John Wycliffe the Brave...

[bbbbbbb]

Tell me, if it was not the actual flesh and blood of Christ then how do you explain the many Eucharistic miracles that have happened over the centuries?

I am not familiar with the particulars of the Eucharistic miracles to which you refer. If you would kindly provide information I would be happy to examine the information and hopefully provide an explanation. As it is, I cannot explain something of which I have no knowledge.

I do have knowledge, however, concerning what happened on the several occasions that I did attend Catholic masses. Both Mr. Polo and I are in agreement that the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ were not physically present but that the "accidents" i.e. the bread and wine were there. Thus, it is impossible to invite a non-Catholic to mass to view the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, at least with the slightest degree of certainty that a miracle might take place.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Miracles like Lanciano notwithstanding, of course.

Lanciano?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Hmm...





Perhaps not as accurate as you might think.

Please correct any inadequacies. Any citations from the Catechism would be appreciated.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Please correct any inadequacies. Any citations from the Catechism would be appreciated.

You're talking about physical changes. The Eucharist is a metaphysical change (in normal cases).

 

[bbbbbbb]

Lutherans do.

Some Lutherans do, but not all. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which is the largest of the Lutheran denominations, does not practice closed communion.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Some Lutherans do, but not all. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which is the largest of the Lutheran denominations, does not practice closed communion.

Correct.

 

[PaladinValer]

Closed communion where "closed" and "open" are often ambiguous terms.

My parish doesn't allow non-Christians to receive and only allows those who have been Baptized Trinitarianly in 1) theology and 2) formula to receive.

Others say only those who acknowledge the spiritual and physical Presence in addition to the above. Even still others make it more limited.

Closed is a vague term.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You're talking about physical changes. The Eucharist is a metaphysical change (in normal cases).

I understand the concept of a metaphysical change and cannot deny that such a change may occur because there is no means of objectively determining whether or not such a change does happen.

As it was initially addressed by Mr. Polo, the invitation was to come to the Catholic Church to see the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Without any further explanation one could take the invitation at face value and come away disappointed.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Closed communion where "closed" and "open" are often ambiguous terms.

My parish doesn't allow non-Christians to receive and only allows those who have been Baptized Trinitarianly in 1) theology and 2) formula to receive.

Others say only those who acknowledge the spiritual and physical Presence in addition to the above. Even still others make it more limited.

Closed is a vague term.

I agree. I view it as a spectrum with one end providing communion to anyone who happens to be present and the other end limiting communion to those who are members of a particular denomination and/or who share the particular theology. The Catholic Church excludes all but Catholics from communion, although there is a certain vagueness toward the Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Orthodox, members of the Polish National Catholic Church, and some other select groups are allowed to receive communion in Catholic churches. As for the face value thing, part of the invitation is to learn the theology behind it. Just showing up and going through the motions of a worship service is not really fully experiencing it. One should understand what is going on (the symbolism, etc) in the service to fully experience. That includes understanding at least the basics of the theology behind the service.

 

[MrPolo]

Lanciano?

Yes, see red highlights in this thread. See post #22 for a response to a challenge that the Miracle at Lanciano was faked.

 

[boswd]

Perhaps, but Evangelicals and Protestants in general do not forbid participation in the Eucharist to only those who hold their particular theology concerning it nor do they limit salvation only to members of their denomination.

That's not an accurate statement, the LCMS is a closed communion as well as the WELS and some Baptist Church's are for member's only.

The RCC is open to the OO, The EO and the Polish National Catholics and under certain circumstances even some Protestant's,

and as far as limiting salvation to only members of their denominations you know just as well as I do that is just jibberish for the Pope Bonifice's Unum Sanctum and you know as well as I do the Catholic Church does not think Protestant's can't be saved etc.

When you start stating nonsense like that you lose all credibility.
and OH please spare us the nonsense of posting Unum Sanctum.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Orthodox, members of the Polish National Catholic Church, and some other select groups are allowed to receive communion in Catholic churches. As for the face value thing, part of the invitation is to learn the theology behind it. Just showing up and going through the motions of a worship service is not really fully experiencing it. One should understand what is going on (the symbolism, etc) in the service to fully experience. That includes understanding at least the basics of the theology behind the service.

