DeoOmnisGloria.com

Joe,

I will get into my points later, but first...
How does Jesus Christ and the apostles describe the church to be??

God Bless

Joe,

See my prior post under “Is the Catholic Church The Antichrist”.

You stated, “Only recently has the Church really addressed these individuals and organizations directly, see Bishop Bruskewitz's statement of excommunication for those Catholics that openly belong to groups that hold beliefs contrary to Church teaching.”

A nine year old edict from a Nebraska bishop regarding membership in organizations like Planned Parenthood, is the best example that you could come up with regarding the Church’s recent crackdown on relativism? And why “only recently” has the Church been cracking down? Why not from the beginning?

I think the problem is that relativism has gotten a hold of the Church and the Church ISN’T addressing these issues.

In Christ,

Thomas

Thomas,

I apologize if I was not clear in that comment. The reason I said "only recently" was because for the most part, many of these organizations have only been in existence for 10 to 30 years, with the exception of the Freemasons, of course. In reference to Freemasonry, that was addressed over a century ago by Pope Leo XIII, in 1892. The encyclical letter was entitled Inimica Vis and specifically dealt with Freemasonry.

Please provide some examples of how "relativism" has "gotten ahold" of the teachings of the Catholic Church.... I will agree that moral relativism has taken hold of certain individuals in the Church, be they clergy or laity, but as a "unified" Church, with one Creed and one Catechism, she has been uncompromising and perfect clear on what is right and what is true in theology, morality, and philosophy. Again, I believe the main reason relativism has "taken ahold" of certain Catholics is their lack of knowledge of the Catholic Faith and their unwillingness to make time to educate themselves.

In Christ,
Joe

Joe,

"During the past century, Protestantism compromised moral teaching after moral teaching, starting with divorce, then contraception, fornocation, abortion, homosexuality and gay marriage."

Please give examples of which Protestant denominations compromise what?
Do they account for a huge majority, a large minority or a very small minority?

"By sects I do not mean those Protestant churches that have adopted the name Catholic, I specifically mean those sects that are in "full union" with the See of Peter and the Roman Catholic Church."

Please be honest. These liberal catholics that you speak of are no where near being Protestant. They are rooted in practices of Roman Catholicism all the way. They practice communion of saints and Mariology as well. They believe in the same sacraments as you do, but on moral issues they differ. They even recognize the pope, but however as you have mentioned they do not follow all his teachings. But that does not make them Protestant and in all fairness according to the standards and rules in Roman Catholicism, they are not ROman Catholic either. However, please do recognize that they are Protestant. If you want to use Barrett's research please base statements on how he classifies Protestantism. Anglicans, JW, Mormons, Catholic non Roman, Orthodox are all non Protestant denominations according to Barrett's.

Joe, do you believe that denominations result from not having an authoritative earthly interpreter of Scripture??

God Bless

Thomas, Joe: Is it possible you two are talking about two different things when you speak of "relativism getting a hold of the Catholic Church"?

Joe seems to mean that the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, laid down by the Holy Scriptures, interpreted by the Magisterium, consonant with Sacred Tradition remains free of moral relativism (Christ guaranteed that the Holy Spirit would do this for his Church).

Thomas seems to mean that significant numbers of clergy and laity have embraced moral relativism. Christ made no guarantee that people who call themselves his followers would embrace the truths he taught. After all, many disciples left when Jesus taught about eating his bread and body. At the peak of the Arian heresy, a majority of bishops accepted the heresy. Thomas points out numerous problems the Roman Catholic Church that have resulted because moral relativists have gained influence in seminaries.

It seems to me that Joe rightly points out that the Church Teachings have remained free from the errors of moral relativism. Thomas also rightly points out that it does not do much good if people do not embrace the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

So if I take Joe's words to heart, I should recognize the Roman Catholic Church as a guardian of authentic truth. And if I take Thomas's words to heart, I need to learn and embrace the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church lest I fall into the very errors the Church preaches against. Makes a whole lot of sense to me...

"However, please do recognize that they are Protestant."

Typo, I meant to say please recognize that they are not protestant.

God Bless

I tried a trackback to you but haloscan doesn't always work and I'm not sure it got through. Anyway, I liked your analysis although there is one part I don't agree with and I've blogged about that at my site.

Joe:

You Said: "Please provide some examples of how "relativism" has "gotten ahold" of the teachings of the Catholic Church.... I will agree that moral relativism has taken hold of certain individuals in the Church, be they clergy or laity, but as a "unified" Church, with one Creed and one Catechism, she has been uncompromising and perfect clear on what is right and what is true in theology, morality, and philosophy. Again, I believe the main reason relativism has "taken ahold" of certain Catholics is their lack of knowledge of the Catholic Faith and their unwillingness to make time to educate themselves"

I didn't say that the Catholic Chruch has compromised its teaching. For I don't know if that is the case or not. (I would wager to guess that they have compromised on contraception, if only to a lesser extent than other churches. Or perhaps the Assumption of Mary. Where is the history behind that one? Or maybe their attitudes/doctrines regarding Protestants.) They haven't needed to compromise on anything because the Church doesn't force it's members or clergy to adhere strictly to it's teachings. Thus they can relativistically believe anything they want and still be a part of the Church. The Church has its cake and can eat it to, . . . but only if you can stomach the flavor. "We have an established doctrine, but (wink wink) you don't have to really abide by it to remain a part of the Church." This attitude doesn't give me warm and fuzzies.

Take for example my lowly evanglical baptist church. If a layman doesn't abide by established essential doctrines set out by the church, they are usually counseled, and although we don't prevent anyone from coming to the church if they persist they would not be considered a member. However, if a staff member began to expouse false doctrines, then that would be dealt with swiftly and the offending person, unless they repented, would be removed from their position immediately.

Why does the Catholic Church allow the cancer to remain and perhaps spread? It doesn't seem to me something that the True Church should or would do. Perhaps they are afraid that they won't have much left if they cut out the cancer. (Although I am firmly convinced that it would be the best thing they ever did. They would come out the other side a much stronger, vibrant and energized Church albeit much much smaller.) But then again who am I to question why the Church does what it does . . . I'm just a lowly fallible Protestant?

I suggest that before you begin plucking the relativistic speck out of Protestants' eyes that you get the relativistic log out of your own eye.

In Christ,

Thomas

Richard:

See the post above. I didn't see your post until after I posted mine. The frustrating thing about the embracing of moral relativism by the individuals in the Catholic Church is not that it is happening, people are free to reject the truth, but that the Church leadership doesn't seem to be doing anything about it or at least not enough.

In Christ,

Thomas

All,

I apologize for my absence. As some of you know, in addition to this I'm involved with two online retail operations, have a family, and am a fulltime student. This summer I am taking five classes, including Calculus and Business Statistics. Needless to say, I am very busy. Friday and Saturday will be the only days I will be able to be on the site.

Now on to several of the above comments.

Thomas,

As a Catholic I share your frustration with certain members of the Church hierarchy, namely local bishops and parish priests. But it is important that you understand my frustration. It isn't that these individuals are necessarily teaching anything that is blatantly contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, it is simply that they seem to want to present a "Lite" version of Catholicism by "failing" to teach certain truths of the Catholic faith, i.e. the Church's clear teaching on contraception. Whenever I have asked our priests about something like contraception, they fully acknowledge the Church's teaching, it's just that they never preach on the topic...which results in many Catholics practicing something that is condemned by the Catholic Church without full knowledge. This apathy is troubling and causing many lay Catholics to continue living in ways that are not in conformity with the teachings of the Catholic Church, i.e. the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium. I, as a follower of Jesus Christ and a son of the Church, although frustrated by the apathy of certain individuals, could never abandon the doctrinal truth that is possessed by the Catholic Church alone, for I have personally witnessed the "life-giving" effects that Catholicism, when "genuinely lived," gives, for it is the Bride of Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

SandT,
Your comment that implies that I am not being honest about the various sects or "non-sects" of Catholicism is once again a misrepresentation. "Liberal" Catholics are, of course, within the Catholic Church. What I was specifically speaking about when I stated those Protestant churches that are "Catholic" in name alone would include the American Catholic Church and other such denominations. These are not a sect of the Catholic Church for they completely separated themselves from the "Roman Catholic Church" and the Magisterium, something that other groups have not yet done. While a "liberal" Catholic might say, "I disagree with the teachings of the Magisterium", they DO NOT say "I denounce the authority of the Catholic Church, i.e. the Magisterium." It is fundamentally different.

In Christ,
Joe

Joe,

My point is that even with the American Catholic church, it is classified under Catholic non-Roman according to Barrett's research. It is not classified under Protestantism.

"While a "liberal" Catholic might say, "I disagree with the teachings of the Magisterium", they DO NOT say "I denounce the authority of the Catholic Church, i.e. the Magisterium." It is fundamentally different."

