Donna Green - 20 July 2008 11:00 PM

Danni
“Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you”. See John’s gospel

1Tim 3:15: The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Phil 2:12 - ..work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

Matt 19 - regarding divorce.  Note that Jesus gives permission for divorce (only for unfaithfulness) but does not give permission for re-marriage. 

That’s a start

Donna,

You I note have avoided responding to my comment on Veneration as well my best wishes for the WYD and a recovery of faith among the Catholic young.

I do believe in the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s supper but understand his presence in the spiritual sense - with Calvin I see “the Lord’s Supper as medicine for poor sick souls”. I know that Christ is physically present in His resurrection body with His Father in glory where He ever lives to intercede for His children.

As a Protestant I too affirm 1 Tim 3:15 and as for quoting Phil 2:12 you have committed a faux pas for Phil 2:12 is followed by Phil 2:13: “for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

As for the Matt 19 passage you are partly right - Christ only permitted divorce in the case of adultery but you have no biblical warrant for suggesting that remarriage is not possible for the wronged party.

So what else do you have now that we have seen your starters?

I hope more Catholics come onto this website, and debate matters. I hope for an open minded inquiring search for Christian truth, without seeing matters focused on denominations.

What does God tell us about what He wants? One should come with minds of our own, and not prejudice.

Without the bible, where would we look to understand Christian belief? Surely the Bible is the primary source? Do Catholics believe and practice what the bible says?

Below are a couple of websites to look at?

(I apologise if some of them are a bit corny in presentation; but read the texts.
I cannot say I will agree with every comment in them, but for research purposes..... )

Of course there are also Catholic websites which argue the opposite view.

Catholicism verses Scripture

Catechism vs the Bible

(Posting websites like this saves me typing time, excuse me)

Thanks Donna for your recent posts. It’s always good to have people out there who are able to undermine the stereotype that Catholics are merely brain washed sheep who have never read their Bibles. They may disagree with the way that you interpret the Bible, but that can’t complain that you haven’t thought about your position.

It does seem a little bit strange to me that people would suggest that the Church micromanages its flock, given that many people on this thread are so committed to the 39 Articles.

I do believe in the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s supper but understand his presence in the spiritual sense - with Calvin I see “the Lord’s Supper as medicine for poor sick souls”.

Hmmm but what does that mean David?  Does CHrist have a real spiritual presence in the Lord’s supper that is different from any other spiritual presence of GOd? 

How does the Lord’s supper “medicate” souls?

Oh and somebody needs to decide on the Anglican rules of the game, I vote that if we’re allowed to agree with (ie quote) Calvin and Luther in tsupport of “our” arguments then Dan shouldn’t criticise our RC brothers and sisters for drawing on their early church teachers to illustrate their points.

Donna Green - 20 July 2008 11:27 PM

I have many protestant friends.  They are uncomfortable with these texts and cannot reconcile their beliefs with what these scriptures say.

I’m sorry to hear that because they can easily be reconciled with a Protestant understanding of scripture.

The common belief is that the bread and wine are symbols.

That’s pretty much correct except for our Lutheran brothers and sisters.

But when Jesus commands us to something, we need to do it.  “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in you”.

Jesus gave this command while enacting it at the last supper. Do you think any one of the disciples understood Jesus as saying that the bread and wine he was sharing was literally his flesh and blood given that he was still very much there intact in his own flesh and blood? Given the Jewish laws concerning drinking blood, let alone cannibalism, surely they would have understood it for the symbolism it was.

Surely Jesus would have said “come on, I didn’t mean literally, I just meant they represent my flesh and blood”.  Why would He let so many go from Him.  Jesus said 12 times he was the bread that came down from heaven; 4 times they would have “to eat my flesh and drink my blood”.

Jesus also said “I am the vine, you are the branches” (John 15:5). I hope you can agree that Jesus did use figures of speech about himself.

The key to all this is the GAFCONITE solution..do not read the Scriptures except in the way they have been done so by the Church through the centuries..........but what several persons here are dong here is giving interpretations which are as novel as the Gays who claim that the Bible is only talking about lack of hospitality!

You can make Scripture mean what it wants, ( justify polygamy , apartheid, slavery etc) but there is only one interpretation that counts and that is the authentic Catholc interpretaiton, bolsterdd by 2,000 years of exegesis and bolstered on the rock.

No one has answered my challenge......where is the Christian figure before Calvin who denies that to be born again is water baptism? How could the God of the Bible (if the evangelical theory is correct,) allow this central truth to be lost?

Donna,

Donna Green - 20 July 2008 11:27 PM

But when Jesus commands us to something, we need to do it.  “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in you”.  Why did so many leave on Him saying these words.  They were horrified.  Surely Jesus would have said “come on, I didn’t mean literally, I just meant they represent my flesh and blood”.

Then why doesn’t the Catholic church make a similar effort about getting people to obey this following command from Jesus?
[quote author="Matthew 5:29-30, ESV translation"]29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

(removed at Donna’s helpful rebuke)

Donna Green - 20 July 2008 11:27 PM

Jesus said 12 times he was the bread that came down from heaven; 4 times they would have “to eat my flesh and drink my blood”.

Jesus also plainly said that he was a vine and that the Apostles were branches. Surely this does not mean Jesus had bark for skin and the apostles had grapes coming out of their ears. Wouldn’t you agree that Jesus often spoke figuratively as well as literally?

Donna Green - 20 July 2008 11:27 PM

There are numerous very early church writings on this doctrine.

But when the early church even as far back as the NT era so frequently got their teaching wrong and had to be rebuked by the apostles in what became scripture, what level of confidence can you have in something just because it came from the early church? Hundreds of heresies have come from the early church.

