Here is the quotation:

"It is incorrect to say that because a person cannot receive the Eucharist he is no longer Catholic. "

When the Catholic Church is the only one that centers the mass on Transubstantiation (Greek Orthodox Church is not on the map) and one is not allowed to partake, how does this situation make one a Catholic?

If anything, this makes one grasping to a lifeline as the "Ark" cruises on by. Are the Sacraments also negotiable?

These concerns may seem hard hitting, but I would really like to get to the bottom of this, without opening a can of worms.

...................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 4, 2004.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 21, 2004

Answers

Before David gets bent out of shape for me posting, this thread fits into the "Catholic Issues" category. So, give our Catholics a chance to reply without your anti-Catholic fodder. And, don't go deleting my posts, unless you are gonna delete this entire "Catholic Issues" category.

......................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 4, 2004.

---

Rod,

I don't know the specifics of your situation so let me try an analysis with a made up version.

Suppose we have a guy named Larry who is married and then gets a divorce. Since the Catholic Church doesn't recognize divorce, the Church still considers Larry to be married. If Larry then gets married a second time before his first wife dies then Larry would be committing adultery. Adultery is considered one of the deadly sins that 1 John 5:16 talks about. Anyway, to receive the precious Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in a state of deadly sin would violate 1 Corinthians 11:27.

Now does that make someone not a Catholic? I don't think so unless they specifically left the Church for one of the 30,000 other denominations. They would still be considered Catholic in my opinion. Obviously as one who is excluded from the Eucharist you may feel otherwise.

Finally, like I said before I don't know the specifics of your situation my illustration was purely hypothetical.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 4, 2004.

---

Well....

that would make for what kind of a "Catholic"?

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 4, 2004.

---

Grow up.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com ), February 4, 2004.

---

the role of the Eucharist is often seen from the wrong view point, sometimes deliberately.

i have not received the Eucharist for some time because i truly do not believe that i am sorry about some sins that i have committed.

i MUST therefore deny myself of the benefits of the Eucharist. i MUST therefore take such steps as i need in order that I do not defile the Lord.

this is all Scriptural, btw. James pointed to it.

i know that Catholic-bashing is a preoccupation in these parts, but the route i take is completely consistent with the Scripture Alone approcah that is evident on every thread here.

Jesus said " this is my body..." (see also St Justin)

NOT "this is some representation of my body.."

OR " this is me in a wafer.." as the fundies sneer

"transubstantation", a theory that was later developed by, i believe, St Thomas Aquinas to explore the fuller detail of the Eucharist, is Scriptural. we don't really need to understand how it works, however, and we do not even need the term.

James completes the analysis by his SCRIPTURAL reference to St Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 11:

[25] In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.

[27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

[28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.

[29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

[30] Therefore are there many inform and weak among you, and many sleep.

now, whatis a Catholic? i don't know.

i'll tel you waht isn't: a protestant, a jew, a muslim, an agnostc, a hindu, a bhuddist, an atheist, a humanist, .... the list goes on.

as to the significance of being one, well only the person that originally made the post can answer that one.

what is you point David?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 4, 2004.

---

James, Ian, and yes Kevin, too, thanks for your insights and information. John's post should also receive a thanks.

David, I shall never "grow up". I will continue to be a spoiled little bratt and kick, scream, cry, and pout when things don't go right. I'm too old to ignore or not question things. Hey, I'm probably the next J.F.Gecik. I still believe the man is worth his weight in gold, at least. Sure, we all make odd mistakes.

I won't harp on your remark this time, David.

.............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 4, 2004.

---

Rod,

You are a Catholic living in sin according to the Catholic Church.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 4, 2004.

---

Well, there's no way around that fact, Elpidio. It is a matter of grasping firmly or letting go of that tether.

.................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 4, 2004.

---

"It is a matter of grasping firmly or letting go of that tether."

Amen

you can only do you best.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 4, 2004.

---

Hey, Rod,

Que te parece , el Papa quiere ir al site mentions this: Date: 2004-02-24

Pope Has Hopes to Attend Eucharistic Congress in Guadalajara

VATICAN CITY, FEB. 24, 2003 (Zenit.org).- John Paul II says his "heart is set" on the International Eucharistic Congress scheduled this October in Guadalajara, Mexico.

For the time being, the Holy See has neither confirmed nor denied that the Pope plans to attend the event, although on Christmas day Vatican spokesman Joaquín Navarro-Valls confirmed the Pope's interest in the congress.

At the end of his address today to Javier Moctezuma Barragán, the new Mexican ambassador to the Holy See, John Paul II said that his "heart is set on the celebration of the 48th International Eucharistic Congress," planned for Oct. 10-17.

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 5, 2004.

---

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 21, 2004.

I would like the chance to wake you all up from your nightmares of dueality. Responces will only be answered towards adults that are at least somewhat level-headed. I'm not really looking for an arguement however i will not simply roll over like your "religion" expects for all humankind to do. If you look close enough the "strings" are attached.

-- DREAMWAKER (Pagansfire@aol.com), February 08, 2005.

I would like the chance to wake you all up from your nightmares of dueality.

{i DOTN HAVE NIGHTMARES OF DALITY. iM NOT A DUALIST. iNDEED,pAGANS ARE MOE DUALISTIC. ( aFTER ALL, THEY BAALNC EVERYTHING, gOOD AND EVIL, gOD AND gODDESS, ECT...}-zAROVE

Responces will only be answered towards adults that are at least somewhat level-headed.

{LOL Thats retty well everyone here. why expect different?...}-Zarove

I'm not really looking for an arguement however i will not simply roll over like your "religion" expects for all humankind to do.

{You mean the same "religion" that says " Men will curse you, spit on you, imprison you, and kill you, for my names sake"? My Faith is Christainity, it doesnt expect anyone to just roll over, it expect s th worlds to hate me for what I rpresent, because light and darkness have no communion.}-Zarove

If you look close enough the "strings" are attached.

{ Yes but at the same time, more stirngs to Paganism than to Christ. Christ offers us slavation for FREE, all we have o do is repent and acutlaly liv a we where esigned to and follow him. Paganism offers ""Fredom" by dneying absolute good and evil, and tllign us its OK to just do hatever we want, and there is no absolute truth.Science tells us tere is an absolute truth.

and psycology tells us bondaries brign freedom. funy how that works, huh?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 08, 2005.

David,

When a Catholic commits a mortal sin, they are not to partake of the Eucharist (which is literally Christ) until they have confessed their sin and done penance so are once more worthy of this great gift. Therefore, many if not most Catholics at one time or another (or many times :-( ) are unable to receive the Eucharist, but they are not NOT Catholic because of it, rather by abstaining from Eucharist they are showing they take their faith seriously.

Catholics are people like everyone else, some take their faith more seriously, some less so. If you ask enough of them, you'll find some that say there's no problem receiving the Eucharist whenever, but this is wrong.

The Eucharist is a source of strength, but is a gift and so not to be abused by defiling the purity of Christ in an unworthy recipient. Of course the other side of the coin is that Christ and Our Father are Merciful, and no matter how many times we sin, if we are truly repentent, they take us back, no questions asked, no grudges held.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 10, 2005.

