Defining a 'True Christian'?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
121

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
There were around 800 documents contained in the 11 caves, which are the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most frequent transcripts were Biblical, except for Enoch, Jubilee, (actually Protestants might disagree with this because they have an incomplete Bible, which the Dead Sea Scrolls prove). [/quote]

What books are we missing in your opinion?[/quote]

There is a list of books to which he is referring that are in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible. They are called the Deuterocanonical books. They include:

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
Baruch
1 and 2 Macabees

There are also longer versions of Daniel and Esther

Martin Luther removed most of the them during the Reformation. They were all contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Texts so they are part of the original Biblical Canon as defined by the Council of Laodicea in 363AD.

Another question I would like to pose for Brother Chris though is whether he beleives Protestants to be true Christians. I know I’ve been approached multiple times with the question of whether Catholics are true Christians (which I do believe) due to beliefs they have that differ from Protestant Christianity.

So do you see any problem with a Protestant being considered a true Christian since we have differences such as in the Bible, belief about penance, purgatory, etc.?[/quote]

You forgot Ecclesiasticus.

It matters on their theology really, there is some “Christians” who don’t hold a valid baptismal sacrament or their theology is so off from Catholicism about God that we couldn’t possibly believe that they were Christians.[/quote]

Oh, I’m sorry. I am not familiar with that one. I didn’t mention the Esdras either because I thought they were more extensions/connections of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Ok, so I think you have the same view on being a Christian as I do. Minor theological differences don’t necessarily matter. What makes a Christian is the view on who Christ is. [/quote]

I’m just not a fan of the individualism within some Protestant theologies.[/quote]

But God must speak to the individuals heart, not the group. Encouraging Bible study, which I never got in the Catholic church, is very important.
[/quote]

Well, that is sad that you didn’t have Bible Study in Catholic Church. Should have done what I did, started one. I actually run three.[/quote]

Bible study is pretty much hit or miss in a lot of churches. What I’ve noticed in most of the modernized, non denominational, emerging churches that I attened is that offer lots of services during the week but often times few Bible study classes. It seems to be that some of the churches that have popped up recently have focused more on feel good evangelism.

122

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
There were around 800 documents contained in the 11 caves, which are the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most frequent transcripts were Biblical, except for Enoch, Jubilee, (actually Protestants might disagree with this because they have an incomplete Bible, which the Dead Sea Scrolls prove). [/quote]

What books are we missing in your opinion?[/quote]

There is a list of books to which he is referring that are in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible. They are called the Deuterocanonical books. They include:

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
Baruch
1 and 2 Macabees

There are also longer versions of Daniel and Esther

Martin Luther removed most of the them during the Reformation. They were all contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Texts so they are part of the original Biblical Canon as defined by the Council of Laodicea in 363AD.

Another question I would like to pose for Brother Chris though is whether he beleives Protestants to be true Christians. I know I’ve been approached multiple times with the question of whether Catholics are true Christians (which I do believe) due to beliefs they have that differ from Protestant Christianity.

So do you see any problem with a Protestant being considered a true Christian since we have differences such as in the Bible, belief about penance, purgatory, etc.?[/quote]

You forgot Ecclesiasticus.

It matters on their theology really, there is some “Christians” who don’t hold a valid baptismal sacrament or their theology is so off from Catholicism about God that we couldn’t possibly believe that they were Christians.[/quote]

Oh, I’m sorry. I am not familiar with that one. I didn’t mention the Esdras either because I thought they were more extensions/connections of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Ok, so I think you have the same view on being a Christian as I do. Minor theological differences don’t necessarily matter. What makes a Christian is the view on who Christ is. [/quote]

I’m just not a fan of the individualism within some Protestant theologies.[/quote]

But God must speak to the individuals heart, not the group. Encouraging Bible study, which I never got in the Catholic church, is very important.
[/quote]

Well, that is sad that you didn’t have Bible Study in Catholic Church. Should have done what I did, started one. I actually run three.[/quote]

Bible study is pretty much hit or miss in a lot of churches. What I’ve noticed in most of the modernized, non denominational, emerging churches that I attened is that offer lots of services during the week but often times few Bible study classes. It seems to be that some of the churches that have popped up recently have focused more on feel good evangelism.[/quote]

Im going to troll in to say that I agree with this. Although I am not Catholic, I do see their frustration with some of the Protestant branches. The “feel good” evangelism(its hard to call it evangelism. More of spreading of scam ) has been gaining popularity the past decade and in some instances, it drifts away from Christ and his Word and focuses in on your emotions.

