Question about Catholic Churches

[2ndAmendment]

I'm not sure if you participated an an earlier thread about the Eucharist, so I'm going to, very briefly, make a couple of points.
~At the Passover, which was cited by Dondi, the blood of the lamb had to be sprinkled on the doors, but the Jews also had to eat the lamb to be protected from the Angel of Death. I think we all recognize that "passover" to be the "type" for the true passover, which is that we will not die as a result of the Lamb of God.
~The manna from Heaven was miraculous food that fed the Israelites during their sojourn in the desert. Jesus is the true bread from Heaven, and it was the "bread" He picked up from the Passover table, not the lamb. This life is our "sojourn", and He is the Lamb and the Bread that nourishes us.
~The OT Passover and manna, while miraculous, prophesied the greater miracle which was to come. Certainly a prophecy cannot be more miraculous than it's fulfillment, so the new passover Christ instituted at the Last Supper cannot be lesser than what came before. Christ's resurrection was one of those miracles, obviously. But, it is not an either/or proposition, it is both.
To that in bold (emphasis mine), Jesus re-iterates 4 times in John 6 that the "bread" is His Body. If it had been symbolic, as you suggest, no disciples would have left on account of the "hard" teaching. The misunderstanding would have been cleared up.
2A, you say you've not seen evidence of early Christians believing in the True Presence, yet I've given you three (and there are more). Can you find me writings that say clearly it is a symbol?

I don't get what you read into the passages you didn't quote. John 6 is not about the last supper. I have read and understand John 6 to mean that we must have Jesus within us in our very being. As has been said, we are what we eat, so we must eat spiritually of Jesus, be one with Him in mind and Spirit.

Like I said, the difference on this issue is one of the issues for the Reformation. So, we disagree.

 

[toppick08]

To sum it up...If your not Catholic, your going to Hell?........least that's what I've been told by 95 percent of them....The Catholic Church is the ultimate authority on The Lord's Supper.......like or not?..I'll remain Methodist.....larry gude will be proud.

 

[libby]

To sum it up...If your not Catholic, your going to Hell?........least that's what I've been told by 95 percent of them....The Catholic Church is the ultimate authority on The Lord's Supper.......like or not?..I'll remain Methodist.....larry gude will be proud.

My goodness, the church teaches nothing of the kind. In fact, the Catholic Church's teaching is actually quite lenient compared to some. I'll try to find the quote in the Catechism this weekend.

 

[toppick08]

My goodness, the church teaches nothing of the kind.# In fact, the Catholic Church's teaching is actually quite lenient compared to some.# I'll try to find the quote in the Catechism this weekend.

.........

 

[libby]

To sum it up...If your not Catholic, your going to Hell?........least that's what I've been told by 95 percent of them....The Catholic Church is the ultimate authority on The Lord's Supper.......like or not?..I'll remain Methodist.....larry gude will be proud.

The Catholic Church nowhere states that one must be Catholic or they are going to hell. In fact, what the church does state is that one must always obey the "certain judgement of his conscience" CCC 1790.
That said, a conscience can be poorly formed, and "education of the conscience is a lifelong task". CCC 1784

Also, erroneous judgement can be due to ignorance that "can often be imputed to personal responsibility" when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin." CCC 1791
But, if a person's ignorance is invincible "the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous conduct", while objectively the act committed is still evil. This can be attributed to "ignorance of Christ and His Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavements to one's passions", etc. CCC1792-1793

This seems a roundabout way, but nevertheless making the point that, the Catholic Church does NOT teach that one musy be Catholic. On the contrary, it's filled with mercy/compassion for our fallen human condition, while reminding us that we must seek Truth honestly.
What the Church does say (and I haven't looked for a quote yet) is that being part of the Church (assuming one is practicing the faith sincerely) is the surest way to Heaven. I don't think that teaching is any different from what most Protestants woulds say, which is that Christ is the surest way to Heaven, yet others can get there by His mercy.
Catholics believe that Christ and the Church are one, so in effect we are saying nothing different than our Protestant brothers and sisters.

 

[libby]

I don't get what you read into the passages you didn't quote. John 6 is not about the last supper. I have read and understand John 6 to mean that we must have Jesus within us in our very being. As has been said, we are what we eat, so we must eat spiritually of Jesus, be one with Him in mind and Spirit.

