Protestants and Holy Communion


#1

Jesus said explicitly in the gospel according to St John chapter 6 if we do not eat His flesh or drink His blood we have no life in us. What about the Protestants?

I’ve heard the argument it depends on their level of ignorance and other factors but it seems Jesus’ words are very firm non-negotiable. It kind of gives the message either you receive my flesh and blood and live or you don’t and die…

Any thoughts?


#2

Some that I’ve heard make it refer to “eating” the Word. Or use the idea that this is symbolic language, and so applies to their understanding of the Lord’s Supper.

Still, I think the idea that God will judge us each according to our understanding may give them enough mercy to come to salvation: those who honestly and through no personal fault believe that it cannot be the Catholic Mass, will have their chance for salvation.


#3

Grew up Lutheran and we would have “communion” about every 3 months. No consecration just believe that it is the Body and Blood. Catholic now by the grace of God- the Eucharist is so so different than in the Lutheran church.


#4

I can’t imagine what Lutheran Church you might have attended where there was no consecration. That would be unbiblical, and in violation of the confessions.

Jon


#5

Pastor Heckman was a theologin- in his 70’s when I was in my teens- the one thing he said to me that was embelished by Msr. Cositgan- revalation ended with the death of the last disciple


#6

I came to realize that the ordained ministers of the Church are the Ordained Priests that consecrate the Eucharist by asking God to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood.


#7

Paul writes that to eat the body of Christ unworthily is to eat damnation. That is understood by Catholics to mean receiving communion in a state of mortal sin. Protestants therefore have a problem receiving communion in a Catholic church. By denying Church authority they have no way to forgive mortal sin. The protestant idea that Jesus did it all is unscriptural because if Jesus did do it all then why did he delegate the authority to forgive sin to His Church as it is clearly written of in John’s Gospel. This is not the mere forgiving of someone who sins against you personally. Those people we are to forgive always. But in John’s Gospel Jesus also mentions retaining sin and He speaks of the sin of anybody not just those who sin against the apostles personally. But in protestant churches [those that have communion] their communion is entirely symbolic.

Regarding the idea of invinceable ignorance I once asked the question to Collin Donovan of EWTN that while the church holds out the **possibility **of protestants entering heaven based on invinceable ignorance was there a high probability of them doing so. His replied was probably not.


#8

Jesus spoke in figurative language regularly. He said he was a door, a gate, the Good Shepherd. He called us the Light of the World and the Salt of the Earth.

 Protestants I know believe in the real presence in the sense that Christ is always with us, as he promised. The idea that through a priestly prayer bread and wine miraculously become the flesh and blood of Christ can seem very pagan to them. It smacks of mystery religions and the belief in some ancient and even cannibalistic societies that by consuming the body and blood of a sacrificed victim a person can take on greater power etc himself. They may regard it as a remaining vestige of the primitive need for human sacrifice to mollify god/gods. They see influences from Mithraism and other cults that focused on blood sacrifice.

 Hesitate to say this, but it's important to know why Protestants generally look upon communion in other ways. They regard the words as symbolic. Some emphasize communion as a simple memorial. Others stress the 'family meal' aspect - that as fellow Christians we gather around the Lord's Table to break bread together and declare our fellowship one with another. Others focus on the way in which the sacrament/ordinance is an opportunity for repentance and rededication. Still others regard it as a reminder that the spirit of Christ is with us now and always. Etc. 

 Among many Protestants, there is a willingness to permit different individuals to view communion as they feel led. It can be a joyous celebration of Christ's presence and/or his/our victory over death. It can be a time for remorseful confession and absolution. Its meaning can vary with the state of mind and/or the need of the communicant. 

 The difference between much of Protestantism (generalizations are risky) and Catholicism is that mainline Protestantism in particular lays less emphasis upon strict adherence to doctrine. It permits individual freedom of interpretation. This has great appeal to many, while it also has led over the centuries to numerous splits and resultant sects.

#9

=Roy5;9104952]Jesus spoke in figurative language regularly. He said he was a door, a gate, the Good Shepherd. He called us the Light of the World and the Salt of the Earth.