Disagreement can lead to different doctrines that are taught, whether made official or not. On the same note, everyone can say that they do not denounce the authority of Scripture yet they may disagree with each other. Now with this is mind, I know this brings to light your point of relativism. If you believe that the RCC is correct because it eliminates the issue of "individual interpretation", you then are left with another issue of relativism to deal with. That being who is truly the arbiter. IS it the RCC or the EOC? The 2 do in fact differ greatly on many theological issues. How about the Mormons? All of these denominations,(yes, Barrett does refer to the RCC as a denomination) claim to have some sort of authoritative figure. You asked me, whom I to tell another that their church teaches the wrong doctrine. Well, the same can be asked of you. Who are you to say that the authority of the EOC or the Mormons are incorrect. Whether one chooses to believe whose authority is correct is relative as well. You believe that the RCC is correct authority for whatever reasons you have. That is you personal reasoning. Mormons and EOC believe their authority is correct according to their personal reasons. Still relativism in the end.
IF a fellow Christian believes that murder is OK and claims to believe the Scriptures as authoritative, that is their problem. I do not know their heart or how and if they are being convicted by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps, through our discussions the Holy Spirit may have been tugging at you to re-evaluate your beliefs and search what is true. And perhaps you have even been more solidly planted in your beliefs. I don't know. That is between you and God. While I believe that some churches do not get it right all the way, it does not lessen most churches in proclaiming the name of the Lord. Look at the churches of Revelations. 7 churches practicing Christianity in different ways. Obviously they were not all right nor did they have an official arbiter on earth. In the end, all churches and believers will be judged by the Lord and may have to seek repentence for their errors. All we have is the Living Word of God, which act as a double edge sword. It judges the attitude and thoughts of our hearts. The ultimate judge of what is right and wrong is the living word of God. Only myself and God knows if I am truly open to following His ultimate truth and submit to His will. The same goes for you and everyone else who believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, Our Lord and Savior who died and was resurrected for our iniquities.
So whether relativism leads you to a different understanding of Scripture, or to acceptance of a different authority, God will at some point in our lives will let us know.

God Bless

SandT,

Two things...first, only the Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox can trace their claim to "apostolic succession" back to the Apostles, historically, and only the Catholic Church can substantiate its' claim to divinely given "authoritative interpretation." If we are being honest than this one fact alone should lead us to realize the validity of the Catholic Church's claim. Second, you not only prove my point about relativism with your comment but you illustrate why Catholicism is different. A Protestant who leaves his/her denomination to start another church has a specific reason for doing so, i.e. form of worship, a doctrinal issue, etc. A "liberal" Catholic, on the other hand, doesn't deny the need for the sacraments, especially the Mass, they simply disagree with some specific teaching, most often a "moral" teaching like contraception, as I stated in the article.
Even "liberal" Catholics don't take the liberty to image that they have the "interpretative authority" to found their own church. This is the fundamental difference.

In Christ,
Joe

Joe,

"and only the Catholic Church can substantiate its' claim to divinely given "authoritative interpretation."

Once again, this is all relative. The EOC will claim the same and claim that the RCC is in heresy.
It's your personal interpretation of who is right that leads you to pick an authority figure.

"Protestant who leaves his/her denomination to start another church has a specific reason for doing so, i.e. form of worship, a doctrinal issue, etc. A "liberal" Catholic, on the other hand, doesn't deny the need for the sacraments, especially the Mass"

A true Protestant does not deny the authority of Scripture or the fact that Jesus is Lord. But Christian brethren will believe differently on various topics. Look at the early church fathers for proof of this.

" they simply disagree with some specific teaching, most often a "moral" teaching like contraception, as I stated in the article."

Here you admit, that a liberal Catholic can disagree with the Vatican on a moral teaching such as contraception. How so?
Either you against contraception completely or you are not. Either way, you have the liberal Catholics teaching otherwise, and not being in complete union with the Vatican.
And donot moral teachings overlap with doctrinal teachings?

Even "liberal" Catholics don't take the liberty to image that they have the "interpretative authority" to found their own church. This is the fundamental difference."

They are just able to disagree with interpretative authority of the Vatican. I fail to see difference Joe.

Joe, please give me 3 examples of doctrinal differences among Protestants.

God Bless

SandT,

Perhaps the following example will clarify the difference between dissent in the Roman Catholic Church versus Protestant denominations. A liberal Protestant who rejects the virgin birth, the stories of miracles, and the prohibition against homosexual relations is still a good Protestant because they are interpreting scripture for themselves. A liberal Catholic who does the same is NOT a good Catholic.

As for doctrinal differences among Protestants, Let me earn my namesake...

Was Christ born of a virgin? Will Jesus personally return to the earth? Are the teachings of Jesus infallible? Are the teachings of Paul infallible? Are the Scriptures Inerrant? Can infants be baptized? Do Christian parents sin by omission if they do not get their babies baptized? If someone who was baptized as an infant wishes to become a member of an Evangelical Church should membership be denied until they get baptized as an adult? Can a child be baptized? Can a child receive communion? Can communion be celebrated more than once a month? Can every believer receive communion? Do churches have the right do deny communion to believers from other denominations? Do churches have the right to deny communion to people in adulterous relationships? Can communion be given to those who have not been baptized? Must communion be offered to believers who have not been baptized? Is there such a thing as a just war? Do Christians have the right to refuse conscription? Do Christians have a duty to perform military service? Are Christians allowed to join the army? May women preach from the pulpit? Can women be pastors? Can someone who has faith in the Lord Jesus Christ but rejects the doctrine of "justification by faith alone" be saved? Can you lose your salvation? Is there a rapture? Is the rapture before, after, or during the tribulations? Is it ok to speak in tongues? Is it necessary to speak in tongues? Does refusal to speak in tongues mean that one is not really a Christian? Are there any sacraments? Is having an abortion ok? Is capital punishment ok? Do Christians have any right to speak out against capital punishment? Do Christians have a duty to speak out against capital punishment? Must Christians refuse to date/marry someone who has been divorced? Can someone who is divorced remarry? Is there a millenium? Will it happen before, or after the second coming of Christ?

Find me two Protestants who agree on these issues let alone two denominations. If you say many of these are minor issues, try and find me two Protestants let alone denominations who agree on which issues are minor and which are not.

Broken,

Methodists and Evangelicals agree on those issues. How about that.

Either way, you have the same disagreements within Roman catholicism. Whether or not it is okayed by the pope, these differences do exist and their has yet to be action taken against them. So superficially, you can claim that this should be practiced, but really something else is practiced. So my question was, what makes Roman Catholicism right? Because of an earthly interpreter? Is that it?

God Bless

SandT,

Methodists and Evangelicals disagree sharply on whether you can lose your salvation. Evangelicals always remind me that Roman Catholicism is quite wrong to say that salvation can be lost. My best friend is Protestant and says I sound just like a Methodist when I speak of losing salvation.

Furthermore, Evangelicals cannot agree amongst themselves who should receive communion and who should receive baptism. The "Free" Evangelical Churches started because they believed communion must be offered to every believer. Other Evangelical Churches wish to reserve to right to deny communion as a disciplinary power, to deny communion to the unbaptized, or do deny communion to non-members. Some Evangelical Churches require people to undergo baptism as a believer if they wish to become members, others offer the option to accept the validity of a prior infant baptism.

There are basically 3 options to these numerous divisions: say which is right (which requires an earthly interpreter like the Pope or an ecumenical council), to lose unity (which leads to relativism at a denominational level), or declare the issues non-essential (which leads to relativism at an individual level).

I believe this is the basis of Joe's claim that without the Magisterium, the Pope, and Sacred Tradition, Protestantism is doomed first to denominational relativism and then to individual relativism. And during the whole process everyone remains a good Protestant interpreting the Bible for themself.

For a Roman Catholic, they must disobey Church teaching in order to embrace relativism. To put it another way, Catholic relativists are not good Catholics. Protestant relativists are still good Protestants.

This parallels this once saved always saved teaching. As a Catholic, when I sin mortally, I need to go to confession because I have turned my back on God and am not a good Catholic.

As an Evangelical, when someone sins, they do not endanger their salvation so they are still a good Evangelical ("not perfect, just forgiven" - is a popular evangelical phrase which contrasts sharply with the ancient Catholic belief that the sins committed by believers are much more serious than those committed by non-believers).

Believe what you wish, but dissent in the Catholic Church is by nature very different from dissent in the Protestant Church - although both carry their own set of problems and solutions.

SandT:

In a previous message, you stated:

"During the past century, Protestantism compromised moral teaching after moral teaching, starting with divorce, then contraception, fornocation, abortion, homosexuality and gay marriage."

Please give examples of which Protestant denominations compromise what?
Do they account for a huge majority, a large minority or a very small minority? "

The Lutheran church in the U.S. sanctioned homosexuality. The Episcopal church in the U.S. is under pressure to ordain openly gay clergy. Some Methodist churches have held gay marriage ceremonies. It's fair to say that contraception is a none issue to almost all Protestant churches in the U.S. "Fornication" is defined in many modern Protestant texts as promiscuous sex rather than any sex outside of marriage.

You might have noticed that evangelical clergy are calling for embryo adoption. That is something that never would have been sanctioned in Exodus or Leviticus. It would probably classified as an "abonmination."