123

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Yeah…but these people are like people that would repaint the Mona Lisa…because they thought Leonardo da Vinci painted it wrong. Ruin a perfect Eastern hymn…because it’s all about the “personal relationship with Jesus.”[/quote]Fair enough. You’ve accused me a few times of undue focus on the personal aspect and given our extensive history I thought it likely that I would be included in your disapproval. If sincerely not then I was sincerely wrong.

124

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
I have a lot of respect for the Catholic Church. It was responsible for spreading Christianity throughout Western Europe no matter what corruptions took place during the high middle ages. I disagree with its teachings on veneration of the saints, church hierarchy, and purgatory, but I feel those are non essential doctrine. I think that actually, a lot of main line Protestant branches could take an example from the Catholic Church in some ideas of penance and the remembrance of Christ’s suffering. [/quote]

I’ll have to disagree, the Saints are important, they support us and give us examples of God’s faith in his adopted family of sinners. Purgatory is important too, as no one unclean enters Heaven, and the Church hierarchy is important because of pragmatic reasons as well as the fact Jesus established the Church.[/quote]

And that is good that we can disagree on those issues, but we still agree on the most essential doctrine: Christ crucified. [/quote]

I’ll have to point out that you forgot Christ’s resurrection.[/quote]

Point taken. I was just assuming that by Christ crucified, it was implied to be resurrected. Of course there are some that pervert even this teaching.[/quote]

I have another thing to point out, I’m a Catholic, I know surprise. My beliefs center around Jesus crucifixion and resurrection. However, even more my religion, and belief that a true Christian centers himself around the Eucharist and Eucharistic Mass.

This is why I don’t focus on a “personal relationship with Jesus,” because as His holy Church our focus is on the the saving grace of the Eucharist, and that Jesus gave us the Eucharist and the bloodless Mass which he uses to save His Holy Church.

125

Just to comment on a few previous posts, I think a persons emotional state is enormously important in spiritual pursuits. Its generally a good barometer of a persons spiritual health.

126

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
There were around 800 documents contained in the 11 caves, which are the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most frequent transcripts were Biblical, except for Enoch, Jubilee, (actually Protestants might disagree with this because they have an incomplete Bible, which the Dead Sea Scrolls prove). [/quote]

What books are we missing in your opinion?[/quote]

There is a list of books to which he is referring that are in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible. They are called the Deuterocanonical books. They include:

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
Baruch
1 and 2 Macabees

There are also longer versions of Daniel and Esther

Martin Luther removed most of the them during the Reformation. They were all contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Texts so they are part of the original Biblical Canon as defined by the Council of Laodicea in 363AD.

Another question I would like to pose for Brother Chris though is whether he beleives Protestants to be true Christians. I know I’ve been approached multiple times with the question of whether Catholics are true Christians (which I do believe) due to beliefs they have that differ from Protestant Christianity.

So do you see any problem with a Protestant being considered a true Christian since we have differences such as in the Bible, belief about penance, purgatory, etc.?[/quote]

You forgot Ecclesiasticus.

It matters on their theology really, there is some “Christians” who don’t hold a valid baptismal sacrament or their theology is so off from Catholicism about God that we couldn’t possibly believe that they were Christians.[/quote]

Oh, I’m sorry. I am not familiar with that one. I didn’t mention the Esdras either because I thought they were more extensions/connections of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Ok, so I think you have the same view on being a Christian as I do. Minor theological differences don’t necessarily matter. What makes a Christian is the view on who Christ is. [/quote]

I’m just not a fan of the individualism within some Protestant theologies.[/quote]

But God must speak to the individuals heart, not the group. Encouraging Bible study, which I never got in the Catholic church, is very important.
[/quote]

Well, that is sad that you didn’t have Bible Study in Catholic Church. Should have done what I did, started one. I actually run three.[/quote]

Bible study is pretty much hit or miss in a lot of churches. What I’ve noticed in most of the modernized, non denominational, emerging churches that I attened is that offer lots of services during the week but often times few Bible study classes. It seems to be that some of the churches that have popped up recently have focused more on feel good evangelism.[/quote]

Im going to troll in to say that I agree with this. Although I am not Catholic, I do see their frustration with some of the Protestant branches. The “feel good” evangelism(its hard to call it evangelism. More of spreading of scam ) has been gaining popularity the past decade and in some instances, it drifts away from Christ and his Word and focuses in on your emotions. [/quote]

Well, I’m not sure how much of it started out with good intentions or not. It’s hard to reach out to someone that has no church background with structured liturgy, long Bible readings, and corporate worship sometimes. Billy Graham was a person that understood this in his evangelism. However, it reaches that point where it becomes more a church of convenience than anything else. I’ve attended churches where if you came early enough you could get a seat in the balcony in what resembled a restaurant booth, drink your coffee, and carry on the discussions you started in the lobby while the pastor preached. I’ve been to far too many that seemed to downplay the idea of sin and how God provides the salvation in favor of how God wants to help you fix your finances, have better relationships, and get a good job.