Perhaps.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 10, 2005.

Another serious consideration here regards the safety of the person receiving the Eucharist. Take a look at 1 COR 11:27, "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep [died]."

So if the Church allowed people in mortal sin to take Eucharist without repenting, they risk weakness, sickness and death. Understand something. When one takes the Eucharist, one enter s into a covenant which involves blessings for upholding the covenant with a right heart and curse or those who either reject the Lord's Body and Blood or enter it with unrepented mortal sin.

This is serious stuff and the Church has a serious responsbility to protect the Mass from an impure sacrifice and to protect those in mortal sin from further damage until they come to repentance. It's also a sign to the unrepentant that they have to repent or risk Hell along with the unbelievers, that's why the next verse in 1 COR says, "But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. Vut when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world."

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), February 10, 2005.

Typing too fast again . . . that middle paragraph from my previous post should have read:

So if the Church allowed people in mortal sin to take Eucharist without repenting, they risk weakness, sickness and death. Understand something, when one takes the Eucharist, one enters into a covenant which involves blessings for upholding the covenant with a right heart and curses for those who either reject the Lord's Body and Blood or enter into it with unrepented mortal sin.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), February 10, 2005.

David,

We don't let children drive automobiles, they aren't responsible enough. While an automobile is a great thing to have, and very useful, if abused can kill you and others.

The gift of Christ is far more valuable than an automobile, we should show Him at least as much reverence, don't you think?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 10, 2005.

"This is serious stuff and the Church has a serious responsbility to protect the Mass from an impure sacrifice and to protect those in mortal sin from further damage until they come to repentance."

Where is it written that the "Church" has anything to do with how one partakes of the Lord's supper???

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 10, 2005.

Frank, I couldn't agree more :-)

Kevin, did you read and think about the verses I included? Paul addresses these isues very clearly, my words were just rephrasing of his. Since the Church is responsible to perform the Lord's Supper, who is would be responsible for making sure it's performed properly? Of course the Church is responsible. If a priest knows that a member is committing adultery (e.g., living together outside of marriage), then the priest is absolutely responsible for making sure NOT to administer the Eucharist. It's always been that way and it's only logical.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), February 10, 2005.

Hi Kevin,

Christ administered the first "Holy Communion" at the Lord's Supper. He told them "this do" in remembrance of me. He later gave His authority to the apostles to bind and loose, to forgive and retain sins. That authority was passed on by "appointed" succession (appointments being exampled in Titus 3:5). I know you're going to ask me for scriptures, and I don't have time to look them all up. CRAZY WEEK!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 10, 2005.

Yes David I did read the verses you included and nowhere does it state that "the church" has a responsibility to ensure their members partake of the Lord's supper "properly" as you state...

Actually it is "each member" that is "responsible" not the church... A priest may have something to do with administering the "lord's supper" or (what you call "eucharist") in your church however in the church of Christ it is not that way... In observing the Lord's supper, all we are doing is remembering the Lord's death and proclaiming it until Jesus returns... Those who drink "unworthily" only have themselves to blame, "not discerning the Lord's body"... The church has nothing to do with how one "partakes" of the Lord's supper...

Gail,

The apostles have nothing to do with how one partakes of the Lord's supper... Nor did they have authority to "forgive sins" as you believe... The apostles did not lay their hands on someone as Catholics allege and say their sins were forgiven, for if you look at all of the examples in the book of Acts nowhere will you find them forgiving anyone's sins nor did they ever lay their hands on anyone and say their sins were absolved...

By the way, there is no such thing as "apostolic succession"... In order to be an apostle of Christ, one had to be a "witness" of Jesus resurrection and I can assure you that there are no 2,000 year old men walking on this earth today...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 10, 2005.

"If a priest knows that a member is committing adultery (e.g., living together outside of marriage), then the priest is absolutely responsible for making sure NOT to administer the Eucharist"

Who is it that made the priest able to "judge" whether or not one can partake of the Lord's supper???

Let's look at what 1 Cor 11:27-32 states verse by verse,

27 "Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."

This passage states "whoever" what it does not state is "whoever is judging"...

28 "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup."

This passages states "let a man examine himself" not "let the priest examine someone else"...

29 "For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."

This passage states "For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner" not "if the priest sees someone eating and drinking in an unworthy manner"... Please notice that judgement is to "himself" not that of "someone else" as you advocate with the priest being able to "judge" how someone partakes of the Lord's supper...

30 "For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep."

This passages states "For this reason many are weak..." not "For this reason because the priest did not do his job many are weak..."

31 "For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged."

This passage states "For if we would judge ourselves" not if "For if the priest would judge us"...

32 "But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world."

This passage states "But when we are judged..." not "But when we are judged by the priest"...

Get it...???

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 10, 2005.

Hi Kevin,

You are right, we rely on our fathers for direction in all these matters . . . scripture AND tradition is our rule of faith.

Here are a few things about what the fathers said about apostolic succession and the Eucharist. Again, I point out that the succession began in N.T., (clearly in Titus 3:5).

The Eucharist:

"You will see the Levites (priests) bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made,it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ....When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body." Athanasius,Sermon to the Newly Baptized,PG 26,1325(ante A.D. 373),in ECD,442

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again" Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to Smyrnaeans,7,1(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION:

"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Clement,Epistle to Corinthians,42,44 (A.D. 98),in ANF,I:16,17

True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,4:33:8(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:508

"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !' The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of "mountain men," or Cutzupits, by which they were known." Augustine,To Generosus,Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400),in NPNF1,I:298

The writings of the Fathers can be found at ccel.org (a non-Catholic site). The quotes can be found broken down by category at http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/success.htm

**********

It all boils down to authority, Kevin. I'm sure you believe with your whole heart that sola scriptura is what Christ instituted, and yet you will find in scripture that Christ established a visible Church in which to bring grievances and settle disputes NOT scripture. He does not say, if your brother sins against you, take it to the scripture, but rather "take it to the Church." You will find St. Paul uttering these words "the church is the foundation and pillar of the truth."

God Bless,

gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 11, 2005.

Kevin,

Where is it written that the "Church" has anything to do with how one partakes of the Lord's supper???

15“If your brother sins against you,[b] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[c] 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

18“I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be[d]bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.

I think the first thing you have to do is ask yourself "did Christ FOUND a church, and did it have authority over its members? The answer to that is quite clearly "yes", because we are shown in Matthew that the church is the last court of appeals for disputes. The next question would be "is the church some sort of amorphous blob of believers who do everything on their own, or is their some sort of defining heirarchy one would address their problems to? Right underneath this passage Christ gives the power to bind and loose. Who does that go to? Every individual? Everyone who calls themself a Christian can bind and loose things on Earth and in Heaven? That would be ridiculous, even this board should show you that, there are too many opinions on what is True. Clearly there must be some organization to the church, and the Bible also mentions Bishops, deacons, etc. It would make much MORE sense to say that there are powers given by Christ that do NOT rest in the hands of everyone, but are rather limited to a few individuals within the church. If you get this far, it will then make a great deal of sense for you that if there are officials in the church that have the Authority *given by Christ Himself* to "bind and loose" things on Earth and in Heaven, that they would also have the Authority from Christ to instruct and even bind us in worship.

