Testimony of a Former Irish Priest

BereanBeacon.Org ^ | Richard Peter Bennett

[small voice in the wilderness]

NOOOOooooooooo!!! NOT the green bean casserole! Looks like I better learn to love it! lol!!

[metmom]

There’s a whole slew of canons and anathemas proclaimed in the Council of Trent, which were no rescinded by Vatican II, that say otherwise.

The problem Catholics have is that their overly complicated catechism of the Catholic Church says otherwise, and when someone calls Catholics on it, they go through a great deal of effort explaining that that’s not what it “really” says.

Well, if it’s so unclear that it is so easily misunderstood, perhaps it might behoove the Catholic church to simplify its catechism. It would clear up a lot of misunderstanding both within and without of Catholicism.

[caww]

Boatmans, It would seem to me that because Rome's authority sets the beliefs for them then the Question would be what does Rome say concerning ‘works’ and their position on this matter. Because regardless of the confusion among catholics, if they see it another way or not, what Rome determines is what they have to adhere to.

[metmom]

The point is that Jesus called it the fruit of the vine. At the very least it is an equal chance that it could be either, if no other Scripture were considered.

But Jesus and His disciples were celebrating the Passover. I can't imagine, knowing the requirements of the Law, that any Jewish person would even consider consuming what he thought was blood under any circumstances, much less one in which they were required to be ceremonially clean.

At the time of the Last Supper, Jesus and His disciples were still under the Law. They could NOT have drank blood and been considered clean. This is especially true for Jesus, who was the sacrifice for our sins and was about to die for them. He HAD to be sinless and pure. He could not have defiled Himself and remained so.

So, what does the confessional work of the congregation you belong to say about the Real Presence?

In what sense? In regards to communion itself or in regards to Christ's presence when two or three are gathered together in His name without communion?

[small voice in the wilderness]

Amen! "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedegd 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." (Heb. 4:11).

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. " (2 Tim. 4:2-4).

[OLD REGGIE]

huh? tHAT’S NOT WHAT THE SCRIPTURE YOU QUOTED SAYS...

What you say is logically impossible. Try again.

[boatbums]

As in the exegesis of the Bread of Life discourse, the accounts of the Institution of the Sacrament of His Body and Blood, and of this passage, one must remember than a significant tool in the non-Catholic hermeneutical armory is "He didn't really mean that."

What I think is misunderstood about the non-Catholic response to the literal body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist is not so much that we deny the significance of the representative nature of the bread and wine as we do the place of importance to a believer's salvation. Do you or do you not teach that receiving the "host" is necessary for sanctification?

This, I think, is the main reason for the rejection of the Church's teaching on the subject. I believe that when I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, when I put my faith in his finished work on the cross - for my sins - I became born again. I received and was sealed until the day of redemption by the Holy Spirit of promise and that Christ now resides in me. I receive the bread and wine (grape juice) in a commemoration of what he has done for me. I examine my heart, confess my shortcomings, release any anger towards my fellows and then consume the elements in a remembrance of him - just like he said we should. I do not believe that, by participating in this service, I am receiving grace or refreshed sanctification. I am already saved, sanctified, justified and made righteous by his blood shed for me on Calvary. There is no need to renew or relive or re-sacrifice as he died ONCE for ALL.

I think we get too caught up in the arguments about the bread and wine being or becoming the literal body and blood and miss the entire point of WHY it is done.

[OLD REGGIE]

Too much hinges there on one word “spirit,” and given that the Traditional doctrine of the Eucharist posits more than some metaphysical transformation. that context remains uncertain. Which is why Luther and Zwingli could not come to terms over the Eucharist. Even after rejecting the special priesthood, Luther thought the meaning of Scripture “clear” on this point: This “is” my body ; not “signifies “ my body. He was, after all, not a nominalist.

Agreed, though I care not a whit what Luther thought about it.

I could also say you have built an empire, now in decline, on the meaning of the words "this rock".

Furthermore, I was amazed when I first read what Calvin had to say about the matter. Not for him the “ dryness,” of the Swiss or Scots Church. Basically h saw that as a rejection of the Incarnation, for if the Spirit can “summon” the Word into a woman, the Spirit can summon “Him” into/as bread and wine. Calvin would have Jesus virtually present in the Eucharist and, according to my observation,so would a pious Baptist— despising though he might the “materialism” of the doctrine of transubstantiation. When he/she takes communion, he/she fells closer to Christ than at other times, including, of course, the way he communes with the Lord by reading the Bible.

You can feel closer to Christ while partaking in communion without eating Him.

BTW, Hi Robby.

[metmom]

The problem with criticizing the YOPIOS position, is that most of what non-Catholics believe is not a matter of personal interpretation. There are millions, if not hundreds of millions of Christians who do not accept transubstantiation, but rather that the bread and cup are symbolic and the ceremony is for remembrance only, not a re-enactment of the sacrifice ever time communion is celebrated.

There are also millions of believers who accept the doctrine of justified by grace alone, baptism as being symbolic, as well as other doctrine that Catholics like to write off as YOPIOS.

When it comes to issues like drinking and dancing, yeah, there’s some wiggle room for personal interpretation, if you consider it a sin, then for you it is a sin to participate, but as for the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the Incarnation, the sinless life of Christ, His atonement, all the things that are considered critical for salvation, most major denominations are pretty close.

I can go into a Baptist Church or a pentecostal one and find believers there and have fellowship with them, even if I disagree with their stance on the gifts and use of them. That is why most believers don’t consider affiliating with a particular denomination significant.

Besides, as pointed out earlier, since they are non-Catholic, they are considered heretical by default by the Catholic church so it’s pretty much irrelevant which one it is.

[small voice in the wilderness]

At the time of the Last Supper, Jesus and His disciples were still under the Law

THANK YOU for posting this. It's one of those things that get pushed to the back burner somehow, and it is SO important to know.

[OLD REGGIE]

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." JOHN6-63

He is talking about Human(flesh) thinking which is lower than spiritual(Godly) thinking. Meaning from God.

" the words(Godly Logic) that I speak unto you, they are spirit(GOD who is above human), and they are life."

It's literal.

Say it again, and again, and again, until it makes sense.

[metmom]

Thanks for posting that.

We ex-Catholics know what we were taught and what our fellow Catholics believes, and still believe and that confirms that the Catholics church is very specific and to the point that it and it alone is required for salvation.

[metmom]

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/trent.htm

Canon IX. If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining of the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

[Quix]

Well put.

[Quix]

Well put.

Thx.

[small voice in the wilderness]

Do you or do you not teach that receiving the "host" is necessary for sanctification?

I'm waiting for an answer to that, too. It is the most important question about the Eucharist in the Catholic Church beliefs.

"By the which will we are SANCTIFIED through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE FOR ALL...But this man, after he had offered ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOREVER, sat down on the right hand of God...for by ONE OFFERING he hath perfected FOREVER them that are sanctified'. (Heb. 10:10,12,14).

If every time a Catholic sins, he fears separation from God, he is saying the death of Jesus Christ was not sufficient, and it becomes necessary for Him to die over and over again each and every time there is sin.

Hence the hideous nature of the Eucharist, whereby the body and blood of Christ becomes actual, every time the Eucharist is performed. Think about that. He only had to die ONCE for sin, FOREVER. The Catholic Church evidently thinks it's necessary for Him to die over and over. It's a perversion and a slap in the face of the FINISHED WORK OF CHRIST.

[small voice in the wilderness]

oops. Post 596 was for metmom, Quix, Pyro also.

[boatbums]

They're going to be serving green bean casserole and whole cranberry sauce at the Wedding reception of the Bride and Bridegroom...

I'm disappointed...I thought it would be the jellied cranberry sauce! ;o)

[metmom]

And if you are in outright disobedience to Church teachings yet still claim to be Catholic you are very simply an apostate and heretic. You should leave and stop saying you are what you are not.

I don't know anyone who has left the Catholic church and still identifies themselves as Catholic. The only ones who insist we are still Catholics (once Catholic always Catholic) are the Catholics themselves. They just won't let go.

[small voice in the wilderness]

Yep, one of those "ANATHEMA" warnings.

It might be easier to come up with an "anathema quick reference" to have a central guide to Catholic beliefs. Actually, what am I talking about..I haven't seen ONE 'quick' answer to anything Catholic..