Like I said, the difference on this issue is one of the issues for the Reformation. So, we disagree.

John 6 certainly foreshadows the Last Supper, I didn't say it was the Last Supper. In this chapter we see Jesus re-iterate how many times??? Let's count...
1-Jesus begins the day (which, coincidentally, is the day after Passover. He was crucified the day after Passover) by telling the disciples to work "for the food that the Son of Man will give you." vs. 27
2- He says, "I am the bread that came down from Heaven".vs.41
3-"this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." vs50-51
4-"Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you." vs. 53
5-"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. " vs. 54
6-" For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him." vs. 55-56

So what food does Jesus give us at the Last Supper and on Good Friday? (And this just occured to me, maybe I'm wrong, but didn't the Passover begin at sundown and end at sundown the following day? So, as far as the holy far as the holy feast is concerned, it all happened on the same day, right?)

There are a few more verses beyond these, but you get the idea. In vs. 60 we see that many disciples left because "This saying is hard, who can accept it?". If this were merely a symbol, what was their problem?

I'm curious about your last statement, though. What do you mean it was one of the issues of the Reformation? That's the first I've heard of that.

 

[toppick08]

The Catholic Church nowhere states that one must be Catholic or they are going to hell. In fact, what the church does state is that one must always obey the "certain judgement of his conscience" CCC 1790.
That said, a conscience can be poorly formed, and "education of the conscience is a lifelong task". CCC 1784

Also, erroneous judgement can be due to ignorance that "can often be imputed to personal responsibility" when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin." CCC 1791
But, if a person's ignorance is invincible "the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous conduct", while objectively the act committed is still evil. This can be attributed to "ignorance of Christ and His Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavements to one's passions", etc. CCC1792-1793

This seems a roundabout way, but nevertheless making the point that, the Catholic Church does NOT teach that one musy be Catholic. On the contrary, it's filled with mercy/compassion for our fallen human condition, while reminding us that we must seek Truth honestly.
What the Church does say (and I haven't looked for a quote yet) is that being part of the Church (assuming one is practicing the faith sincerely) is the surest way to Heaven. I don't think that teaching is any different from what most Protestants woulds say, which is that Christ is the surest way to Heaven, yet others can get there by His mercy.
Catholics believe that Christ and the Church are one, so in effect we are saying nothing different than our Protestant brothers and sisters.

.........

 

[2ndAmendment]

John 6 certainly foreshadows the Last Supper, I didn't say it was the Last Supper. In this chapter we see Jesus re-iterate how many times??? Let's count...
1-Jesus begins the day (which, coincidentally, is the day after Passover. He was crucified the day after Passover) by telling the disciples to work "for the food that the Son of Man will give you." vs. 27
2- He says, "I am the bread that came down from Heaven".vs.41
3-"this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." vs50-51
4-"Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you." vs. 53
5-"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. " vs. 54
6-" For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him." vs. 55-56

So what food does Jesus give us at the Last Supper and on Good Friday? (And this just occured to me, maybe I'm wrong, but didn't the Passover begin at sundown and end at sundown the following day? So, as far as the holy far as the holy feast is concerned, it all happened on the same day, right?)

There are a few more verses beyond these, but you get the idea. In vs. 60 we see that many disciples left because "This saying is hard, who can accept it?". If this were merely a symbol, what was their problem?

I'm curious about your last statement, though. What do you mean it was one of the issues of the Reformation? That's the first I've heard of that.

I think it is obvious that Jesus was proclaiming that He would be repulsive to most. Jews were forbidden to eat or drink blood or eat human flesh.

Leviticus 17:10-14


10'(E)And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, (F)I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.

11'For (G)the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for (H)it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.'

12"Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, 'No person among you may eat blood, nor may any alien who sojourns among you eat blood.'

13"So when any man from the sons of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, in hunting catches a beast or a bird which may be eaten, (I)he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.

14"(J)For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, 'You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.'

That is true of many if not most (but I think it is probably most) cultures. It is also obvious that Jesus was not giving His flesh and blood at the time. He was giving bread and wine. He used them as symbols. He was saying that we must accept Him body and soul (flesh and blood).