Sorry for the delay, I went on a little vacation.

Broken,

"I believe this is the basis of Joe's claim that without the Magisterium, the Pope, and Sacred Tradition, Protestantism is doomed first to denominational relativism and then to individual relativism. And during the whole process everyone remains a good Protestant interpreting the Bible for themself."

My point, once again is that Orthodox Greeks and Mormons can lay claim to an authoritative interpreter. So in the end, the problem you and Joe say face Protestantism because we accept the Bible as authoritative is seen by Roman Catholics.
The EOG will say that you have fallen into heresy and that you are wrong. The Mormon will stick to their book of Mormonism as their main authority. So if you go outside the Bible as being the ultimate authority, you run into these problems. It is all relative whom you accept as authoritative. If someone does not practice what the Bible teaches, then they are wrong. Disagreements come about because man is prideful and stubborn. So if someone disobeys the Roman Catholic church, I agree then they are not a good Roman Catholic. And if someone turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, they are not a wise Christian.

God Bless

SandT, did you know that Orthodox Greeks (along with Russian and Ukranian) accept the first seven councils, and none others, as authoritative interpretations? What this means is that everything the Orthodox accept is authoritative is also accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as authoritative.

As for Mormons, did you know that they explicitly state that the Sacred Scriptures have been corrupted and so reject the authority of the Bible?

So to sum up, the Orthodox do not claim to have a living authoritative interpretation and the authoritative interpretations that they do have are accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. The Mormons do not accept the authority of Scripture.

Thus the Roman Catholic Church is still the only body which accepts the authority of Scripture and claims to have a living earthly interpreting body.

Without this, the only way to resolve difficult issues is to either fracture unity (denominational relativism) or to dismiss the issues as irrelevant (individual relativism).

The Orthodox do not offer a solution to this and the Mormons do not offer a solution which acknowledges the authority of the Bible.

Broken,

The EGO hold to those doctrines as historically interpreted. The EGO believe in the authority of the same patristic writings that you hold dear to. Yet you have 2 different interpretations. While they may not have a vatican, they do have an earthly authoritative figure in the form of the patristic writings. Yet they are in disagreement with the Roman Catholics. The EGO believe that you as a ROMAN CATHOLIC fell into heresy.

"So to sum up, the Orthodox do not claim to have a living authoritative interpretation and the authoritative interpretations that they do have are accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. The Mormons do not accept the authority of Scripture.
Thus the Roman Catholic Church is still the only body which accepts the authority of Scripture and claims to have a living earthly interpreting body.
Without this, the only way to resolve difficult issues is to either fracture unity (denominational relativism) or to dismiss the issues as irrelevant (individual relativism).
The Orthodox do not offer a solution to this and the Mormons do not offer a solution which acknowledges the authority of the Bible."

That is your relativistic view. That is your logic. The EGO have their relativistic logic as to why he RCC is wrong. And the Mormons do the same in their lack of treating the Bible as authoritative.
I believe that Evangelical churches have it right. Yet even among those, you will have various churches doing different things. Just like you do in Roman Catholicism. As far as Protestants differin on Scripture, that may be. Although not as much as you exaggerate it out to be. All I can do is look to the Bible. The 7 churches in Revelations differed in practice. Whether it was doctrine or minor issues, they did something that warranted Christ to commission them to seek repentence and change their ways. Christ did not refer to any of the churches as separated brethren. HE simply gave instructions. I can easily acknowledge man's differences in interpreting the Scripture. Mankind is very fleshy and proud. Whether one chooses to follow A or B is relativistic. If you choose to follow the Baptist way, that is your relativistic choice.
Whether you choose the EGO over RCC or vice versa, it is all relative. I believe that the Bible is God's word. I believe that the Holy Spirit works in us. Most choose not to listen because of pride. In the end, Jesus will judge and correct us. But please do not act like there is no division among Roman Catholics when there is. There is relativism involved in accepting whose authority is correct. Some choose only the Bible, patristic writings and councils. Others choose the former plus a pope. Some choose a book other than the Bible...and there are those who choose the Bible alone. In the end, you cannot tell the EGO or the Mormons that they are wrong, because it is all relative.

God Blesss

SandT, let me try again.

Suppose I wanted to find a living body which could interpret the Bible for me, especially regards to today's issues such as fetal stem cells, abortion, contraception, euthanasia, capital punishment, and terrorism.

Protestants would tell me there was no reliable authority. Eastern Orthodox would say that there were sadly no more ecumenical councils to give that kind of guidance. The Mormons would tell me the bible was corrupt and so their prophet does not focus on biblical revelation. Only the Roman Catholics would even offer me an authoritative interpretation.

Now I can understand if you don't believe the Roman Catholic Church cannot deliver on its promise. But, surely we can agree that ONLY the Roman Catholic Church even claims to offer a living authority to interpret the inerrant Scriptures?

Broken,

The rational you have used is the same process that a Mormon, Jehovah's Witness and/or EGO follows when coming to the conclusion of what to accept as truth.
While the 3 that I have mentioned vary, the commonality of these 3 and Roman Catholicism, is the fact that all 4 use an external source additional to the BIBLE for co-authority or even a greater authority. So to choose which is true is relative.
On a side note, may God Bless the Rev. Billy Graham.

God Bless

SandT,

You make a lot of sense, but something is missing in protestantism. I can feel it. I grew up a baptist. I just know that something is missing. I think it's Jesus. We love Him but we're not experiencing Jesus like we could. There's a hollowness there. We have part of the truth. What I'm wondering is whether the Catholic Church has the rest of it. For us, He did some great things and then died and went to heaven to return later. For the Catholics, He is still with them.

For us, communion is a symbol in remembrance of Jesus. For the Catholics, they join ranks with the disciples and commune with Jesus. We talk of knowing Jesus and walking with Him. Do we really? I'm no theologian but I know that the first time that empty place for Jesus inside of me was never filled until I went to a Latin mass.

AJ,

That is fine that you feel that way. However, a lot of what Roman Catholics practice is not biblical...unless you pick to follow an authoritative earthly interpreter. And that part is all relative as well.

God Bless

Dear SandT,

I am stuck between Catholicism and Protestantism, so I'll ask you this, since I think you're pretty smart. Why would Jesus say in Matthew 17:20-22 that the church is to be one if there is also supposed to be a disconnect between the living and the dead in Christ?

SandT,
I never heard from you. I hope you're okay. I was able to discover the answer to my own question. Deuteronomy 18 forbids conjouring up spirits for counsel or maybe even help according to some definitions of the word "conjour." However, those who pray to saints do not attempt to conjour them because that would require bringing them down to earth or forcing them to reveal themselves. That's witchcraft. Instead, they communicate with the other members of the body of Christ, accepting their metaphysical boundaries and limits while also hoping that the saints will remain with the Father.

If we use the terms "counsel" and "conjour" loosely, then any Christian who prays in the name of Jesus Christ is in essence "conjouring" his spirit for counsel, and such behavior would violate Deuteronomy 18. Jesus tells us that no one comes to the Father except through Him. He tells us that if we ask in His name, we will receive. He would not force us to sin by practicing witchcraft to get to the Father.

What about the eucharist? Doesn't that conjour up his blood and body, soul and divinity? I don't think so. When Jesus died on the cross, he gave them freely. He said, "this is my body" and "this is my blood" and commanded his disciples to take them. He spoke of "all" who partake them because he expected future generations to sit at the table He provided for the entirety of Christendom. The table is already set. Jesus stated "I will prepare a table for you." Those worthy followers who participate in communion have chosen to sit at that table by their free will. They ask God to sanctify the bread and wine and then they "commune" with Jesus. You do not need to use your own powers to conjour up that which is already given to you and is waiting for you to receive it.

AJ and Jay

Jesus always spoke in metaphors.

Just food for thought.

God Bless

SandT,
If Jesus was speaking metaphorically, why didn't He let His followers know? At the end of John 6, the all (except the apostles) left. It is clear they understood Christ as we do.

In several points in Scripture, Jesus clarified certain teachings when His apostles misunderstood Him or didn't understand Him. Apparently Christ felt they did understand Him correctly. Are you arguing Jesus was wrong?

God bless,
Jay

John 6:53-70 is a strong example of what has happened today. Some clergy have difficulty accepting Jesus' words when he said "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you." The Bible goes on to say "As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?" Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."

Some clergy today believe that communion is just bread and wine, used in remembrance of Jesus and as a symbollic re-enactment of the first communion. Like the people who couldn't accept the message and left Jesus, saying "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" so many people feel this way today about this and other lessons of the Bible. Jesus responded back then, "Does this shock you?" Of course, He already knew how everybody thought.

Sometimes the word is hard to accept. It's easier to explain away the things that make us feel uneasy. That's what relativism is all about. But no one should be afraid of the word because the word is eternal life. I'm no Bible scholar. I'm not even sold on the Catholic faith yet, but I know this much.

