Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Whole Gospel, Please A Reflection on a Popular Gospel Verse
Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 04-07-16 | Msgr. Charles Pope

Posted on 04/08/2016 7:34:38 AM PDT by Salvation

The Whole Gospel, Please – A Reflection on a Popular Gospel Verse

April 7, 2016

john316

The Gospel proclaimed on Wednesday of this week included the familiar John 3:16. So familiar is this verse, that many hold up signs or have bumper stickers that simply say, “John 3:16.”

For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son,
so that everyone who believes in him might not perish
but might have eternal life
(John 3:16).

It is indeed a beautiful verse, but I would argue that many use it inauthentically by pulling it out from its place within a longer passage. The fuller segment is John 3:16-21, which is as much a passage of warning as it is of consolation and assurance.

Here it is again, along with the remainder of that longer passage:

For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son,
so that everyone who believes in him might not perish
but might have eternal life.
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world,
but that the world might be saved through him.
Whoever believes in him will not be condemned,
but whoever does not believe has already been condemned,
because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.
And this is the verdict,
that the light came into the world,
but people preferred darkness to light,
because their works were evil.
For everyone who does wicked things hates the light
and does not come toward the light,
so that his works might not be exposed.
But whoever lives the truth comes to the light,
so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God
(John 3:16-21).

This fuller context has somewhat of a different tone. It sets forth a great drama in which our lives are cast. It amounts to sober assessment of the obtuseness of many human hearts and of the urgent need for us to decide well in life.

Those who merely quote the first verse run the risk of presenting this text as a kind of a freewheeling assurance that all is well and that salvation is largely in the bag, that judgment and condemnation are not a significant factor since “God so loved the world.” And while the concept of faith is included in this first verse, without the larger context the tendency is to soft-pedal the need for repentance and for the obedience of faith. In so doing, the true drama and sober teaching of the fuller text are lost.

The longer passage fleshes the message out and has a balance that the shortened text does not. Here is what Jesus is in effect saying, expressed in more modern language:

As I live, I and my Father do not desire that any should die in their sins or be lost. I have not currently come as your judge but as your savior. I will come one day as the judge of all, but now is a time of grace and mercy extended to you.

But you need to know that you have a decision to make, a decision that will determine where you will spend eternity.

So please listen to me! Open the door to me and let me draw you to the obedience of faith and the beauty of holiness. If you do this, light will dawn for you, for I am the Light and your life will grow ever brighter.

But if you will not repent and come to a lifesaving obedience of faith, your heart will begin to despise me and the light of my glory. You will become accustomed to the darkness and begin to consider the Light (which I am) to be obnoxious, harsh, judgmental, and even cruel. Yes, you will begin to hate me, for I am the Light. You will prefer the darkness because you love your sins more.

Come to your senses and don’t let this happen. You have a decision to make: for the light or for the darkness, for me or for the prince of this world, Satan. Be sober and understand the dramatic choice before you. Your salvation depends on your choice to come to obedient faith in me or to reject me.

And know this: on the day of your judgment, the verdict will not be rendered by me so much as by you. For by then, you will either love the Light or hate it. And I will not force you to live in a light you detest. You will be free to go your own way. It will not be I who reject you. It will be you who reject me.

Be sober. Don’t let this happen. Don’t marginalize or ignore me. Don’t prefer the world and its twisted values and passing pleasures. Your sins will make you hate the light and prefer the darkness. You have a decision to make.

This message is much more complex than that contained in the popular, abbreviated text known as John 3:16. God’s mercy is offered, but the final verdict will center on whether or not we accept it. This message may be less consoling but it is true nonetheless, and only the truth can set us free.

There is a tendency by many to pull out certain verses and isolate them from their context and from the fuller message of the Gospel. The full and authentic Gospel echoes the opening call of the Lord Jesus: “Repent and believe the Good News.”

So yes, John 3:16! But please continue reading. The whole Gospel, please!


TOPICS: Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Evangelical Christian
KEYWORDS: catholic; msgrcharlespope
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 721-734 next last
To: metmom
Does the RCC officially teach that if you don't believe in the eucharist, you are going to hell?

I usually reserve the cricket picture for Mormons...

281 posted on 04/10/2016 4:41:17 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Mercat
I want to be a saint.

I already are one!

282 posted on 04/10/2016 4:42:01 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Mercat
That’s fine. That’s the minimum.

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:

I suspect your 'sainthood' will be held up for a while.

283 posted on 04/10/2016 4:43:34 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

You use of “Brood of Vipers” implies a negative derogatory comment about people that you do not agree with.

Perhaps you should understand Luke in context of the times.

