Protestant exclusion from RC communion

You still have many misconseptions about the Catholic Church. Also currently there are many things you do follow the church on such as holding the view of the trinity, virgin birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, repentance of sin, and amending your lives. These are all very Catholic and in line with Catholic Teaching. However, if you claim to have invincible ignorance you find yourself in the same position as the pharisees. Where Jesus says " but since you say, We see, your sin remains."

 

You are just wrong. You've took 1 Corinthians 5 out of its context entirely!!!!

Christ is our passover, and the feast is communion but the context is immorality and not perverting the church body. So it (the church) can come to Christ purely. The point is immorality and not corrupting its members and purging itself of immoral members. The feast is mentioned because that is how we come to Jesus Christ. Jesus is referrenced as the passover lamb because the Jew ate the passover lamb and Christians eat the body of Christ in the communion. but the main point isn't about communion. Its about immorality.

 

I have no misconceptions about the sacramental soteriology of the Catholic Church and that is the essence of Roman salvation and ecclesiology.

Frankly, this is such an arrogant statement as it presumes that the Old Testament Scriptures were the product of Romanism as the Trinity was revealed in the Old Testament (Gen. 1:1, 26; Isa. 48; etc.) before it was revealed in the New Testament and as salvation is revealed in the Old Testament before it was revealed in the New Testament (Gen. 3:15; Isa. 53; Acts 10:43; heb. 4:2; Acts 26:22-23;etc.) and this is in full consideration of the more arrogant and historical unprovable presumption that the New Testament was provided by the RCC.

 

The difference between my assertions and your denial is the difference between providing sustantive evidence and simple unsubstantiated denials.

It is simple to assert a denial but it is quite another thing to provide contextual evidence to prove the contextual evidence I presented and based my assertions upon is wrong.

That admission drives a stake in your denials. By that admission you cannot possibly deny that 1 Cor. 5:6-8 refers to the preparation and observance of the Lord's Supper in direct connection with the KNOWN state of the membership and what is necessary to CORRECT the KNOWN state in order to properly observe the Lord's Supper.

 

By certian things you've said I can tell you don't nor do you have a proper understanding of Scriptures.

You just made my point.

 

I don't know how to make this clear to you. The purpose of 1 Corinthians 5 is about morality in the church its a side note that he uses coming to communion as a motivator. The leaven and the lump aren't comparisons to the eucharist but to the people. The only references to the Eucharist is 1) Jesus as passover lamb and 2) feastival. Period. You try to compare the eucharist to the yeast and the bread when Paul is clearly speaking about the behaviors and attitudes of the people at church. So You are wrong in that you make the comparison of the eucharist in 1 Cor 5 to the yeast and the lump of bread which is directed to the people themselves and their attitudes and behaviors. It is not talking about communion being used in this passage to symbolize unity. Nonsense!!!!!

 

I could make the same charge about you and I do. However, we were not talking about "a proper understanding of the scriptures" but a proper understanding of sacramental salvation by Rome and I perfectly understand her concept.

How so? If I had answered that I learned these things from studying the Scripture alone and not from Rome as you charge, you would have simply claimed that Roman Catholics both wrote and canonized the New Testament and then revealed the these truths in their councils. Therefore, I diverted that argument by simply pointing out those same truths preceded the New Testament but were already revealed in the Old Testament Scriptures under ISRAEL that denying any claim of Rome to have invented or revealed these teachings when they had already been revealed in Scriptures.

 

You have showed by your comment that 1) you don't understand what was being said by the Catholic Church in regards to invincible ignorance and two missapplied it to scripture.

 

I do not deny that the Supper is a secondary factor in dealing with the sinful member in the church at Corinth. I do not deny that its inclusion is a "motivator" for dealing with that member. I admit all of that freely. However, our argument is precisely why and how it is brought into this discussion as a "motivator."

Here is the crux of our disagreement. The church at Corinth is METAPHORICALLY called "the body of Christ" (1 Cor. 12:27). They are not the LITERAL physical flesh and blood body of Christ and "members in particular" of that kind of body but they are REPRESENTATIVE of the literal physical flesh and blood body of Christ as they serve and minister at Corinth just as Jesus served and ministered in his own physical body while on earth in the locality he was found.

It is in this capacity as the REPRESENTATIVE body of Christ at Corinth their corporate and individual HOLINESS affect the proper observance of the Lord's Supper. The "one bread" represents BOTH the church body and the literal body of Jesus Christ and the "members in particular" represent the holiness of that body by their individual lives.

Paul's argument is that the KNOWN unholiness of individual members of that representative body determines the worthiness of the church body as a whole to observe the Supper as "ye ARE unleavened" - meaning "ye REPRESENT unleavened" bread as used in the supper. They are unfit to observe the "unleavened bread" in the "feast" as long as KNOWN sin exists in the membership as a LEAVENED body cannot properly observe eating "UNLEAVENED" bread.