Remember Kevin that nowhere in the Bible does it call itself the complete and only instruction manual on Salvation, in fact we are told the opposite, being told to keep BOTH written and oral Tradition (if the Bible was all you needed, there would be no NEED for oral Tradition), and being told that there is no way that even all Christ did could ever be recorded. Yes, I know you'll say that Scripture is "sufficient", but "sufficient" is a far cry from "the best way". Just as being on a ventilator and having nutrition pumped into your arm is "sufficient" to maintain life, it is not a full life.

Actually, if you don't accept the authority of the church, a lot of the New Testament won't make much sense.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 11, 2005.

One cannot successfully argue or reason with a non believer (in the Holy Eucharist).

Faith is a gift, a mysterious gift. One either has it or they do not.

Pray for the non believer.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), February 11, 2005.

Gail,

You wrote, "You are right, we rely on our fathers for direction in all these matters . . . scripture AND tradition is our rule of faith."

This may be the Catholic rule of faith, "scripture and tradition" it is however not what the Bible teaches... Tradition was nothing different than what the apostles taught in every church and since we now have everything written down for us in the New Testament, we no longer need "tradition"...

You wrote, "Here are a few things about what the fathers said about apostolic succession and the Eucharist. Again, I point out that the succession began in N.T., (clearly in Titus 3:5)."

We have been over this ground before concerning your so called "church fathers" haven't we Gail??? You are wasting your time in quoting what someone other than the apostles wrote... How are we to know that what they wrote is true??? Especially since the apostles warned of false teaching shortly after their departure???

There is no such thing as "apostolic succession"... nor does the Bible teach any such nonsense...

You wrote, "It all boils down to authority, Kevin. I'm sure you believe with your whole heart that sola scriptura is what Christ instituted, and yet you will find in scripture that Christ established a visible Church in which to bring grievances and settle disputes NOT scripture."

I have quoted this passage to you many times before, and I will continue to quote it because it disproves your theory that scripture is not sufficient:

2 Tim 3:16-17, "16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

2 Cor 10:4-5 states, "4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,"

Our weapon is the sword of the Spirit which is the "word of God"... (See Eph 6:17).

You wrote, "He does not say, if your brother sins against you, take it to the scripture, but rather "take it to the Church."

Please explain how a "brother" is sinning by partaking of the Lord's Supper... Are we to be the judge of someone else in their remembering the Lord's death??? The Bible does not teach this doctrine Gail, sorry to disappoint you...

You wrote, "You will find St. Paul uttering these words "the church is the foundation and pillar of the truth."

This only means that the church proclaims the truth, it does not legislate truth as the Catholic Church has done...

Frank,

You wrote, "15“If your brother sins against you,[b] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[c] 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

This is not speaking of partaking of the Lord's supper...

You wrote, "18“I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be[d]bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven."

This passage also has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper...

You wrote, "I think the first thing you have to do is ask yourself "did Christ FOUND a church, and did it have authority over its members? The answer to that is quite clearly "yes", because we are shown in Matthew that the church is the last court of appeals for disputes."

This does not mean that the church can tell it's members that they cannot partake of the Lord's Supper... It is each individual's responsibility to see if they are in the faith for it is written in 2 Cor 13:5, "Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves." It does not say, "let the priest (or the church) examine you as to whether you are in the faith"

You wrote, "The next question would be "is the church some sort of amorphous blob of believers who do everything on their own, or is their some sort of defining heirarchy one would address their problems to? Right underneath this passage Christ gives the power to bind and loose. Who does that go to? Every individual? Everyone who calls themself a Christian can bind and loose things on Earth and in Heaven? That would be ridiculous, even this board should show you that, there are too many opinions on what is True."

Actually, the power to "bind and loose" was only given to the apostles, not the church...

You wrote, "Clearly there must be some organization to the church, and the Bible also mentions Bishops, deacons, etc."

Yes, the Bible mentions Bishops and deacons, but nowhere does it mention the pope or any of the other offices that the Catholic Church has created...

You wrote, "It would make much MORE sense to say that there are powers given by Christ that do NOT rest in the hands of everyone, but are rather limited to a few individuals within the church."

The Bishops and the deacons do not have any sort of "power" of the rest of the church... The elders are to do as it is written in 1 Peter 5:2-4, "2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; 4 and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away."

You wrote, "If you get this far, it will then make a great deal of sense for you that if there are officials in the church that have the Authority *given by Christ Himself* to "bind and loose" things on Earth and in Heaven, that they would also have the Authority from Christ to instruct and even bind us in worship."

We have already been instructed in the Bible how we are to worship... We do not need the "church" to "bind and loose" something that has already been done for us...

You wrote, "Remember Kevin that nowhere in the Bible does it call itself the complete and only instruction manual on Salvation, in fact we are told the opposite, being told to keep BOTH written and oral Tradition (if the Bible was all you needed, there would be no NEED for oral Tradition), and being told that there is no way that even all Christ did could ever be recorded. Yes, I know you'll say that Scripture is "sufficient", but "sufficient" is a far cry from "the best way". Just as being on a ventilator and having nutrition pumped into your arm is "sufficient" to maintain life, it is not a full life."

See my reply to Gail above... Scripture is "sufficient" and "sufficient" is all that the man of God needs in order to do the things that are pleasing to God...

You wrote, "Actually, if you don't accept the authority of the church, a lot of the New Testament won't make much sense."

Again, this is what you have been led to believe, that you cannot understand the New Testament without the Catholic Church guiding you... This is not what the New Testament nor the Bible teaches...

God says in Prov 2:1-5, "1 My son, if you receive my words, And treasure my commands within you, 2 So that you incline your ear to wisdom, And apply your heart to understanding; 3 Yes, if you cry out for discernment, And lift up your voice for understanding, 4 If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; 5 Then you will understand the fear of the LORD, And find the knowledge of God."

There is no mention of an interpreter required nor is one needed...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 11, 2005.

Like I said, Kevin, it all boils down to authority. Christ instituted a Church in Matthew. Jesus says if the "brother refuses to repent" to take it to the Church, "and let him be to you like a taxgatherer," -- he is to be shunned -- excommunicato. The Church makes this decision, not the individual believer, and not according to what the individual believer believes the scripture says. JESUS SAYS TAKE IT TO THE CHURCH!

Paul excommunicated the adulterous man in Corinthians -- he exercised HIS AUTHORITY in doing so. He actually even "turned the man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so that his soul might be saved." He did not say, "go read your Bible and figure out what to do"? If scripture alone is sufficient, then St. Paul would not have needed to exercise his "authority" and excommunicate the fellow.

Then you said this "Please explain how a "brother" is sinning by partaking of the Lord's Supper... Are we to be the judge of someone else in their remembering the Lord's death??? The Bible does not teach this doctrine Gail, sorry to disappoint you... "

Surely you realize that if a person is in unrepentent sin, he cannot partake of the Lord's supper . . .? That's why Paul says some are "falling to sleep" because they did not "discern the body" at communion. Are you telling me that you believe that someone who is living with his father's wife may partake of the Lord's supper?

Faith, like you, also believes that excommunication is not the remedy that Jesus prescribed, nor does she belive that is the 'bible way of doing things.' I believe the Bible clearly teaches otherwise.