“John, that was called the Baptist,” did command “the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism,” and that many “came in crowds about him, for they were greatly moved by hearing his words”

Luke, therefore, “raises up John as a model for his churches. In other words, Luke uses the story of John the Baptist to directly address current and future members of his community, many of whom probably were Gentiles, challenging them to repent (New Jerome 685) and change.

what it was that the multitudes, “the brood of vipers,” had to do. The “brood” respectfully asks, “Teacher, what should we do?” and Luke, through John, delivers a powerful social justice message in 3:10-14 as if to say, “Now, this is how you repent; this is the direction in which you should turn your life.”

This message, found only in Luke, seems to be absolutely necessary if one were to turn away from anything at all without having the guidance of the Old Testament. Just before delivering his message at the request of the “multitudes” who appear willing to repent and be baptized, John calls them the “brood of vipers” (Luke 3:7).

It is important that the multitudes are referred to as “a brood of vipers,” rather than “vipers.” The cultural anthropological insight into the folk beliefs about the way that the viper is born appears to be key. It appears probable that this belief existed within the Lucan Hellenistic community, and that they may have understood the allusion.

Just as a viper “kills the mother that gives birth to it and comes into the world, as is said, by tearing through her belly” (see Zlatoust 7:115), the Pharisees and the Sadducees were able to tear through their culture and tradition of self-righteousness and came to repent and be baptized. Knowing that the Pharisees and the Sadducees largely rejected his preaching and were not willing to admit that they too needed to repent, John the Baptist exclaims genuinely surprised, “Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” (Matt. 3:7) This is as if to say, “You did not listen to me; so, to whom then did you listen?”

The next three verses (8-10) could thereby be viewed as showing pastoral support and guidance that John the Baptist offers to the people who were making a difficult step in the right direction. He tells them to bear worthy fruit and not to rely (as they were accustomed) on their blood lines.

Even in Judean culture, a snake or a serpent is not always viewed in a purely negative way. Consider, for example, a passage from the Gospel of Matthew, which was probably addressed to mostly Judean Christians (see New Jerome631), in which Christ advises His disciples to be as wise as serpents (10:16)

Similarly, Christ’s reference to a serpent in John 3:14-16 would not be seen as a reference to a “necessarily unclean” animal, but rather to a powerful symbol of healing (Num. 21:9) that most Judeans could recognize.

https://frsergei.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/%E2%80%9Cyou-brood-of-vipers%E2%80%9D%E2%80%94or-what-to-say-to-people-who-came-to-be-baptized/


284 posted on 04/10/2016 5:04:42 PM PDT by ADSUM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
In the three hundred years after Jesus’ crucifixion, Christian practices and beliefs regarding the Eucharist took definitive shape as central to Christian worship.

Rather than passing this whole copy/paste detailed extrapolation off as your own, why not give credit to WP whence it came (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Eucharist#Early_Christianity)?

And which testimony, along with NT presbuteros being a distinct class of sacerdotal believers thus distinctively called ""priests," testifies to two of many accretions of error that were part of the progressive deformation of the NT church. The past refutation of your reliance upon uninspired men and the principle that formally learned men are most determinitive of Truth (which is contrary to how the church began) need not be repeated, while that only the figurative understanding of the Lord's Supper (LS) easily conflates with the totality of Scripture, and John in particular, is amply demonstrated, by the grace of God.

Here, leaving aside the debate on language used in the gospel accounts of the LS and John 6:29-66 (which does not mention the LS), let us look at the evidence of how this was understood in the life of the NT church, Acts and onward, which are interpretive of the gospels.

For surely, if the LS is what Catholicism makes it to be (and i speak more specifically of the Roman version which produces more materially on it), the LS being the,

"source and summit of the Christian life," around which all else revolves, as all the "other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it;" (CCC 1324

and the "cause of that communion in the divine life," (CCC 1325) and the work of our redemption is carried out;" (CCC 1364)

and that through it Christ becomes present whole and entire, God and man, and "through it Christ becomes present whole and entire, God and man;" (MYSTERIUM FIDEI, 39)

the LS being "the same sacrifice with that of the cross...a sacrifice of propitiation, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious;” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent)

and that the active duty priest is "most of all to offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice;" (Pastoral Reflections on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Cardinal John J. O'Conner.)

then with this centrality and importance and this primary pastoral functional charge, then surely this practice of NT priests and the people partaking of the Catholic Eucharist would be abundantly manifest in the life of the church, with its teaching and exhortations and commendations and criticisms and solutions for problems. But what does the record of Acts and the teaching of the rest of the NT tell us?

