Why do Catholics…

[Dropship]

Luckily we Americans can enjoy our freedom today without expecting you evil British colonialists "to pay us a visit!"

If it wasn't for us Brits you'd still be fighting off Indian attacks against your towns and wagon trains, huh you try to be nice (sniffle)..

Great Moments in History: The Pilgrim Fathers Land in the New World!
"Thank God that voyage is over, I was puking my guts up all the way across the Atlantic.
Okay people, break out the guns and lets go kick red butt, we'll be running the place inside a week if that's the best they've got around here!"

 

[Dropship]

Ummmm......An Inquisition is a process by church leaders that takes place to determine if a member of the church is teaching heresy. Do the leaders of your church not care if a member of your congregation is teaching heresy?
Curious Mary

I don't belong to any church because I like to think for myself..:)
Jesus said "You have one teacher, me" (Matt 23:10)
As regards churches, the obvious thing would be for them to kick out any member or fellow pastor if he talks rubbish, but sadly they cover up for each other.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Eating bread and drinking wine is... ready? ... eating bread and drinking wine. Jesus said to do those things to remember Him. The bread and wine are not Jesus' body and blood. It is impossible, since He was there in person when He told the disciples what to do to remember Him.

How does His being there make it “impossible” for God??
YOU can’t create a hurdle high enough for God.

Jesus commanded the Apostles to east His flesh and drink His blood or they would have NO LIFE in them.
Just as the Israelites had to eat the Passover Lamb – Jesus commanded HIS followers to do the same with the Lamb of God John 6:53-58).
He knew that this wasn’t we could do in a literal sense – eating his muscle and tissue – so He offered the SACRAMENTAL prescription of bread and wine to BECOME His body and blood.
Many in the Early Church went to their martyrdom for this belief – and the Romans referred to them as “Cannibals”.

So, congratulations – you have the faith of pagan Rome . . .

 

[Illuminator]

I don't belong to any church because I like to think for myself..:)

It'd good to think for yourself. Consider this:

massive self-contradiction:

1. Jesus is physically present in the Supper.

2. But He is physically present at the right hand of God.

3. We are physically present with Christ in the Supper.

4. But we are physically present with Christ at the right hand of God.

Contradictions: 1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4, 2 vs. 3, and 1 vs. 4.

Why take this view but oppose the view that Jesus is sacramentally present in the Supper? God can perform miracles but He can’t transcend the laws of logic. If we want to restrict ourselves solely to the literal post-Resurrection body of Christ, then we can’t say that is “physically present” in the Supper while simultaneously at the right hand of God, because that is a contradiction, as much as it would be a contradiction to say that Jesus was physically present in Jerusalem during His crucifixion, but simultaneously at the Sea of Galilee.

But the Catholic view is not contradictory because the miracle of transubstantiation is an additional mode of presence of Jesus that is physical in a way approximating spiritual omnipresence (similar in a sense to His post-Resurrection body when He appeared to His disciples and seemed to walk through walls). We are not with Jesus in heaven yet but He is sacramentally and eucharistically with us, by the miracle of the transformation of the elements. In other words, one has to posit the additional miracle of transubstantiation (or at least consubstantiation) in order to have the physical presence.

If Calvin and the Reformed believe that we are actually transported to heaven to meet Jesus there (during Holy Communion), why is it so difficult to believe that He can substantially be present here under the appearances of bread and wine? Both scenarios involve something that transcends our senses, and must be believed on faith. But I think one involves a logical contradiction and the other does not.

We say it is the accidents which are spiritual and not what they appear to be.

So Reformed say, “He is truly here physically, but you are not physically eating His body.”
Catholics say, “He is truly here physically, and you are physically eating His body, even though it appears to be merely bread and wine.” I do see a certain symmetry between the two views because both are saying that you have to deny the evidence of your senses and believe that something miraculous is taking place. The difference is that we cannot yet be in heaven with Jesus because we are not yet glorified bodies and spirits as He is. He can make Himself physically present with us because He is God and can do anything. We can’t literally be with Jesus in heaven until we die and go there or unless we have some miraculous experience like Paul, being taken up to the third heaven.