Yet this is not the form of language (figurtive) He used at the Last Supper. While He said He was the door, the gate, etc., at the Last Supper He put His hands on bread and said, "This is my body". IOW, this is me! He didn't say I am this bread. His words are literal, not figurative.

Protestants I know believe in the real presence in the sense that Christ is always with us, as he promised. The idea that through a priestly prayer bread and wine miraculously become the flesh and blood of Christ can seem very pagan to them. It smacks of mystery religions and the belief in some ancient and even cannibalistic societies that by consuming the body and blood of a sacrificed victim a person can take on greater power etc himself. They may regard it as a remaining vestige of the primitive need for human sacrifice to mollify god/gods. They see influences from Mithraism and other cults that focused on blood sacrifice.

Frst, it isn't a priestly prayer, it is His own words. While He is always with us, the words of institution are quite explicit - "This is my body".

 Hesitate to say this, but it's important to know why Protestants generally look upon communion in other ways. They regard the words as symbolic. Some emphasize communion as a simple memorial. Others stress the 'family meal' aspect - that as fellow Christians we gather around the Lord's Table to break bread together and declare our fellowship one with another. Others focus on the way in which the sacrament/ordinance is an opportunity for repentance and rededication. Still others regard it as a reminder that the spirit of Christ is with us now and always. Etc. 

None of which is scriptural, without the discernment of His body and blood.

Among many Protestants, there is a willingness to permit different individuals to view communion as they feel led. It can be a joyous celebration of Christ's presence and/or his/our victory over death. It can be a time for remorseful confession and absolution. Its meaning can vary with the state of mind and/or the need of the communicant.

I guess this is why knowledgeable Lutherans tend to resist the general term "protestant". There is only one way to view His words, "This is my body".

The difference between much of Protestantism (generalizations are risky) and Catholicism is that mainline Protestantism in particular lays less emphasis upon strict adherence to doctrine. It permits individual freedom of interpretation. This has great appeal to many, while it also has led over the centuries to numerous splits and resultant sects.

Yes, they are.

Jon


#10

God judges people according to the understanding that they have based upon how He has revealed Himself to them. Sure, there is mercy given to those who God knows needs it, but with that great mercy will come a time when those who have missed out on the Eucharist will no doubt be saddened. What a wonderful blessing it is to know what we have at Mass!! In the same way, those who have never heard the Gospel but will still receive mercy because they have tried to follow God the best they can with what little has been revealed to them, what a loss it is to live life on earth without knowing about the fullness of God and His Church!

I kind of compare it to my marriage. I could have lived life without ever meeting my wife, but the loss of all the good times and all the love is a sad thought! And the thoughts of ever going through life without ever becoming Catholic is also a very sad thought, to miss out on all the Sacraments and the fullest of the Faith!


#11

[quote="Roy5, post:8, topic:277913"]
Jesus spoke in figurative language regularly. He said he was a door, a gate, the Good Shepherd. He called us the Light of the World and the Salt of the Earth.

 Protestants I know believe in the real presence in the sense that Christ is always with us, as he promised. The idea that through a priestly prayer bread and wine miraculously become the flesh and blood of Christ can seem very pagan to them. It smacks of mystery religions and the belief in some ancient and even cannibalistic societies that by consuming the body and blood of a sacrificed victim a person can take on greater power etc himself. They may regard it as a remaining vestige of the primitive need for human sacrifice to mollify god/gods. They see influences from Mithraism and other cults that focused on blood sacrifice.

 Hesitate to say this, but it's important to know why Protestants generally look upon communion in other ways. They regard the words as symbolic. Some emphasize communion as a simple memorial. Others stress the 'family meal' aspect - that as fellow Christians we gather around the Lord's Table to break bread together and declare our fellowship one with another. Others focus on the way in which the sacrament/ordinance is an opportunity for repentance and rededication. Still others regard it as a reminder that the spirit of Christ is with us now and always. Etc.