In the entire books of Acts we have no manifest description of the LS, much less of the Catholic Eucharist, only that of 4 mentions of the disciples breaking bread together,

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (Acts 2:42)

And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, (Acts 2:46) , apostles or any other clergy church

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7)

When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. (Acts 20:11)

If all these refer to the LS then it only describes it as a communal meal, and not as a distinct ritualized centerpiece of church life. And nowhere are the apostles or other clergy - much less any being called "priests" - even mentioned as conducting this breaking of bread or otherwise even distinctly being involved in distributing food , much less described as ritually effecting a change in the elements, with the people receiving the body and blood of the Lord. Moreover, the apostles expressed that their ordained function was not distributing food to tables but to give themselves "continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word." (Acts 6:4)

In addition, the means of obtaining spiritual life and growing in grace is never said to be by physically consuming the Lord Jesus, but spiritual life is obtained by hearing the gospel and believing it, and it is by preaching the word of grace that pastors foster growing in grace, with feeding the flock thereby being their primary active function, and which word builds them up. Nowhere does any apostle charge pastors with feeding the church via the LS.

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)

Instead, Catholics must read their Eucharistic liturgy into these texts, or at least, as with other traditions, argue that since the text does not exclude the Eucharistic liturgy then it is justified in postulating this was what was taking place.

Moving on we come to one of the most doctrinal books of the NT the book of Romans, with 11 chapters of doctrine and 5 of exhortation, which the apostle Paul provides for the "obedience of faith," and prays that God would grant them to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus. (Romans 15:5) Yet any mention of the LS is utterly absent in any of its 16 chapters, despite teaching such things as justification by grace, (Rm. 1-5) baptism, (Rm. 6) overcoming sin, (Rm. 7-8) the predestination and glorification of true believers, (Rm. 9-11) and their duty of sacrifice (their own bodies as living instruments of service), and complimentary cohesive nature of the body of Christ, the church, and the operations of gifts regarding that, exhortations to holiness, service and love in the faith, as well as obedience to authority, (Rm. 12; 13)and not to abuse personal liberty to the hurt of the church body, including in eating, (Rm. 14, 15) and greetings and benediction to the church. (Rm. 16). But while preaching is set forth a instrumental means of conveying grace, and spiritual gifts, there is nothing at all about the LS, of the importance of the Eucharist, even about it being a source of grace, nor of pastors having a special function or gift regarding that.

Moving on to the next book, herein we have the only manifest description of the LS in the life of the church, outside of the brief mention of it as the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12 which communal gathering some unholy vessels were defiling. Here, 1 Corinthians 10:16-21 is invoked by Catholics as teaching the Catholic Eucharist, particularly vs. 16,17: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." However,in context the Catholic interpretation this is simply not the case.

For instead, what is taught is that this manner of communion, that being a spiritual union, is what pagans also signify and realize in communally taking part in their own dedicatory feast, and thus believers are warned against being part of it: But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:20-21)

Thus to either be partakers of the Lord's table or that of devils is to have fellowship with the entity to whom the feast is dedicated to, with the other participants, partakers of the same altar. And it is certain that pagans were not having fellowship with devils by literally physical consuming the flesh and blood of devils.

In the next chapter the LS is once again addressed, and once again Catholics suppose that this support their Eucharistic theology, especially vs. 28,29:

But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. (1 Corinthians 11:28-29)

However, once again this is not what is being contextually taught, as instead of referring to not discerning the nature of the elements that are consumed in the Lord's body, the sin of the Corinthians was that of not effectually discerning/recognizing the nature of the body of Christ, the church, because they were treating other members as if they were outcasts.

This reproof of the Corinthians is that while they were physically coming together to eat the LS, they really not coming together to eat the LS (When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper) , not because of some failure to perceive the nature of what they were eating, but because while they were supposed to be showing/declaring the Lord's death for the church (For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come), they were selfishly eating independently, even to the full ( one is hungry, and another is drunken ), while ignoring other blood-bought saints (cf. Acts 20:28) who thus went hungry, and which thus was to "shame them that have not."

Therefore they were effectually not recognizing the body for whom Christ died as actually being the body of Christ (which the Lord essentially said was Him in confronting Paul for persecuting it), and thus they were not remembering=showing the Lord's death (which command Paul uniquely provides as being the purpose), as if those whom those whom they ignored were outcasts, versus being redeemed by the body and blood of the Lord. This rank hypocrisy thus left them being guilty of that body and blood of the Lord, acting utterly contrary to its purpose and what it did, and the love behind it. Therefore some were even chastened unto death.