No, I do not! The yeast is comparable only to the KNOWN sin and sinfulness existing in the metaphorical body of Christ at Corinth. The bread as a symbol of both Christ and His church is to be "unleavened" so that the public state of the representative body partaking of the bread matches the symoblism of "unleavened" condition - meaning ALL KNOWN SIN is removed, purged from the body of Christ at Corinth either by confession and/or church discipline.

 

This is real interesting! So, you are asserting that "The Biblicist" does not sufficiently understands the basics of the doctrine of sacramental salvation taught by Rome? Is that what you are saying? I don't understand sacramental salvation sufficiently to deny it and therefore my denial has nothing to do with what Rome actually teaches about salvation? Is that it?

 

First of all by using the term "sacramental salvation" it is clear you don't understand how Catholic's view Salvation. Its your own moniker and its misapplied. So yes I am saying you don't understand Salvation as a Catholic Understands it. You have this issue you keep applying your misinformed views at the Catholic Church.

If it were a matter of just not agreeing that Justification is not just imputed but infused then I would say you misunderstand scripture. But then you say nonsense like sacramental salvation.

 

In other words, if I do not conform my language to Roman terminology it is proof that I do not understand Roman terminology.

Hence, if I choose to use Biblical terminology as "another gospel" for what I perceive Rome to teach then I cannot possibly understand what Rome teaches because if I did, I would never apply that kind of Biblical termonology to it? Is that it?

Hence, if I choose "sacramental salvation" which is admittedly my own evaluative language for what I perceive "sacraments" to really be then I cannot possibly understand what a "sacrament" really is in Romes estimation? Is that it?

Come on! You know I fully understand the sacramental concepts of Rome and I have been repudiating it and you have been responding in DEFENSE of the sacramental concept rather than in defending its definition.

However, I can see how this exalts you over others and makes you feel superior to those who oppose you so that you can simply have pity upon them and feel they need you to shepherd them into proper understanding and eventual proselyte them into the fold.

 

If you want to conform your language to Roman terminology then speak latin!

However, your language reveals what you believe. And your misuse of the word Sacrament is your misguided way of way works salvation. Which Catholics believe. Sacraments are no more a work than is prayer or reading scripture. Again its participation in the divine life. Its living the christian life. So clearly it has nothing to do with terms but your misunderstanding of what is believed and how the actual term apply. English is sufficient and it sufficiently show your lack of understanding what the Catholic Church is speaking about.

If you want to use Biblical terminology then speak Greek! What you are doing is apply words not using their actual definition but redefine words to have them mean what you want. You are no more using Biblical terminology than I do. You think by couching a phrase with KJ english its biblical. Thats just nonsense.

What you are really saying is Hense I can make anything mean what I want it to mean no matter what. You still don't know what a sacrament is.

Nope you don't. In fact you participate in sacramental concepts everyday and are not even aware of it!!!! Do you pray? Do you meditate on scripture? Do you get on your knees? Do you believe in the incarnation principle? So obvioiusly you have no understanding of Sacraments.

Now that is your game as many can attest. You are the one who hurls accusations. I attempt to debate but you hurl insults and accusations. It makes you feel superior when humility would suit you better. I've never called bapstist a demonic doctrine of faith. No have I demeaned you as you have me. So it is clear this is your game. Not mine.

 

I took Latin. So no one can really understand sacramentalism unless they can speak and understand Latin? hmmmm!

In other words if I say that a sacrament is by Roman Catholic understanding to be a means of grace whereby the grace of justification and regeneration are conferred in baptism and which graces are maintained through what Rome calls the Eucharist, (the two primary sacraments for the common lay person) these being my own chosen words, then I do not properly understand what Rome views and defines to be the essence of a sacrament? Is that it? If I don't quote from the CCC or from some other source approved by Rome precisely what is stated then I don't understand what is stated. Is that it?

I wasn't attempting to state what Catholics believe but what I believe they are in light of the Scriptures. However, since I gave my own belief and expression that condemns the Roman perception of their own beliefs then I cannot possibly understand what I am condemning or what they believe. Is that it?

So because I did not make the practical application of a sacrament to the daily life of a Catholic then I cannot possibly understand the mechanics of baptism or the Lord's Supper as a sacramental act? Is that it?

I do have five years of classroom Greek under recognized qualified Greek instructors. So I can't understand the New Testament unless I understand Greek and speak Greek? Is that it?

No, what you really mean to say, is that I am not defining words appropriately according to Mother Romes approved definition and unless I do, I cannot possibly understand the Scriptures or any scriptural doctrines.

Of course I don't! I never will as long as I disagree with Romes definition, no matter if I quote it right out of the CCC or some other approved Catholic definitive resource but condemn it as unbiblical.

Are you not forgetting one little detail? You mean "as defined by Rome" not necessarily as defined by Scriptures.

For example, if we are talking about "according to Romes definition" do I receive regeneration in prayer as in baptism? Do I receive the life of Christ in meditation of the scriptures as in the Eucharist? Whooops "Houston we have a problem"???