Re: Reformation

Protestant Reformation

Perverted Priesthood and Usurped Mediation
The mediation of Mary (though not necessarily her perpetual virginity) and the intercession of the saints were denied alike by the Reformers. Christ alone was exalted as man's advocate before God and God's appointed priest to bear our sins and minister to our frailty. By rejecting all but two, baptism and Lord's Supper, of the seven medieval sacraments, the Reformation liberated the faithful from the power of the priesthood. The church lost its indispensable role as sacramental dispenser of salvation. Transubstantiation was refuted, along with the sacrificial character of the Mass except as the response of thankful hearts and lives. In accordance with NT usage all believers were declared to be by baptism a royal priesthood, free to fulfill a priestly service to others in need of the Word of life.

bold added by me.

 

[Dondi]

John 6 certainly foreshadows the Last Supper, I didn't say it was the Last Supper. In this chapter we see Jesus re-iterate how many times??? Let's count...
1-Jesus begins the day (which, coincidentally, is the day after Passover. He was crucified the day after Passover) by telling the disciples to work "for the food that the Son of Man will give you." vs. 27
2- He says, "I am the bread that came down from Heaven".vs.41
3-"this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." vs50-51
4-"Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you." vs. 53
5-"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. " vs. 54
6-" For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him." vs. 55-56

So what food does Jesus give us at the Last Supper and on Good Friday? (And this just occured to me, maybe I'm wrong, but didn't the Passover begin at sundown and end at sundown the following day? So, as far as the holy far as the holy feast is concerned, it all happened on the same day, right?)

There are a few more verses beyond these, but you get the idea. In vs. 60 we see that many disciples left because "This saying is hard, who can accept it?". If this were merely a symbol, what was their problem?

I'm curious about your last statement, though. What do you mean it was one of the issues of the Reformation? That's the first I've heard of that.

I might add that if you pan further down in the chapter, you find Jesus quoting:

"Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." - John 6:60-63

THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING. The bread that Jesus speaks of are the words of life. They are spirit. And that is what is going to transform us as we obey it.

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." - Matthew 4:4

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." - Romans 10:17

"Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food." - Job 23:12

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." - Hebrews 4:12

Over and over there is the emphasis on God's Word. Our daily bread consists of more than physical substance. You must eat the nuorishment of God's Word. Once you have God's Word in your heart, you will be transformed into the image of Christ. "And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." - I Samuel 15:22

If we are putting the emphasis of the sacrifice in our lives, we are libel to miss the greater act that obedience to "the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls." - James 1:21

 

[libby]

I think it is obvious that Jesus was proclaiming that He would be repulsive to most. Jews were forbidden to eat or drink blood or eat human flesh.
That is true of many if not most (but I think it is probably most) cultures. It is also obvious that Jesus was not giving His flesh and blood at the time. He was giving bread and wine. He used them as symbols. He was saying that we must accept Him body and soul (flesh and blood)

Hmmm...I'd like some clarification on your position as a Bible Christian before I delve into this so I can address your objections correctly.
Do you, or do you not, believe that all of the OT laws and practices were thrown out with the salvific work of Christ?
If you do believe all was thrown out, why do you bring this up as it would have been tossed?
If you do not believe all was thrown out, then this shouldn't be much of a problem to address since Christians merely continue the practices put in place for us in the old covenant. Now, however, these exercises are sacramental and a source of His Grace.

 

[libby]

I might add that if you pan further down in the chapter, you find Jesus quoting:

"Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." - John 6:60-63

THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING. The bread that Jesus speaks of are the words of life. They are spirit. And that is what is going to transform us as we obey it.

Is it your position that Jesus' flesh profits nothing? Jesus' teachings/words are not the source of our salvation, His Flesh and Blood are.

 

[libby]

"Perverted Priesthood and Usurped Mediation
The mediation of Mary (though not necessarily her perpetual virginity) and the intercession of the saints were denied alike by the Reformers. Christ alone was exalted as man's advocate before God and God's appointed priest to bear our sins and minister to our frailty. By rejecting all but two, baptism and Lord's Supper, of the seven medieval sacraments, the Reformation liberated the faithful from the power of the priesthood. The church lost its indispensable role as sacramental dispenser of salvation. Transubstantiation was refuted, along with the sacrificial character of the Mass except as the response of thankful hearts and lives. In accordance with NT usage all believers were declared to be by baptism a royal priesthood, free to fulfill a priestly service to others in need of the Word of life. "