The problem being that of selfishly eating independently, even to the full while ignoring other blood-bought saints, thus the given solution was not that of recognizing a supernatural nature of the elements consumed, which souls could do while eating independently (though contrary to the meaning of "communion"), but the solution was to effectually recognize each other as members of the corporate body, to "tarry one for another," and to eat at home so that they do not come to the LS and do as before due to lust for food. (Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.)

Consistent with this focus on the corporate nature of the body of Christ, the next chapter gives further exhortation and correction regarding this.

Next we come to Galatians, with its rebukes for following Judaizers, and theology on salvation, and mention of baptism, and exhortations to walk in the Spirit, and warnings about falling from grace and making Christ of no effect, but nothing about the LS, but with supporting those who preach the word being instructed.

Then we come to Ephesians, and which speaks of how souls received te Spirit by faith, and are accepted in the Beloved, and sit with Him in the heavens, and teaching about the one new man, the church. And in the light of such grace, it provides various exhortation to grow in grace. However, once again the LS is utterly absent, and the means of obtaining spiritual life and growing in grace is never said to be by physically consuming the Lord Jesus, nor is there any reminded to take part in this, but life and growth is by hearing and believing the word of grace.

Likewise in Colossians, though this is the most metaphysical type book, and which mentions baptism and much exhorts growth in grace, but with the only internal ingestion in so doing being that of the word of Christ dwelling richly in them. (3:16) Moving on to the next books, we have 1+2 Thessalonians, a active and much commendable church, but for whom Paul provides much eschatological light for, and desires that "To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints." (1 Thessalonians 3:13) But once again there is no mention of the LS or reminder of the importance of the Eucharist. Then we have 1+2 Timothy and Titus, instructing and exhorting these pastors in carrying out the word of the ministry, including giving attention to reading and doctrine and to preach the word, which is what is said to "nourish" believers. (1Tim. 4:6) Yet once again there is no mention of the LS, including any charge, exhortation or reminder to them regarding carrying out that which in Catholicism is the centerpiece of her worship and sacramental system, and the primary activity of NT pastors.

And who are never called "priests," despite the use of the exclusive words for it (“hiereus” or “archiereus," priest or high priest) being used over 280 times in the NT, and the words used for NT pastors, presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer), being used approx 65 times for them, and whom Titus 1:5-7 (cf. Acts 20:17,28) shows as referring to those in the same office.

Nor are they described as having a unique sacerdotal Eucharistic function, but which Catholicism came to read into their office. See here for substantiation on this issue, by God's grace.

Passing over the short letter to Philemon which also says nothing about the LS, we come the book of Hebrews, which like Romans, is another major doctrinal book. This anonymous book (certainly not by Paul) is an exhortation to believers to continue in the faith, and warnings about falling away. (cps. 3,6,10) in the light of systematic eloquent exposition of the New Covenant vs. the Old, with the key word of this epistle being "better." But while expounding on the better hope, covenant, promises, sacrifices substance, dwelling, resurrection, and things, once again nothing is said about the LS, nor any manifest theology on it, the only thing close to that being the warning not to forsake assembling together by falling into sin.

Yet even when describing the fundamentals of the faith then there is nothing said about Eucharistic theology, but,

Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. (Hebrews 6:1-2)

As incongruous as the previous omissions about Eucharistic theology are if the NT church held to the place and belief of Catholic Eucharistic theology, it is most inconceivable here, as if any book should expound, however briefly, about Eucharistic theology it would seem to be here, with its emphasis upon the superior grace of the New Covenant, and priestly ministry. Yet the Catholic Eucharist is one of many things missing in the NT church. Due to time and energy needs i am going to skip James and the espitles of Peter and John, none of which describe the LS, much less Catholic Eucharistic theology, and go to Jude 1:12, this book being the only other letter to the churches which which mentions the LS, and does so here simply as a "feast of charity," which communal feast unholy souls were "crashing," which type opf persons Jude is warning about, and which is consistent with the nature of the participants being the focus, not the elements that are consumed by them.

Finally we come to Revelation, which also does not mention the LS, and its absence in the Lord's critiques and counsel tot he representative churches in cps. 2+3, either as a commendation for keeping it, or censure for not, or exhortation as means of grace, is also incongruous, leaving extrapolative Catholics to one again resorting to reading into it what they desire if they will use it to support their distinctive Eucharistic theology.

Thus neither the Catholic Eucharist is manifest in the NR church nor her distinctive sacerdotal priesthood which offer it, but as the basis for RC teaching does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but upon the premise of the ensured veracity of their church, and which flows from tradition as she understands it, then it is not surprising that Catholics defend what is actually indefensible based upon what the only substantive wholly inspired body of Truth says. Which is to their own hurt.