[/quote]

In John 6 when Jesus speaks of the manna the Jews ate in the dessert the Jews knew exactly what he was talking about. They knew that the manna was real food that the Jews ate and were sustained by it in the dessert So when Jesus mentions it they understand Jesus as speaking literallyof real material food. But when Jesus switches over to His Body as the new manna the Jews are aghast. Why? They are still understanding Jesus literally and materially. Jesus knows this. He sees many turn away from Him to include some of His own disciples. IF they misunderstood Him then as a teacher Jesus owes them an explanation and He gives one. He says His words are Spirit.

Protestants want to think that He means He was speaking only figuratively not literally. But Spirit is not the opposite of literal. Spirit is the opposite of material. Jesus was speaking spiritually not materially. Jesus says nothing else. IF Jesus was not speaking literally then He is committing a great sin because He is the cause of people walking away from their salvation. IF He is speaking figuratively then He owes the people an explanation. But He gives none. Why? Because Jesus was speaking literally of spiritual food. That is the only explanation one can draw from the discourse without having Jesus commit a great sin.

[quote="Roy5, post:8, topic:277913"]
Among many Protestants, there is a willingness to permit different individuals to view communion as they feel led. It can be a joyous celebration of Christ's presence and/or his/our victory over death. It can be a time for remorseful confession and absolution. Its meaning can vary with the state of mind and/or the need of the communicant.

 The difference between much of Protestantism (generalizations are risky) and Catholicism is that mainline Protestantism in particular lays less emphasis upon strict adherence to doctrine. It permits individual freedom of interpretation. This has great appeal to many, while it also has led over the centuries to numerous splits and resultant sects.

[/quote]

That is why there are so many protestant denominations today. Whenever three protrestants can't agree on doctrine a new denomination begins. Apply that to the Old Testament. It wasn't a case of, "Well what do you think?" No, it was a case of, "Thus sayeth the Lord." That closed the case. There was only one chosen people then not myriads. Jesus established one church and prayed that His followers be one. Protestantism, with its lax doctrinal positions, while having great appeal, is not a church, let alone the one church.


#12

[quote="Roy5, post:8, topic:277913"]
Jesus spoke in figurative language regularly. He said he was a door, a gate, the Good Shepherd. He called us the Light of the World and the Salt of the Earth.

[/quote]

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.”

Verse 63 of the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel is often referred to by non-Catholics as the explanation for the entire sixth chapter to be understood as symbolic. But I ask you this: By saying that Jesus’ spirit gives us life, how does that negate the total real presence of Christ? Isn’t Christ the Lamb of God? Didn’t Christ equate the Body as food and the Body as a sacrifice in the same sentence? Was He not referring to the same real Body? This entire chapter says that Jesus emphasized time and time again that He meant what He said. Many did not believe, and Jesus re-emphasized the same point over and over again. Does the existence of the Spirit of Jesus negate the totality of the presence? Is it not much more plausible, when this verse is taken within the context of the entire chapter, to understand that Jesus tells us that we need spiritual wisdom and grace to understand His words? Keep in mind that the Greek manuscript changes the words in order to make an emphasis. In verses 23 – 53, “phago” which is a generic Greek word for eat or consume is said nine times. However, in verses 54 – 58, after the disbelief of the Jews, the Greek word used is “trogo” which literally means to “gnaw” or “chew.” Jesus is putting the emphasis on His words. Then, let us examine verse 63 and include the Greek language in order to search for the truth: “It is the Spirit (Pneuma) that gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit (Pneuma), and they are life.” Both references to “Spirit” come from the Greek word “Pneuma” which, according to Strong’s dictionary means:

1: “the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son
a: sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his personality and character (the Holy Spirit)
b: sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his work and power (the Spirit of Truth)
c: never referred to as a depersonalised force”

2: the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated 2a) the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides 2b) the soul