Thank you for the clarification. That still excludes a very large segment of Christendom, if, as the Catholic Church teaches, every person who has had a trinitarian baptism is a Christian. I agree that one's appreciation is firmly related to one's understanding and can agree that the symbolism of the bread and wine is paramount to understanding the mass. However, even with that understanding one is perplexed to see the body and blood of Jesus Christ, except as symbolically portrayed in the bread and win.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes, see red highlights in this thread. See post #22 for a response to a challenge that the Miracle at Lanciano was faked.

Thanks for the link. I find it curious that this miracle was also cited along with the Shroud of Turin as having been scientifically shown to be human blood. Walter McCrone, founder of the renowned McCrone Research Institute, which is the premier American research institute for forensic analysis, personally analyzed the Shroud of Turin and concluded that the "blood" was actually red oxide paint.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That's not an accurate statement, the LCMS is a closed communion as well as the WELS and some Baptist Church's are for member's only.

The RCC is open to the OO, The EO and the Polish National Catholics and under certain circumstances even some Protestant's,

and as far as limiting salvation to only members of their denominations you know just as well as I do that is just jibberish for the Pope Bonifice's Unum Sanctum and you know as well as I do the Catholic Church does not think Protestant's can't be saved etc.

When you start stating nonsense like that you lose all credibility.
and OH please spare us the nonsense of posting Unum Sanctum.

I was unaware that you ever ascribed any credibility to myself. If so, then it was obviously misplaced.

You cite a minority of Protestant churches that limit communion to those sharing their theological understanding. The fact is that the vast majority of Protestant denominations do not practice closed communion. The reality is that far less than 1% of communicants a Roman Catholic masses are non-Catholics.

There is a stark difference between admitting that someone can be saved (if they become members of the Catholic Church) versus that someone is saved. To my knowledge the only people whom the Catholic Church recognizes as being saved are disembodied (deceased, if you will) saints. All of these individuals were members of the Catholic Church. The "hope" of salvation is extended like a carrot on a stick to members of the Catholic Church as well as to non-members, but there is absolutely no assurance than any will, or are, saved.

 

[lionroar0]

I was unaware that you ever ascribed any credibility to myself. If so, then it was obviously misplaced.

You cite a minority of Protestant churches that limit communion to those sharing their theological understanding. The fact is that the vast majority of Protestant denominations do not practice closed communion. The reality is that far less than 1% of communicants a Roman Catholic masses are non-Catholics.

There is a stark difference between admitting that someone can be saved (if they become members of the Catholic Church) versus that someone is saved. To my knowledge the only people whom the Catholic Church recognizes as being saved are disembodied (deceased, if you will) saints. All of these individuals were members of the Catholic Church. The "hope" of salvation is extended like a carrot on a stick to members of the Catholic Church as well as to non-members, but there is absolutely no assurance than any will, or are, saved.

The salvation of a person does not lie whether they are a member of the Catholic Church or not. Their salvation lies in their faith. Faith is the assurance of things we do not see and the evidence for things unseen.

Heb 11:1 KJV 1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


Our assurance of salvation is in our faith.



Salvation is not in a list of things that we check off as they are done and that qualifies people as saved.


Giving someone the assurance of salvation is saying that God will judge a person as saved.



IMO that's not biblical.


As there those that will do great things in His name but will not be saved, because they did not do the will of the Father.

Matthew 7:21-23

21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The salvation of a person does not lie whether they are a member of the Catholic Church or not. Their salvation lies in their faith. Faith is the assurance of things we do not see and the evidence for things unseen.

Heb 11:1 KJV 1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


Our assurance of salvation is in our faith.



Salvation is not in a list of things that we check off as they are done and that qualifies people as saved.


Giving someone the assurance of salvation is saying that God will judge a person as saved.



IMO that's not biblical.


As there those that will do great things in His name but will not be saved, because they did not do the will of the Father.

Matthew 7:21-23

21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

I am quite surprised and pleased that you believe that faith and not works is required for salvation. Do you now believe in salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone?

 

[PaladinValer]

What is faith but works + belief?

 

[lionroar0]

I am quite surprised and pleased that you believe that faith and not works is required for salvation. Do you now believe in salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone?

The CC does not teach a works based salvation. Why are you surprised that a Catholic beilves what the CC teaches?

Salvation by grace.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The CC does not teach a works based salvation. Why are you surprised that a Catholic beilves what the CC teaches?

Salvation by grace.

Shall we look at just one paragraph from the CC to begin our discussion of salvation and works? Here it is -

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Do you believe this paragraph to be true? Is not baptism a sacrament and a work? Therefore, one cannot be saved, according to this paragraph, without this work.