Thoughts on Church Unity

[Helen]

Please, do tell me ByGrace! Am I not allowed to profess my beliefs on this website if they conform to Catholic beliefs? Are we only to profess our "Protestant" beliefs?

Good grief, don't get you knickers in a twist!! I only asked a simple question.
As I read you posts on here you do not come across as just posting something.
But like BOL you come across strongly posting for Catholic beliefs, yet saying you aren't one. I just wondered.
With him I totally understand it, he is Catholic. I was just curious, because for someone who said they were not Catholic why you make it 'a cause'.
Why on earth most of you posts are so aggressive I have no idea.
Neither do I now care to know anymore.

So...Don't worry...forget it....sorry I even bothered to ask you.

 

[amadeus]

If I can only profess my Protestant beliefs without being questioned that means I can profess whatever I want because as a Protestant you can believe, preach, teach, practice and profess whatever you want. You can be pro-abortion or anti-abortion and be a Protestant. You can be pro-gay marriage or anti gay marriage and be a Protestant. You can believe the Eucharist is His body/blood or not believe it and be a Protestant, baptism saves or it doesn't save, there is a hell there isn't a hell, faith alone or not faith alone etc. etc blah blah blah....your still a Protestant

Do you hold to any Catholic beliefs?

Curious Mary

Probably dear sister, every person here who believes in God at all holds some beliefs which agree with Catholic beliefs. The doctrine of the Trinity is prime example. Yes, there are some, such as myself, who do not embrace it, but many do. Unfortunately, when we follow Jesus too closely, we are likely to find ourselves with many opposed to us for what we hold to be truth. I wish that my own beliefs had always coincided precised with those of Jesus. I believe that I am on the approach but sometime my steps do falter...

Jesus was very willing to stand alone among men rather than compromise.

"From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?" John 6:66-67

In spite of any lack understanding Peter still made it clear where he stood:

"Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God." John 6:68-69

Even so must we be although no other man stands with us. I do not agree with all that you believe, but I admit that I could be wrong in some of my beliefs. I have been in the past, more than once, and God corrected me. More correction may yet be necessary for me and for you and for others here. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

 

[Marymog]

Good grief, don't get you knickers in a twist!! I only asked a simple question.
As I read you posts on here you do not come across as just posting something.
But like BOL you come across strongly posting for Catholic beliefs, yet saying you aren't one. I just wondered.
With him I totally understand it, he is Catholic. I was just curious, because for someone who said they were not Catholic why you make it 'a cause'.
Why on earth most of you posts are so aggressive I have no idea.
Neither do I now care to know anymore.
So...Don't worry...forget it....sorry I even bothered to ask you.

Hi ByGrace,

You asked a question with a cute little emoji attached but you really didn't want me to answer. Did you?

You probably just wanted to question me (with a little sarcasim thrown in) and move on? Did I stump you with my response?

Knickers in a twist? No knickers in a twist here. I believe I answered your question. Didn't I?

What in my post was aggressive?

I referred you to a previous post....not aggressive.

I asked you two legitimate questions based on YOUR statement...not aggressive.

I then pointed out how as a Protestant you can believe whatever you want.....not aggressive

I then asked you another question....not aggressive. I really want to know if you have any common beliefs with Catholics.

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

Probably dear sister, every person here who believes in God at all holds some beliefs which agree with Catholic beliefs. The doctrine of the Trinity is prime example. Yes, there are some, such as myself, who do not embrace it, but many do. Unfortunately, when we follow Jesus too closely, we are likely to find ourselves with many opposed to us for what we hold to be truth. I wish that my own beliefs had always coincided precised with those of Jesus. I believe that I am on the approach but sometime my steps do falter...

Jesus was very willing to stand alone among men rather than compromise.

"From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?" John 6:66-67

In spite of any lack understanding Peter still made it clear where he stood:

"Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God." John 6:68-69

Even so must we be although no other man stands with us. I do not agree with all that you believe, but I admit that I could be wrong in some of my beliefs. I have been in the past, more than once, and God corrected me. More correction may yet be necessary for me and for you and for others here. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

The section of the book of John that you reference has nothing to do with Jesus standing alone. There were SOME of his disciples that questioned Him about EATING his body and DRINKING His blood. They couldn't fathom doing that...it was a hard saying....so they questioned him and walked away. It wasn't about Jesus standing alone. It was about SOME men not accepting or believeing what He said and walking away from Him.

Respectfullly, Mary

 

[amadeus]

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

The section of the book of John that you reference has nothing to do with Jesus standing alone. There were SOME of his disciples that questioned Him about EATING his body and DRINKING His blood. They couldn't fathom doing that...it was a hard saying....so they questioned him and walked away. It wasn't about Jesus standing alone. It was about SOME men not accepting or believeing what He said and walking away from Him.