Judging by the first definition we could say that “it is the Pneuma (the third Person of the triune God) that gives life; the flesh profits nothing.” This would make sense as Jesus speaks of eternal life throughout this chapter of St. John’s Gospel. The flesh will profit us nothing in eternal life, and that eternal life comes from Pneuma, or the assistance of the Holy Spirit as provided by God the Heavenly Father (Luke 11:13, 12:12). This assistance, of course was not yet realized, as mentioned in John 7:39: “But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” This promise would not become fulfilled until John 20:22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit." and ultimately during Pentecost (Acts 2:4) And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

As Jesus goes on to say in this verse: “The words that I speak to you are spirit (Pneuma), and they are life.” Here we see the realization of the second definition, the soul. It is as if the existence of the soul as one with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4, 2 Timothy 1:14) is the key to eternal life. The words of Jesus are Spirit and life, eternal life. This is perhaps best explained by the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2766 But Jesus does not give us a formula to repeat mechanically (referring to the Lord’s Prayer). (see note 14) As in every vocal prayer, it is through the Word of God that the Holy Spirit teaches the children of God to pray to their Father. Jesus not only gives us the words of our filial prayer; at the same time he gives us the Spirit by whom these words become in us "spirit and life." (see note 15) Even more, the proof and possibility of our filial prayer is that the Father "sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!'" (see note 16) Since our prayer sets forth our desires before God, it is again the Father, "he who searches the hearts of men," who "knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God." (see note 17) The prayer to Our Father is inserted into the mysterious mission of the Son and of the Spirit.
Note#14 Cf. Mt 6:7; 1 Kings 18:26-29
Note#15 Jn 6:63
Note#16 Gal 4:6
Note#17 Rom 8:27

None of these definitions indicate an allegorical, symbolic or figurative meaning for this entire chapter. If anything, verse 63 strengthens the argument of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist by showing us the reality of the soul living with the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ as a key to eternal life. The words of Jesus are Spirit and life.


#13

Since my heritage is mixed Catholic/Protestant (one man on our family tree became the first Archbishop pf Quebec while another was a Puritan leader in New England) I have always been distressed by the hostility that some Catholics feel toward Protestantism and vice versa. Over the years I have come to believe that our God is compassionate, just, merciful - and basically beyond the understanding we have in our finite minds. Consequently, I am slow to be dogmatic. So often I have found that Christians profess humility, peace and love while they are inclined toward arrogance, feelings of resentment, and even expressions of detestation. We see that here on CAF and among some Protestants as well.

Most Catholics and Protestants I know, including relatives, have 'gone beyond' those prejudices of the past 400+ years and want to live in the spirit of unity without organic union. Millions of Catholics love their faith - ditto for millions of Protestants. In Matt. 25 I think I read that when Christ comes he will not judge on the basis of doctrine or church membership but - when did we see ye hungry? etc. That, to me, is the main essence of Christianity. I know this is heresy among traditional Catholics, but millions of Catholics - I believe - feel similarly. Many have been turned off because they feel that the church has majored in minors.

#14

[quote="Roy5, post:13, topic:277913"]
Since my heritage is mixed Catholic/Protestant (one man on our family tree became the first Archbishop pf Quebec while another was a Puritan leader in New England) I have always been distressed by the hostility that some Catholics feel toward Protestantism and vice versa. Over the years I have come to believe that our God is compassionate, just, merciful - and basically beyond the understanding we have in our finite minds. Consequently, I am slow to be dogmatic. So often I have found that Christians profess humility, peace and love while they are inclined toward arrogance, feelings of resentment, and even expressions of detestation. We see that here on CAF and among some Protestants as well.

Most Catholics and Protestants I know, including relatives, have 'gone beyond' those prejudices of the past 400+ years and want to live in the spirit of unity without organic union. Millions of Catholics love their faith - ditto for millions of Protestants. In Matt. 25 I think I read that when Christ comes he will not judge on the basis of doctrine or church membership but - when did we see ye hungry? etc. That, to me, is the main essence of Christianity. I know this is heresy among traditional Catholics, but millions of Catholics - I believe - feel similarly. Many have been turned off because they feel that the church has majored in minors.

