Featured Catholicism is not compatible with Christianity

If the RCC base that commandment in John 6th chapter, then maybe you should read the whole chapter because Jesus wasn't really talking about communion. If He was, then you would only have to take communion one time and that is it for His promise to be true that you would hunger and thirst no more.

John 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

Do note that the Jews had asked Him to give this bread of life. Jesus is telling them how to receive the bread of life.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

So how do you receive that bread of life? By coming to and believing in Him; that's how. But Jesus said this to them...

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

John 6th chapter was never about communion. It was about how to be saved. The RCC took the hard sayings of Jesus after that only because the Jews were not hearing Jesus in how to receive that bread of life.

 

YOU ARE THE ONE LYING, DHK, AND YOUR TOO PROUD TO ADMIT IT. . I proved it to you before but you blew it off. Those churches ARE DEFINITELY PART OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. It has been proven to you time and again. They are in Union with the Pope and therefore part of the Catholic Church. Stop posting lies, DHK. It is a very bad witness. If you can't do enough research to admit you don't know what you are talking about I will embarrass you like I did last time. Calling me liar is a sin when I am not lying. Shame on you, DHK. This is despicable behavior!

 

Let's dial it back from calling the other a liar.

Ephesians 4:31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: 32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

Matthew 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

1 Corinthians 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. .... 13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Galatians 5;14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. 16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. 30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

1 Peter 2:19 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. 20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. 21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: 24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

2 Timothy 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

 

I don't deny they are part of the "Catholic Church," Walter. That is not in question.
But they are not part of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
Therein lies your mistake, and your pettiness in trying to deceive others by saying they do belong.

 

Not every one makes that distinction. Not even Catholics. It is not a deception if he believes that.

Every one makes mistakes. Give grace by just giving correction without inferring dishonesty. Only God knows that and such accusations tend to go towards the flesh.

 

For example:
From one of your links:

The East Syrian Rite claim their origin right from the Apostle Thomas a long ways before the origin of the RCC in the fourth century. It has nothing to do with the RCC, and that is what I was pointing out.

 

But I made that distinction, therefore I am being falsely accused.

 

Notice the first line of this article, DHK. Proves you are perpetuating a LIE! You now need to try to spin it around to try to save face and you will NEVER face facts. You will call it Catholic lies because of your hatred of The Catholic Christian Church! To bad, so sad!!

The Eastern Rite Catholics are part of the Roman Catholic Church, not the Orthodox Church. While the majority of Roman Catholics belong to the Latin Rite, the Eastern Rites provide a special dimension to our Catholic heritage and spirituality. The Second Vatican Councils Decree on the Catholic Eastern Churches emphasized, The Catholic Church values highly the institutions of the Eastern Churches, their liturgical rites, Ecclesiastical traditions and their ordering of Christian life. For in those churches, which are distinguished by their venerable antiquity, there is clearly evident the tradition which has come from the Apostles through the Fathers and which is part of the divinely revealed, undivided heritage of the Universal Church (No. 1).

 

Spirit vs. Flesh
John 6:63 is the one verse singled out by Protestant apologists to counter much of what we have asserted thus far. After seeing the Jews and the disciples struggling with the radical nature of his words, our Lord says to the disciples and to us all: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” Protestants claim Jesus here lets us know he was speaking symbolically or “spiritually” when he said “the spirit gives life, the flesh is of no avail.” See? He is not giving us his flesh to eat because he says “the flesh is of no avail.” How do we respond? We can in several ways.

1) If Jesus was clearing up the point, he would have to be considered a poor teacher: Many of the disciples left him immediately thereafter because they still believed the words of our Lord to mean what they said.

2) Most importantly, Jesus did not say, “My fleshis of no avail.” He said, “The fleshis of no avail.” There is a rather large difference between the two. No one, it is safe to say, would have believed he meant my flesh avails nothing because he just spent a good portion of this same discourse telling us that his flesh would be “given for the life of the world” (Jn 6:51, cf. 50-58). So to what was he referring?The flesh is a New Testament term often used to describe human nature apart from God’s grace.

