Catholicity key to Church Unity

Kathryn,

I am not a Greek scholar and I am guessing that you are not one either. Check the Greek on I John 3:9 and you will see that God says, that a born again Christian cannot practice sinning. Take this matter up with the Lord, not me.

I too, believe in free will as you do, but I know that the Lord does not cut off His people who truly have known Him. The O.T. says, that the Lord is married to the backslider; I'll let you look that one up in your concordance.

He does not give grace, like one is in 'the jack-in-the box.' We are not in and out of grace every time we sin, as wrongly taught by your beloved church.

Best regards,
Ray

 

Since a born again Christian cannot practice sinning...

and all sin...

then no one can be born again?

 

Jason:
You ask what is my point? The Eucharist is not just ordinary bread. Isn't that what we are talking about? Jesus tells us "This is my body". "This is my blood." Ray says they just happened to be eating some bread with their dinner when their eyes were opened by Jesus Christ. Had nothing to do with the bread.

Scripture says:

"They began to relate their experiences on the road and how He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread ." Luke 24:35

This is a direct quote. Not my words.

 

That's what many Protestants allege. It's scriptural though.

Say what?? The Bible teaches otherwise. God became Incarnate as a physical man, received physical stripes by material whips, was crowned with material thorns and shed physical blood on a physical cross when his physical wrists and feet were nailed by material nails to material wood. He did this so He could save us from our sins and reconcile us to Himself. If this is not spiritual grace conveyed by physical means, I don't know what is!

No, they aren't. Nowhere does it state in Scripture that they are only symbols. Interpreted in their plain sense, and by everybody for the first 1500 years of Christianity, these Scriptures attest to the reality that we do experience God's grace by embracing Him in these God ordained mysteries.

Suffice it to say many others here have listed many Scriptures that teach that Baptism and the Lord's Supper convey spiritual grace, so I'll leave it at that for now.

That's because you have to explain away many passages which suggest otherwise to fit your symbolic-only doctrine. However, your view, with it's radical distinction between spirit and matter, is more akin to gnosticism than historic Biblical Christianity. For instance, the Docetists refrained from the Lord Supper, not believing in the Real Presence, because they also did not believe that Christ came as an actual physical man. (At least they were consistent.)

I agree 100%.

 

Yes, it appears to be a direct quote. Good for you. Now, how does this quote support your conclusion? It doesn't even seem relevent. How do you know it had nothing to do with the bread? That is you reading into the passage. Hmm...hypocrisy what?

jason

 

Jason:

How do I know it had nothing to do with the bread?

It had everything to do with the "breaking of the bread". Scripture says so. Jesus Christ was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread.

"They began to relate their experiences on the road and how He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread ." Luke 24:35


Here are some other ways Scripture says it. Just different versions:

Luke 24:35
And they told what things were done in the way; and how they knew him in the breaking of the bread.

Luke 24:35
And they told what things were done in the way; and how they knew him in the breaking of the bread.

Luke 24:35
And they told what things [were done] in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

Luke 24:35
and they were telling the things in the way, and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread,

Luke 24:35
They began to relate their experiences on the road and how He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread.

 

Once again, from the context, they had been talking with Him for some time. Then when they sat down to break bread, then He rvealed Himself, and disappeared. Then they knew it was He they were with. They fibnally "recognized" Him in that instance of breaking of bread. This says nothing about the Bread BEING Him, or even Him being IN the bread, because then if He was there with them in person, how could He ALSO be/be in the bread. It would be unnecessary, and He would have two bodies. You are reading something far out into a simple passage.

 

That is not what the passage says. You have to dismiss it as not saying what it says, because it is just not possible. All things are possible with God.

 

I am not arguing on what is not "possible", (because then I would deny His disappearance, along with the post-resurrection appearance the first place, as well as the resurrection altogether!) On the other hand you are not telling us what the passage, in it's cpntext is saying, but rather reading something into it that is just not there. I pointed out what it did say, and only dismissed your added interpretation.

 

I don't need to interpret it. Holy Scripture here can't be any clearer.

Luke 24:35
and they were telling the things in the way, and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread ,

 

LOgan
Sorry for waiting so long to reply. I have been sick.