[/quote]

Roy, I apologize if the previous post seemed hostile, it was not meant that way at all. I am merely dispensing an analysis of one verse, with no judgement behind it. You mentioned this verse in your previous post, I wanted to offer my own analysis, as you yourself did. I love all people and pray for everyone's salvation and I leave that judgement to God alone. Please do not misunderstand my intentions, no hostility here.


#15

**I do not think that it has to do with ignorance (lack of knowledge, enlightenment or understanding) as much as selective reasoning/interpretation…

…a typical example is the Jehovah Witnesses… there is much that Catholics can emulate from them as far as devotional fellowship, organizational and individual discipline and commitment, and Bible study outreach (both in terms of affordability and accessibility)… yet with all of their efforts and their expert “reach out and touch” system, due to an inherited flaw, their theology is anti-Christ (they have chosen to emulate past heresies where Christ is relegated to a mere glorified go-fer/guy-Friday…); it is the most confusing “Christianity” in existence where the object of worship is dismissed as the worshiper seek to worship Yahweh God not as He has Revealed Himself but as the organization’s leaders have conceive it.

Sadly, our separated bretheren use a similar selective reasoning/interpretation to ignore those theological issues that are either too hard to adhere to or too Catholic to accept.

Maran atha!

Angel**


#16

***Welcome Home! :thumbsup:

Maran atha!

Angel***


#17

***…my understanding of Catholic theology is that public revelation ended with the death of the last of the original Apostles (12 + 1); but the Church maintains that there can be private revelation (if it exists within Biblical Truth).

Maran atha!

Angel***


#18

[quote="Roy5, post:8, topic:277913"]
Jesus spoke in figurative language regularly. He said he was a door, a gate, the Good Shepherd. He called us the Light of the World and the Salt of the Earth.

 Protestants I know believe in the real presence in the sense that Christ is always with us, as he promised. The idea that through a priestly prayer bread and wine miraculously become the flesh and blood of Christ can seem very pagan to them. It smacks of mystery religions and the belief in some ancient and even cannibalistic societies that by consuming the body and blood of a sacrificed victim a person can take on greater power etc himself. They may regard it as a remaining vestige of the primitive need for human sacrifice to mollify god/gods. They see influences from Mithraism and other cults that focused on blood sacrifice.

 Hesitate to say this, but it's important to know why Protestants generally look upon communion in other ways. They regard the words as symbolic. Some emphasize communion as a simple memorial. Others stress the 'family meal' aspect - that as fellow Christians we gather around the Lord's Table to break bread together and declare our fellowship one with another. Others focus on the way in which the sacrament/ordinance is an opportunity for repentance and rededication. Still others regard it as a reminder that the spirit of Christ is with us now and always. Etc. 

 Among many Protestants, there is a willingness to permit different individuals to view communion as they feel led. It can be a joyous celebration of Christ's presence and/or his/our victory over death. It can be a time for remorseful confession and absolution. Its meaning can vary with the state of mind and/or the need of the communicant. 

 The difference between much of Protestantism (generalizations are risky) and Catholicism is that mainline Protestantism in particular lays less emphasis upon strict adherence to doctrine. It permits individual freedom of interpretation. This has great appeal to many, while it also has led over the centuries to numerous splits and resultant sects.

[/quote]

***...interstingly enough, when we read the historical accounts we find that the early Church was seen/acused of being cannibals; celebrating the eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of Christ does tend to, in basic technicality, render us as cannibals... the fact that the Acts report the gathering of Christians and the breaking of the bread (more specifically St. Paul's admonition against those who partake of the bread (Body of Christ) and chalise (Blood of Christ) in an unworthy manner demonstrates that the Apostles and the early Church did not believe that they were celebrating a symbolic act nor that every member could determine for him/herself how to interprete Scriptures--specifically those dealing with the Sacred Eucharist (the Holy Mass).

Maran atha!

Angel***


#19

[quote="erikd, post:12, topic:277913"]
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.”