So, in an earlier post I asked you to find me an early church father who rejected the True Presence, and so far, I haven't seen you post one. (That said, I know you have a life outside of these forums) However, we have a quote, presumably from the time of the Reformation (not sure of the source) that rejects the True Presence. Now, all Bible Christians I have spoken to insist that Transubstantiation was "invented" at the Council of Trent in 1551, yet here is something written that tells us that, indeed, the doctrine was taught before the Reformation. So, which is it?
Secondly, if the body of Christ is and always was as Bible Christians say it is today, simply the body of believers, why revolt against the Catholic Church? Why not just go about living your Christian faith? After all, what did the Catholic Church have to do with them anyway?
Thirdly, how does a person, or group of persons, dispense with that which is "indispensable"? Your quote describes the Catholic Church as "indispensable" with regard to salvation. Where did this paragraph come from?

 

[2ndAmendment]

"Perverted Priesthood and Usurped Mediation
The mediation of Mary (though not necessarily her perpetual virginity) and the intercession of the saints were denied alike by the Reformers. Christ alone was exalted as man's advocate before God and God's appointed priest to bear our sins and minister to our frailty. By rejecting all but two, baptism and Lord's Supper, of the seven medieval sacraments, the Reformation liberated the faithful from the power of the priesthood. The church lost its indispensable role as sacramental dispenser of salvation. Transubstantiation was refuted, along with the sacrificial character of the Mass except as the response of thankful hearts and lives. In accordance with NT usage all believers were declared to be by baptism a royal priesthood, free to fulfill a priestly service to others in need of the Word of life. "

So, in an earlier post I asked you to find me an early church father who rejected the True Presence, and so far, I haven't seen you post one. (That said, I know you have a life outside of these forums) However, we have a quote, presumably from the time of the Reformation (not sure of the source) that rejects the True Presence. Now, all Bible Christians I have spoken to insist that Transubstantiation was "invented" at the Council of Trent in 1551, yet here is something written that tells us that, indeed, the doctrine was taught before the Reformation. So, which is it?
Secondly, if the body of Christ is and always was as Bible Christians say it is today, simply the body of believers, why revolt against the Catholic Church? Why not just go about living your Christian faith? After all, what did the Catholic Church have to do with them anyway?
Thirdly, how does a person, or group of persons, dispense with that which is "indispensable"? Your quote describes the Catholic Church as "indispensable" with regard to salvation. Where did this paragraph come from?

I included a link.


Right now, I am more concerned with giving God praise for a miracle in our life.

 

[libby]

I included a link.


Right now, I am more concerned with giving God praise for a miracle in our life.

By all means, and I will thank God, too, for your miracle.

 

[Dondi]

Is it your position that Jesus' flesh profits nothing? Jesus' teachings/words are not the source of our salvation, His Flesh and Blood are.

I agree He paid fulfilled the righteous requirements of the Law and the curse of the Law, according to Roman 10:4 and Galatians 3:13. That His death on the Cross frees us from sin and death.

But if we are going to look at Christ as Passover, let's look into exactly that did. The Mosiac Passover liberated the Jews from Egypt. They were free from the slavery of their tormentors, led out of Egypt by Moses, then were baptized through the Red Sea (I Cor 10:1-2), putting away the life before them and symbolized their new life in a relationship with God. But did their sins stop? No, they were just free from the bondage that held them in Egypt. The Shekinah Glory of God's Spirit led them and they received manna from heaven for substance and water from the rock.

But they still had issues with sin. The Passover only took care of their bondage in Egypt. But it did not solve the sin problem. The Passover was celebrated annually as a rememberance of that deliverance, but it serve no function as far as the atonement of sins. That was reserved for a different day - The Day of Atonement - or Yom Kippur, as our Jewish friends would refer. And this was only done once a year and only by High Priest for the sins of himself and the people, in the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle.

So this Day of Atonement served a different function than Passover. What does this have to do with our conversation on the Flesh and Blood? Everything. For we understand that Jesus Christ is our High Priest now, according to Hebrew 2:17-16, 4:14-16. A High Preist after the order of Melchisedec: "Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself." - Hebrews 7:27

He does not need to be offered up again and again. "It is finished". His work is done and now sits at the right hand of the Father.

Why is there an insistance that Christ need to be offered over and over. Isn't it clear that He only died once for sins?