127

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
I have a lot of respect for the Catholic Church. It was responsible for spreading Christianity throughout Western Europe no matter what corruptions took place during the high middle ages. I disagree with its teachings on veneration of the saints, church hierarchy, and purgatory, but I feel those are non essential doctrine. I think that actually, a lot of main line Protestant branches could take an example from the Catholic Church in some ideas of penance and the remembrance of Christ’s suffering. [/quote]

I’ll have to disagree, the Saints are important, they support us and give us examples of God’s faith in his adopted family of sinners. Purgatory is important too, as no one unclean enters Heaven, and the Church hierarchy is important because of pragmatic reasons as well as the fact Jesus established the Church.[/quote]

And that is good that we can disagree on those issues, but we still agree on the most essential doctrine: Christ crucified. [/quote]

I’ll have to point out that you forgot Christ’s resurrection.[/quote]

Point taken. I was just assuming that by Christ crucified, it was implied to be resurrected. Of course there are some that pervert even this teaching.[/quote]

I have another thing to point out, I’m a Catholic, I know surprise. My beliefs center around Jesus crucifixion and resurrection. However, even more my religion, and belief that a true Christian centers himself around the Eucharist and Eucharistic Mass.

This is why I don’t focus on a “personal relationship with Jesus,” because as His holy Church our focus is on the the saving grace of the Eucharist, and that Jesus gave us the Eucharist and the bloodless Mass which he uses to save His Holy Church.[/quote]

I would have never guessed you were Catholic ;)I agree on both points that both the Eucharist and the Mass are important. However, you can’t put too much emphasis on the tangibles. Christ instructed us to take Eucharist in remembrance of his sacrifice on the cross. The bread and wine are merely symbolic of the shedding of his blood and breaking of his body. I know from a Catholic point of view that’s not what Transubstantiation teaches. I would never remove Eucharist from a service as some churches seem to do, but I also realize it is a key to salvation not what causes the salvation itself. The Bible also warns not to partake in Communion if you do so with an unclean heart or you eat and drink judgment onto yourself. By eating the bread and drinking the wine, you don’t cleanse yourself from sin, but rather you do so as a symbol of your acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice to provide your salvation.

128

[quote]BBriere wrote:
I would have never guessed you were Catholic ;)I agree on both points that both the Eucharist and the Mass are important. However, you can’t put too much emphasis on the tangibles. Christ instructed us to take Eucharist in remembrance of his sacrifice on the cross. The bread and wine are merely symbolic of the shedding of his blood and breaking of his body. I know from a Catholic point of view that’s not what Transubstantiation teaches. I would never remove Eucharist from a service as some churches seem to do, but I also realize it is a key to salvation not what causes the salvation itself. The Bible also warns not to partake in Communion if you do so with an unclean heart or you eat and drink judgment onto yourself. By eating the bread and drinking the wine, you don’t cleanse yourself from sin, but rather you do so as a symbol of your acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice to provide your salvation.
[/quote]

No symbolism for me. It is the true Body and Blood of Christ. While the “substance” has remained the same, the “accidents” of the Eucharist has changed. Just as when a person dies, their soul leaves their body changing the person’s “accidents” but the body remains a body.

The Hebrew version of the Bible is pretty clear. Jesus said that it was his Body and Blood in the literal sense. Later versions of the Bible, including the King James Version, have made it seem like Jesus was speaking symbolicly, but this interpretation does not make sense with what the Old Testament says, what the early church taught (it would have been easier to say it was a symbol because this would have meant less persecution), what the actual Hebrew text means.

In a related point, there is a book called something like the 100 miracles of the Eucharist. It details many miracles attributed to the Eucharist, from the healing of the sick to the Eucharist actually turning to flesh and bleeding when cut.

I don’t think any discussion like this is going to change the other person’s beliefs. And perhaps, it shouldn’t.

