yes. it isn't actually. it represents it. that's it. It's something catholics don't understand because they believe what the RCC has taught them for years and years, made up by men. It's a lie.So do you think that you have the authority to declare that the bread and wine are not the body and blood of Christ?
oh no Arch, it did not and still does not. catholics don't understand scripture and there's a good reason for that - they believe what false teachers tell them to believe. and they have no guidance from the Holy Spirit.Oh yes they did and do mica.... It IS Christ!
your post shows you don't know the rebirth but believe what the cc teaches instead.You are correct, there is nothing we can do on our own to enter Heaven. However, after baptism, being born again, being "in Christ", we are called to follow our faith and put it into action - feeding the hungry, ministering to others, etc. Both are essential. We read in the epistle of St. James that "faith without works is dead." As a matter of fact, the only place in the Sacred Text that we see the work faith and alone together, the words "not by" are in front of them. We find that in James 2:24, "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." But I'm sure you already know this.
again your words deny how one is saved.One can indeed “believe” in Christ and yet lead a life that betrays that belief. Hence belief alone is not sufficient. “Not all who say ‘Lord, Lord’ will have a place in my Kingdom.”
no, he isn't. why would you claim that? is that what the rcc teaches about him now? it doesn't teach about him or what he teaches.It is important to recognize that when the Apostle Paul writes of "works," he is speaking about performing religious rituals prescribed by the Torah, Hebrew law. Understanding Colossians, Galatians, Romans one must read these epistles in the greater contexts of St. Pauls missionary journey, Acts 15.
I really don't think that those 1500 years count for anything to Protestants. They seem to disregard it as anything good.@RayneBeau,
I'm Orthodox, but we also believe in the Real Presence and have a historical and spiritual closeness to the Roman Catholic Church (although, I do admit there are some errors, but that is for another thread).
For 15 hundred years, the teaching of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was all that was taught. How do you explain this?
sounds like catholicism.I really don't think that those 1500 years count for anything to Protestants. They seem to disregard it as anything good.
Its like a man sitting on a branch of a tree thinking that he doesn't need the tree anymore because he has his branch to sit on.
All the good of the branch came from the tree.
All the truth in Protestantism came from Catholicism.
Well first of all the priest would sit down. Jesus would then take over and he would be calling the shots from that point on. If He wanted to start preaching it would be up to Him. If He wanted to read the OT or the NT, once again His call. If He wanted to just have a regular Mass (with or without communion) once again it would be His call. He's the boss, the Master, He would call the shotsif Christ walked in a sat in the front pew of a Cathodic Church : would the Mass need to continue in that Church?
What happens during Mass that it would still need to continue ; even if Christ was sitting there.