""For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." - Hebrews 9:24-28

 

[libby]

We all have Scripture supporting our positions, so then I have to consider the four-fold re-iteration by Christ Himself in John 6 to be of far greater import/consequence than Paul's words in Hebrews. Paul's words illuminate Christ's, not the other way around.
The Catholic position is not one of re-sacrifice, it is re-presentation to the Father. Given that God the Father and God the Son are timeless, I see no contradiction with the idea of the Sacrifice being "finished". Although I do not believe Jesus meant it as you think, but that's another subject, and my opinion isn't firm enough to debate the point.

Oven beeping...more later

 

[toppick08]

We all have Scripture supporting our positions, so then I have to consider the four-fold re-iteration by Christ Himself in John 6 to be of far greater import/consequence than Paul's words in Hebrews. Paul's words illuminate Christ's, not the other way around.
The Catholic position is not one of re-sacrifice, it is re-presentation to the Father. Given that God the Father and God the Son are timeless, I see no contradiction with the idea of the Sacrifice being "finished". Although I do not believe Jesus meant it as you think, but that's another subject, and my opinion isn't firm enough to debate the point.

Oven beeping...more later

Whatcha' cookin'.........

 

[Dondi]

We all have Scripture supporting our positions, so then I have to consider the four-fold re-iteration by Christ Himself in John 6 to be of far greater import/consequence than Paul's words in Hebrews. Paul's words illuminate Christ's, not the other way around.
The Catholic position is not one of re-sacrifice, it is re-presentation to the Father. Given that God the Father and God the Son are timeless, I see no contradiction with the idea of the Sacrifice being "finished". Although I do not believe Jesus meant it as you think, but that's another subject, and my opinion isn't firm enough to debate the point.

Oven beeping...more later

Could your explain this "re-presentation to the Father" in a little more detail?

 

[libby]

Could your explain this "re-presentation to the Father" in a little more detail?

Sure, but I'm still waiting on answers to my questions from those who believe in the Lord's Supper as a symbol.
You’ve asked a fair question, and I’ll do my best to answer you as completely, yet briefly as is reasonable in this venue.
I’ll use the church teaching, Thomas Aquinas as well as Scripture to help explain re-presentation to you.
First, the Eucharistic sacrifice is not independent from Christ’s Sacrifice. According to the Council of Trent, the Mass is the means "whereby that bloody sacrifice once to be accomplished on the Cross might be represented, the memory thereof remain even to the end of the world, and its salutary effects applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit" (Session 22, chapter 11). The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body" (no. 1362).
In answer to the objection that Christ has been sacrificed once and for all and thus is not sacrificed in the celebration of the Eucharist, Aquinas states, "As Ambrose says [commenting on Hebrews 10:1], there is but one victim, namely that which Christ offered, and which we offer, and not many victims, because Christ was offered but once: And this latter sacrifice is the pattern of the former." Also from Aquinas,
"This sacrament is both a sacrifice and a sacrament; it has the nature of a sacrifice inasmuch as it is offered up; and it has the nature of a sacrament inasmuch as it is received."
I think we probably have different definitions of the word “sacrament”. For Catholics, it is supernatural, it is a sacred mystery instituted by Christ as a means of His Grace. It seems many Protestants view natural/temporal as necessarily being mutually exclusive from the supernatural, correct me if I’m wrong. Can something be both natural and supernatural to you?
We also note that Hebrews 5 tells us that Christ is a “priest forever according to the order of Melchezidek”, who coincidentally, offered bread and wine. It is also written that a priest is “their representative before God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.” For Jesus to be our constant intercessor, there must be a constant offering. There is no contradiction in our eternal priest eternally offering a His Sacrifice under the Melchezidek form of bread and wine to expiate our sins.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Sure, but I'm still waiting on answers to my questions from those who believe in the Lord's Supper as a symbol.....

I have given you scripture that I see as quite clear, but you do not accept it. That is OK; I don't accept the Catholic teachings on the Lord's Supper either. Stalemate. You believe what you do. I believe what I do. Does that make you not a Christian? No. Does it make me not a Christian? No. I would suggest that we do not see in completeness. When Jesus returns, He will have the answers, but I don't think they will matter then. I think we will be more involved in joyous praise than in a question answer period.