed to going to God myself and I don't feel babies have sin to go to purgatory or hell (though they feel its their oiginal sin), I was starting to get into some Catholic things. I still got rosaries to use (mainly devine chaplet etc.) But, until recently I didnt even know about this one thing that really ticks me off aobut Cahtolocism: if I'm not Catholic I CAN'T take communion. I can't "udnerstand" its ltierally Christ's blood and bread etc.
When I was younger I remember doing communion I htink for Christmas with my grandma when she was still alive. It was probably not Cahtolic though or since I was a child they were more leniant.
Anyways, I was wondering what other faiths do these thigns and which let you take part in communion even if you're not a member?
rosaries, confesison, communion, lighting a candle prayer, holy water/oil
I really like the idea of communion. I highly doubt I'd become Cahtolic cuase to me its like the "vip room." I've also heard that some Catholics believe non-catholics won't be saved upon death. And, how they don't want women as priests etc I may adopt things like rosary and lighting a candle once a week or two weeks at this realy beautiful shrine that is open for visitors.
--------------------
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/forum
Support the mother who lost her son protest the war
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/
here are my comments, I am UHaventDoneNothin
http://crawfordpeace.nfshost.com/node/121
Posts: 426 | From: United States | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