God's Word was never on any Church black list. Can you show your source for such a hostile statement?
....................

1229 Council of Valencia; List of Forbidden Books
“We prohibit also the permitting of the laity to have the books of the Old and New Testament,
unless anyone should wish, from a feeling of devotion, to have a psalter or breviary for divine
service, of the hours of the Blessed Mary. But we strictly forbid them to have the above-
mentioned books in the vulgar tongue.”

1545 Council of Trent
“In as much as it is manifest, from experience, that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar
tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to everyone, the temerity of men will cause more evil than
good to arise from it; it is, on this point, referred to the judgment of the bishops, or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue translated by Catholic authors, to those persons who faith and piety, they apprehend, will be augmented, and not injured by it; and this permission they must have in writing.” (To this decree, as to more than a hundred others passed by this council, was attached an anathema against anyone who should dare to violate it, and also penalties were fixed against the illegal possessor or seller of those books.) (Page 97)

Liguori, a highly regarded expert on Canan Law wrote: “The Scriptures and books of Controversy may not be permitted in the vulgar tongue, as also they cannot be read without permissiion.” (page 98)

1713 Pope Clement XI, Bull Unigenitus, wrote “We strictly forbid them (the laity) to have the
books of the Old and New Testament in the vulgar tongue.”

1893 Leo XIII Encyclical The Study of the Bible (1) allowed study of the Latin Vulgate only, (2)
forbade laity to interpret it otherwise than how the Church interpreted it, and (3) did not rescind the previous councils, bulls, and encyclicals which forbade free use of the Scriptures by the laity. (Page 98)

1865 Technically the Index of Forbidden Books was dropped in 1965 (page 99).

Roman Catholicism, Boettner, 1962, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company

 

I can't find a record of this council

 

Is it your opinion that 1Cor 11 was written 1500 years after the death of Christ?

When Christ says that this is an act in "remembrance" of the historic Jesus, in "remembrance" of his death - do you "edit" that so that it is a "praticipation in an ongoing death and ongoing sacrifice" rather than a memorial tha remembers a past "once for all" event?

If so - that is your error.

By contrast to that - Christ says that the actual drinking and the "act of doing of this service" is in fact "a remembrance" and not "another sacrifce", not "A repeated sacrifice" not an "ongoing sacrifice".

"DO THIS in remembrance or Me"

In Christ,

Bob

 

My previous post on 1Cor 10 shows conclusively that the there is exact equivalence between the act in the Lord's Table and "sacrificing to demons" when eating food offerred to idols.

If we "allowed" the revisionism you propose above for 1Cor 10 -- it would mean that eating food sacrificed to idols is in fact "eating demons as they are offerrred in a continual sacrifice".

It is "not possible" to snippet out the small part of 1Cor 10 from the context of its chapter. You seek to lift it out and give it another meaning entirely without noticing the damage that does to the text.

Notice "again" in 1Cor 10 how the Lord's supper is a act, a memorial of a sacrifice and "hence" is the equivalent for pagans in their eating food offerred to demons.

Both actions are done as a honored memorial to their objects of worship.

You seem to need to avoid the details of the chapter you quote.

In Christ,

Bob

 

On the Thursday before His death Jesus instituted His commemoration of His death and gave to them wine and bread at Communion. In I Corinthians eleven He has told us that when we celebrate the Eucharist it must be the wine and the bread.

If this were a true experience of Holy Communion as they walked, our Lord would have brought with Him or created a miracle of wine to compliment the ministering of the bread, which represents His sacred body.

There is no magical bread eaten here that opened their spiritual recollection as to who Jesus was. [Luke 24:35]

Vs. 30 'And it came to pass, as He sat at meat with them, He took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.'

Vs. 34 'The Lord must have appeared to Simon Peter, says, Ray.'

Vs. 35 'And they told what things were done in the way, and how He was known of them in breaking of bread.' Ray is saying, 'In other words they reviewed the fact of Jesus death in the tomb, of His resurrrection, and appearance to Mary. And while they talked about this things on the way to Jerusalem. It just so happened that they realized that the crucified One was Him when they broke bread to eat.'

Vs. 41 speaks to the issue of a natural meal to meet human needs. Jesus said, 'Have you here any meat?