Sure, we must all admit that God could conceivably perform a miracle like that, too, but I see no reason to believe that He in fact does, because there is no indication in Scripture that such a thing occurs at every Eucharist. Thus, I would say that the Reformed view fails the tests both of Scripture and patristic belief.

We’re told by Reformed that Jesus is physically present at the Lord’s Supper, but not in the bread (or what was formerly bread). This makes no sense, and is contradictory:

1. Jesus is physically present in the Supper.

2. Jesus is not physically present in the bread and wine.

3. But the Supper and the bread and wine are synonymous.

4. Therefore, it follows that Jesus is somehow physically present and not physically present at the same time,
which is a contradiction and impossible.

If Reformed Protestants want to stress the literal human body of Jesus in heaven (and the counter-charge is that we are somehow minimizing this in our view, and obliterating Chalcedonian Christology), and want to make the Eucharist dependent on, or limited by that, then it is strange to make Jesus “physical” in the Eucharist (but not in the bread) and to hold that “the Holy Spirit, in this Sacrament, raises us to Christ where, mysteriously, we feed on his true body and blood.” It’s this constant irrational shifting between “mystical” and “physical” which is the problem. Reformed Protestants refer to a literal feeding on Christ, but He is in heaven, etc. . . . But now we are told that it is a “mystical” presence. So which is it? And how is any of this less difficult to believe than transubstantiation?

I see little (if any) indication in either Scripture or the history of doctrine prior to Calvin and Zwingli that we somehow meet Jesus in heaven (“physically”) during the Eucharist before we actually arrive there after death.

Transubstantiation is not self-contradictory. It is a difficult concept, unusual, a profound miracle which requires exceptional faith, but involves no logical inconsistency. God can do any miracle He so chooses. He can transform the bread and wine into His Body and Blood. That makes sense to me because if God could become a Man He can make Himself substantially present in consecrated elements that were formerly bread and wine.

read more here: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/11/john-calvins-mystical-view-eucharist.html

 

[Dropship]

..if God could become a Man He can make Himself substantially present in consecrated elements that were formerly bread and wine..

If Jesus was God I'm Mary Poppins..:)

 

[Philip James]

If Jesus was God I'm Mary Poppins..:)

Hello Dropship,

Jesus is God.

as for Mary Poppins...

Pax et Bonum

 

[Ferris Bueller]

God can do any miracle He so chooses. He can transform the bread and wine into His Body and Blood. That makes sense to me because if God could become a Man He can make Himself substantially present in consecrated elements that were formerly bread and wine.

But we know empirically that doesn't happen. Simple observation shows us that change does not happen.

And why do Catholics think they have to continually eat the blood and body of Christ for justification? Jesus gave the Passover as a commemoration to the church, not in order to be continually re-justified. Protestants know that you only have to offer up and partake of the sacrifice, by faith, for salvation one time.

 

[RedFan]

I don't belong to any church because I like to think for myself..:)
Jesus said "You have one teacher, me" (Matt 23:10)

I wonder where that leaves Paul, 1 Timothy 2:7 -- or do you discount his epistles as overruled by your interpretation of Matthew 23:10?
I wonder where that leaves Timothy and those instructed by him, 2 Timothy 2:2 -- or are they overruled as teachers as well?

 

[RedFan]

And why do Catholics think they have to continually eat the blood and body of Christ for justification? Jesus gave the Passover as a commemoration to the church, not in order to be continually re-justified. Protestants know that you only have to offer up and partake of the sacrifice, by faith, for salvation one time.

Here's an excerpt from an 1884 sermon given by an Episcopal priest, Daniel C. Roberts (1841-1907), on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the consecration of his church building, St. Paul’s, in Concord, New Hampshire:

"Christ hath offered and been offered once for all. But that one offering stands in the eternity of the being of God, free from the bond and measure of time, and He who made the offering stands in the royal Priesthood of Melchisedek, without beginning of days or end of life.