Timbo

Timbo,

Holy Scripture informs us that apostasy is the hallmark of some, not all...”.some shall depart from the Faith.”

The first known apostasy in the NT is the declaration on the eucharist. ( John 5)

Unfortunateliy in every age some Catholics fall away...all catholics should all be on guard lest we “ suffer shipwreck of faith “ the deveil, a prowling lion lies in wait. to devour us…

However every text dealing with apostasy is of individuals and not of the Church per se

The Catholic church will stand forever, as it is the Kingdom of God, and as predicted will be eternal....no matter how duff the keeper of the keys is.

A hundred years from now Sydney Anglicanism could have gone liberal and broken up into schisms....or maybe white Australia will have passed away with the teeming Asian millions sweeping down upon you.......but you can rest assured, if the Lord has not returned there still will be the Catholic Church. headed by the keeper of the Keys. Alleluia!

Robert ian Williams - 20 July 2008 10:46 PM

As for praying for the dead being taken from Mormonism! The Mormon church was started in 1830, and we have inscriptions on the catacommbs in Rome pre-dating that by at least 1770 years!

This was NEVER suggested. A careful reading of the post - which was on the OTHER thread - will note that it said :

20 July 2008 10:33am [ # 81 ]

The idea that “we can receive an indulgence for ourselves or for them “ probably influenced the Mormons’ idea of getting your long dead ancestors ‘baptised’. Neither practices can be found in the Bible.

Even down here in the Antipodes,we are aware of when the Mormon church started. ( We just don’t know when they were first required to wear their door-to-door uniform of white shirts and black ties. )

Cheers, Kevin

Kevin Goddard - 20 July 2008 07:07 PM

( #146 ) Having just seen the Pope on the news “bless” some young children by making the sign of the cross on their heads, what exactly does this signify ? Is the receiver - be they children or adult - any better off because they have received a papal blessing ? What is the efficacy of receiving one ? How different now is the receiver of a papal blessing than if they had not ?

I am still waiting for some answers to my sincere questions. Anyone ?

Sorry I cgot that wrong Kevin..thanks for correcting me.

However there is reference to baptism for the dead in FIirst Corinthians..but I think the phrase why are they baptized -Ie) not why are we baptized , is the clue to see he is referring to some sect arian practice out of the Catholic Church.

Furthermore I am assured by the Church that the practice is not part of the Deposit of Faith.

Melinda Seed - 21 July 2008 01:14 AM

I do believe in the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s supper but understand his presence in the spiritual sense - with Calvin I see “the Lord’s Supper as medicine for poor sick souls”.

Hmmm but what does that mean David?  Does CHrist have a real spiritual presence in the Lord’s supper that is different from any other spiritual presence of GOd? 

How does the Lord’s supper “medicate” souls?

Oh and somebody needs to decide on the Anglican rules of the game, I vote that if we’re allowed to agree with (ie quote) Calvin and Luther in tsupport of “our” arguments then Dan shouldn’t criticise our RC brothers and sisters for drawing on their early church teachers to illustrate their points.

Melinda, my off the cuff response to you is that I think Donna has a point in quoting the John 6 passage - a memorialist view of the Lord’s Supper is grossly reductionist and here I’m simply trying to be true to the Reformed tradition, following Calvin - I suggest you (and Angus Johnson) have a read in Calvin’s Institutes: Book 4, Chapter XVII, where he deals with precisely the issue you raise.

Tim
Why do you have such an issue with Catholics using early Church practice as proof of correct interpretation of scripture.  It seems to really annoy you.  Yes, there were many heresies circling at the earliest times of the Church and still is today.  You did not arrive at your beliefs on your own without any influence from either parents, the church you attend or the forefathers of the protestant church. 

On the particular scripture I quoted to you regarding the Eucharist, I didn’t really need the early writings to back up my point.  I mentioned St Ignatius of Antioch because he knew St John and John wrote the most on the Eucharist and it would have seemed to me unlikely that Ignatius got it wrong the Eucharist.  Unless he was a heretic.  I guess for Protestants, seeing a quote from as early in the Church as that is where it gets a little uncomfortable.

David Palmer - 21 July 2008 09:35 AM

I think Donna has a point in quoting the John 6 passage - a memorialist view of the Lord’s Supper is grossly reductionist and here I’m simply trying to be true to the Reformed tradition, following Calvin - I suggest you (and Angus Johnson) have a read in Calvin’s Institutes: Book 4, Chapter XVII, where he deals with precisely the issue you raise.

Hi David. Thanks for your comments and suggestion to read Calvin’s Institutes. Let me clarify my earlier comments by stating that as Jesus was present at the first Lord’s Supper, I also believe in his real presence (ie spiritual, not just in our memories, but not bodily) at the Lord’s Supper now (cf Matthew 18:20). So, when I stated that the bread and wine were symbolic, I was speaking against transubstantiation, the belief that the bread and wine become literally the body and blood of Christ. I think the apostles would have literally choked (for deep seated cultural reasons) if they had perceived the bread and wine as literally Christ’s body and blood. I also want clarify that while seeing the bread and wine as symbolic, I fully affirm Calvin’s statement concerning The meaning of promise of the Lord’s Supper.

Angus
Some of the disciples did choke, hence the first break from the Church. 

The Greek word for “body” In John 6 is sarx, which can only mean physical flesh and the word for “eat” translates as “gnaws” or “chews”.  Jesus did not say, “this represents my body” He said: “this is My Body”.  He could have said represent if He meant that, but He didn’t. 

If you are interested a book called “The Lamb’s Supper” gives a comprehensive explanation starting from the Old Testament and carries the theme right through to the Book of Revelation.  Or a smaller book “This is My Body: An Evangelical Discovers the Real Presence” by Mark Shea is also excellent for scriptural basis.