A bible question for our non-Catholic friends on CAF

Dear friend in Christ,

My question is in TWO parts. I’m trying to better understand your beliefs.:slight_smile:

[1] Are you a member of a “bible only belief church?”

[2] What are your views of the Catholic Sacrament of “Holy Communion”/ Eucharist/ The Real Presence"?

God Bless you!
Patrick

1.No

  1. RP

Easy enough lol

  1. No
  2. Remembrance and Thanksgiving/showing forth Christ’s sacrifice to the world/an outward act showing inner faith that results in real effect/a coming together of the body of Christ in communion. In short, in terms of RC belief; I don’t believe in transubstantiation.

Ditto the above.

I think you need to define what you mean in [1]. Because, for example, in the Church of England we’d say something along the lines of, “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” Now, that’s clearly a sixteenth-century formulation of sola scriptura, but very, very different to certain modern, particularly American reformed/protestant theologies. It allows room for tradition and human reason, simply saying that (in RC terms) all dogmas which the faithful are bound to hold, de fide, to be part of the deposit of the faith (and necessary for salvation) are to be proven from Scripture.

  1. no

  2. If believing the bread and wine become something other than bread and wine brings you comfort and spriritual growth, I say wonderful…such a belief leaves me very cold spiritually, I find no benefit to my soul embracing such a belief.

Have you seriously pondered the Bread of life dicourse, John 6 54-68
Peace, Carlan

How about you Publisher, have you seriously pondered Jesus’ words in John 6???

Yes, as laid out in other threads.

Grace and peace to you!

How about Luke 22: 7-20
Jesus sends Peter and John to prepare the Passover meal. This will be the last Passover Meal, in terms of the Old Covenant where lambs would need to be sacrificed. Jesus will now be the Lamb of God. This surpasses the Jewish Passover and offers the perfect sacrifice.

Later in Luke 24: 28-35 The next meal mentioned in Luke’s Gospel we notice that the disciples walking with Cleopas, and an unrecognizable Jesus. However, Jesus becomes recognizable in the breaking of the bread.

OH! I just understood something I didn’t before! That’s profound! :slight_smile:

  1. No.

  2. I have a different understanding of it than Catholics. I believe in the real presence, but reject Transubstantiation in favor of Sacramental Union.

Yes…seriously…why would you think I would not have “seriouosly pondered” the words ascribed to Jesus by the author of John?

1.) No

2.) Real Presence - “This IS my Body” “This IS my Blood”
Thankfully, my understanding of the process is not necessary for the efficacy of the Sacrament.

“Take, eat”, not “Take, understand”. To paraphrase Lewis.

GKC

1 Nope. Scripture alone wasn’t needed for the apostles nor by their successors, it isn’t needed now.
2 The Eucharist is the real body and blood of christ, so real like saint Ignatius said that it is the exact same body which was crucified for us. As to how this happens, the exact nature of it, I refuse to detail.

=Kliska;11438918]1) No
2) Remembrance and Thanksgiving/showing forth Christ’s sacrifice to the world/an outward act showing inner faith that results in real effect/a coming together of the body of Christ in communion. In short, in terms of RC belief; I don’t believe in transubstantiation.

Thank you!

I certainly pray its NOT because the term is not in the bible.

These terms are not in the bible either:
“bible, catholic, protestant, theology, sacraments” and so-on.

God Bless you!
Patrick

=Novocastrian;11438985]I think you need to define what you mean in [1]. Because, for example, in the Church of England we’d say something along the lines of, “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” Now, that’s clearly a sixteenth-century formulation of sola scriptura, but very, very different to certain modern, particularly American reformed/protestant theologies. It allows room for tradition and human reason, simply saying that (in RC terms) all dogmas which the faithful are bound to hold, de fide, to be part of the deposit of the faith (and necessary for salvation) are to be proven from Scripture.

Thank you! :slight_smile: I was not aware of that.

I use the terms “scripture [Sacred] and bible” interchangeably:)

Have you read the last two verses of John chapters 20 and 21?

God Bless you!
Patrick

No worries; no it isn’t because the term isn’t there. Though I do find it strange that non-Christian philosophy is employed in describing it. Using Aristotelian language is, to me, a limiting choice when describing the processes. In short, I understand why those like the Lutherans don’t want to use similar language to describe their beliefs, and could come much closer believing in their description of the Real Presence than using Aristotle’s ideas, though I obviously don’t agree with them either. :o

=Publisher;11439044]1) no

  1. If believing the bread and wine become something other than bread and wine brings you comfort and spriritual growth, I say wonderful…such a belief leaves me very cold spiritually, I find no benefit to my soul embracing such a belief.

Publisher, it’s been awhile [too-long] since we’ve shared thoughts.

What is your position on the authority of the bible?

God Bless you!
Patrick

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.