Respectfullly, Mary

Well we will continue to disagree at this time on some things, but if we both believe in God and work as we are able to let Him move us closer to Him, probably we will meet together with Him at some point.

 

[aspen]

Both the Catholic Church and the reformers who left that church erred in their part. It has always been people who erred. The correct answers only come from God. He really is willing to share them with anyone who is really interested. You won't accept them from Martin Luther or me or the Baptists of the Calvinist and that is OK.

The answer is love God and Neighbor.

The problem comes in when we are never satisfied with what the church provides (which is doctrine - and a history of our responses to God).......the fact is, the church is our family, and doctrine is a family album - filled with our ideas and experiences with God. People who mistake the album for magic formulas for congering God or even God himself, are caught up in superstition and idolatry. Humans love to 'cover their bases' with God, so they can check it off their list - these people often over-identify with their religion 'I was born a Catholic', and believe disagreement with the doctrines of their church are attacks on them personally. When some are attacked they start new churches believing they can do it the 'right way' or 'chasing the rainbow' believing they can recreate the early church.

Churches are not meant to be perfect, or never evolving, or cornerstones on Jesus - as if Jesus was a fan of your church doctrine. We are called to unite regardless of differences.

 

[amadeus]

The answer is love God and Neighbor.

The problem comes in when we are never satisfied with what the church provides (which is doctrine - and a history of our responses to God).......the fact is, the church is our family, and doctrine is a family album - filled with our ideas and experiences with God. People who mistake the album for magic formulas for congering God or even God himself, are caught up in superstition and idolatry. Humans love to 'cover their bases' with God, so they can check it off their list - these people often over-identify with their religion 'I was born a Catholic', and believe disagreement with the doctrines of their church are attacks on them personally. When some are attacked they start new churches believing they can do it the 'right way' or 'chasing the rainbow' believing they can recreate the early church.

Churches are not meant to be perfect, or never evolving, or cornerstones on Jesus - as if Jesus was a fan of your church doctrine. We are called to unite regardless of differences.

Even if we are right in the point we are trying to make with another person on a forum, we are wrong if the spirit with which we approach him is other than the Holy Spirit bringing the point in the Love of God as clearly described in I Corinthians chapter 13.

 

[bbyrd009]

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

The section of the book of John that you reference has nothing to do with Jesus standing alone. There were SOME of his disciples that questioned Him about EATING his body and DRINKING His blood. They couldn't fathom doing that...it was a hard saying....so they questioned him and walked away. It wasn't about Jesus standing alone. It was about SOME men not accepting or believeing what He said and walking away from Him.

Respectfullly, Mary

a dichotomy is introduced there, as obviously no one was being offered Jesus' literal body or blood, and so who is getting offended, iow? How are they getting offended? Etc

 

[Marymog]

a dichotomy is introduced there, as obviously no one was being offered Jesus' literal body or blood, and so who is getting offended, iow? How are they getting offended? Etc

Hi bbyrd,

The people you refer to as 'no one' were the Jews and they thought Jesus was offering them his flesh. Maybe you don't think that 2,000 years later, but they thought it at the time.

The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

You asked me How are they getting offended? You should learn about the Jewish religion; then you would understand. Jesus made it clear he thought they were offended. Apparently it isn't clear to you.

Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?

Glad I could help...Love, Mary

 

[bbyrd009]

they thought Jesus was offering them his flesh. Maybe you don't think that 2,000 years later, but they thought it at the time.

A Guy is holding out bread, and someone is getting offended by some words, essentially. No flesh was in evidence, no blood being spewed or drunk, etc. They could only be offended by misunderstanding, iow, not by going even on the evidence of what was then seen, iow, but by the unseen.

So reflect upon this "what they thought at the time" if you will

 

[Marymog]

A Guy is holding out bread, and someone is getting offended by some words, essentially. No flesh was in evidence, no blood being spewed or drunk, etc. They could only be offended by misunderstanding, iow, not by going even on the evidence of what was then seen, iow, but by the unseen. So reflect upon this "what they thought at the time" if you will

My dear, dear bbyrd,

In John 6, which is commonly referred to as the Bread of Life discourse, Jesus (nor any "Guy") wasn't holding out bread. He was referring to Himself.

Read it again. Reflect upon John 6 after you read it with that fact in mind....If you will?

Glad to be of service....Mary

 

[bbyrd009]

My dear, dear bbyrd,

In John 6, which is commonly referred to as the Bread of Life discourse, Jesus (nor any "Guy") wasn't holding out bread. He was referring to Himself.

Read it again. Reflect upon John 6 after you read it with that fact in mind....If you will?