You believe that at the closing of the canon, the Church that was begun at Pentecost ceased to be. Where does scripture say that? In fact, Jesus says just the opposite, "Upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Yet, according to you, the gates of hell not only prevailed but completely defeated the Church at the close of scripture. Please correct me if I have incorrectly stated your position.

You may discount the writings of the early Christians if you wish to. You can pretend, if you wish, that there were no Christians post- canon. You can pretent there were no Christians fed to lions, or lit aflame and paraded down the streets. You can pretent that the Church for 300 to 400 years did not suffer EXTREME persecution. You can pretend that the COC is the restoration of the church Christ instituted some 1600 years later. It takes a lot of faith to believe all that, Kevin, because you have to throw out thousands of years of historical record, and pretend that someone "sabotaged" them, or that someone "penned them". You have to throw out the writings of the martyrs. You have to shred the writings of the disciples OF the disciples. And why? I mean, how is this logical at all... AT ALL?

Gail

BTW, would you please stop saying things like "sorry to disappoint you," and stuff like that. There is no reason why we cannot discuss these topics without sarcasm. THANK YOU!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 11, 2005.

Gail,

You wrote, "Like I said, Kevin, it all boils down to authority. Christ instituted a Church in Matthew. Jesus says if the "brother refuses to repent" to take it to the Church, "and let him be to you like a taxgatherer," -- he is to be shunned -- excommunicato." The Church makes this decision, not the individual believer, and not according to what the individual believer believes the scripture says. JESUS SAYS TAKE IT TO THE CHURCH!"

Yes however it this were the case, then this person would not even be present in the assembly to partake of the Lord's Supper so there would be nothing to worry about...

You wrote, "Paul excommunicated the adulterous man in Corinthians -- he exercised HIS AUTHORITY in doing so. He actually even "turned the man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so that his soul might be saved." He did not say, "go read your Bible and figure out what to do"?"

Paul didn't "excommunicate" anyone... It was the church at Corinth that did this thing, not Paul... Paul was not a member of this church so he did not have any authority to "excommunicate" him...

You wrote, "If scripture alone is sufficient, then St. Paul would not have needed to exercise his "authority" and excommunicate the fellow."

Again, Paul did not "excommunicate" anyone...

I wrote, "Then you said this "Please explain how a "brother" is sinning by partaking of the Lord's Supper... Are we to be the judge of someone else in their remembering the Lord's death??? The Bible does not teach this doctrine Gail, sorry to disappoint you..."

To which you replied, "Surely you realize that if a person is in unrepentent sin, he cannot partake of the Lord's supper . . .?"

If a person is "in unrepentant sin" first off, they would not come to worship and second we are to judge ourselves in partaking of the Lord's Supper, not that of someone else... Nowhere does it mention that a "priest" is to judge how someone partakes of the Lord's Supper...

You wrote, "That's why Paul says some are "falling to sleep" because they did not "discern the body" at communion. Are you telling me that you believe that someone who is living with his father's wife may partake of the Lord's supper?"

If that is his wish, then the church cannot nor is it their place to refuse communion to him or anyone for that matter... It is our "individual" responsibility to test "ourselves", not have someone else (a priest or a church for that matter) judge us... If this person who you say "is living with his father's wife" and he partakes of the Lord's Supper, then he did not discern the Lord's body and I am sure that he would either be sick or fall asleep (die) just as the Bible clearly states...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 12, 2005.

Hi Kevin,

Okay, good point, Kevin, Paul instructed the Corinthian Church to excommunicate the adulterous man and the Corinthians obeyed Paul's instruction. Paul made a judgment against this man. This man did not "discern himself" as you put it, he was forced to leave. (I might add that Paul seemed rather perturbed that the Corinthians had not already given the guy the boot. They were in essence doing what you say they should have done -- leaving the guy to himself - and Paul rebuked them for it)

Jesus command in Matthew: First, go to your brother in private; if that doesn't work, take two or three brothers along with you, if that doesn't work, take it to the church. The result: "let him be to you as a taxgather" This is excommunication.

Hopefully if you have someone in your midst that is in unrepentent sin he will see his error himself and repent. Most often, the person could have friends in the church that would go to him or her privately, but that is not always the case. Sometimes you have willful, self-absorbed, unrepentent rogues who WILL take the body and blood of the Lord profanely and joyfully, and unfortunately at that time, the bigger guns have to step in. The reason why is because if you have someone like this, say, a politician, who is widely known, and he or she proudly proclaims themself to be a Christian and demonstrates to be living a woefully sinful life, and then you have this person publicly receiving communion, it is an abdomination to Christ, and abhorrent to the body of Christ . . . it is a scandal! It cannot and should not be tolerated.

Kevin, if you believe the church ceased to exist after the closing of the canon, where is your proof?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 12, 2005.

The Eucharist is the literal union with God here and now.

-- (prodigalson@new.israel), February 12, 2005.

Oh yes, without a doubt!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 12, 2005.

Kevin

This is not speaking of partaking of the Lord's supper...

You wrote, "18“I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be[d]bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven."

This passage also has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper...

It seems to me you are trying to use cut the loaf so thinly you will no longer have to call it bread. I can do that too. The 10 commandments say that "thou shalt not kill", but they do NOT say I can't HIRE someone to kill FOR me, so that must be o.k., right? The point is you can't say that something is o.k. if the Bible doesn't spell out every exact situation your personal beliefs have problems with. How big do you expect the bible to be? If there is a church (which there is), and its leaders have authority (another instance of which is pointed out by Gail above) and they do, then what they tell you you must do, you must do.

Remember Kevin that the Bible wasn't even written when this stuff was occuring so saying "it must be in the Bible" doesn't make sense.

Actually, the power to "bind and loose" was only given to the apostles, not the church

That is your assertion. Care to prove it?

Yes, the Bible mentions Bishops and deacons, but nowhere does it mention the pope or any of the other offices that the Catholic Church has created

LOL, I thought you'd say that these offices were only for the apostles, not the church. Where in the Bible does it say that after all the current people are dead these offices should be passed on in perpetuity?

The Bishops and the deacons do not have any sort of "power" of the rest of the church... The elders are to do as it is written in 1 Peter 5:2-4, "2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; 4 and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away

this actually can say the opposite of what you mean it to. By your definition then, the Chief Shepherd has no authority over the flock either. Obviously this is not the case, and one would expect His shepherds be an example of Him, and to have a reflection of authority to guide the flock. Shepherds don't just expect the sheep to follow, they push when they have to, fight off wolves, and rescue strays. It is an ACTIVE job.

We have already been instructed in the Bible how we are to worship... We do not need the "church" to "bind and loose" something that has already been done for us

The church gave you the Bible you use. By using the Bible, without knowing it, you have to some degree ACCEPTED the authority of the church to tell you what in the New Testament is inspired and what isn't.

See my reply to Gail above... Scripture is "sufficient" and "sufficient" is all that the man of God needs in order to do the things that are pleasing to God...

See my answer above, "sufficient" is not "best", by any stretch of the English language.

Again, this is what you have been led to believe, that you cannot understand the New Testament without the Catholic Church guiding you... This is not what the New Testament nor the Bible teaches

Kevin, where does the Bible even mention the Bible?

There is no mention of an interpreter required nor is one needed

Funny you should use an Old Testament quote for that. In the New Testament we hear of Philip and the Ethiopian:

"This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 28and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet. 29The Spirit told Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.” 30Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.

31“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. "

There was a man reading the Old Testament, and couldn't understand it. He needed a disciple of Christ's church to explain it to him. Why couldn't have gotten a Rabbi to explain it to him?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 12, 2005.

Gail,

You wrote, "Sometimes you have willful, self-absorbed, unrepentent rogues who WILL take the body and blood of the Lord profanely and joyfully, and unfortunately at that time, the bigger guns have to step in. The reason why is because if you have someone like this, say, a politician, who is widely known, and he or she proudly proclaims themself to be a Christian and demonstrates to be living a woefully sinful life, and then you have this person publicly receiving communion, it is an abdomination to Christ, and abhorrent to the body of Christ . . . it is a scandal! It cannot and should not be tolerated."

Nowhere does it mention that the church or a priest for that matter has the right to with hold communion from someone who wants to partake... It is an individual responsibility, not that of the church...

You wrote, "Kevin, if you believe the church ceased to exist after the closing of the canon, where is your proof?"

When did I ever make this statement that "the church ceased to exist after the closing of the canon???"

Frank, You wrote, "It seems to me you are trying to use cut the loaf so thinly you will no longer have to call it bread."

That is your opinion Frank however what I said was true...

You wrote, "I can do that too. The 10 commandments say that "thou shalt not kill", but they do NOT say I can't HIRE someone to kill FOR me, so that must be o.k., right?"

We are not talking about the 10 commandments now are we Frank???

You wrote, "The point is you can't say that something is o.k. if the Bible doesn't spell out every exact situation your personal beliefs have problems with."

Your problem is the Bible "does" spell out how we are to partake of the Lord's Supper and nowhere does it state that the church or a priest for that matter is the judge on whether someone is "worthy" to partake of it...

You wrote, "How big do you expect the bible to be?"

The Bible is as big enough as God required (and desired) it to be...

You wrote, "If there is a church (which there is), and its leaders have authority (another instance of which is pointed out by Gail above) and they do, then what they tell you you must do, you must do."

The bishops (or elders) do not have authority to withhold communion from someone who wants to partake of it... It is an individual responsibility, not that of the church...

You wrote, "Remember Kevin that the Bible wasn't even written when this stuff was occuring so saying "it must be in the Bible" doesn't make sense."

I never said that "the Bible wasn't even written when this stuff was occuring" now did I Frank??? The word of God was first given orally by the Apostles and then spoken orally and written (when the Apostles and inspired men wrote the word of God down) and now we have the word of God in written form only... So it does make sense...

I wrote, "Actually, the power to "bind and loose" was only given to the apostles, not the church"

To which you replied, "That is your assertion. Care to prove it?"

Sorry to disappoint you Frank, there is no assertion here, see Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18... This authority to "bind and loose" was only given to the Apostles and not the church... Where is your proof that it was given to the "church"???

I wrote, "Yes, the Bible mentions Bishops and deacons, but nowhere does it mention the pope or any of the other offices that the Catholic Church has created"

To which you replied, "LOL, I thought you'd say that these offices were only for the apostles, not the church. Where in the Bible does it say that after all the current people are dead these offices should be passed on in perpetuity?"

When you give the answer to my question, then I will answer yours...

I wrote, "The Bishops and the deacons do not have any sort of "power" of the rest of the church... The elders are to do as it is written in 1 Peter 5:2-4, "2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; 4 and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away"

To which you replied, "this actually can say the opposite of what you mean it to. By your definition then, the Chief Shepherd has no authority over the flock either. Obviously this is not the case, and one would expect His shepherds be an example of Him, and to have a reflection of authority to guide the flock."

No it actually means what it says... We were not talking about the "Chief Shepherd" nor His authority over the flock... Why can't you just answer the question Frank???

You wrote, "Shepherds don't just expect the sheep to follow, they push when they have to, fight off wolves, and rescue strays. It is an ACTIVE job."

Exactly, and I have never said anything different...

I wrote, "We have already been instructed in the Bible how we are to worship... We do not need the "church" to "bind and loose" something that has already been done for us"

To which you replied, "The church gave you the Bible you use."

No Frank, you are mistaken... God is the one who gave us the Bible to use, not the church...

You wrote, "By using the Bible, without knowing it, you have to some degree ACCEPTED the authority of the church to tell you what in the New Testament is inspired and what isn't."

There is your problem, you claim that it is the church that gave us the Bible and that is not true... It is God who gave us the Bible, not the church so one does not have to accept the "authority of the church" as you state to accept the New Testament or the inspiration of the New Testament...

Please answer this question: Is it the church that produces faith or is it the word of God???

I wrote, "See my reply to Gail above... Scripture is "sufficient" and "sufficient" is all that the man of God needs in order to do the things that are pleasing to God..."

To which you replied, "See my answer above, "sufficient" is not "best", by any stretch of the English language."

And again you do err, when God says that His word is "sufficient" then that is what God means, it is "sufficient" and nothing else is needed or required...

I wrote, "Again, this is what you have been led to believe, that you cannot understand the New Testament without the Catholic Church guiding you... This is not what the New Testament nor the Bible teaches"

To which you replied, "Kevin, where does the Bible even mention the Bible?" I didn't ask you whether the word "Bible" was in the New Testament, I made the statement that one cannot understand the New Testament without the Catholic Church guiding someone is not true... And I challenge you to prove otherwise...

I wrote, "There is no mention of an interpreter required nor is one needed"

To which you replied, "Funny you should use an Old Testament quote for that. In the New Testament we hear of Philip and the Ethiopian: "This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 28and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet. 29The Spirit told Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.” 30Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. 31“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. " There was a man reading the Old Testament, and couldn't understand it. He needed a disciple of Christ's church to explain it to him. Why couldn't have gotten a Rabbi to explain it to him?"

I have already explained this to you in the Catholic Forum and now again here... First the word of God was given orally... The Ethiopian Eunuch did not have the New Testament that we have so someone had to teach him and that task fell on Philip. A rabbi couldn't have explained it to him because he was not inspired by the Holy Spirit to teach the word of God... It is the word of God that produces faith, this was true when the word was spoken orally and this is true now with the written word of God... To claim that an interpreter is required now in order to understand God's word is just an assertion of the Catholic Church that has no basis in the truth...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 13, 2005.

Kevin, if a person is excluded from fellowship he may not receive communion by reason of the fact that he has been EXCLUDED.

If John Doe, the deacon, is having an affair with Mary Jane, the Sunday school teacher, are you telling me that your church allows them to not only remain in their sin but will not in any way bar them from the MOST HOLY sacrament of communion? In other words, your church leaders would stand by and let the adulterers partake of the holy sacraments, knowing full well that people DIED in the early church for not "discerning the body" . . .?

Kevin, if that is true, it shows a pathetic lack of reverence for the Lord's Supper no matter what you think the elements represent . . . whether symbolic or literal. It shows a complete lack of concern for the soul of the unrepentant man. NOT TO MENTION, it makes no logical sense whatsoever.

I will hand it to your church, though, you take sola scriptura out to its logical conclusion, which is in fact, what all sola scriptura churches should do.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 14, 2005.

Gail,

You wrote, "Kevin, if a person is excluded from fellowship he may not receive communion by reason of the fact that he has been EXCLUDED."

This person would not be in the assembly in the first place unless they were there to repent of their sins prior to partaking of the Lord's Supper... The Bible says in Matt 18:17, "But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

You wrote, "If John Doe, the deacon, is having an affair with Mary Jane, the Sunday school teacher, are you telling me that your church allows them to not only remain in their sin but will not in any way bar them from the MOST HOLY sacrament of communion?"

As I have said before, the church does not have the authority to withhold communion from anyone... When we partake of the Lord's Supper, it is an individual responsibility to test ourselves, not someone else... If the affair was known and they did not repent of their sins, they would be withdrawn from and would not be present in the assembly to partake of the Lord's Supper...

You wrote, "In other words, your church leaders would stand by and let the adulterers partake of the holy sacraments, knowing full well that people DIED in the early church for not "discerning the body" . . .?"

As I have said and as the Bible clearly illustrates, it is an individual responsibility, not that of the church... Besides I have already told you that these people more than likely would not be in the assembly in the first place...

You wrote, "Kevin, if that is true, it shows a pathetic lack of reverence for the Lord's Supper no matter what you think the elements represent . . . whether symbolic or literal. It shows a complete lack of concern for the soul of the unrepentant man. NOT TO MENTION, it makes no logical sense whatsoever."

As I have said before Gail, those who are guilty of such deeds would not be in the assembly to partake of the Lord's Supper to begin with and the church does not have a responsibility to "watch" everyone who partakes of the Lord's Supper...

You wrote, "I will hand it to your church, though, you take sola scriptura out to its logical conclusion, which is in fact, what all sola scriptura churches should do."

What logical conclusion are you talking about Gail??? We speak where the scriptures speak and are silent where the scriptures are silent and the Bible most definitely speaks concerning the Lord's Supper...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 14, 2005.

Hi Kevin,

When you say this: "As I have said before Gail, those who are guilty of such deeds -- WOULD NOT BE IN THE ASSEMBLY -- to partake of the Lord's Supper to begin with and the church does not have a responsibility to "watch" everyone who partakes of the Lord's Supper..."

and this "As I have said before, the church does not have the authority to withhold communion from anyone... When we partake of the Lord's Supper, it is an individual responsibility to test ourselves, not someone else... If the affair was known and they did not repent of their sins, -- THEY WOULD BE WITHDRAWN FROM -- and would not be present in the assembly to partake of the Lord's Supper...

Why would they not be in the assembly? What do you mean by "they would be withdrawn from"?

Did not St. Paul instruct the church at Corinth to the "put the man out"? Is that not an eccesiastical instruction?

About sola scriptura, I simply meant that you are "faithful" to the concept of "sola scriptura" in your interpretation of scripture. And that truly anyone who holds that view; i.e., sola scriptura -- must logically come to the same conclusions that you do (on most things).

Gail

BTW, perhaps I have erroneously perceived from some of your statements that you believe the early church went apostate immediately after the closing of canon . . .? Is that what you believe, or did I get that wrong? Perhaps I got that idea because you have insinuated that all of the early church (post N.T.) writings that I rely on are frauds -- something which NO reputable historical scholar that I know of alleges -- Catholic or otherwise.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 14, 2005.

Kevin,

That is your opinion Frank however what I said was true...

You wrote, "I can do that too. The 10 commandments say that "thou shalt not kill", but they do NOT say I can't HIRE someone to kill FOR me, so that must be o.k., right?"

We are not talking about the 10 commandments now are we Frank???

My point was you are missing the big picture by trying to break the Bible into single sentences. Just because something ins't explicitly spelled out for the individual situation you are concerned with does NOT mean that there is no instruction on the matter. You can't just ignore things you don't like because specifics aren't discussed of them where you want them to be. There is no way the Bible could possibly discuss every issue that every single person could find to disagree with.

You wrote, "The point is you can't say that something is o.k. if the Bible doesn't spell out every exact situation your personal beliefs have problems with."

Your problem is the Bible "does" spell out how we are to partake of the Lord's Supper and nowhere does it state that the church or a priest for that matter is the judge on whether someone is "worthy" to partake of it...

and

As I have said before, the church does not have the authority to withhold communion from anyone... When we partake of the Lord's Supper, it is an individual responsibility to test ourselves, not someone else... If the affair was known and they did not repent of their sins, they would be withdrawn from and would not be present in the assembly to partake of the Lord's Supper...

Your reply to Gail on this really shows an odd doublethink. You say that we can't judge whether someone is "worthy" to partake of the Lord's supper, but then you refuse to let people partake of the Lord's supper by refusing to let them in the "assembly" at all! If that isn't judging whether someone is "worthy", what is? You not only are judging them to be unworthy of receiving the Lord, you are judging them unworthy to even HEAR the Word of God by kicking them out! I really am suprised you don't see how booting someone out from your assembly is in fact judging their worthiness to partake of the Lord's supper.

When you give the answer to my question, then I will answer yours...

I wrote, "The Bishops and the deacons do not have any sort of "power" of the rest of the church... The elders are to do as it is written in 1 Peter 5:2-4, "2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; 4 and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away"

To which you replied, "this actually can say the opposite of what you mean it to. By your definition then, the Chief Shepherd has no authority over the flock either. Obviously this is not the case, and one would expect His shepherds be an example of Him, and to have a reflection of authority to guide the flock."

No it actually means what it says... We were not talking about the "Chief Shepherd" nor His authority over the flock... Why can't you just answer the question Frank???

What question are you talking about? No reason to get snippy.

You wrote, "Shepherds don't just expect the sheep to follow, they push when they have to, fight off wolves, and rescue strays. It is an ACTIVE job."

Exactly, and I have never said anything different

Actually, you just did above. By stating that church leaders (our temporal shepherds) don't have authority over their flock, you are denying them their ability to do these things.

To which you replied, "The church gave you the Bible you use."

No Frank, you are mistaken... God is the one who gave us the Bible to use, not the church

No, Kevin, you are mistaken. The Holy Spirit inspired which books of the Bible were inspired, but men are obviously responsible for giving us the Bible as a printed book. My Bibles at least had human printers who decided what words would be put in them, and so did yours. If that were NOT the case, we wouldn't have one group of people using the correct number of books of the Bible, and one group discarding seven of the books. If God is directly responsible for the Bible's contents today, how come different Bibles are used by different people?

There is your problem, you claim that it is the church that gave us the Bible and that is not true... It is God who gave us the Bible, not the church so one does not have to accept the "authority of the church" as you state to accept the New Testament or the inspiration of the New Testament...

Please answer this question: Is it the church that produces faith or is it the word of God???

Of course you do! Who do you think copied by hand the New Testament over and over for 1500 years? The part that amazes me is that people accept the Catholic church's choice of books for the NT, but then feel free to edit out 7 books from the old. If God had His Word copied faithfully over all those years, why would he allow a millenia of worshippers to think what was NOT His Word was inspired?

And for your next part, even though you didn't answer MY question above, I'll gladly answer yours: Faith is a gift from God. Do you doubt that too?

To which you replied, "See my answer above, "sufficient" is not "best", by any stretch of the English language."

And again you do err, when God says that His word is "sufficient" then that is what God means, it is "sufficient" and nothing else is needed or required

Now that is an opinion.

To which you replied, "Kevin, where does the Bible even mention the Bible?" I didn't ask you whether the word "Bible" was in the New Testament, I made the statement that one cannot understand the New Testament without the Catholic Church guiding someone is not true... And I challenge you to prove otherwise...

Hey, even a broken clock is right twice per day. Of course most people will get some things right, perhaps even most things. The issue is how do you ALWAYS get the correct interpretation of the Word? The answer is by understanding the church's interpretation. If you are o.k. with getting "most things" right, be on your own. If you want EVERYTHING right, trust to the church. And before you disagree, please answer how different non-denominational Christians or denominations can have differing interpretations of the Bible if at least some of them weren't in error.

“Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. 31“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. " There was a man reading the Old Testament, and couldn't understand it. He needed a disciple of Christ's church to explain it to him. Why couldn't have gotten a Rabbi to explain it to him?"

I have already explained this to you in the Catholic Forum and now again here... First the word of God was given orally... The Ethiopian Eunuch did not have the New Testament that we have so someone had to teach him and that task fell on Philip. A rabbi couldn't have explained it to him because he was not inspired by the Holy Spirit to teach the word of God... It is the word of God that produces faith, this was true when the word was spoken orally and this is true now with the written word of God... To claim that an interpreter is required now in order to understand God's word is just an assertion of the Catholic Church that has no basis in the truth...

Before I make any assumptions, you believe that if the Ethiopian had been holding a Bible instead of Isiah that he wouldn't have needed Philip at all, and that God wouldn't have sent him there?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 15, 2005.

I'd like to interject that *faith* is not the gift that the Scriptures mean.., If you are using this verse:

Ephesians 2:8-9

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it [salvation] is the gift of God– not by works, so that no one can boast.

Faith comes to us when we believe the gospel. Faith is a blessing because we first believed...

And we all need to study the Bible among fellow believers who are also guided by the Holy Spirit. No one should try to understand the Scriptures by themselves.

But private interpretation such as done by the Catholic Church and the Jehovah Witnesses and the Mormons--to name just a few, is only going to lead to cultic behavior and false doctrines...

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 15, 2005.

Faith,

I was just commenting, not referring to any given verse, in specific.

I know you've probably said it before, but are you a member of a non- denominational church, or a member of one of the larger denominations?

Frank

-- someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 15, 2005.

First and foremost--I am a member of the Body of Christ--the new Temple of God's presence.., to which Christ is Himself the foundation stone: (1 Corinthians 11)...For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ...(Ephesians 2:20)...built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone...on whom the people of God are built as "God's Temple." (1 Cor. 3:16-17)...Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?...If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple, (Ephesians 2:22)...And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

Locally--I attend and am a member of a conservative Baptist Church. (Matt 18:20)...For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 15, 2005.

For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ...make that(1 Corinthians 3:11)

-- (faith01@myway.com), February 15, 2005.

Gail,

You wrote, "Why would they not be in the assembly? What do you mean by "they would be withdrawn from"? Did not St. Paul instruct the church at Corinth to the "put the man out"? Is that not an eccesiastical instruction?"

When Jesus stated in Matt 18:17, "And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector." He meant that they were to have nothing to do with this person and they would not be present during worship services...

You wrote, "About sola scriptura, I simply meant that you are "faithful" to the concept of "sola scriptura" in your interpretation of scripture. And that truly anyone who holds that view; i.e., sola scriptura -- must logically come to the same conclusions that you do (on most things)."

Oh, ok...

You wrote, "BTW, perhaps I have erroneously perceived from some of your statements that you believe the early church went apostate immediately after the closing of canon . . .? Is that what you believe, or did I get that wrong? Perhaps I got that idea because you have insinuated that all of the early church (post N.T.) writings that I rely on are frauds -- something which NO reputable historical scholar that I know of alleges -- Catholic or otherwise."

No Gail, I don't know when the early church went "apostate" and I never said that "all" of the early church writings are frauds... If what someone wrote does not agree with what has been written for us in the NT, I can assure you that these persons are "frauds"...

Frank,

I wrote, "We are not talking about the 10 commandments now are we Frank???"

To which you replied, "My point was you are missing the big picture by trying to break the Bible into single sentences."

Sorry Frank, I am not "missing the big picture" nor am I "trying to break the Bible into single sentences" as you allege...

You wrote, "Just because something ins't explicitly spelled out for the individual situation you are concerned with does NOT mean that there is no instruction on the matter."

The fact of the matter is there "is" explicit instructions on how we are to partake of the Lord's Supper...

You wrote, "You can't just ignore things you don't like because specifics aren't discussed of them where you want them to be."

Sorry, I have not "ignored" anything concerning the Lord's Supper, you are the one who is "ignoring" plain passages that tell us that we are to "individually" judge ourselves to see if we are partaking in a worthy manner... Nowhere does the Bible state that a "priest" or the "church" is to judge in this matter...

You wrote, "There is no way the Bible could possibly discuss every issue that every single person could find to disagree with."

I never said that the Bible did "discuss every issue" now did I Frank???

I wrote, "Your problem is the Bible "does" spell out how we are to partake of the Lord's Supper and nowhere does it state that the church or a priest for that matter is the judge on whether someone is "worthy" to partake of it... and As I have said before, the church does not have the authority to withhold communion from anyone... When we partake of the Lord's Supper, it is an individual responsibility to test ourselves, not someone else... If the affair was known and they did not repent of their sins, they would be withdrawn from and would not be present in the assembly to partake of the Lord's Supper..."

To which you replied, "Your reply to Gail on this really shows an odd doublethink."

Doublethink??? Is this a new word Frank???

You wrote, "You say that we can't judge whether someone is "worthy" to partake of the Lord's supper, but then you refuse to let people partake of the Lord's supper by refusing to let them in the "assembly" at all!"

Sure you can... For that is what Jesus talked about in Matt 18:17... God says in 1 Cor 5:11-13, "11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner--not even to eat with such a person. 12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person."

If you "put away from yourselves" someone, then they most certainly will not be present in the assembly... This is done so that the person may come to their senses and repent of their sin for it is written in 2 Cor 7:10, "For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death."

You wrote, "If that isn't judging whether someone is "worthy", what is? You not only are judging them to be unworthy of receiving the Lord, you are judging them unworthy to even HEAR the Word of God by kicking them out! I really am suprised you don't see how booting someone out from your assembly is in fact judging their worthiness to partake of the Lord's supper."

Obviously you have not read the passages that I quoted to you above... Did the church at Corinth keep the adulterer in their presence and allow him to partake of the Lord's Supper or did they "put away the evil person"??? (See 2 Cor 7:11-12).

I wrote, "No it actually means what it says... We were not talking about the "Chief Shepherd" nor His authority over the flock... Why can't you just answer the question Frank???"

To which you replied, "What question are you talking about? No reason to get snippy."

Who is getting snippy... It is obvious that you are not reading what I write otherwise you would not have asked "What question are you talking about?"

I wrote, "Exactly, and I have never said anything different"

To which you replied, "Actually, you just did above. By stating that church leaders (our temporal shepherds) don't have authority over their flock, you are denying them their ability to do these things."

Actually, I never said that the elders (or bishops) do not have "authority over their flock"... Please quote and paste my words where I said this Frank...

I wrote, "No Frank, you are mistaken... God is the one who gave us the Bible to use, not the church"

To which you replied, "No, Kevin, you are mistaken. The Holy Spirit inspired which books of the Bible were inspired, but men are obviously responsible for giving us the Bible as a printed book. My Bibles at least had human printers who decided what words would be put in them, and so did yours. If that were NOT the case, we wouldn't have one group of people using the correct number of books of the Bible, and one group discarding seven of the books. If God is directly responsible for the Bible's contents today, how come different Bibles are used by different people?"

Did God through inspiration of the Holy Spirit allow men to write what God wanted in the Bible or what men wanted in the Bible??? Yes, Men wrote the Bible however we would not have the Bible if the Holy Spirit didn't inspire these men to write it down for us... To claim that "different Bibles are used by different people" does not mean that the "church" gave us the Bible... To claim that the church produced the Bible is not true...

I wrote, "There is your problem, you claim that it is the church that gave us the Bible and that is not true... It is God who gave us the Bible, not the church so one does not have to accept the "authority of the church" as you state to accept the New Testament or the inspiration of the New Testament... Please answer this question: Is it the church that produces faith or is it the word of God???"

To which you replied, "Of course you do! Who do you think copied by hand the New Testament over and over for 1500 years?"

Who cares if someone "copied by hand the New Testament over and over for 1500 years"... This line of reasoning is irrelevant...

You wrote, "The part that amazes me is that people accept the Catholic church's choice of books for the NT, but then feel free to edit out 7 books from the old."

Sorry, it wasn't the "Catholic Church's choice of books for the NT", it was God's choice... The Catholic Church had "no authority" to "add" 7 books to the Old Testament... The OT canon was committed to the Jews, not the Catholic Church hence the Church had no authority to "add" to God's word... (See Romans 3:2).

You wrote, "If God had His Word copied faithfully over all those years, why would he allow a millenia of worshippers to think what was NOT His Word was inspired?"

Actually there are many people before the Catholic Church came about who believed that the 7 books among many others that the Catholic Church "added" to the OT were not scriptural...

You wrote, "And for your next part, even though you didn't answer MY question above, I'll gladly answer yours: Faith is a gift from God. Do you doubt that too?"

Actually, Faith comes by hearing God's word... (See Romans 10:17).

I wrote, "And again you do err, when God says that His word is "sufficient" then that is what God means, it is "sufficient" and nothing else is needed or required"

To which you replied, "Now that is an opinion."

That is your assertion that "is an opinion"... Sorry to disappoint you Frank, God says that his word is all that is needed to make one "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:17).

I wrote, "I didn't ask you whether the word "Bible" was in the New Testament, I made the statement that one cannot understand the New Testament without the Catholic Church guiding someone is not true... And I challenge you to prove otherwise..."

To which you replied, "Hey, even a broken clock is right twice per day. Of course most people will get some things right, perhaps even most things. The issue is how do you ALWAYS get the correct interpretation of the Word?"

Because I study to show myself approved as it is written in 2 Tim 2:15, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

You wrote, "The answer is by understanding the church's interpretation. If you are o.k. with getting "most things" right, be on your own. If you want EVERYTHING right, trust to the church."

LOL... The Catholic Church has many doctrines that cannot be found in the NT and yet you say "If you want everything right, trust to the church"??? Ha...

You wrote, "And before you disagree, please answer how different non- denominational Christians or denominations can have differing interpretations of the Bible if at least some of them weren't in error."

Because they are not "rightly dividing the word of truth" that is why Frank...

I wrote, "I have already explained this to you in the Catholic Forum and now again here... First the word of God was given orally... The Ethiopian Eunuch did not have the New Testament that we have so someone had to teach him and that task fell on Philip. A rabbi couldn't have explained it to him because he was not inspired by the Holy Spirit to teach the word of God... It is the word of God that produces faith, this was true when the word was spoken orally and this is true now with the written word of God... To claim that an interpreter is required now in order to understand God's word is just an assertion of the Catholic Church that has no basis in the truth..."

To which you replied, "Before I make any assumptions, you believe that if the Ethiopian had been holding a Bible instead of Isiah that he wouldn't have needed Philip at all, and that God wouldn't have sent him there?"

The word of God is the word of God... What is it that produces faith Frank??? Is it the word of God either spoken orally or written down or is it the Catholic Church???

If the Ethiopian Eunuch had the Bible that we have today, he would not have needed Philip or anyone else to instruct him...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 15, 2005.

Kevin you said, "If you 'put away from yourselves; someone, then they most certainly will not be present in the assembly... This is done so that the person may come to their senses and repent of their sin for it is written in 2 Cor 7:10, 'For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.'"

How will these unrepentent sinners know they have been "put out" and does your church leadership have anything to do with that decision? And how does the rest of the congregation know that they are to "put out" someone?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 15, 2005.

O.K. Kevin, I see it's game time, and I think I'll pass.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 15, 2005.

Gail,

I wrote, ""If you 'put away from yourselves; someone, then they most certainly will not be present in the assembly... This is done so that the person may come to their senses and repent of their sin for it is written in 2 Cor 7:10, 'For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.'"

To which you replied, "How will these unrepentent sinners know they have been "put out" and does your church leadership have anything to do with that decision?"

They have been visited by the elders several times and letters are sent to them describing in detail what will happen if they do not repent of their sin...

You wrote, "And how does the rest of the congregation know that they are to "put out" someone?"

The letters are read to the congregation... There are 2 letters, the first one is read to the congregation in hopes that someone who might have an influence over them to contact them to try and get them to come back the church and repent of their sin... The second letter is read to the congregation (after being sent to the one who was "put away") stating that they have been disfellowshipped...

Frank,

You wrote, "O.K. Kevin, I see it's game time, and I think I'll pass."

That is your perogative however, please take a look at what I wrote and see for yourself if what God stated in His word is true... We do not need anyone to interpret the Bible for us...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 15, 2005.

Okay, now I understand what you're saying. An unrepentent sinner would not have an opportunity to receive the Lord's supper because he has already been "shown the door."

And just to clarify things a bit for you, Kevin, priests don't just arbitrarily ban people from the Eucharist as if they are despots wielding the sword. There is much work behind the scenes, much like your church, to try to bring the person to repentence without taking that very serious step. After all, that is the ultimate goal . . . reconciliation.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 15, 2005.

Gail,

You wrote, "Okay, now I understand what you're saying. An unrepentent sinner would not have an opportunity to receive the Lord's supper because he has already been "shown the door."

Whew... it took long enough but yes that is correct...

You wrote, "After all, that is the ultimate goal . . . reconciliation."

Exactly...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), February 15, 2005.