Jay,

"andT,
If Jesus was speaking metaphorically, why didn't He let His followers know? At the end of John 6, the all (except the apostles) left. It is clear they understood Christ as we do.

In several points in Scripture, Jesus clarified certain teachings when His apostles misunderstood Him or didn't understand Him. Apparently Christ felt they did understand Him correctly. Are you arguing Jesus was wrong?"

Jesus was speaking in a public arena in chapter 6.
Simply put, the Bible clearly says that when Jesus spoke in public that He spoke in parables.
Knowing this fact, when Jesus was speaking of His flesh and blood being real food, He was speaking to the Jews, in a public arena, which according the Bible means it was a parable.
Now the reason that it was a difficult teaching for the Jews is because if taken literally contradicts another teaching by God, which is to not eat or drink blood. However it is a deeper teaching, which only those who have the ear to hear will hear. Reference Mt 13.
Whenever there seems to be a contadiction found in the Bible, it is not God confusing us, it is us who are not understanding correctly.

God Bless

SandT,
Since you claim that only the Bible is truth, please point out where the Bible states that Jesus only spoke in parables in public. That's an absurd statement! But it does have an interesting underlying assumption: that Jesus spoke plainly or not in parables when speaking alone to the apostles. So in Matthew 16:18 when He tells Peter that He is building His Church on Peter, you must assume that he is speaking literally, correct?

The command not to eat flesh or blood has a direct result: if you break it, you are cut off from your people. I would argue that this is exactly what Jesus came to do; He cut us off from our people, from sin, and made us a new people.

I'll look forward to Scripture that states Jesus only spoke in parables when the public was around.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Matthew 13:33-
Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world."

Not only does the above verse show that Jesus spoke only in parables to the public, but it also shows that this was a prophecy to be fulfilled.

As far as your assumption that it would also mean that Jesus spoke literally to the apostles is just an assumption. The Bible clearly states that Jesus spoke to the multitudes in parables and only in parables. However it does say that he spoke literally to the apostles. Furthermore, one of the apostles asked why did Jesus speak in parables? Jesus gave His answer and afterwards instructed the apostle to listen to the parable of the sower. Evidence that Jesus did speak in parables to the apostles. You would know this if you read Matthew 13. Once again, the Bible states that Jesus spoke to the multitudes in parables and only parables.

God Bless

did my last post post?

SandT,

Does that mean that when Jesus said, "anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery" (Matt. 19:9), he was speaking a parable? He was speaking publicly, after all. Maybe that's why protestants have no problem with divorce, eh? LOL!

I could give you a million examples like this (where two or three are gathered in my name there I am (Matt. 18:20); it is lawful to do good on the sabbath (Matt. 12:12); love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Matt. 5:44)), but it just seems so obvious. Here's a good point in logic: just because x is true does not exclude the possibility that y is also true. (Translation of this parable: just because the Bible says that Jesus spoke in parables does not exclude the possibility (indeed, the certainty in this case) that he also spoke literally.)

In Christ,
Dave

P.S. I'm sure you already know this, but your quote from Matthew simply shows that he spoke to that particular multitude in parables. It doesn't even attempt to describe how he spoke at other times.

SandT,
Judging by your comments, Jesus was speaking in parables when he said, "I am the way, the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father except through me." Nah, I don't think so, SandT.

Dave,

I will delve into this more at a later time, but Jesus was speaking in metaphors and parables in Mt 19.
Read all of Mt 19, and we will discuss it later on.

AJ,

Being the truth, the way and the light is a parable itself. Metophorically and symbolically, Jesus is the truth, the way and the light.

I will gladly chat with you gents after I get off of work;)

God Bless

Not to butt in, but are Jay and Dave the same person. I just have this sneaky suspicion.

God Bless

SandT,

I see what you're saying but I still don't agree with that. If you cook everything Jesus said down to metaphores and parables, including that he is "one" with the Father and "the way, the truth and the life" then you don't end up with Christianity. What you get is new age mumbo jumbo and a watered down, irrelevant pseudo-faith in Christ. Essentially, Christ goes from being God to being just a nice guy. Wasn't it Paul who said something like, "without faith in Jesus Christ, we are nothing?" This is the biggest difference between muslims and protestants. I would not be surprised if the youth of protestant countries left the wishy-washy, relativist ways of their parents and embraced the ways of their solid, literalist muslim neighbors.

Dave,

I take it you have read Matthew 19 by now.
I will summarize and you can feel free to dispute afterwards.
In verse 2, Jesus is speaking to who? The multitudes. That would be the public. The same public in which it is said in the same book that Jesus spoke only in parables to the multitudes.
So a quick answer to your question in regards to Matthew 19 is yes. Yes Jesus was speaking in metaphoric/parabolic language.
References to man and woman being made one is a metaphor. The reference is symbolic of the spiritual union that occurs in marriage.
The reference to the hearts of men being hard is metaphoric. The actual heart did not become rock solid. The reference is metaphor for the spiritual emotional coldness that emanated from man. Finally Jesus does give his teaching on divorce and follows up with another metaphor/parable about eunuchs. The whole teaching was spoken in metaphors.
AS for your assumption that Mt 13 only refers to that particular public crowd, there is no proof of it in the Bible. We can go over everything that Jesus spoke, and I am sure that it is symbolic of something else.

God Bless

SandT,

Still no answer for me? I'll assume that it made you think.

AJ,

You asked if Jesus being the truth the way and the light is a metaphor...I answered yes.
Scroll up and see.

Unless there is another question you had.

God Bless

All,

It has been awhile since I have read these threads. Jay, my brother, you used to proclaim that looking to Scripture as the highest authority was an idea foreign to all early church fathers. You used to lean heavily on the tradition you believed that these men have shared. When SandT clearly shows that to be false, you dismiss it. SandT was able to show that some church fathers CLEARLY gave the ultimate authority to the Scriptures. SandT also showed that various church fathers disagreed on the interpretation of the who the Rock is as well as their view on Mary's sinless nature. This is important to note because you used to base your argument heavily on the belief that you had, which was that all the early church fathers were in agreement. SandT destroyed this notion. He clearly showed that this is not so. Now as for this thread. You challenged SandT to show you where it is said in the Bible that Jesus only spoke in parables. SandT showed you. Dave, unless you can find Scripture that states Jesus only spoke to particular public crowd, for all intents and purposes the passage means all the public. You have no proof of it being a certain group.
I realize that pride is an issue here. But it is time to let go of that pride.

God Bless you All

Marc,
Accusing someone of being prideful because they disagree with your religious leanings is kind of rude. How do you know pride is a factor? You don't.

SandT,
Are you saying that everything Jesus taught in public was just a metaphore? Do you contend that Jesus could not mean a metaphore and literalism at the same time? By the way, if scripture says "Jesus always spoke in metaphores in public," that does not mean Jesus "only" spoke that way. My point is that such a belief opens itself up to weakness. The logical conclusion for such a way of thinking as Jesus only speaking metaphors is humanism. As a protestant myself, I think it's sad that the protestant churches are so confused and falling apart on the issues of definite truths. If nothing Jesus said is literal, then the whole New Testament is subject to creative interpretation. Add to this the idea that every man is himself a priest and you get a society following laisse fair religion. This is precisely what has happened in the protestant churches and your way of thinking is indicative of this. This is what Jay's critics are harping on:

Matthew 31:34 says, "All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables. He spoke to them only in parables, to fulfill what hade been said through the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables, I will announce what has lain hidden from the foundation [of the world]."

But here's the reasoning behind that passage:

Matthew 13:10-17. "The disciples approached him and said, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" He said to them in reply, "Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted. To anyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; from anyone who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because they look but do not see and hear but do not listen or understand.' Isaiah's prophecy is fulfilled in them, which says: 'You shall indeed hear but not understand, you shall indeed look but never see. Gross is the heart of this people, they will hardly hear with their ears, lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted, and I heal them.' But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear. Amen, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it."

Here is one statement from Jesus that was not a metaphore or a parable: "Amen, I say to you, one of you will betray me."

AJ,

I said it once, twice and I'll say it again. When speaking to the public, Jesus spoke in metaphors. When in private with his disciples it was different. He did speak to them in parables as well, but also did indeed simplify teachings for them. However, in a large public area, Jesus spoke in parables. My point was that Jesus was speaking in public when teaching about His Flesh and Blood being real food. That was taught to a public crowd. Therefore it is a metaphor/parable according to the Bible. Scroll up to see my previous comments.

God Bless

SandT, is the following passage from Luke 13 a parable?
2Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

Okay, SandT. I understand what you are trying to say. We're cool.

SandT,

I find this to be a very unconvincing explanation and would be interested in your answers to the following:

How does it serve His Father for Jesus to teach in a manner which drives His followers away?

Why did Jesus not call them back and clarify His teaching as He did at other times (e.g. Matt 19:24-26, John 11:11-14 etc.)?

Why does John use the word "phago" for "eat" in 6:23-53, and "trogo" in 6:54-58?

Why did Jesus prior to His crucifixion use the "eat my flesh" 'metaphor' in private with His disciples?