In the three hundred years after Jesus’ crucifixion, Christian practices and beliefs regarding the Eucharist took definitive shape as central to Christian worship.

Rather than passing this whole copy/paste detailed extrapolation off as your own, why not give credit to WP whence it came (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Eucharist#Early_Christianity)?

And which testimony, along with NT presbuteros being a distinct class of sacerdotal believers thus distinctively called ""priests," testifies to two of many accretions of error that were part of the progressive deformation of the NT church. The past refutation of your reliance upon uninspired men and the principle that formally learned men are most determinitive of Truth (which is contrary to how the church began) need not be repeated, while that only the figurative understanding of the Lord's Supper (LS) easily conflates with the totality of Scripture, and John in particular, is amply demonstrated, by the grace of God.

Here, leaving aside the debate on language used in the gospel accounts of the LS and John 6:29-66 (which does not mention the LS), let us look at the evidence of how this was understood in the life of the NT church, Acts and onward, which are interpretive of the gospels.

For surely, if the LS is what Catholicism makes it to be (and i speak more specifically of the Roman version which produces more materially on it), the LS being the,

"source and summit of the Christian life," around which all else revolves, as all the "other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it;" (CCC 1324

and the "cause of that communion in the divine life," (CCC 1325) and the work of our redemption is carried out;" (CCC 1364)

and that through it Christ becomes present whole and entire, God and man, and "through it Christ becomes present whole and entire, God and man;" (MYSTERIUM FIDEI, 39)

the LS being "the same sacrifice with that of the cross...a sacrifice of propitiation, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious;” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent)

and that the active duty priest is "most of all to offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice;" (Pastoral Reflections on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Cardinal John J. O'Conner.)

then with this centrality and importance and this primary pastoral functional charge, then surely this practice of NT priests and the people partaking of the Catholic Eucharist would be abundantly manifest in the life of the church, with its teaching and exhortations and commendations and criticisms and solutions for problems. But what does the record of Acts and the teaching of the rest of the NT tell us?

In the entire books of Acts we have no manifest description of the LS, much less of the Catholic Eucharist, only that of 4 mentions of the disciples breaking bread together,

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (Acts 2:42)

And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, (Acts 2:46) , apostles or any other clergy church

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7)

When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. (Acts 20:11)

If all these refer to the LS then it only describes it as a communal meal, and not as a distinct ritualized centerpiece of church life. And nowhere are the apostles or other clergy - much less any being called "priests" - even mentioned as conducting this breaking of bread or otherwise even distinctly being involved in distributing food , much less described as ritually effecting a change in the elements, with the people receiving the body and blood of the Lord. Moreover, the apostles expressed that their ordained function was not distributing food to tables but to give themselves "continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word." (Acts 6:4)

In addition, the means of obtaining spiritual life and growing in grace is never said to be by physically consuming the Lord Jesus, but spiritual life is obtained by hearing the gospel and believing it, and it is by preaching the word of grace that pastors foster growing in grace, with feeding the flock thereby being their primary active function, and which word builds them up. Nowhere does any apostle charge pastors with feeding the church via the LS.

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)

Instead, Catholics must read their Eucharistic liturgy into these texts, or at least, as with other traditions, argue that since the text does not exclude the Eucharistic liturgy then it is justified in postulating this was what was taking place.

Moving on we come to one of the most doctrinal books of the NT the book of Romans, with 11 chapters of doctrine and 5 of exhortation, which the apostle Paul provides for the "obedience of faith," and prays that God would grant them to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus. (Romans 15:5) Yet any mention of the LS is utterly absent in any of its 16 chapters, despite teaching such things as justification by grace, (Rm. 1-5) baptism, (Rm. 6) overcoming sin, (Rm. 7-8) the predestination and glorification of true believers, (Rm. 9-11) and their duty of sacrifice (their own bodies as living instruments of service), and complimentary cohesive nature of the body of Christ, the church, and the operations of gifts regarding that, exhortations to holiness, service and love in the faith, as well as obedience to authority, (Rm. 12; 13)and not to abuse personal liberty to the hurt of the church body, including in eating, (Rm. 14, 15) and greetings and benediction to the church. (Rm. 16). But while preaching is set forth a instrumental means of conveying grace, and spiritual gifts, there is nothing at all about the LS, of the importance of the Eucharist, even about it being a source of grace, nor of pastors having a special function or gift regarding that.

