My Journey Into The Catholic Church

[Thomas Helwys]

Good points. It's good to keep in mind the distinctions: After Jesus stated "I am the Door", He didn't say "And this door by which you must enter in is a hole in by body that you must walk through". Likewise, after He stated "I am the Vine, you are the branches," He did not add, "And this Vine I speak of is my physical body which y'all need to graft yourselves onto so you can have literal fruit hanging off of you".

Too often when I was a Baptist I would make sloppy comparisons between these passages without appreciating the distinction, but in the back of my mind Christ's words in John 6:51-57 always haunted me regardless of my attempts to explain them away.


Yep--he didn't spend all that time telling them that he was giving His flesh for the life of the world (which he literally did on the cross) just to turn around say that HIS flesh wouldn't actually avail for anything afterall. 'The flesh' (in v.63) means his words shouldn't be understood in a carnal manner (as in a gross cannibalistic eating of His flesh), since He contrasts the Spirit and flesh, but rather in a spiritual manner. However, Jesus saying His 'words are spirit' is not the same thing as saying His 'words are symbolic', unless we want to confine the entire spiritual world to the realm of mere symbolism (as modern liberal demythologizers are apt to do).

We would indeed partake of His flesh and blood in a spiritual manner but this would involve real physical eating (munching, even) and drinking...and the Disciples found out how this was to be in the Upper Room.

Which of the factions in the Anglican Church do you adhere to: Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical, etc., or none of them?

 

[Yeshua1]

Thanks for answering Walter. Yes that's what I was referring to. You had mentioned the certainty. So I wondered why on an issue like whether a fetus was a person or no would a Catholic hospital allow its lawyers to argue against that stance. Apparently the hospital heard from the Vatican on the issue and the lawyers had to recant their defense.



In looking at the context, how does one determine that to be actual as opposed to "I am the vine"?



But Christ was right there in front of them. If He meant what you said He meant, why not cut actual flesh from his body and take actual blood from His body?

it fits in the way John outlined his Gospel that Jesus was referencing spiritual concepts in physical terms!

John contrasted unsaved saw it in physical terms, saved as knowing it meant a spiritual meaning, contrasting light and darkness!

Unsaved saw jesus referring to destroying temple of Solomon, spiritual truth was referencing his pwn body as that temple!

Like fashion, his body/blood refernce would NOT be physical sense, as jews took it, by representing his death on the Cross for atonement for sins, and that was to be received by faith!

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

My personal belief..

So how do you know your name is written in the Lambs Book of Life Steve? Did you get a peak? :laugh:

I know my name is there because Christ is my Saviour and Lord! Thanks and praise to God for His Love, Grace and Mercy!

My personal belief, based on Revelation 3:5 is that we are ALL born into this life with our names appearing in the Lambs book of life (placed there by our Creator God). Our names will remain in that book for all eternity UNLESS we fail to come to faith in Christ while in this life("He that overcometh"). Should we fail to accept Christ, our names will thus be "BLOTTED OUT"....either at our death or the judgement. That is the only interpretation I can come to that does not, as far as I can tell, conflict with or contradict the rest of scripture. Remember that at the Great White Throne Judgement (Rev. 20:11-15) they are to be judged out of book(s) which detail their works...and THE Book(of life). None (of those who appear at the GWTJ) of their names will be in THAT book (the book of life) at that point in the future. That ought to give us ALL an extreme burden for the souls of men. Time is truly getting short. By the way...if anyone can refute what I just said then I would be interested in seeing "what ya got".
Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[SolaSaint]

I'm not Walter but my answer - were I Catholic - would be "(Principally) neither, but rather Jesus Christ." (That's also my answer as someone "not in full communion with the See of Rome", BTW.)

I agree Matt, I was trying to get Walter's stance on Sola Scriptura and the Tradition of practicing Catholics.

 

[webdog]

This thread is good to know who the cannibals are

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Which of the factions in the Anglican Church do you adhere to: Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical, etc., or none of them?

I guess, 'none of them'*. I guess you can describe me as a conservative, central churchman--not too high, not too low. I'm just a 'mere Anglican'. :thumbs:

(*and I'm certainly not an Episcopagan)

 

[Walter]

This thread is good to know who the cannibals are

Actually, I know that you probably are not being serious, but the question came up as to why in John 6 'didn't Jesus just take a chunk of His flesh and hand it to them?' or something like that. I have read accusations of cannibalism on this board and other Protestant boards concerning Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, and Orthodox belief in Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist so I wanted to respond.

Cannibalism is eating the meat of a dead person. We aren't eating Christ in the form of meat but are receiving Him of bread and wine. What's more Christ isn't dead, He is Alive.
1.) Cannibalism does physical damage human flesh. In the Eucharist, Christ's flesh is not physically damaged.
2.) Cannibalism depletes a human body of its flesh and blood. In the Eucharist, Christ's flesh and blood are not depleted.
3.) Cannibalism involves eating another man's body and blood in the form of flesh and blood. In the Eucharist, we eat the body and blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine.
4.) Cannibalism causes one's physical body to receive nourishment from the human flesh and blood. In the Eucharist, one's physical body receives the physical nourishment of bread and wine.
Similar to how 'manna' nourished the Israelites during their 40years in the desert, the Eucharist nourishes us while we wander the spiritual wilderness that exists in todays world.
And, in anticipation of another suggestion I have seen others make on this board, Church teaching is that when it no longer has the appearances of bread and wine, the Real Presence no longer exists. So no, Our Lord does not end up in the toilet.

 

[Zaac]

Actually, I know that you probably are not being serious, but the question came up as to why in John 6 'didn't Jesus just take a chunk of His flesh and hand it to them?' or something like that. I have read accusations of cannibalism on this board and other Protestant boards concerning Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, and Orthodox belief in Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist so I wanted to respond.

Cannibalism is eating the meat of a dead person. We aren't eating Christ in the form of meat but are receiving Him of bread and wine. What's more Christ isn't dead, He is Alive.
1.) Cannibalism does physical damage human flesh. In the Eucharist, Christ's flesh is not physically damaged.
2.) Cannibalism depletes a human body of its flesh and blood. In the Eucharist, Christ's flesh and blood are not depleted.
3.) Cannibalism involves eating another man's body and blood in the form of flesh and blood. In the Eucharist, we eat the body and blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine.
4.) Cannibalism causes one's physical body to receive nourishment from the human flesh and blood. In the Eucharist, one's physical body receives the physical nourishment of bread and wine.
Similar to how 'manna' nourished the Israelites during their 40years in the desert, the Eucharist nourishes us while we wander the spiritual wilderness that exists in todays world.
And, in anticipation of another suggestion I have seen others make on this board, Church teaching is that when it no longer has the appearances of bread and wine, the Real Presence no longer exists. So no, Our Lord does not end up in the toilet.

Good morning Walter. I asked the question that I did because you stated

Let's look at John chapter 6. Let me ask you, when Jesus said 'I am the door' or 'I am the vine', did anyone say 'how can this man be a door' (or vine)? Or 'how can this man be a plant?' When Jesus spoke in metaphor the people around Him seemed to know it. I ask you to look at the surrounding context of John 6:53 and I do not see how His words could have been clearer. He says He IS the 'living bread' that His followers MUST eat. Doesn't He say in no uncertain terms that 'the bread that I now give is my flesh'? Doesn't He say emphatically, 'truly, truly, I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.'

As you seemed to imply that His words were not a metaphor, but that He was saying the bread He was presenting was actually His flesh. I ask again, if He was being LITERAL about them eating His flesh and not talking from a spiritual sense, then why not literally give them a piece of flesh and his own blood?

I think these are the problems we run into when people say that He was saying that the bread had now supernaturally become His body, now eat of it.

So either His intent was that they eat of His physical body, which they could of because He was right there, yet that's not what was offered. Or He was talking about supernaturally eating from His spiritual body and drinking His spiritual blood.

The disciples didn't literally do it so why would we think that Holy Communion leads us to literally do it as opposed to it being a spiritual sacrament?

Sacraments appear to always be spiritual as opposed to physical. Baptism is likewise supposed to be an outward representation of the spiritual.

Or do Catholics also believe that something else is taking place by the sprinkling on of the water?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I guess, 'none of them'*. I guess you can describe me as a conservative, central churchman--not too high, not too low. I'm just a 'mere Anglican'. :thumbs:

(*and I'm certainly not an Episcopagan)

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I wanted to comment on the comments that have been made on the words of Jesus in John:6 trying to prove that this affirms the RC view of Communion/Eucharist.

A few points: Jesus spoke these words long before the Last Supper was taken; therefore, they cannot refer to the Lord's Supper. Notice the context of the words and the associated verses. "Belief" is strongly associated with these words of Jesus. Jesus is saying that whoever believes eats His body and drinks His blood; it is by faith in Jesus that people receive Him as the living bread from heaven. This has nothing to do with a ritual. Same as water baptism. It is by faith, by believing, that people partake of Jesus, the living water, and are baptized by the Spirit into His Body.

Thus, it is by believing that people drink of Jesus and partake of Jesus the living bread. Water baptism and the Lord's Supper are signs and symbols of this.

Now is Jesus there when we do this? Certainly, as He is everywhere and in everything done by faith!

Does our partaking of or "eating" this living bread require the mediation of a priest, Roman Catholic or other? Absolutely not. We partake simply by believing.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Being Reasonable...

Actually, I know that you probably are not being serious, but the question came up as to why in John 6 'didn't Jesus just take a chunk of His flesh and hand it to them?' or something like that. I have read accusations of cannibalism on this board and other Protestant boards concerning Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, and Orthodox belief in Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist so I wanted to respond.

Cannibalism is eating the meat of a dead person. We aren't eating Christ in the form of meat but are receiving Him of bread and wine. What's more Christ isn't dead, He is Alive.
1.) Cannibalism does physical damage human flesh. In the Eucharist, Christ's flesh is not physically damaged.
2.) Cannibalism depletes a human body of its flesh and blood. In the Eucharist, Christ's flesh and blood are not depleted.
3.) Cannibalism involves eating another man's body and blood in the form of flesh and blood. In the Eucharist, we eat the body and blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine.
4.) Cannibalism causes one's physical body to receive nourishment from the human flesh and blood. In the Eucharist, one's physical body receives the physical nourishment of bread and wine.
Similar to how 'manna' nourished the Israelites during their 40years in the desert, the Eucharist nourishes us while we wander the spiritual wilderness that exists in todays world.
And, in anticipation of another suggestion I have seen others make on this board, Church teaching is that when it no longer has the appearances of bread and wine, the Real Presence no longer exists. So no, Our Lord does not end up in the toilet.

Walter....unlike some others who might tend toward the "extreme", I don't believe it is even reasonable to compare or try to characterize what the Catholics (and I presume the Episcopalians and Anglicans as well) call the "Eucharist" or "Communion" (what we Baptists rightly call the Lord's Supper) a form of "cannibalism". That is both crude and unreasonable.
I know that the doctrine that is taught and upheld by the Catholic Church is known as "Transubstantiation". I would like to know what Scripture plainly and without doubt supports this doctrine. Please remember that I cannot accept ANY extra-Biblical "tradition" of the Catholic church (OR the Baptist denomination) as "authoritative" in a binding sense. I can ONLY accept clear Biblical Authority from the Word of God.
Respectfully, I certainly don't think Catholics are "cannibals", but I believe their practice of "Communion" teaches things that have no valid Biblical ground. You are in my prayers.

Bro.Gregraying:

 

[Thomas Helwys]

To Thinkingstuff:

I want to re-post what I wrote earlier because I used the word "honest" inappropriately, twice. Since I can't edit that post, I'll re-post it here with the word "honest" changed. I'll put the new word in bold. This is post #40:

"If you're going to debate church history with me, at least be factual. No Baptist individual or church ever persecuted or murdered anyone for their religious beliefs.

Further, where is your historical evidence to support your statement of "Ana-Baptist factions who slaughtered Catholics"? It isn't there. Now, if you're referring to the Munster fanatics, every knowledgeable person knows they were atypical of the Anabaptist movement and an aberration. The Anabaptists were pacifists who believed in religious freedom even for their tormentors.

The fact is that the reason state church murderers have religious freedom today is because of Baptists, Anabaptists, and Quakers."

 

[Matt Black]

Are you then saying that the KKK liked Catholics?

SolaSaint - if you're asking what Walter on what he bases his doctrine in your Scripture or Tradition question, then I would humbly submit that you're proposing a false dichotomy: the two are not IMO to be pitted against each other but rather complement each other. So my answer and I suspect Walter's to your question, "which do you rely on for doctrine: Scripture or Church Tradition", would be "Both! It's not an either/or question."

 

[pinoybaptist]

Ever read Galatians 5:4 ?

1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free , and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised , Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised , that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you , whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?
8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.
9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

 

[Matt Black]

I think Catholics would agree that we are justified by grace not by law, so that's a bit of a straw man you're putting up there.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I think Catholics would agree that we are justified by grace not by law, so that's a bit of a straw man you're putting up there.

Yeah, I'm not sure what that verse has to do with anything Walter has posted.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If you're going to debate church history with me, at least be honest. No Baptist individual or church ever persecuted or murdered anyone for their religious beliefs.

You are setting up a strawman arguement. I didn't say that Baptist killed anyone for their beliefs not once. Well at least not the present day model of baptist which is an amalgamation of differing reformed influences. What I did say in response to this Statement of yours

Was the RCC the true church during all the centuries that it was persecuting, torturing, and murdering other Christians? Could a true church do the following?:

Was 1) it wasn't the Church that was responsible for massacre your cited with The Piedmont Easter rather the Civil Authority who was not the church but a regional leader. 2) and that Baptist have a history that is not innocent of as you say it

torturing, and murdering other Christians

as baptist have certainly tortured and murdered other Christians (note I didn't say for their faith, Non the less they tortured and murdered with the full backing of their local churches). I then pointed to the wide acceptance of Slavery by the Southern Baptist (which many were tortured and hung for various reasons) and the trail of tears acknowledging that both African American slaves were Christian as well as the Cherokee Natives. Thus it can be said baptist did kill torture and kill other christians though not for their faith. My third point 3) was that we can no more tie the bad behavoir of this duke to the Catholic Church than we can of baptist belief to those who participated in slavery or or the trail of tears despite the wide support from their local churches. Though of course the difference is that the Catholic Church is a singular institution where as each baptist church is an institution of itself. Still can I say the fundementals which form baptist faith and doctrine lead to these attrocities? No. But neither can I say the Duke acted in accordance with Catholic Teaching.

Further, where is your historical evidence to support your statement of "Ana-Baptist factions who slaughtered Catholics"? It isn't there. Now, if you're referring to the Munster fanatics

indeed I am

every honest person knows they were atypical of the Anabaptist movement and an aberration. The Anabaptists were pacifists who believed in religious freedom even for their tormentors.

If your argument is they acted independently apart from their faith then this is no different than the argument I've proposed regarding the civil authorities who killed these protestants. The only difference is that where one is a mob (munster) and the other is a civil authority (The Duke). Both belied the teachings of their faith but to include one to be fair must include the other.

The fact is that the reason state church murderers have religious freedom today is because of Baptists, Anabaptists, and Quakers.

A little reforemed history here? First of all you haven't properly Identified "state church" and how that opperates. Where a king who holds to a faith believes they must protect that faith with in their territory thus a Catholic King will seek to root out heresy (protestant) in a manner they see fit. OR a protestant King (or Queen as in Elizabeth) will seek to root out heresey (catholic) as they see fit. The Church itself apart from the civil authorities is not involved execpt as a Clergy member may be involved in an advisory roll whose advise often wasn't taken or else you had corrupt a clergy member. But this is true in both camps as we can see how things played out in Europe. This is not reflective of the teachings of faith and morals. Catholics btw in the United States were just as invested in not only the fight for independence but ensuring that the State didn't impose itself upon religeous practices as well as were other faiths to inlcude those you mentioned. As we can see that the first three original states that provided for religious tolleration were Pennsylvania (thanks to William Penn a Quaker), Maryland (pedominately Catholic), and Virginia. And interesting to note before the Revolutionary War Catholic Maryland passed the Toleration Act in 1649 allowing for religious liberty which later was to be taken away by Puritans who leaving Anglican Virginia revolted against Maryland leadership. However, once the Catholics again took control they re-enacted the toleration act in 1658.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I was just wondering what the advantage of moving away from being a Baptist to being a Roman Catholic would be? Really, is it the mysticism, the boring service or is it the feeling like your a part of something (maybe bigger --more grandiose)

I have 32 years as a RC & was born into it.... they (RCC) would have to offer me some pretty compelling reasons to make that switch (ie preferred stock, bonds, real estate in NYC--which they own most of BTW). And because I live up in the northland area of the USA, I am well aware of the fact that most religious are Roman Catholics....so perhaps I could be given authority to take over a mid-western state (Im thinkin Iowa) with my contingency of Ladino's, working class Irish, Polish & Italians. Because I live in NJ though, would have to pass on any young Catholic gals from the DR. I could also have some local parishes prepare trays of lasagna for our esteemed Governor---who needs to keep his strength up by inhaling 2 at one sitting? And now since we are into lent.....Friday tuna casseroles. :thumbsup: :laugh:

 

[Matt Black]

For me it would be the issue of sanctification through the sacraments in particular; time and again I've seen sola fide used as an excuse for a lack of holy living ("'cos that's 'works', innit? I don't have to do anything to please God so I can please meself", etc) and I myself have come to the conclusion for me that there must be more to being a Christian in this life than that. Whether that means 'Rome' or not is another matter, but for a number of years I personally have felt 'spiritually incomplete' within evangelicalism

 

[Walter]

And for me, ever since I began to attend mass I have had an intense desire to receive the Lord in the Eucharist. I am now so convicted of the truth of the Catholic faith that if I do not join the Church and receive the Lord in this manner, I believe I would be disobeying Him. To me, delayed obedience is disobedience. I also am in agreement with the answer Matt Black just gave. For many years I have not felt 'spiritually complete' in my evangelical church.