"We, in our feebleness, measure by days, by years, by anniversaries, generations, ages, centuries, cycles, but eternity with God is an everlasting now, and time is not. And so we plead, and the church ceases not to plead, the sacrifice of Christ. We do it day by day, year by year, and the narrow, scoffing unbeliever dares to say that we think to repeat the sacrifice many times. But it is not so. In the presence of that altar of the one sacrifice, in the presence of the cross of Calvary, we stand to-day; and we share to-day, by His own gift and benediction, the very Priesthood of Him who offers that sacrifice. We are made an holy Priesthood, offering unceasingly, as our constant and availing plea, but not renewing, that which is never old, never anything but new, the sacrifice of Christ."

 

[Ferris Bueller]

We are made an holy Priesthood, offering unceasingly, as our constant and availing plea, but not renewing, that which is never old, never anything but new, the sacrifice of Christ."

The offering of Christ is completed, not unceasingly offered. And Catholics perform the Passover repeatedly to be re-justified repeatedly. It's a works salvation religion, no different than the old covenant of continually being re-justified by repeated religious rituals.

 

[Dropship]

I don't belong to any church because I like to think for myself..:)
Jesus said "You have one teacher, me" (Matt 23:10)

I wonder where that leaves Paul, 1 Timothy 2:7 -- or do you discount his epistles as overruled by your interpretation of Matthew 23:10?
I wonder where that leaves Timothy and those instructed by him, 2 Timothy 2:2 -- or are they overruled as teachers as well?

Jesus can be found in any simple gospel like this one, so it beats me why people think they need that Pope bloke in Rome or anybody else to interpret it for them..:)

 

[BreadOfLife]

But we know empirically that doesn't happen. Simple observation shows us that change does not happen.

And why do Catholics think they have to continually eat the blood and body of Christ for justification? Jesus gave the Passover as a commemoration to the church, not in order to be continually re-justified. Protestants know that you only have to offer up and partake of the sacrifice, by faith, for salvation one time.

How can you “empirically know” that the Eucharist doesn’t become the Body and Blood of Christ – when the doctrine NEVER claims that you can actually “observe” a change in the substance??
You can suspect that it doesn’t – or you can reject that it does – but you can’t empirically know.

As to your question about why we continually receive the Eucharist – it’s Scripture and Tradition.
Jesus said that UNLESS you eat His flesh and drink His blood – you have NO LIFE within you (John 6:53).

With regards to the Lord’s Supper - Paul tells us:
1 Cor. 11:26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

We proclaim His death because THAT ‘was the sacrifice for our sins.
This is why Paul wrote:
1 Cor. 1:22-23
For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but WE preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles

This is a stumbling block to MOST of the Protestants I know as well, who ONLY preach the Resurrection and ridicule Catholics for displaying the Crucifix.
NO Crucifixion – NO expiation for our sins – and NO Resurrection.

 

[RedFan]

Jesus can be found in any simple gospel like this one, so it beats me why people think they need that Pope bloke in Rome or anybody else to interpret it for them..:)

I'll let the Roman Catholics address any teaching authority of "that Pope bloke in Rome," but as to Jesus being found in each gospel, well sure, He is "found" there. Yet I think it is pretty clear that our four canonical gospels do not furnish an answer to every theological question -- which, I assume, is why Paul, Timothy and Timothy's proteges (2 Timothy 2:2) and many other men (sorry, Phoebe, I'm not forgetting you!) were to be teachers.

If passing out copies of the gospels is all that is ever needed, weighty questions (like the one addressed at the Council of Jerusalem on how to deal with the requirements of the Law vis-a-vis Gentiles) that find no explicit solution in the words of Jesus as recorded -- I should stress, later recorded -- in the gospels would become seriously problematic. That's why I think we need the teaching authority of the Church -- which, I should stress, is NOT my shorthand for the RCC, but rather for the apostolic tradition broadly construed (and not perfectly preserved, in my view, by the RCC, although I give it a B+ for effort).

John may have been engaging in hyperbole when claiming that Jesus did and said so much unmentioned in his gospel that the whole world wouldn't hold the volumes needed to write all of it down (John 21:25). But if He said or did something noteworthy that his apostles recalled, and passed on to others, who passed it on to others, and so on -- forming an apostolic tradition -- I'd certainly like to know about it! (Reconstructing it all might be a bit difficult, but not impossible).

 

[Philip James]

t's a works salvation religion, no different than the old covenant

Hello Ferris,

How is Jesus sharing His life with us and pouring out His Grace on us through the sacraments, a 'works based salvation?'
Maybe instead of attacking that strawman, you should try to understand what we actually , believe, teach and practice.

You can do so by reading this:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

I suggest you start at the prolouge..

Pax et Bonum

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus can be found in any simple gospel like this one, so it beats me why people think they need that Pope bloke in Rome or anybody else to interpret it for them..
View attachment 24490

Uhhhh – maybe it’s the tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant factions who ALL teach different doctrines based in the different interpretations of each individual sect’s leader.

And the problem is that MANY different “Jesus’s” have been invented by MANY individuals who “found” Him on THEIR terms . . .

Matt. 16:18-19
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give YOU the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Luke 10:16
“The one who hears YOU hears ME, and the one who rejects YOU rejects ME, and the one who rejects me rejects HIM who sent me.”

 

[Dropship]

..Yet I think it is pretty clear that our four canonical gospels do not furnish an answer to every theological question..

The ordinary guys and gals had no problem understanding Jesus..;)
"And the common people heard him gladly" (Mark 12:37)
But the snooty priestly classes kept looking for 'deeper meaning', so Jesus had to tell them-
"You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life" (John 5:39-40)
And Paul said to other muddleheads- "I am worried lest you be led astray from the simplicity of Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:3)

 

[Dropship]

..tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant factions who ALL teach different doctrines based in the different interpretations of each individual sect’s leader..

One leader or tens of thousands of leaders makes no difference to me, some are more sensible than others but generally I reject them all because I'm non-denom and have always avoided the shackles of organised religion..:)

 

[Ferris Bueller]

As to your question about why we continually receive the Eucharist

...for justification.
Why do you seek to be continually re-justified by the blood of Christ? Protestants know that happens one time for all time and does not need to be repeated. For the believer the sacrifice of Christ accomplishes it's task the first time it is believed on. And accomplished forever, not needing to be repeated.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

How can you “empirically know” that the Eucharist doesn’t become the Body and Blood of Christ – when the doctrine NEVER claims that you can actually “observe” a change in the substance??
You can suspect that it doesn’t – or you can reject that it does – but you can’t empirically know.

Then it doesn't change into human blood and human tissue. You can believe that it does if you want in your Catholic delusion, but it doesn't change into human blood and tissue.

 

[Brakelite]

I don't think that by refuting Calvin's view we are any closer to accepting the Catholic view. Both are untenable by the simple fact that Jesus is still a human being, albeit with a glorified body, but in becoming human He sacrificed His omnipresence. He cannot physically be in two places at once... And scripture tells us where He is... In the true sanctuary in heaven, ministering as our High Priest.
He sent His Spirit to be with His church. To empower, to teach, to convict. What gives us a new life is the operation of the Spirit through His word. It is through scripture and scripture alone, not sacraments, not good works, nor non biblical traditions like Sunday sacredness, that the holy Spirit sanctifies His people. "Sanctify them through the truth... Thy word is truth."

KJV Isaiah 55:9-11
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

KJV Hebrews 4:12
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart

Hebrews 1:1 ¶ God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all thehost of them by the breath of his mouth……
….9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

It is not you who are to do that which the Lord pleases, but "it shall accomplish that which I please".
Isaiah 45:23; 46:10

You are not to hear or read the word of God and say, 'I must do that, I will do that, I promise to try to do that.' You are to open the heart to that word, that it may accomplish the will of God in you. The word of God itself is to do it, and you are to let it.

KJV Colossians 3:16-17
16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom...
17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

KJV 1 John 2:3-5
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.


KJV Luke 8:15
15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

KJV Romans 3:24-26
24 Being justified (made righteous) freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.


KJV 1 John 2:5
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

KJV Luke 11:28
28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

KJV John 14:23
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.