No, you will never acknowledge I understand "sacramental salvation" as long as I disagree with it and define it for what it is "another gospel."

 

Let's put things into perspective.
You were born only a few year after Vatican II came into existence.
I was born again just a couple years after that.
I had already lived a much longer life than you. My experience with the Catholic church was one that you had never had. I still have much of the mass memorized in Latin. With Vatican II, those things changed. Even a new Catechism was put into place.
Though you were born in California you were raised in Africa. Things are done differently there. Even the RCC, if you had the chance to observe it, practices its faith differently there. Remember I am a missionary and I have traveled extensively.

You only learned of the RCC recently, after many changes were made.
I was catechized long before you were ever born. And it was properly.
Missing mass on a Sunday was a mortal sin. It was taught as a mortal sin. You can't deny that, because you weren't there, and did not live in that generation or even under that catechism. It didn't take all that much to commit a mortal sin. We used to discuss that a lot.

You can't judge what you don't know. I did fear purgatory as a child. I also feared hell. Those fears were real. I knew what purgatory was. What you don't understand is its theological implications today according to the Word of God. When I present those then you act as if I don't know what purgatory is. Purgatory denies the sufficiency of the blood of Christ. Purgatory suggests that Christ didn't have to die at all for our sins. It is a denial of the gospel. Now tell me that I don't understand what purgatory is, because I came to those conclusions after I was saved. I came to those conclusions because I know and understand what the Bible teaches.

I will say again, the RCC is a religion of fear, and this time I will add: it is a religion of ignorance. In spite of the catechism the priests keep the people in ignorance of the real truth of the Word of God.

 

No response to this post and so I repost it with expectation of some substantial contextual evidence that I have misinterpreted this passage?!?

 

the Christian should be reading His bible, attending church, witnessing to others , its just we still have the sin principle in us that desires to keep us away from doing what the Spirit desires us to do!

To us, those disciplines allow us to grow in the Lord, but they MERELY connect us to Him, as its still Him empowering us, speaking to us in the bible etc...

RCC has sacraments has having grace in and by themselnes, none of us seeing bible/prayer/fellowship as grace in themselves!

point is i can freely stop reading bible/going to church/stop witnessing...

STILL JUST as justified and saved as if i kept doing them, just that I have stunted my growth, and the Lord will chaistisment me to get me "back on track!"

NO rcc can freely stop the sacraments though, for if stopped, they cut off their salvation, as the merits of the Cross will get undone by the RCC stopping to respond to the Grace of the sacraments!

 

This is an admission that you never and don't understand the Catholic faith. A personal relationship with Jesus Christ was never taught in the RCC, not in my generation. In all my years there, I had never heard of such a thing. I was an altar boy, a lector, and for a couple of years I went every day to Mass, so don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about.

I resent false accusations and ignorant assumptions. You show your ignorance in the statements you make. Look it up in your catechism. A person is born again when they are baptized. I was baptized in the RCC as an infant, and according to their definition, born again at that time. You are trying to force your Protestant teaching into the RCC framework. It is you that doesn't understand. Again the RCC has also changed, is changed, and adapts to whatever society it needs to accommodates itself to. I know one third world nation where Catholics offer chickens as a sacrifice to Mary once a year at a special festival devoted to her. But that would be against the law here, and supposedly against your faith. But it is practiced in other nations. Mexdeaf, another poster, also testified to the same kind of practices.

And what happens when you don't understand the RCC yourself?
That you have made evident. It goes through changes. You don't understand that.

 

Like I said you weren't properly catachized. And I was just in a parish class going over developing our personal relationship with Jesus Christ through Our Prayer Life. So I do indeed know what I'm talking about. Being an alter server, or a lector is no indicator of faith. It only shows you can follow instructions. So you don't know what you are talking about.

First of all I used born again in a protestant fashion not catholic to get across to the reader a better understanding of what I was talking about. Certainly you're born again (from above) at baptism. But thats not what baptist think when they are "born again" they are talking about what Catholics would call being truelly converted to Jesus Christ. Or having a singular conversion experience. But since most here are baptist I spoke in the manner of baptist to get across a point. As far as Catholics offering chickens to sacrifice to Mary they are heretics. Catholics don't make sacrifices to Mary.

I do and I've read the catachism as well as the Vatican II Documents, as well as the Trent Documents. Don't confuse your version of Catholicism and real Catholicism. You make the same mistake as many others. Let me give you an example.

So it seems you were never properly educated in the Catholic faith.

 

Yes we do to and that is how we view the Sacraments.

So you are saying you don't believe grace is given you when you pray or read the scriptures? What a shame!

And if you do will you grow in your faith? Live a sanctified life and remain in Jesus or give in to temptation?

But there is no real requirement that you do get back on track in your belief system is there?

It follows the same logic as if you stoped reading scripture and praying if you cut yourself off from the vine what happens? You whither as a christian. You are more subject to temptation and may get to the point of wanting to apostate.