Glad to be of service....Mary

ah, my bad, you were talking about the occasion in which Christ was speaking to those who were not given to know. I was referring to the other one, but in either case note that no Body was literally presented

 

[Marymog]

ah, my bad, you were talking about the occasion in which Christ was speaking to those who were not given to know. I was referring to the other one, but in either case note that no Body was literally presented

Dear bbyrd,

The Jews said to Jesus that their fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”

Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

They said to Jesus, "..give us this bread always.”

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

The Jews then grumbled about Jesus because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.”

Jesus then went on to say to the Jews that we must eat Him and drink His blood.

In The Last Supper discourse (of which you thought we were talking about) Jesus was ALSO literally present AND "literally PRESENTED" bread and wine saying...This is my body, this is my blood.

So, once again, you are wrong. Jesus was literally present in BOTH situations when he said these things about himself!

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify and magnify scripture.

Love, Mary

 

[bbyrd009]

Jesus was literally present in BOTH situations

yes, but He only actually offered the bread in one of them right, that being to those who were given to know--even though they pretty obviously also misunderstood. The others got only the speech, no bread was offered, but neither were any body parts hacked off and offered either. So why the offense? Misunderstanding

So, once again, you are wrong...Thank you for the opportunity to clarify and magnify scripture.

ha, priceless

 

[Marymog]

yes, but He only actually offered the bread in one of them right, that being to those who were given to know--even though they pretty obviously also misunderstood. The others got only the speech, no bread was offered, but neither were any body parts hacked off and offered either. So why the offense? Misunderstanding

ha, priceless

Hi bbyrd,

You are generally right. He offered the physical bread at the last supper to his 12 Apostles who were present. They then understood what Jesus meant earlier in the Bread of Life discourse.

I say you are "generally right" because I wonder if you remember what was one of the first things Jesus did AFTER He rose from the dead? He offered......drum roll please..... physical bread in Luke 24:30-31 also: When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him....

They recognized Him at the breaking of the bread. Fascinating!! Do you recognize Him at the breaking of the bread bbyrd?

However, don't forget that just BEFORE to the Bread of Life discourse he fed the 5,000 with....drum roll please......"bread".

Jesus THEN had his Bread of Life discourse and LATER....drumroll please....Jesus showed the 12 Apostles at the last supper HOW they can eat His body and drink His blood via bread and wine.

AFTER His crucifixion Jesus opened the eyes of the two travelers by offering them....drum roll please.... bread and then.....drum roll please.....Christians began the DAILY practice of breaking bread (Acts 2:46) which was probably ALSO in fulfillment of the prayer Jesus taught them.......Give us this day our DAILY BREAD.

So for 2,000 years Christians have been practicing what Jesus taught; eating daily his body and drinking His blood via bread and wine. Well, at least the Catholic Church does it daily....not all churches do.

Do you have daily bread bbyrd?

Love, Mary

 

[bbyrd009]

Jesus showed the 12 Apostles at the last supper HOW they can eat His body and drink His blood via bread and wine.

seems to me that Christ was instituting a ritual there, to be done "as oft as ye gather," iow 3 times a year, that has nothing to do with the real thing--actually eating and drinking Christ, which is a spiritual choice we make, to do or not to do--but regardless no bites of the arm were taken, no blood was drank, even then. So the offense is dichotomous, out of place, does not fit with the facts in a sense at least.

 

[bbyrd009]

Acts 2:46

can be about the communion ritual if you want it to be, i guess. I just read "they ate communal meals" there, "sharing their food with gladness," etc. Where's the wine, then? :)

 

[bbyrd009]

Do you have daily bread bbyrd?

daily bread is the real thing imo, not doing the holiday--"as oft as ye gather"--ritual every day. That to me would be like saying "i am taking daily communion with the understanding that i am missing the point."

 

[Marymog]

seems to me that Christ was instituting a ritual there, to be done "as oft as ye gather," iow 3 times a year, that has nothing to do with the real thing--actually eating and drinking Christ, which is a spiritual choice we make, to do or not to do--but regardless no bites of the arm were taken, no blood was drank, even then. So the offense is dichotomous, out of place, does not fit with the facts in a sense at least.

My dear, dear and confused bbyrd,

Three times a year?......Nope, wrong once again. Read Acts 2:46 which is compliance with what Jesus said in Matthew 6:11....Drum roll please....DAILY.

A Choice? .......Wrong once again...it is not a choice we make. Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you' further saying, Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. FURTHER SAYING, Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

How many times does he have to say it for you to believe???????

I never said, Scripture never said and Jesus never said "bites of the arm" or "blood was drank". That is what YOU are adding to scripture.

Glad I can help clarify....Mary

 

[bbyrd009]

Read Acts 2:46 which is compliance with what Jesus said in Matthew 6:11....Drum roll please....DAILY.

yes, because both are talking about the literal food that we eat to burn calories, and not communion, done by believers "as oft as they gather," 3 times a year at festivals. But i don't think even most Prot churches follow that either, at least not strictly? dunno