Verse 63 of the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel is often referred to by non-Catholics as the explanation for the entire sixth chapter to be understood as symbolic. But I ask you this: By saying that Jesus’ spirit gives us life, how does that negate the total real presence of Christ? Isn’t Christ the Lamb of God? Didn’t Christ equate the Body as food and the Body as a sacrifice in the same sentence? Was He not referring to the same real Body? This entire chapter says that Jesus emphasized time and time again that He meant what He said. Many did not believe, and Jesus re-emphasized the same point over and over again. Does the existence of the Spirit of Jesus negate the totality of the presence? Is it not much more plausible, when this verse is taken within the context of the entire chapter, to understand that Jesus tells us that we need spiritual wisdom and grace to understand His words? Keep in mind that the Greek manuscript changes the words in order to make an emphasis. In verses 23 – 53, “phago” which is a generic Greek word for eat or consume is said nine times. However, in verses 54 – 58, after the disbelief of the Jews, the Greek word used is “trogo” which literally means to “gnaw” or “chew.” Jesus is putting the emphasis on His words. Then, let us examine verse 63 and include the Greek language in order to search for the truth: “It is the Spirit (Pneuma) that gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit (Pneuma), and they are life.” Both references to “Spirit” come from the Greek word “Pneuma” which, according to Strong’s dictionary means:

1: “the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son
a: sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his personality and character (the Holy Spirit)
b: sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his work and power (the Spirit of Truth)
c: never referred to as a depersonalised force”

2: the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated 2a) the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides 2b) the soul

Judging by the first definition we could say that “it is the Pneuma (the third Person of the triune God) that gives life; the flesh profits nothing.” This would make sense as Jesus speaks of eternal life throughout this chapter of St. John’s Gospel. The flesh will profit us nothing in eternal life, and that eternal life comes from Pneuma, or the assistance of the Holy Spirit as provided by God the Heavenly Father (Luke 11:13, 12:12). This assistance, of course was not yet realized, as mentioned in John 7:39: “But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” This promise would not become fulfilled until John 20:22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit." and ultimately during Pentecost (Acts 2:4) And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

As Jesus goes on to say in this verse: “The words that I speak to you are spirit (Pneuma), and they are life.” Here we see the realization of the second definition, the soul. It is as if the existence of the soul as one with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4, 2 Timothy 1:14) is the key to eternal life. The words of Jesus are Spirit and life, eternal life. This is perhaps best explained by the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2766 But Jesus does not give us a formula to repeat mechanically (referring to the Lord’s Prayer). (see note 14) As in every vocal prayer, it is through the Word of God that the Holy Spirit teaches the children of God to pray to their Father. Jesus not only gives us the words of our filial prayer; at the same time he gives us the Spirit by whom these words become in us "spirit and life." (see note 15) Even more, the proof and possibility of our filial prayer is that the Father "sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!'" (see note 16) Since our prayer sets forth our desires before God, it is again the Father, "he who searches the hearts of men," who "knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God." (see note 17) The prayer to Our Father is inserted into the mysterious mission of the Son and of the Spirit.
Note#14 Cf. Mt 6:7; 1 Kings 18:26-29
Note#15 Jn 6:63
Note#16 Gal 4:6
Note#17 Rom 8:27

None of these definitions indicate an allegorical, symbolic or figurative meaning for this entire chapter. If anything, verse 63 strengthens the argument of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist by showing us the reality of the soul living with the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ as a key to eternal life. The words of Jesus are Spirit and life.

[/quote]

***Exellent post, Erickd! :clapping::clapping::clapping:

Maran atha!

Angel***


#20

***…everyone is entitled to his/her opinion… the problem I find with your premise is that you suggest that there exists only a superficial difference in doctrine… that we, as Christians, can loath one another while respecting the “right” of all who believe differently.

This is further problematic since doctrine is defined by personal interpretation which in turn is defined by personal ideology/prejudice… this derailment began to take place almost as soon as the Church began to develop–Scriptures speak against those who stray from the Truth embracing and teaching error along the way; St. Paul emphasized that even if angels themselves taught a different Gospel Christians must not accept it. Jesus Christ Himself warned that not all who claim to serve Him will be Saved!

Christ did not insist on symbolic unity of the Body!

Maran atha!

Angel***


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.