129

[quote]McG78 wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
I would have never guessed you were Catholic ;)I agree on both points that both the Eucharist and the Mass are important. However, you can’t put too much emphasis on the tangibles. Christ instructed us to take Eucharist in remembrance of his sacrifice on the cross. The bread and wine are merely symbolic of the shedding of his blood and breaking of his body. I know from a Catholic point of view that’s not what Transubstantiation teaches. I would never remove Eucharist from a service as some churches seem to do, but I also realize it is a key to salvation not what causes the salvation itself. The Bible also warns not to partake in Communion if you do so with an unclean heart or you eat and drink judgment onto yourself. By eating the bread and drinking the wine, you don’t cleanse yourself from sin, but rather you do so as a symbol of your acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice to provide your salvation.
[/quote]

No symbolism for me. It is the true Body and Blood of Christ. While the “substance” has remained the same, the “accidents” of the Eucharist has changed. Just as when a person dies, their soul leaves their body changing the person’s “accidents” but the body remains a body.

The Hebrew version of the Bible is pretty clear. Jesus said that it was his Body and Blood in the literal sense. Later versions of the Bible, including the King James Version, have made it seem like Jesus was speaking symbolicly, but this interpretation does not make sense with what the Old Testament says, what the early church taught (it would have been easier to say it was a symbol because this would have meant less persecution), what the actual Hebrew text means.

In a related point, there is a book called something like the 100 miracles of the Eucharist. It details many miracles attributed to the Eucharist, from the healing of the sick to the Eucharist actually turning to flesh and bleeding when cut.

I don’t think any discussion like this is going to change the other person’s beliefs. And perhaps, it shouldn’t.[/quote]

It wasn’t my intentions to change anyone’s beliefs on what or how they view the Eucharist. The original wasn’t in Hebrew. Christ spoke Aramaic, but the New Testament was written in Greek. I have no problem with someone viewing the accidents as the true body and blood and not the symbolic body and blood. It’s a minor difference in doctrine that I don’t think changes your major doctrine. I do think there is a problem, however, if you’re viewing the Communion as providing salvation. An atheist could partake in Communion and still be an atheist. They haven’t changed their feeling or belief about Christ. The Communion, just like baptism, should be something that is done in conjecture with the acceptance of Christ as the Lord and savior.

130

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
I would have never guessed you were Catholic ;)I agree on both points that both the Eucharist and the Mass are important. However, you can’t put too much emphasis on the tangibles. Christ instructed us to take Eucharist in remembrance of his sacrifice on the cross. The bread and wine are merely symbolic of the shedding of his blood and breaking of his body. I know from a Catholic point of view that’s not what Transubstantiation teaches. I would never remove Eucharist from a service as some churches seem to do, but I also realize it is a key to salvation not what causes the salvation itself. The Bible also warns not to partake in Communion if you do so with an unclean heart or you eat and drink judgment onto yourself. By eating the bread and drinking the wine, you don’t cleanse yourself from sin, but rather you do so as a symbol of your acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice to provide your salvation.
[/quote]

No symbolism for me. It is the true Body and Blood of Christ. While the “substance” has remained the same, the “accidents” of the Eucharist has changed. Just as when a person dies, their soul leaves their body changing the person’s “accidents” but the body remains a body.

The Hebrew version of the Bible is pretty clear. Jesus said that it was his Body and Blood in the literal sense. Later versions of the Bible, including the King James Version, have made it seem like Jesus was speaking symbolicly, but this interpretation does not make sense with what the Old Testament says, what the early church taught (it would have been easier to say it was a symbol because this would have meant less persecution), what the actual Hebrew text means.

In a related point, there is a book called something like the 100 miracles of the Eucharist. It details many miracles attributed to the Eucharist, from the healing of the sick to the Eucharist actually turning to flesh and bleeding when cut.

I don’t think any discussion like this is going to change the other person’s beliefs. And perhaps, it shouldn’t.[/quote]

It wasn’t my intentions to change anyone’s beliefs on what or how they view the Eucharist. The original wasn’t in Hebrew. Christ spoke Aramaic, but the New Testament was written in Greek. I have no problem with someone viewing the accidents as the true body and blood and not the symbolic body and blood. It’s a minor difference in doctrine that I don’t think changes your major doctrine. I do think there is a problem, however, if you’re viewing the Communion as providing salvation. An atheist could partake in Communion and still be an atheist. They haven’t changed their feeling or belief about Christ. The Communion, just like baptism, should be something that is done in conjecture with the acceptance of Christ as the Lord and savior. [/quote]

It is more than a minor difference.

131

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
I would have never guessed you were Catholic ;)I agree on both points that both the Eucharist and the Mass are important. However, you can’t put too much emphasis on the tangibles. Christ instructed us to take Eucharist in remembrance of his sacrifice on the cross. The bread and wine are merely symbolic of the shedding of his blood and breaking of his body. I know from a Catholic point of view that’s not what Transubstantiation teaches. I would never remove Eucharist from a service as some churches seem to do, but I also realize it is a key to salvation not what causes the salvation itself. The Bible also warns not to partake in Communion if you do so with an unclean heart or you eat and drink judgment onto yourself. By eating the bread and drinking the wine, you don’t cleanse yourself from sin, but rather you do so as a symbol of your acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice to provide your salvation.
[/quote]

No symbolism for me. It is the true Body and Blood of Christ. While the “substance” has remained the same, the “accidents” of the Eucharist has changed. Just as when a person dies, their soul leaves their body changing the person’s “accidents” but the body remains a body.

The Hebrew version of the Bible is pretty clear. Jesus said that it was his Body and Blood in the literal sense. Later versions of the Bible, including the King James Version, have made it seem like Jesus was speaking symbolicly, but this interpretation does not make sense with what the Old Testament says, what the early church taught (it would have been easier to say it was a symbol because this would have meant less persecution), what the actual Hebrew text means.

In a related point, there is a book called something like the 100 miracles of the Eucharist. It details many miracles attributed to the Eucharist, from the healing of the sick to the Eucharist actually turning to flesh and bleeding when cut.

I don’t think any discussion like this is going to change the other person’s beliefs. And perhaps, it shouldn’t.[/quote]

It wasn’t my intentions to change anyone’s beliefs on what or how they view the Eucharist. The original wasn’t in Hebrew. Christ spoke Aramaic, but the New Testament was written in Greek. I have no problem with someone viewing the accidents as the true body and blood and not the symbolic body and blood. It’s a minor difference in doctrine that I don’t think changes your major doctrine. I do think there is a problem, however, if you’re viewing the Communion as providing salvation. An atheist could partake in Communion and still be an atheist. They haven’t changed their feeling or belief about Christ. The Communion, just like baptism, should be something that is done in conjecture with the acceptance of Christ as the Lord and savior. [/quote]

Are you telling me how I should view eating the blood and flesh of Jesus Christ, because you’re a little off on your understanding of the Eucharist and Baptism. Correct me if I’m wrong on my previous statement.

The Eucharist is the gift given by Jesus to reconcile us to the communion of the saints. It is not something we do, but which the Lord does for us to bestow on us grace. The Eucharist is Jesus. Jesus is the Lord, therefore, my reverence and worship being towards Jesus, is on the Eucharist, and the Mass is what Jesus gave us, both a command and a request, in order to thank him and to receive his sacrifice on the Cross.

As well, baptism is not something we do, it something that the Lord has done for us.

This is one reason why those that leave the Catholic Church, I am completely and utterly sure they did not learn the significance of the Eucharist and Mass. This is why I constantly say, as St. Padre Pio says, “Don’t consider me too demanding if I ask you once again to set great store by holy books and read them as much as you can. This spiritual reading is as necessary to you as the air you breathe.”

Those that do not understand that, which, is the Holy Eucharist and the Mass, which are (and is a thanksgiving for), the Crucifixion go through life lacking an essential key to the world.

132

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
I would have never guessed you were Catholic ;)I agree on both points that both the Eucharist and the Mass are important. However, you can’t put too much emphasis on the tangibles. Christ instructed us to take Eucharist in remembrance of his sacrifice on the cross. The bread and wine are merely symbolic of the shedding of his blood and breaking of his body. I know from a Catholic point of view that’s not what Transubstantiation teaches. I would never remove Eucharist from a service as some churches seem to do, but I also realize it is a key to salvation not what causes the salvation itself. The Bible also warns not to partake in Communion if you do so with an unclean heart or you eat and drink judgment onto yourself. By eating the bread and drinking the wine, you don’t cleanse yourself from sin, but rather you do so as a symbol of your acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice to provide your salvation.
[/quote]

No symbolism for me. It is the true Body and Blood of Christ. While the “substance” has remained the same, the “accidents” of the Eucharist has changed. Just as when a person dies, their soul leaves their body changing the person’s “accidents” but the body remains a body.

The Hebrew version of the Bible is pretty clear. Jesus said that it was his Body and Blood in the literal sense. Later versions of the Bible, including the King James Version, have made it seem like Jesus was speaking symbolicly, but this interpretation does not make sense with what the Old Testament says, what the early church taught (it would have been easier to say it was a symbol because this would have meant less persecution), what the actual Hebrew text means.

In a related point, there is a book called something like the 100 miracles of the Eucharist. It details many miracles attributed to the Eucharist, from the healing of the sick to the Eucharist actually turning to flesh and bleeding when cut.

I don’t think any discussion like this is going to change the other person’s beliefs. And perhaps, it shouldn’t.[/quote]

It wasn’t my intentions to change anyone’s beliefs on what or how they view the Eucharist. The original wasn’t in Hebrew. Christ spoke Aramaic, but the New Testament was written in Greek. I have no problem with someone viewing the accidents as the true body and blood and not the symbolic body and blood. It’s a minor difference in doctrine that I don’t think changes your major doctrine. I do think there is a problem, however, if you’re viewing the Communion as providing salvation. An atheist could partake in Communion and still be an atheist. They haven’t changed their feeling or belief about Christ. The Communion, just like baptism, should be something that is done in conjecture with the acceptance of Christ as the Lord and savior. [/quote]

You have to be baptized in order take the Eucharist, and you have to do confession in order to take the Eucharist. If you take the Eucharist without believing in the truths of the Church you are committing sacrilege.

And the difference between the Eucharist and a symbolic meal, is large. Eucharist is one of the most written about topics the Catholic Church. It is not minor.

133

Indeed it is not minor and ties directly in with one’s view of the nature of the atonement. The RCC believes Christs sacrifice is eternal and while not repeated with each mass, so as to avoid the charge of crucifying the Savior afresh, it does teach that the eternally contemporaneous sacrifice is efficaciously accessed with each work of transubstantiation. Along these lines. It’s been a while for me. The council of Trent declared anathema upon any who would be so brazen a heretic as to deny this utterly foundational RCC doctrine. That was when an RCC anathema meant something and I could have stood head up and chin forward steadfastly condemned for having loudly proclaimed just such a denial.

I was a “heretic” then. Not a “separated brother”. I liked it better that way. Much less seductive and deceptive.

134

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
I would have never guessed you were Catholic ;)I agree on both points that both the Eucharist and the Mass are important. However, you can’t put too much emphasis on the tangibles. Christ instructed us to take Eucharist in remembrance of his sacrifice on the cross. The bread and wine are merely symbolic of the shedding of his blood and breaking of his body. I know from a Catholic point of view that’s not what Transubstantiation teaches. I would never remove Eucharist from a service as some churches seem to do, but I also realize it is a key to salvation not what causes the salvation itself. The Bible also warns not to partake in Communion if you do so with an unclean heart or you eat and drink judgment onto yourself. By eating the bread and drinking the wine, you don’t cleanse yourself from sin, but rather you do so as a symbol of your acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice to provide your salvation.
[/quote]

No symbolism for me. It is the true Body and Blood of Christ. While the “substance” has remained the same, the “accidents” of the Eucharist has changed. Just as when a person dies, their soul leaves their body changing the person’s “accidents” but the body remains a body.

The Hebrew version of the Bible is pretty clear. Jesus said that it was his Body and Blood in the literal sense. Later versions of the Bible, including the King James Version, have made it seem like Jesus was speaking symbolicly, but this interpretation does not make sense with what the Old Testament says, what the early church taught (it would have been easier to say it was a symbol because this would have meant less persecution), what the actual Hebrew text means.

In a related point, there is a book called something like the 100 miracles of the Eucharist. It details many miracles attributed to the Eucharist, from the healing of the sick to the Eucharist actually turning to flesh and bleeding when cut.

I don’t think any discussion like this is going to change the other person’s beliefs. And perhaps, it shouldn’t.[/quote]

It wasn’t my intentions to change anyone’s beliefs on what or how they view the Eucharist. The original wasn’t in Hebrew. Christ spoke Aramaic, but the New Testament was written in Greek. I have no problem with someone viewing the accidents as the true body and blood and not the symbolic body and blood. It’s a minor difference in doctrine that I don’t think changes your major doctrine. I do think there is a problem, however, if you’re viewing the Communion as providing salvation. An atheist could partake in Communion and still be an atheist. They haven’t changed their feeling or belief about Christ. The Communion, just like baptism, should be something that is done in conjecture with the acceptance of Christ as the Lord and savior. [/quote]

Are you telling me how I should view eating the blood and flesh of Jesus Christ, because you’re a little off on your understanding of the Eucharist and Baptism. Correct me if I’m wrong on my previous statement.

The Eucharist is the gift given by Jesus to reconcile us to the communion of the saints. It is not something we do, but which the Lord does for us to bestow on us grace. The Eucharist is Jesus. Jesus is the Lord, therefore, my reverence and worship being towards Jesus, is on the Eucharist, and the Mass is what Jesus gave us, both a command and a request, in order to thank him and to receive his sacrifice on the Cross.

As well, baptism is not something we do, it something that the Lord has done for us.

This is one reason why those that leave the Catholic Church, I am completely and utterly sure they did not learn the significance of the Eucharist and Mass. This is why I constantly say, as St. Padre Pio says, “Don’t consider me too demanding if I ask you once again to set great store by holy books and read them as much as you can. This spiritual reading is as necessary to you as the air you breathe.”

Those that do not understand that, which, is the Holy Eucharist and the Mass, which are (and is a thanksgiving for), the Crucifixion go through life lacking an essential key to the world.[/quote]

No, I’m not trying to tell anyone how they should view the Eucharist. I understand the difference in what the Catholic Church teaches on the Eucharist and what most Protestant churches teach on it. I don’t see the argument between transubstantiation and consubstantiation being major. One teaches that the accidents literally become the blood and body and one teaches that they contain the spirit of Christ, but do not physically become Christ. Even in most Protestant churches, at least for me since I was raised Lutheran, Communion is still a sacrament meaning it is necessary for salvation.

My point on Eucharist is that it doesn’t provide salvation in itself. Baptism is the same. Baptism does not provide salvation in itself. Baptism is an outward sign of an inward committment of the acceptance of Christ. We are called to do both.

Now, I also realize that in the Catholic Church, just as when I was growing up in a Lutheran Church, there is catechism that one must go through before he or she can receive the Eucharist. The difference, at least from what I have experienced, is that most Protestant churches will Commune non members. The Lutheran Church’s view is that as long as one states they believe then they should take Communion no matter what church they belong to. However, one could possibly take Communion without a contrite heart. One could take Communion everyday but not truly believe in their heart. The Eucharist doesn’t save them it’s the acceptance of Christ AND the following of his commands.

135

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Indeed it is not minor and ties directly in with one’s view of the nature of the atonement. The RCC believes Christs sacrifice is eternal and while not repeated with each mass, so as to avoid the charge of crucifying the Savior afresh, it does teach that the eternally contemporaneous sacrifice is efficaciously accessed with each work of transubstantiation. Along these lines. It’s been a while for me. The council of Trent declared anathema upon any who would be so brazen a heretic as to deny this utterly foundational RCC doctrine. That was when an RCC anathema meant something and I could have stood head up and chin forward steadfastly condemned for having loudly proclaimed just such a denial.

I was a “heretic” then. Not a “separated brother”. I liked it better that way. Much less seductive and deceptive.[/quote]

I also believe that the Eucharist is very important. We are commanded to take it. The difference in what I was taught and what the Catholic Church believes is in semantics. As a Lutheran, I was taught that Christ was spiritually present in the accidents. In the Catholic Church, it is taught that they physically transform into Christ. What is imporant is why you take them. It’s something that Christ called us to do in remembrance of his sacrifice for our sins. Eucharist itself does not save us. Baptism itself does not save us. Acceptance of Christ along with receiving the sacraments are what provides salvation.

I may the view you and Chris take on the Eucharist wrong.

136

[quote]BBriere wrote:
I also believe that the Eucharist is very important. We are commanded to take it. The difference in what I was taught and what the Catholic Church believes is in semantics. As a Lutheran, I was taught that Christ was spiritually present in the accidents. In the Catholic Church, it is taught that they physically transform into Christ. What is imporant is why you take them. It’s something that Christ called us to do in remembrance of his sacrifice for our sins. Eucharist itself does not save us. Baptism itself does not save us. Acceptance of Christ along with receiving the sacraments are what provides salvation.

I may the view you and Chris take on the Eucharist wrong. [/quote]Now hold on a minute there Sparky. I am here to promise you that Luther saw a vastly greater difference between his view and the papacy’s than you appear to be reporting. I would say that a person who is elect in and accepted by Christ and has therefore undergone authentic regeneration WILL receive the sacraments. I do believe true power and grace are dispensed in baptism and communion and differ with many in my own church in that regard. A body or individual that discounts, avoids or refuses baptism or communion has displayed it’s rebellious and heretical foundation.

137

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Indeed it is not minor and ties directly in with one’s view of the nature of the atonement. The RCC believes Christs sacrifice is eternal and while not repeated with each mass, so as to avoid the charge of crucifying the Savior afresh, it does teach that the eternally contemporaneous sacrifice is efficaciously accessed with each work of transubstantiation. Along these lines. It’s been a while for me. The council of Trent declared anathema upon any who would be so brazen a heretic as to deny this utterly foundational RCC doctrine. That was when an RCC anathema meant something and I could have stood head up and chin forward steadfastly condemned for having loudly proclaimed just such a denial.

I was a “heretic” then. Not a “separated brother”. I liked it better that way. Much less seductive and deceptive.[/quote]

I’ve told you many times you’re a heretic, you just don’t listen to the second half of what I say in which I explain the difference between material and formal heretics.

But, for some reason calling a heretic is not tactful. But they don’t call me the tank for nothing. You’re still my brother, even though you are a heretic, just like the dirty communist that have infiltrated the Catholic Church are our brothers, they are called the lost sons of God.

138

[quote]BBriere wrote:
No, I’m not trying to tell anyone how they should view the Eucharist. I understand the difference in what the Catholic Church teaches on the Eucharist and what most Protestant churches teach on it. I don’t see the argument between transubstantiation and consubstantiation being major. One teaches that the accidents literally become the blood and body and one teaches that they contain the spirit of Christ, but do not physically become Christ. Even in most Protestant churches, at least for me since I was raised Lutheran, Communion is still a sacrament meaning it is necessary for salvation.

My point on Eucharist is that it doesn’t provide salvation in itself. Baptism is the same. Baptism does not provide salvation in itself. Baptism is an outward sign of an inward committment of the acceptance of Christ. We are called to do both.
[/quote]
Salvation comes from Jesus, which the substance of the Eucharist is Jesus. Baptism is not the same, baptism provides salvation and grace from God. 1 Peter 3:21, “Whereunto baptism…now saveth you also.” The power of baptism comes from God, however, baptism does save you. Baptism is not an outward sign of an inward commitment, it is not something we do for God, but which Jesus does for us.

[quote]
Now, I also realize that in the Catholic Church, just as when I was growing up in a Lutheran Church, there is catechism that one must go through before he or she can receive the Eucharist. The difference, at least from what I have experienced, is that most Protestant churches will Commune non members. The Lutheran Church’s view is that as long as one states they believe then they should take Communion no matter what church they belong to. However, one could possibly take Communion without a contrite heart. One could take Communion everyday but not truly believe in their heart. The Eucharist doesn’t save them it’s the acceptance of Christ AND the following of his commands.[/quote]

The difference is that if one takes the Eucharist, without a “contrite” heart, they commit sacrilege. There is grace that comes from the Eucharist, which is not placed on the person if they are not square with Jesus, which is an act of sacrilege. And, you’re correct, partially, salvation comes from faith in Christ and following his commands, which he commanded us to eat His flesh and to drink His blood.

139

For Tirib:

Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus (outside the Church there is no salvation) is an infallible teaching of the Church. However, Feeneyism (only those physically baptized by water explicitly into the Catholic Church can be saved) is a heresy.

140

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
I also believe that the Eucharist is very important. We are commanded to take it. The difference in what I was taught and what the Catholic Church believes is in semantics. As a Lutheran, I was taught that Christ was spiritually present in the accidents. In the Catholic Church, it is taught that they physically transform into Christ. What is imporant is why you take them. It’s something that Christ called us to do in remembrance of his sacrifice for our sins. Eucharist itself does not save us. Baptism itself does not save us. Acceptance of Christ along with receiving the sacraments are what provides salvation.

I may the view you and Chris take on the Eucharist wrong. [/quote]Now hold on a minute there Sparky. I am here to promise you that Luther saw a vastly greater difference between his view and the papacy’s than you appear to be reporting. I would say that a person who is elect in and accepted by Christ and has therefore undergone authentic regeneration WILL receive the sacraments. I do believe true power and grace are dispensed in baptism and communion and differ with many in my own church in that regard. A body or individual that discounts, avoids or refuses baptism or communion has displayed it’s rebellious and heretical foundation.
[/quote]

Sparky? Hahaha. Anyway, I know I do see certain things a bit differently than Luther. I was a baptized member of the Lutheran Church, but I am a baptized Christian before I am a Lutheran. Luther’s biggest disagreement over the Eucharist was that if it truly transformed into the body and blood of Chirst then what if he spilled it? Would he be wasting the blood of Christ? I believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist but in a spiritual not physical sense. What is the most important is why one takes the Eucharist. It is a type for Christ’s sacrifice for our sins. We are instructed to receive Communion and baptism. Therefore, I think they are both essential parts of a church. However, is one that truly believes in Christ but attends a church that does not regularly offer Communion damned? Is one that does not truly believe in Christ but takes Communion on a weekly basis saved? The Eucharist is a piece of the puzzle that must fall into place after our acceptance of Christ.