Moving on to the next book, herein we have the only manifest description of the LS in the life of the church, outside of the brief mention of it as the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12 which communal gathering some unholy vessels were defiling. Here, 1 Corinthians 10:16-21 is invoked by Catholics as teaching the Catholic Eucharist, particularly vs. 16,17: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." However,in context the Catholic interpretation this is simply not the case.

For instead, what is taught is that this manner of communion, that being a spiritual union, is what pagans also signify and realize in communally taking part in their own dedicatory feast, and thus believers are warned against being part of it: But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:20-21)

Thus to either be partakers of the Lord's table or that of devils is to have fellowship with the entity to whom the feast is dedicated to, with the other participants, partakers of the same altar. And it is certain that pagans were not having fellowship with devils by literally physical consuming the flesh and blood of devils.

In the next chapter the LS is once again addressed, and once again Catholics suppose that this support their Eucharistic theology, especially vs. 28,29:

But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. (1 Corinthians 11:28-29)

However, once again this is not what is being contextually taught, as instead of referring to not discerning the nature of the elements that are consumed in the Lord's body, the sin of the Corinthians was that of not effectually discerning/recognizing the nature of the body of Christ, the church, because they were treating other members as if they were outcasts.

This reproof of the Corinthians is that while they were physically coming together to eat the LS, they really not coming together to eat the LS (When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper) , not because of some failure to perceive the nature of what they were eating, but because while they were supposed to be showing/declaring the Lord's death for the church (For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come), they were selfishly eating independently, even to the full ( one is hungry, and another is drunken ), while ignoring other blood-bought saints (cf. Acts 20:28) who thus went hungry, and which thus was to "shame them that have not."

Therefore they were effectually not recognizing the body for whom Christ died as actually being the body of Christ (which the Lord essentially said was Him in confronting Paul for persecuting it), and thus they were not remembering=showing the Lord's death (which command Paul uniquely provides as being the purpose), as if those whom those whom they ignored were outcasts, versus being redeemed by the body and blood of the Lord. This rank hypocrisy thus left them being guilty of that body and blood of the Lord, acting utterly contrary to its purpose and what it did, and the love behind it. Therefore some were even chastened unto death.

The problem being that of selfishly eating independently, even to the full while ignoring other blood-bought saints, thus the given solution was not that of recognizing a supernatural nature of the elements consumed, which souls could do while eating independently (though contrary to the meaning of "communion"), but the solution was to effectually recognize each other as members of the corporate body, to "tarry one for another," and to eat at home so that they do not come to the LS and do as before due to lust for food. (Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.)

Consistent with this focus on the corporate nature of the body of Christ, the next chapter gives further exhortation and correction regarding this.

Next we come to Galatians, with its rebukes for following Judaizers, and theology on salvation, and mention of baptism, and exhortations to walk in the Spirit, and warnings about falling from grace and making Christ of no effect, but nothing about the LS, but with supporting those who preach the word being instructed.

Then we come to Ephesians, and which speaks of how souls received te Spirit by faith, and are accepted in the Beloved, and sit with Him in the heavens, and teaching about the one new man, the church. And in the light of such grace, it provides various exhortation to grow in grace. However, once again the LS is utterly absent, and the means of obtaining spiritual life and growing in grace is never said to be by physically consuming the Lord Jesus, nor is there any reminded to take part in this, but life and growth is by hearing and believing the word of grace.

Likewise in Colossians, though this is the most metaphysical type book, and which mentions baptism and much exhorts growth in grace, but with the only internal ingestion in so doing being that of the word of Christ dwelling richly in them. (3:16) Moving on to the next books, we have 1+2 Thessalonians, a active and much commendable church, but for whom Paul provides much eschatological light for, and desires that "To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints." (1 Thessalonians 3:13) But once again there is no mention of the LS or reminder of the importance of the Eucharist. Then we have 1+2 Timothy and Titus, instructing and exhorting these pastors in carrying out the word of the ministry, including giving attention to reading and doctrine and to preach the word, which is what is said to "nourish" believers. (1Tim. 4:6) Yet once again there is no mention of the LS, including any charge, exhortation or reminder to them regarding carrying out that which in Catholicism is the centerpiece of her worship and sacramental system, and the primary activity of NT pastors.

And who are never called "priests," despite the use of the exclusive words for it (“hiereus” or “archiereus," priest or high priest) being used over 280 times in the NT, and the words used for NT pastors, presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer), being used approx 65 times for them, and whom Titus 1:5-7 (cf. Acts 20:17,28) shows as referring to those in the same office.

Nor are they described as having a unique sacerdotal Eucharistic function, but which Catholicism came to read into their office. See here for substantiation on this issue, by God's grace.