No magical Eucharist perked up their memory as to who Jesus was as they were returning to the holy city. They only shared a loaf of bread. But, their conversation about Christ's death, entombment, day of resurrection and His revealing Himself to Mary and Peter put it all together for those not yet convinced of His glorious resurrection.

I believe it was the evening of the resurrection that Jesus just passed through the wall into their presence and they were startled. Thomas was not there for the first gathering, as I recall.

 

Again this is past tense resurrection not "ongoing"

Again this is "not" the sacramental waters or holy sayings of the priest - rather it is the one being baptized who "appeals to God for a clean conscience" -- a fact totally denied by the RCC its emphasis on the "powers of the priest" the "Holy water" and the "sacramental act of baptism" instead of the "individual's appeal to God for a clean conscience".

And no wonder they avoid this point made by Peter. It is the death of the idea that baptism works "WITHOUT the APPEAL to God for a clean conscience by the one being baptized" -- the very claim that the RCC so wishes they could make from what Peter is saying.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob: St Paul speaks for himself here. Nothing in this chapter negates what he says about what the cup of blessing we bless is. Nothing here negates what the bread which we break is. It is sharing in the body of Christ. It is sharing in the blood of Christ. He is telling them this at the same time admonishing not to share in idolatry and think they can share in Christ's body and blood. The whole chapter supports what I am saying.

1 Corinthians 10:16
Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?


1 Corinthians 10:1
For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea;

1 Corinthians 10:2
and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

1 Corinthians 10:3
and all ate the same spiritual food;

1 Corinthians 10:4
and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.

1 Corinthians 10:5
Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness.

1 Corinthians 10:6
Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved.

1 Corinthians 10:7
Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, "THE PEOPLE SAT DOWN TO EAT AND DRINK, AND STOOD UP TO PLAY."

1 Corinthians 10:8
Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day.

1 Corinthians 10:9
Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents.

1 Corinthians 10:10
Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer.

1 Corinthians 10:11
Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

1 Corinthians 10:12
Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.

1 Corinthians 10:13
No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.

1 Corinthians 10:14
Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.

1 Corinthians 10:15
I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say.

1 Corinthians 10:16
Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

1 Corinthians 10:17
Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.

1 Corinthians 10:18
Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar?

1 Corinthians 10:19
What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?

1 Corinthians 10:20
No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons.

1 Corinthians 10:21
You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

1 Corinthians 10:22
Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we?

1 Corinthians 10:23
All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.

1 Corinthians 10:24
Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.

1 Corinthians 10:25
Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience' sake;

1 Corinthians 10:26
FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD'S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS.

1 Corinthians 10:27
If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience' sake.

1 Corinthians 10:28
But if anyone says to you, "This is meat sacrificed to idols," do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake;

1 Corinthians 10:29
I mean not your own conscience, but the other man's; for why is my freedom judged by another's conscience?

1 Corinthians 10:30
If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?

1 Corinthians 10:31
Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

1 Corinthians 10:32
Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God;

1 Corinthians 10:33
just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.

 

Bob:

Yes, right, Bob. I am the one who presented this passage. You are stuck with that fact that there is one baptism and Holy Scripture teaches it saves. Jesus gave it to the Apostles when he sent them out to all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

This one baptism is not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is what Baptism does, if done as Jesus Christ commanded in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The person dies with Christ and rises with Christ, he is cleansed of His sins, and given a clean conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He is made a child of God. God does the work. Holy Scripture tells us those who repented and believed in Jesus Christ did not have the one Christian baptism and receive the Holy Spirit until they were baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit.

1 Peter 3:20
who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water .

1 Peter 3:21
Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good consciencethrough the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

 

Ray:

The Bible says many things Jesus did are not written down. The blessing and breaking of the bread is what is discussed. Scripture is silent about the cup of Blessing here. Doesn't mean Jesus did not bless wine also.

 

Ray: Scripture even in Act 2:42 calls Communion the "breaking of the bread". This doesn’t mean the wine was not blessed. Seems to be understood that they were doing just what Jesus commanded at the Last Supper.

Luke 24:35
They began to relate their experiences on the road and how He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread.

Acts 2:42
They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.