For example, Christ said to the apostles in the Garden of Gethsemane, “Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Mk 14:38). According to Paul, if we are in “the flesh,” we are “hostile to God” and “cannot please God” (cf. Rom 8:1-14). In First Corinthians 2:14, he tells us, “The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” In First Corinthians 3:1, Paul goes on, “But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ.” It requires supernatural grace in the life of the believer to believe the radical declaration of Christ concerning the Eucharist. As Jesus himself said both before and after this “hard saying”: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (Jn 6:44, cf. 6:65). Belief in the Eucharist is a gift of grace. The natural mind—or the one who is in “the flesh”—will never be able to understand this great Christian truth.

3) On another level very closely related to our last point, Christ said, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail,” because he wills to eliminate any possibility of a sort of crass literalism that would reduce his words to a cannibalistic understanding. It is the Holy Spirit that will accomplish the miracle of Christ being able to ascend into heaven bodily while being able simultaneously to distribute his body and blood in the Eucharist for the life of the world. A human body, even a perfect one, apart from the power of the Spirit could not accomplish this.

4) That which is spiritual does not necessarily equate to that which has no material substance. It often means that which is dominated or controlled by the Spirit.

One thing we do not want to do as Christians is to fall into the trap of believing that because Christ says his words are “spirit and life,” or “spiritual,” they cannot involve the material. When speaking of the resurrection of the body, Paul wrote: “It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:44). Does this mean we will not have a physical body in the resurrection? Of course not. In Luke 24:39, Jesus made that clear after his own Resurrection: “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

The resurrected body is spiritual,and indeed we can be called spiritualas Christians inasmuch as we are controlled by the Spirit of God. Spiritual in no way means void of the material. That interpretation is more gnostic than Christian. The confusion here is most often based upon confusion between spirit—a noun—and the adjective spiritual. When spirit is used, e.g., “God is spirit” in John 4:24, it is then referring to that which is not material. However, the adjective spiritualis not necessarily referring to the absence of the material; rather, it is referring to the material controlled by the Spirit.

Thus, we could conclude that Jesus’ words, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail” have essentially a twofold meaning. Only the Spirit can accomplish the miracle of the Eucharist, and only the Spirit can empower us to believe the miracle.

This was written by Jim Staples and I'm not sure where or when. I usually don't post others work but this seemed to express the truth quite well.

 

"Catholic," not "Roman Catholic;" even your own source says as much.

 

Bread and wine (or juice) are not living. They don't have life. There is no miracle here. The "Eucharist" is only bread, a carbohydrate which is broken down by the body into glucose C6H12O6. Chemicals; that is all they are--chemicals. It is not the flesh of of Christ. To believe this is pure superstition.

The Bible plainly instructs us, that as an ordinance these are symbols and we are to do this "in remembrance of his death."

1 Corinthians 11:24 When he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "Take, eat. This is my body, which is broken for you. Do this in memory of me."
25 In the same way he also took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink, in memory of me."
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

It is an ordinance, not a sacrament, something to be remembered in memory of Christ.
There is no miracle or superstition involved.

 

You made up a false statement, pure and simple. Prove it by some sources. You cannot!!!
You are making a 'false distinction'. All the sources I have found state that the Eastern Catholic Churches make up part of the whole Roman Catholic Church. Because you think you know and others on the board think they know you make these ignorant statements. Therefore, part of the Roman Catholic Church. I quoted you an unbiased source that flatly stated that but you of you obstinate desire to be right about anything that is Catholic related blow off that fact. BTW, you started the accusation of LIAR, DHK. Maybe I should have taken the high road and just realized you don't know what you are talking about again.

 

So, to you it is just a nice memorial and nothing more. That is why most Baptist observe in four times a year and just tag in on to the end of a regular service. Paul said it was much more than that. The Early Christians celebrated the Eucharist sometimes every day. It is a memorial but it is so much more as the Early Church Fathers clearly pointed out.

 

"The Eastern Rite Catholics are part of the Roman Catholic Church" Can it be clearer than that, DHK? This is a non-Catholic secular source. But I'm sure you will claim it is some kind of Catholic lie. Find your only sources that dispute it, DHK and I will show you your foolishness. There are no sources for all church & secular sources know much more than you. But you will never admit your wrong. You just refuse to ever do so. The closest time was when we discussed this years ago and you finally said: 'ok, you might be right about some Catholic priest being able to marry but they never could when I was a Catholic!!!' Actually, yes they could. There are even Eastern Catholics in liberal, ungodly Canada.

 

Amen, to everything you said! How old are you DHK?

Ever told a old lady "good morning" and she swings purse at you and says "NO! YOU GET MOVING!"? Hearing is the first thing to go.

I will treasure you for teaching me patience.

As far as throwing faith back, You are going to teach me and have been.

I can't wait to be as bubbly and happy as you are.

 

Hark,

The reason we do it is because Jesus commanded so at the last supper. He gave us the method in which way it is passed on. Although we could video tape it, audio record or even write it down we have not deviated or tossed aside his chosen method.

The method chosen by Christ was not fancy ink and paper. It was a humble language, a loving grammar, written on the heart with the Spirit of the living God. Even a blind man or illiterate could read this. His tools of choice was BREAD, WINE and PEOPLE.

As Noah gets ignored, as the Egyptians took no heed against Moses , the people who laughed at tiny David against Giant Goliath, We are told PEOPLE are not reliable cannot be trusted. That bread and wine can't deliver a message. Even if God is behind it.

That the choice of men ink and papers is a more reliable method and can teach more then the method Christ chose.

If you ever question the existence of miracles, here is one that's been happening for 2000 years. The holy communion, the bread and wine has taught me more Christianity then any bible could dream to.


Reminds me of a Indiana Jones movie, quest of the holy grail. They come to a room with hundreds of cups, the bad guys chose the most Jewel Encrusted Beautiful Gold holy grail, it was the wrong choice. The right one was the humble cup, a cup of a carpenter.

We preserve the BOOK Jesus wrote, THE WORD, its a humble writing, the writing of a carpenter.

We do not verify this message with scripture, The other way around its by this we verify scripture. The WORD of God is greater then men.

We will tell you the bread and wine, The Word, is God.

 

I think this is a matter of semantics in part, and also somewhat political.
For example, I live in Canada. Since we are still part of the Commonwealth, many Americans derogatorily believe that the Queen of England is our head of state. But Canada has had its independence from England for almost as long as America has.

Many of these churches may recognize the Pope, but that doesn't make them "Roman" Catholic, does it. They are simply "Catholic."

I found this site quite informative, and it is a Catholic site:

As presently defined, there are 24 Catholic Churches that can be grouped into eight different rites. A rite is a liturgical, theological, spiritual, and disciplinary patrimony of a distinct people manifested in a Church. While each Catholic Church may have its own rite or customs, in general, there are only eight major rites. History, language, misunderstandings, nationalism, and basic human weakness have resulted in the current communion of 24 Churches.

With a few exceptions, the Eastern Catholic Churches result from incomplete reunions with the Orthodox Churches. In those instances, large numbers of bishops and faithful of the Orthodox mother Churches either held back or later rejected union with Rome. Today, many Orthodox are fearful of losing their distinct traditions in a world dominated by the Latin Church. Making matters worse, some of the Eastern Catholic Churches have adopted Latin customs and haven't been very good examples of how union with Rome should work. This is tragic, since the traditions of these Churches are themselves apostolic and help preserve the catholicity of the Church with their own unique development of the gospel message. For example, unlike a good Latin parish, in a traditional Eastern Catholic parish you won't find musical instruments, statues, rosaries, or stations of the cross. Indeed, the priest may well have a wife and children, and the church might be without pews or kneelers. In some circumstances, even the Bible might have a larger canon and include Third and Fourth Maccabees. Unity does not mean uniformity.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en...t-guide-to-the-eastern-catholic-churches.html

The author goes out of his way to demonstrate how different the traditional Eastern Catholic Church is from the Roman Catholic Church.
Is it Catholic? Yes.
Is it Roman Catholic? No. They are completely different.

 

1. The Bible declares it to be a memorial.
2. The Bible does not tell us how often to keep, just that we should keep it. Thus that decision is left up to each individual local church.
3. The ECF are the most unreliable sources as they contradict each other and their writings are full of heresy.
4. Your exaggerated statement may be your poor experience as a Baptist. We happen to celebrate the Lord's Table once a month. ("as oft as ye do this" ). There is no command to celebrate the Lord's Table every time the church meets.

 

You had inferred deception to the other poster, and yet the other poster gave you his research as to why he had believed the way that he did.

The least you could so is provide a link proving why you believe the way that you do.

If it comes down to which source is the truth, then the discussion is at an impasse, and so just leave it at that. No need to engage the flesh on a point of contention where there can be no winner. Leave it to God.