Passing over the short letter to Philemon which also says nothing about the LS, we come the book of Hebrews, which like Romans, is another major doctrinal book. This anonymous book (certainly not by Paul) is an exhortation to believers to continue in the faith, and warnings about falling away. (cps. 3,6,10) in the light of systematic eloquent exposition of the New Covenant vs. the Old, with the key word of this epistle being "better." But while expounding on the better hope, covenant, promises, sacrifices substance, dwelling, resurrection, and things, once again nothing is said about the LS, nor any manifest theology on it, the only thing close to that being the warning not to forsake assembling together by falling into sin.

Yet even when describing the fundamentals of the faith then there is nothing said about Eucharistic theology, but,

Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. (Hebrews 6:1-2)

As incongruous as the previous omissions about Eucharistic theology are if the NT church held to the place and belief of Catholic Eucharistic theology, it is most inconceivable here, as if any book should expound, however briefly, about Eucharistic theology it would seem to be here, with its emphasis upon the superior grace of the New Covenant, and priestly ministry. Yet the Catholic Eucharist is one of many things missing in the NT church. Due to time and energy needs i am going to skip James and the espitles of Peter and John, none of which describe the LS, much less Catholic Eucharistic theology, and go to Jude 1:12, this book being the only other letter to the churches which which mentions the LS, and does so here simply as a "feast of charity," which communal feast unholy souls were "crashing," which type opf persons Jude is warning about, and which is consistent with the nature of the participants being the focus, not the elements that are consumed by them.

Finally we come to Revelation, which also does not mention the LS, and its absence in the Lord's critiques and counsel tot he representative churches in cps. 2+3, either as a commendation for keeping it, or censure for not, or exhortation as means of grace, is also incongruous, leaving extrapolative Catholics to one again resorting to reading into it what they desire if they will use it to support their distinctive Eucharistic theology.

Thus neither the Catholic Eucharist is manifest in the NR church nor her distinctive sacerdotal priesthood which offer it, but as the basis for RC teaching does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but upon the premise of the ensured veracity of their church, and which flows from tradition as she understands it, then it is not surprising that Catholics defend what is actually indefensible based upon what the only substantive wholly inspired body of Truth says. Which is to their own hurt.

285 posted on 04/10/2016 5:17:30 PM PDT by daniel1212 ( Turn to the Lord Jesus as a damned and destitute sinner+ trust Him to save you, then follow Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: metmom; ADSUM
on the principles of faith they were clearly in substantial agreement and unanimous on the main principles.

Oh, I see now. It's OK for Catholics to have doctrinal differences over certain issues and it shows the strength and unity of Catholicism that they are all still Catholic. But when Protestants have doctrinal differences, it shows the weaknesses of sola Scriptura and every man being his own pope how it's wrong because of the doctrinal differences.

Or when evangelicals are (yet) evidenced to have more ground-level unity than Caths, then it must be due to biased pollsters.

286 posted on 04/10/2016 5:21:23 PM PDT by daniel1212 ( Turn to the Lord Jesus as a damned and destitute sinner+ trust Him to save you, then follow Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Ditto.

Sorry, the towering intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church with the Litany of Saints, Martyrs, Scholars, Theologians and Leading Theological Converts From Other Faiths is apparently above the pay grade of most Protestants.


287 posted on 04/10/2016 5:23:48 PM PDT by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish; Elsie
Sorry, the towering intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church with the Litany of Saints, Martyrs, Scholars, Theologians and Leading Theological Converts From Other Faiths is apparently above the pay grade of most Protestants.

Sorry yourself but *towering intellect* is NOT how one comes to know God.

One can know *about* God, but not know God.

Relationships are not about intellect and moral issues are issues of the heart, not issues of the mind, therefore the mind is the wrong avenue to knowing God.

SPIRITUAL TRUTHS ARE SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED

1 Corinthians 1:18-31 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

1 Corinthians 2:1-16 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written,

“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”—

these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

288 posted on 04/10/2016 5:30:53 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Your comment: “If the Catholic Jesus is still dying for our sin, the Jesus the Catholic church teaches is NOT the Jesus found in Scripture.” As a former baptized Catholic you seem to lack an understanding of the beliefs of the Catholic Church.

Catholic Church has affirmed the Resurrection of Jesus and the Ascension into Heaven. That is well established Catholic doctrine. It is stated in the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed.

By sacrifice in the real sense is universally understood the offering of a sense-perceptible gift to the Deity as an outward manifestation of our veneration for Him and with the object of attaining communion with Him.