Why would God let His Church - guided by apostolic tradition - teach idolatry and falsehood unchallenged for over 1500 years?

And finally, if you don't mind, a reversal of the onus of proof: why *shouldn't* we understand Jesus' words literally?

The only sensible answer to the final question would appear to be "Because God can't change bread into flesh and wine into blood."

But I don't think even non-Catholics would go that far.

Peace.

Fidens,

Simply put, the Bible says that when Jesus taught in public, that he spoke in parables. The Bible does not single out a particular group or multitude. So the question is, despite the Bible saying that Jesus spoke only parables to the public, despite there being no proof of an isolated public being addressed...why would you not understand the teachings of Jesus to the public to be metaphorical and/or parabolic?

Broken,

Yes, Luke 13 is metaphoric and parabolic in nature indeed. The symbolic nature of the sins that JEsus was discussing was important to illustrate that regardless...all have sinned and all must repent. The result if we don't repent is that we will perish. This an eternal spritual perishing that Christ was mentioning. The key point of that teaching was simple; No matter how bad you may feel the sin to be, all who sin must repent the same way or go to hell.

God Bless

I think the point is that it's possible to speak in a parable and be literal at the same time. Just because a teacher always uses examples doesn't mean that none of the examples are real or that they don't have real life applications. The use of parables does not lessen the meaning of the lesson!

AJ,

The genesis of this argument is what Jesus meant by his body and blood being real food and drink. Some believe that Jesus really meant His flesh and His blood were real food that we can eat like a piece of bread. From what I can tell, Jay, Broken and Fidens and maybe yourself believe that this is what makes Roman Catholicism more truthful or complete. I and others contend that this was not to be taken literally. Aside from other proof in the Bible which clearly shows that this was a symbolic meaning in reference to nourishment for the spirit, the most obvious one which negates the literal translation is the mere fact that the Bible says that Jesus spoke in parables when speaking to the public. Unless you can show that the Bible meant only the Galileans or a specific group, then you can make a point to say that Jesus was literal in his teaching of his flesh and blood being real food. But no one can show anything otherwise.

God Bless

Well, SandT, I see it this way. I think the Roman Catholics see it as the spirit of Christ in the eucharist, which becomes the spiritual body and blood of Christ. Jesus was not speaking before a crowd when he had the first communion. He was just speaking to his disciples and I think they knew that He was speaking in terms of a future rite. Think about it. Flesh and blood are intimate. Maybe that's what the other people on this board trying to say. But what do I know. I'm just a novice and you guys are the experts. I can tell you this, though: the tought of the Catholic eucharist sure beats eating cracker shavings and drinking grape drink at the Baptist church just for the heck of doing it. Without the spiritual overtones it seems like an almost pointless exercise.

SandT,

In Jesus' time, the metaphor "to eat the flesh" meant to cause a serious injury (see Job 19:22, Ps 27:2, Zech 11:9, Eccles 4:5, Isa 9:20, 49:26, Mic 3:1-3, Rev 16:6), which does not make sense in the context in which He was speaking in John 6:54.

When Jesus said "I am the gate" or "the true vine" it was clear that he was speaking metaphorically - certainly not the case in John 6:54-58. This is emphasised when Christ takes John 6:35 beyond mere symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food *indeed*, and my blood is drink *indeed*" in John 6:55. The use of "trogo" and "sarx" (for "flesh"), the fact that this is the only doctrinal issue over which disciples broke with Jesus, and that Jesus does not clarify Himself but, in fact, uses the same language in private at the Last Supper, support the proposition that Jesus meant exactly what He said.

I would still like to hear your answers to my questions above.

God bless.

SandT,

Sorry, one more request if I may: could you please identify when the Dogma of the real presence was "invented". If it was not taught by Jesus or His Apostles, it must have been invented at some point. I believe I can identify when it was first *disputed* and I am hoping you can provide your counter-argument.

God bless.

AJ,

The Bible clearly says that when we break the bread that we are proclaiming the name of the Lord.
We believe that Christ is amongst us throughout the service. If we are gathered in His name, then he is among us.
However when it comes to breaking the bread, it is to proclaim the name of the Lord. We do not believe that it transforms into Christ's actual blood and flesh. That is what Jay and others believe. Not spiritual flesh and blood, but actual flesh and blood.
But to answer your statement, proclaiming the name of the Lord is not a pointless exercise.

God Bless

AJ,

It is worst than just pointless, it is anticlimactic. In John 6, Jesus says that he will do a greater miracle than the manna in the desert. The manna in the desert was a sign that pointed to something greater. The body of Christ is that something greater.

Thus, in Catholic theology, we have manna (miraculous symbol) pointing the way to Jesus Christ on the cross (miraculous reality), who then leaves us his Body and Blood to be re-presented to all the faithful for the rest of time (ever-present miraculous reality).

Yet according to evangelical theology, manna (miraculous symbol) points the way to Christ on the cross (miraculous reality), who then leaves us crackers and juice (natural symbol).

There is something drastically wrong with this picture. Two weeks ago I attended the fantastic Catholic Family Life Conference in Anaheim. Rosalind Moss, a Jewish convert (first to protestantism, then to Catholicism) made this point. She came into the Church because of this inconsistency. Why would a miraculous sign point, ultimately, to an ordinary symbol? Doesn't the natural progression of the Scripture teach us that what is greater follows that which is lesser? If the new covenant is so much better, why have an inferior sign? And that's when it hit her--the sign is not inferior, but vastly superior. Communion is not some sad symbol, but the majestic reality of Christ's Body and Blood present with us for all time.

It's funny, in the discussion above someone raised the issue of early church fathers giving final authority to the Scripture. True or not, can anyone dispute that the whole of the Church for 1600 years (yes, even during the first 100 years of the reformation) accepted the Real Presence?

In Christ,
Dave

Fidens,

All I see are reasons being given to believe that Jesus was being literal in John 6. All this despite the very fact that the Bible says he spoke in parables when speaking to the public. All this despite there being no proof that it was only specific group he spoke to in parables.

Fidens, Jesus was wounded for transgressions, bruised for our iniquities. His flesh was indeed damaged.
In John 6, Jesus refers to himself as the bread from heaven. That bread is His flesh, which Christ said he would give for the life of the world.
What life is Christ talking about? I believe that it is everlasting life.

John 6:47-48
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life."

Believing on Christ. Now eating an item involves incorporating what you eat into your body. You can eat regular food, but eventually we will die. But incorporating Christ's teachings and accepting Him as savior, that will nourish your soul forever. You will live forever. This was all a spiritual reference. How do I know?
Because Christ clears this up in Jn6:63

John 6:63
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

The words He spoke were spirit...not actual flesh.

When Jesus broke bread with the apostles, He instructed them to do this

Luke 19

"19And 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."

Not to worship Him, but to remember what He did for us.
Paul clarifies this in 1 Cor 11

"23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes."

Whenever you partake of the bread and wine, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. You proclaim that you believe He died for your sins. You proclaim that He was wounded for our transgressions. You believe on Him to be Savior. Nothing at all here mentions that you reach a pinnacle of worship when you partake. Nothing mentioned by Paul of actually eating Christ's actual flesh.

So let us review.
The Bible says that Christ spoke in parables to the public.
Christ in reference to John 6 says that the words He spoke are in spirit.
Christ said that we are to break bread in remembrance of Him.
Paul taught that we proclaim the Lord's death until he comes when we partake of the bread.
Yet you insist that Christ was being literal.
Despite the Bible, which happens to the Word of God, saying otherwise.
Despite Christ saying that the words He spoke are Spirit. Despite Christ saying to do this in remembrance of Him.
As far as who invented what or how long a tradition has been in place. The bottom line is what does God say. The Bible says otherwise to your argument. The Scriptures show that Jesus was not being literal. But the biggest obstacle for your argument is the fact the Bible says that Christ spoke in parables when speaking to the public.

God Bless

Fidens,Jay, Dave and AJ

Anyone care to comment on what SandT posted?

(cf. Jn 6:48), “how can he give us his flesh to eat?” (v. 54). [Jesus said] “because my flesh is real food and my blood real drink” (v. 55),

(cf. Jn 6:48) ... “how can he give us his flesh to eat?” (v. 54) [Jesus said] “because my flesh is real food and my blood real drink”. Pope Benedict XVI said at World Youth Day 2005 that Jesus transforms the bread and wine to become his body and blood.

AJ,

Once again please read my previous post carefully.
Secondly, it does not matter what the Pope says, what matters it what God says.

John 6:63
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are life."

God Bless

SandT,
Sorry I'm just getting to your comment, but here's my thoughts:

First, if you are suggesting Jesus was speaking metaphorically, why did He allow all of His disciples (except the 12) leave over a misunderstanding? He often corrected mistaken notions of what He was saying, but here Jesus choose not to correct them. According to you, they misunderstood Jesus' words (they took Him literally, as all Christians did for 1,500 years). It's completely illogical to argue they were wrong.

Second, Jesus' words become more explicit and literal as He goes through the passage in John 6. By the end, He's saying "gnaw" my flesh. Again, this is a mark against your point of view.

Third, I think you're being very deceptive in quoting Corinthians. You took the quote out of context by stopping where you did. If you continue, St. Paul says:
***
27. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy mannner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28. Let a man examine himself, and so eat ofthe bread and drink of the cup. 29. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
***
That sounds pretty literal to me: if you eat unworthily you profane the bread and wine, right? No, you profane the body and blood of Christ. Oh, and you'll die if you eat unworthily, which plainly explains why the Catholic church requires you to understand what you are eating before you accept it.

In fact, SandT, there is nothing in the Bible that suggests the Eucharistic teaching isn't literal. Protestants take one verse out of context and throw away a significant amount of Scripture in doing so.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

I am glad you have returned to the dialogue.

Again, Mt 13

"34All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

35That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world."

There is nothing being taken out of context. Plain and simple, Christ said that he would speak in parables. This very chapter also reinforces the fact that Christ spoke in parables. You challenged me to find it for you and so I did.
It does not matter that some could not understand. It does not change the fact that Christ did what he said he would do...which was speak in parables and only parables to the public.
Not everyone would understand. How do I know this??

Mt 13
"10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:"

So to answer your question is simple. Not everyone who heard the word would understand. According to Christ, this was a prophecy to be fulfilled. Again, I am showing you Biblical text to back this up.

"That sounds pretty literal to me: if you eat unworthily you profane the bread and wine, right? No, you profane the body and blood of Christ. Oh, and you'll die if you eat unworthily, which plainly explains why the Catholic church requires you to understand what you are eating before you accept it."

Wrong again. When you proclaim the name of the Lord, you are bringing judgement upon yourself. This same analogy is used in reference to Scripture.

Heb 4
"12For 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."

Christ is the Word of God. We both know this. The Word judges our hearts and thoughts.

"For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself."

Proclaiming the name of the Lord is the same as proclaiming the Word of God and it will bring judgement upon you.

However if one discerns the word of God and follows the Word of God and not just proclaim it, therein lies a man with power. If you do not follow the Word of God, you will be sick, and you can die. James 1 reflects this point very well. Being a hearer and a doer of the Word of God versus just hearing and not doing.
For example, knowing that life and death are in the tongue of your mouth and all you do is speak negatively..you therefore speak death into existence. If you live a sinful life and proclaim the name of Christ and still do not change, you are allowing death and sickness to set into your life for the wages of sin is death. However when you choose to follow the Lord and the Word of God, you have life. You will be victorious in this life. Eternal life is one thing, but the life you live on this earth is influenced by the way one lives for the Lord.

"In fact, SandT, there is nothing in the Bible that suggests the Eucharistic teaching isn't literal."

I beg to differ. Once again, the following suggest that it indeed is metaphoric.

1. The Bible says that Jesus always spoke in parables in public.
That alone suffices.
2. Jesus said that the words he spoke were SPIRIT.
3. Paul clarifies the teaching in Cor.

Jay, you have yet to prove that Mt 13 referred only to a specific public group. Until you can prove otherwise, Jesus spoke in parables to all the public/multitudes when he spoke. This is according the Bible. Are you going to forsake the Scriptures for your tradition?

God Bless

SandT,
I repeat: (cf. Jn 6:48) ... “how can he give us his flesh to eat?” (v. 54) [Jesus said] “because my flesh is real food and my blood real drink”.

You are arguing that it's the spirit that gives you life. Yes, you're right. No contest there. But that's not the point. The point is that you still partake the body and blood of Christ with his spirit in the Eucharist, anyway. Once again, Jesus was not before a crowd when he instituted the Eucharist with His disciples. You can continue to argue, cite verses and post your beliefs, but your arguments are still defeated.

AJ,

"Once again, Jesus was not before a crowd when he instituted the Eucharist with His disciples."

Read Jn 6 one more time. You will be shocked to find out that a crowd went to follow Jesus. They found Him at a lake in Capernaum. Someone from the crowd asked Jesus when did he get there. Then Jesus goes into His teaching of spiritual nourishment. Until someone can show that Christ did not speak to that crowd at the lake in parables, we are to follow and believe the Bible. That is, Christ spoke in parables and only parables when addressing the public. That includes the public in Jn 6. Which makes the teaching of Christ's flesh and blood to be metaphoric. We believe it to be a spiritual reference. Christ said the words he spoke are spirit. That is why we believe it is a spiritual reference and not literal.
I know where this discussion will end up. No one will be able to prove that Christ spoke to crowds literally. So I am sure this topic will go off on a tangent. I just have this last question, does the Bible say that Christ spoke in parables and only parables when speaking to the public?? Jay please answer that question for me. You too AJ.

God Bless

SandT,

You're still clinging to hope in your theory. Jesus actually "instituted" the Eucharist in an inn with his disciples. There were no crowds in there when he said "this is my body" and "this is my blood." You may be the one who is shocked. Do not be afraid to accept the truth.

AJ,

When Jesus broke bread, he said do this in remembrance of me. Paul recounts this event later and teaches that we proclaim the name of the Lord when we break bread. NO teaching of worship or transubstiation to be found.

God Bless

SandT,

Are you sure there is no mention that in the eucharist we partake of the body and blood of Christ? I don't think you are. Yes, we proclaim Christ during communion. That does not mean that the proclamation is all that happens. That's like a person saying, "I wore my pin-striped hat today," and somebody else saying, "that must mean that all he had on was his pin-stiped hat." But if you want proof, keep reading your bible and you will find references to the bread and wine as the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

This appeared in the King James Version: 2 Chronicles 4:18-19, "All these things that Solomon made amounted to so much that the weight of the bronze was not determined. Solomon also made all the furnishings that were in God's temple: the golden altar; the tables on which was the bread of the Presence;" and the word "Presence" was capitalized. Jesus is the fulfillment of the bread of the Presence prophesied in the Old Testament.

1 Corinthians 16 says "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?"

At the Eucharist, Christians around the world participate in the body and blood of Jesus, in spirit and in truth.

AJ,

Whenever 2 or 3 are gathered in Christ's name, He is present. However the argument is not the presence of Christ at communion, because as He has said, where ever 2 or 3 are gathered in His name, He is among us. The argument is that Jay and other Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine actually turn into the actual flesh and body of Christ. They also believe that to partake in the communion is the highest point of worship of Christ. The Bible does not teach this at all. The Bible teaches that Christ was teaching in reference to our souls. His words were spirit. As far as why we partake of the bread, Christ instructed us to do this in remembrance of Him and Paul taught that we do it to proclaim His name. Nothing about reaching a high point of worship.
Lastly I'll say it again. Christ spoke in parables when speaking to the public. This is point you have yet to refute. If I am to believe God when He says something, I will believe that Christ spoke in parables and metaphors in public. That includes John 6. Either you accept that Christ was not being literal or you end up calling God a liar. So if you can find anywhere in the Bible which states that Christ did not speak in parables in John 6, then you have your point made. Otherwise, you are forsaking Scripture to support a tradition that is man made.

God Bless

SandT,

I feel like you did not read anything I said. You keep repeating John 6 and Jesus' parables in public but I was talking about what he said in private. We could go around and around in circles with my discussion about what Jesus said in private and your preoccupation with proving your point based on what He said in public. The people on this board have proven the symbollic and literal meanings of the eucharist based on His public and private revelations. Since you continue to ignore His private relevations, I don't see any futility in future postings on this subject.

SandT,

We could go around and around in circles on this topic because the people on this board keep pointing out the literal meaning of Jesus' private statements and you keep focusing on the separate issue of his public statements. Jesus made both symbollic and literal statements. You refuse to acknowledge that Jesus was not talking in public when he instituted the eucharist with his disciples in the inn. Therefore, I do not see any utility in future postings on this topic to you.

Doesn't this board cancel when you tell it too? Oh well. Here I am complaining about going around in circles and I just repeated myself!

AJ,

Jesus spoke in parables to the public. Jesus only spoke in parables to the public. HE gave the metaphor for His body and bread. Jesus was being symbolic and metaphorical in public. So why would the same metaphor all of a sudden become literal because he spoke to His apostles in private?
It makes no sense.

God Bless

Because not everything He said to His disciples in private was just a metaphore or a parable.

AJ

AJ,

If Jesus told the parable of the sower to His disciples in private, would that now change the meaning to be literal?? Of course not.
Nonetheless, the ammunition used by your fellow Roman Catholics is John 6. In John 6, Christ was being metaphorical in public about His body being bread. What makes you believe that when he broke bread with His disciples that this metaphor now changed to a literal meaning?
Additionally, Christ when he broke bread literally said unto His disciples "do this in remembrance of me"
There was nothing mentioned about breaking bread to worship Christ or anything to indicate that the metaphor made in John 6 all of a sudden is to be taken literally.
If you ignore John 6, that is the only way you can assume that Christ was being literal when breaking bread. But Christ already had established the metaphor of His body and blood analagous to food. And we know that it is a metaphor because Christ spoke in public when he taught it. Why would it change? TO say that because Christ didn't always speak to the apostles in parables in private is foolish, because the fact remains that Christ did speak to the apostles parables and this is a FACT well established in the Bible. So once again, why would do you believe that the metaphor Christ taught about, in regards to His flesh and blood, change to a literal meaning?
Where does Christ or anyone else teach that to partake in communion is the highest point of worship?

I'll await your answer or anyone else's.

God Bless

You still don't get it, do you? They use John 6. I have used many other verses. What do you think of them? How do you know the parable of the sower and many others were not actually true stories?

You stated: "Additionally, Christ when he broke bread literally said unto His disciples "do this in remembrance of me." How do you know that this statement was not merely a metaphore? You prove my point exactly because you admit that he was literal with the disciples in private.

You stated: "TO say that because Christ didn't always speak to the apostles in parables in private is foolish, because the fact remains that Christ did speak to the apostles parables and this is a FACT well established in the Bible." I didn't say that Christ did not speak in parables with the disciples. I said that Christ spoke both metaphorically and literally in private with them.

I would respect a specific response to
1 Corinthians 16.

AJ

"You still don't get it, do you? They use John 6. I have used many other verses. What do you think of them?"

The verses you have used do not prove Jesus to be literal. They do not negate the fact that Mt 13 says Jesus spoke in parables to the public. Nor do they show that the communion is the highest point of worship.

" How do you know the parable of the sower and many others were not actually true stories?"

If Christ spoke in public, it was a parable/metaphor. AS for the parable of the sower, the answer to you question is very simple.

Mt 13:3
"Then he told them many things in parables, saying "A farmer went out to sow his seed..."
Did you miss that part of Mt 13??

"I said that Christ spoke both metaphorically and literally in private with them."

I agree AJ, however Christ already established the parable/metaphoric teaching of his body and blood.
We know that when Christ referred to His body and blood as real food that it was parabolic/metaphoric. We know this because the BIBLE teaches that every time Christ spoke in public that he taught in parables and only parables. Not occasionally in parables, but ONLY in parables. Knowing this, when Christ spoke in private to His apostles He again gave reference to His body as the bread. This is the same metaphor Christ used when speaking in public. It is an established metaphor. So my question, which you have yet answered is, why would the teaching which was taught as metaphor in public, all of sudden change its meaning to being literal? IT did not change, and it could not change, for the Bible says that God is the same yesterday, today and tommorrow.

Lastly, what is it about 1 Corinthians 16 you want me to respond to?
Do you have the right chapter?

God Bless

Yes, I have the right chapter when I say
1 Corinthians 16. It's rather obvious by now that you probably aren't going to address it. What do you mean, 'what do you want me to respond to'? How about the fact that it calls physical bread the body of Christ and physical wine the blood of Christ?

Well, at this point I really don't care whether you address it or not. I know that you are stuck in your position and I refuse to let go of the light I've been blessed to see through my new, broadened understanding. Like you, I come from a protestant past. But I am not tethered to the theories of Martin Luther. I am willing to open my mind to other interpretations of the Christian faith. I can only hope that one day you will do the same.

God Speed,
AJ

AJ,

Here is 1 Corinthians 16

"1 Corinthians 16

1Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.

2Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

3And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.

4And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me.

5Now I will come unto you, when I shall pass through Macedonia: for I do pass through Macedonia.

6And it may be that I will abide, yea, and winter with you, that ye may bring me on my journey whithersoever I go.

7For I will not see you now by the way; but I trust to tarry a while with you, if the Lord permit.

8But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost.

9For a great door and effectual is opened unto me, and there are many adversaries.

10Now if Timothy come, see that he may be with you without fear: for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do.

11Let no man therefore despise him: but conduct him forth in peace, that he may come unto me: for I look for him with the brethren.

12As touching our brother Apollos, I greatly desired him to come unto you with the brethren: but his will was not at all to come at this time; but he will come when he shall have convenient time.

13Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.

14Let all your things be done with charity.

15I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)

16That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth.

17I am glad of the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied.

18For they have refreshed my spirit and yours: therefore acknowledge ye them that are such.

19The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

20All the brethren greet you. Greet ye one another with an holy kiss.

21The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand.

22If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

23The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

24My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen."

There is no mention of physical bread and wine in this chapter. Please point it out.
Are you sure you have the correct chapter?

God Bless

My apologies: 1 Corinthians 10:16.

And I still don't think either one of us will change our opinion.

AJ,

Jesus taught about His body and blood being real food. His body being bread and His blood being wine. Now Jesus initially taught this in public, which according to the Bible makes it a metaphor.
Before I continue, I just would like to point out that this is a point that no one can refute via use of the Scriptures.

Now, knowing this fact, in Corinthians Paul is referring to the metaphor that Christ already taught. In public Christ taught that He was the real bread of life. In Corinthians, Paul refers to Christ as that bread. In Corinthians Paul is merely referring to an already taught metaphor.
My question to you is, what proof do you have that Paul changed the metaphor taught by Christ to a literal form? The Scripture you pointed out does not change the parable of Christ's body into a literal meaning. Nothing that you have shown says that Christ was being literal or that Christ changed the teaching to a literal meaning. The biggest obstacle that you, Jay, Dave or anyone else has is the fact that the Bible says that Christ only spoke in parables when speaking in public. Christ spoke about His body being bread in public thereby making it a parable. Paul referred to this teaching in Corinthians...and it still was a parable. You can dismiss what the Scriptures say and hold on to your tradition, but that is forsaking God for tradition, the very mistake Christ told the Saducees about.

God Bless

See, I knew you wouldn't change your opinion, even in the face of Sola Scriptura proof of what a disciple thought of Jesus' words, spoken in public as well as in private to the disciples using actual bread and wine to teach them the multifaceted meaning of communion. You know, it's called "communion," not "declaration".

Nothing I say will change your mind. You will read into 1 Cor. 10:16 whatever you want to make it fit into your life philosphy. I can't blame you for that. Most people don't want to change their religious belief. However, I will not waste anymore time trying to convince you of the fullness of power in the eucharist. If you believe you are only eating bread and drinking wine and that Jesus is not in them, then you will continue to eat bread and drink wine and Jesus will not be in them.

AJ,

remember that the bread and the wine only become the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ when a validly ordained minister consecrates. So everyone should be able to agree that when SandT's congregation celebrates the Lord's Supper, it is really a symbolic metaphorical celebration.

AJ,

You have addressed the points I have made. Instead, you choose to overlook them. In your last post you are separating verses in the Bible. You ignore the fact that Jesus taught about His body being the bread in public...WHICH ACCORDING to the BIBLE means that it was a parable. It was a metaphor, it was symbolic, because that is what a parable is.
Paul talks about that same parable in Corinthians. If Jesus taught His body being bread to be a parable, then when Paul teaches about Jesus' body being bread, it too must be a parable. You keep insisting that Paul was teaching the very thing Christ taught as parable to now be literal. You have yet to address this point.
You also say that it is not a declaration. I believe that the Bible disagrees with you as evidenced by 1 Cor 11. You can read it for yourself, and address that point if you are able to.

Now, I believe that when 2 or 3 are gathered in Christ's name, that He is among us. Whether it be during praise and worship or during communion, Christ is there. However I do not believe that the bread turns in to Christ's actual flesh, nor do I believe that it is the highest point of worship as Jay and others have said.
AJ, I have addressed your points and your Scriptural references. I ask that you return the favor.
Again, here is my main question.

Since Christ taught about His body and blood being food in public, that makes it a parable. Christ was speaking in metaphors. Why would Paul teach the same thing, yet have a literal meaning, different from the way Christ taught it?
What Scriptural proof do you have for this?

God Bless

I could tell you that Jesus' words had deep meanings, not just what was on the surface. I could tell you that he was not in public when he recited that his body was the bread and his blood was the wine, but this time with great solemnity. Why tell a parable twice? Had he ever done that before? They sat at that table and put the bread and wine in their mouths, all knowing Jesus was about to be caught and put to death. I think Jesus was taking the apostles to a whole new level. I could repeat 1 Cor. 10:16 to show you what the apostles thought Jesus meant that life-changing night. I could tell you that they went out singing to the Mount of Olives and not just because they had heard Jesus repeat one of his many parables. I could remind you that in Jewish tradition, when a lamb was sacrificed, the priests ate it and that Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. But the greatest knowledge I have is my experience. I have seen the eucharist and felt Jesus' presence imminating from it. That's really all the proof I need.

AJ,

So basically you have no biblical proof. Thank you.

God Bless

SandT,
So basically you ignored any biblical proof that did not fit your motto. Okay.

Seeing you dance around 1 Cor. 10:16 was cute and sad at the same time. Are you talking so we can learn from each other or just to be right? I'm pretty sure you can site the Bible backwards and forwards and I know that I can't. But as long as I can understand the difference between "public parables" and "private instruction" and as long as I can understand 1 Cor. 10:16 when I read it, I can be ten times more perceptive than the most learned theologian with his eyes voluntarily closed.

SandT,

click here

God bless,

Tim

Fidens,

I have noticed that putting a URL in the first few lines of a comment (like the one you did above) really messes up the recent comments section. I suspect if any sufficently long word appears in the initial part of a comment, the problem arises.

Tim(fidens)

“First, it is incorrect to make an absolute out of Jesus' comments about speaking only in parables -- as though he never spoke to the crowds NOT using parables is simply innacurate and sorry to say -- your friend has come up with a self-serving interpretation that is very incorrect.-Catholic Convert.com”

The Bible says that Jesus only spoke in parables to the public. Jesus said that he would only speak to the public in parables. More importantly the Bible says that Jesus spoke ONLY in parables. And Jesus also affirms this by saying that he was fulfilling a prophecy by speaking in parables and only parables. The Bible CLEARLY, UNAMBIGOUSLY states that Jesus spoke in parables and ONLY parables when speaking to the multitudes. That is an absolute remark by the Scriptures. A remark which JESUS himself verifies and validates by his own words. Despite what CC.com may think, that is not inaccurate. You can of course prove me wrong by showing me proof in the Bible which says that Jesus spoke literally to a certain crowd. However that proof does not exist.

“Have your friend read the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew chapters 5-7. The other Gospels have shorter versions of this sermon and mention the great crowds that heard him speak. There are many instances when Jesus taught didactically without parables.-CatholicConvert.com”

I have read that plenty of times and I can assure you that Jesus spoke in parables and metaphors through out those chapters. The sermon on the mount overflows with metaphors after metaphor. I could go over each line on the sermon on the Mount, but that would take a while.

“In the Protestant New American Commentary, it says “Verse 34b does not refer to Jesus’ teaching beyond this immediate occasion.“ What the commentary means is that it is only in this instance -- it is to this specific crowd addressed in Matthew 13 that Jesus only spoke in parables. It does NOT mean that he never spoke to any other crowd without parables. Your friend is very mistaken and has a very poor understanding of Scripture -- and seems to lack even a basic understanding of how to interpret it.-CC.com”

Unfortunately I do not have the New American Commentary. However, what proof does this commentary have that Jesus was only speaking in that instance? There is none Scripturally for sure. Maybe it is an assumption, but that does not make it right?
Now I know what you may think…”It is a book written by a protestant” and you are probably thinking who am I to tell the other that he or she is wrong. However, my challenge to anyone disagrees that Jesus spoke only with parables and metaphors to the public is to simply show some proof in the Bible. Now on that note in regards to John 6…
“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood," describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle”- Clement of Alexandria
We can back and forth and bring in outside opinions but I prefer to stick to the Bible.

“Second, what is a parable? According to the Protestant New Bible Dictionary, “a ‘parable’ is the somewhat protracted simile or short descriptive story, usually designed to inculcate a single truth or answer a single question.“
Of course Jesus often spoke metaphorically and of course he often spoke in parables. Parables are stories with a moral attached to them. We are all familiar with parables -- stories -- Jesus told about the Prodigal Son, the Lost Sheep, the Sower, etc. I would love to ask your friend what "story" or parable is being told in in John 6? Jesus is NOT telling a parable there; he is teaching didactically. Just because he told parables elsewhere does not mean everything and every time he taught it was strictly methaphorical. Your friend is mixing things up -- don't let him get away with it.”-CC.com
The greek text reads parabole. Which can mean comparison, illustration or analogy. So this is the manner in which Jesus only spoke. All which winds up being a metaphor. Abd by the way, a simile is a protracted metaphor. The comparison or parable in John 6 is someone believing on Him and someone eating His flesh. Believing on Jesus is analogous to eating His flesh. Which results in eternal life…not on earth…but in Heaven.
“Fourth, and here we will dig in a little bit. The Jews did not believe Jesus that he said they had to eat his flesh an drink his blood. They walked away. If he was speaking metaphorically he would have called them back and said, "Hey guys, you don't understand -- see the Protestants have it right -- what I just said is metaphor so you don't have to be offended and walk away!" But he didn't -- he let the crowd of disciples walk away.”-CC.com
Now this shows a lack of reading Scriptures. Jesus said that not all would get it. Jesus all said that this was a prophecy to be fulfilled. So if some did not get it, they did not get it. It was prophecied and Jesus knew that. That is why he let them walk away.
“Your friend will also try to use this verse as an argument against you
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." (John 6:63, NASB95)
He will probablay say, "The flesh profits nothing, see!"
Actually I emphasized the part that Jesus said that words he spoke are Spirit. Meaning a spiritual reference as in spiritual food and drink.
“And by the way, this “symbol only“ mentality about Scripture and this passage in particular is only as old as the Protestant Reformation (er, I mean Rebellion). From the beginning of the Church Christians have understood that Jesus was speaking of his Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist -- after all Jesus did not say, “This represents my body.“ he said “This is My Body!“”-cc.com
He must not have read the quote from Clement. But here it is again
“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood," describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle”- Clement of Alexandria

“Too bad your friend wants to erase the words of Jesus or add his own puny interpretation to what the Word of God clearly states.”

God clearly states that Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables and only parables. No where in the Word of God does it state that the Eucharist or breaking of the bread is the highest point of worship. Rather the Word of God says that we proclaim the name of the Lord when we break bread. The Lord Jesus Christ instructed us to do this in remembrance of Him. Despite accusations, I am not erasing any words of Christ. Look at the Bible and see for yourself. Still, no one can refute via proof of the Scriptures that Jesus spoke only in parables(which according to the Greek translation can mean analogies, comparisons, or illustrations).
If you think Jesus said something in public and it seems literal to you then you must have the wrong interpretation. For God is true and every man a liar. Stop forsaking the Word of God for your tradition.

God Bless

SandT,

I read the info on catholic convert.com and I found it to be compelling. To deny that Jesus' flesh and blood mattered at all is to make the point of His birth in human form, His death of the cross and resurrection from physical death meaningless. Your post was very long but added nothing new. To say that Jesus only spoke in parables is not only incorrect, but I don't think you realize just how silly that really sounds. Case in point, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." That is neither a metaphore nor a parable. It's a very literal command to a crowd. You might be right on other issues but you're plainly wrong on this one.

Furthermore, when you said "So basically you have no biblical proof. Thank you" I thought that was a very flippant way of telling me that my personal religious experience did not matter in the grand scheme of things according to your opinion. But the eucharist should have been the summit of my religious experience because it was the fulfillment of God's promise to humankind. And of course, personal experience with God is of the greatest importance in the grand scheme of things.

SandT,

Doesn't the citation from the protestant commentary (and your disagreement with it) undermine your insistance that the Bible is the only source of authority? Where in the Bible does it say that only the Bible (and your particular interpretation of it) is authorative?

It is not my tradition I follow, it is the tradition of the Catholic Church, revealed to it by the Holy Spirit as promised by Our Lord.

I'm sure it pulls no water with you, but Ignatius of Antioch, who heard the Gospel from mouth of the apostle John himself, understood what Jesus meant. The dogma of the Real Presence has been the testimony of the Church since the days of the apostles.

It is your tradition that is the inovation, and it saddens me that protestants so obstiately cut themselves off from God's grace.

You remain in my prayers.

Fidens

"Doesn't the citation from the protestant commentary (and your disagreement with it) undermine your insistance that the Bible is the only source of authority?"

Not at all.

"Where in the Bible does it say that only the Bible (and your particular interpretation of it) is authorative?"

I have answered this question on a previos thread. Please look it up. But in the meantime look at 2 Tim 3:16.

"I'm sure it pulls no water with you, but Ignatius of Antioch, who heard the Gospel from mouth of the apostle John himself, understood what Jesus meant. The dogma of the Real Presence has been the testimony of the Church since the days of the apostles."

Did you not read what Clement wrote? He too was considered an early church father and he referred to breaking the bread as symbolic. There are other early church fathers that disagree with the way you believe communion to be. There may be some that agree. But the point is this, the tales that there was one unified thought and pattern on practice within the early church is greatly exaggerated.

"It is your tradition that is the inovation, and it saddens me that protestants so obstiately cut themselves off from God's grace."

It is sad that you try to undermine the Word of God as authoritative and attempt to relegate equal authority to your tradition. I won't go as far as to say that you are cutting yourself from God's grace, for the God I serve is extremely merciful. But you are not allowing yourself full access to God truth. Despite the red herrings thrown. No one has proved that Jesus did not to speak in parables all the time. All I have read is a bunch of maybe's and opinions. Nothing that solidly proves that Jesus only spoke to a certain crowd in parables.

God Bless

Dear SandT,

You said to Fidens, "It is sad that you try to undermine the Word of God as authoritative and attempt to relegate equal authority to your tradition. I won't go as far as to say that you are cutting yourself from God's grace, for the God I serve is extremely merciful. But you are not allowing yourself full access to God truth." What about the books possibly written by disciples that were not included in the Bible at the council of Nicea? Cannot the traditions that come from them be of any authority? The fact is that Protestants assume that the books in the Bible are the