Christianity knows but one sacrifice, the sacrifice which was once offered by Christ in a bloody manner on the tree of the Cross. But in order to apply to individual men in sacrificial form though a constant sacrifice the merits of redemption definitively won by the sacrifice of the Cross, the Redeemer Himself instituted the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to be an unbloody continuation and representation of the bloody sacrifice of Calvary.


289 posted on 04/10/2016 5:31:15 PM PDT by ADSUM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: metmom

This is “your” interpretation. Rev. Wright has “his”own interpretation, and Rev. Paula White has “her” own interpretation of scriptural texts as do Rev, Moon and David Koresh who have “their” particular interpretations as do 40,000 other non-Catholic Christian sects.

The Catholic Church from its early Christian Fathers offer us ONE truth for all time to all peoples. Our source is from a Church that pre-dates the Bible that we use as was affirmed in the Council of Rome in AD 382.

Jesus didn’t tell the apostles to write down everything he had taught them. He simply commanded them to teach it. Much of this teaching later made its way into Sacred Scripture, but every bit of it was and still is considered Sacred Tradition. These unwritten traditions span the whole life of the Church. The veneration of saints, statuary, iconography, Church architecture, the offering of incense, the lighting of candles, the public affirmation of our faith in the Eucharist through Corpus Christi celebrations, and the crucifix at the focus of our Churches.

The is why once arch anti-Catholic Protestant theologians and scholars have upon a careful and scholarly reading converted to Catholicism.


290 posted on 04/10/2016 5:47:39 PM PDT by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Mercat

Does the RCC officially teach that if you don’t believe in the eucharist, you are going to hell?


I haven’t found anything in the Catechism that specifically addresses this question. The closest thing I found was the following, which seems to indicate that the answer is no:

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

Here’s a link to the Catechism if you want to search for yourself -

http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/index.html


291 posted on 04/10/2016 5:53:31 PM PDT by rwa265
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

I’ve tried to get an FR Catholic to state ANYTHING concfrete about the matter, but none have chosen to do so.


It does not appear that there is a concrete answer that can be given. I haven’t found anything in the Catechism that specifically addresses this question. The closest thing I found was the following, which seems to indicate that the answer is no:

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

Here’s a link to the Catechism if you want to search for yourself -

http://ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/index.html


292 posted on 04/10/2016 5:53:41 PM PDT by rwa265
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Going by the numbers?

The Blessed Mother Mary certainly has the ability to talk with her son Jesus.

It is possible that Mary has additional gifts now that she is in Heaven. Why don’t you send her a few more prayers? I am sure that she can handle them.

By the way the Catholic Church does not send people to Hell. The purpose of the church is to lead people to Heaven ( if you are willing to listen and follow).

It is God in His judgement that sends people to Hell. I have a friend that was a baptized Catholic that rejected the Catholic Church and I am very concerned where he might be.


293 posted on 04/10/2016 6:18:04 PM PDT by ADSUM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Actually I’m not speaking to you anymore since you have condemned me to hell. Have a nice evening.


294 posted on 04/10/2016 6:18:30 PM PDT by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: rwa265

The consecrated hosts are reserved in the tabernacle. One is placed in many parishes in a monstrance in a separate chapel. There the Body of Christ is perpetually adored.... yes, 24/7. I do this on Wednesday morning at 8 am but there are people there at 2:00 a.m. and all through the night, worshiping and adoring Jesus.


295 posted on 04/10/2016 6:22:45 PM PDT by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Not my job. I’m a retired (and recovering) lawyer and I was so glad not to be a judge. It was never my job to make that decision. So are you saved? I have no idea. I certainly hope and pray that you are.


296 posted on 04/10/2016 6:23:57 PM PDT by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: ADSUM

You.are.awesome!!!


297 posted on 04/10/2016 6:26:18 PM PDT by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: ADSUM

Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.

Jesus’ sacrifice was VERY bloody. If what you are offering is an unbloody sacrifice, it is NOT the same sacrifice as the one on the cross.

And since Jesus died on a tree (cross) the sacrifice offered on an altar is also not the same sacrifice.

Nor is Jesus eternally dying in heaven. He is currently seated at the right hand of God.


298 posted on 04/10/2016 6:27:33 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: ADSUM

:-*


299 posted on 04/10/2016 6:28:33 PM PDT by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Jesus didn’t tell the apostles to write down everything he had taught them.

Oh, I see you've changed it. Catholics are finally getting that Jesus DID tell people to write things down.

We don't need to know everything Jesus did or said.

But the Holy spirit made sure that everything we need to know for salvation and being made mature and complete in Christ was included in Scripture.

300 posted on 04/10/2016 6:29:34 PM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 721-734 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson