Catholics, Protestants, and Immaculate Mary

The Catholic Thing ^ | December 8, 2012 | David G. Bonagura, Jr.

[metmom]

Matthew 4:4 But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

[Syncro]

Well we see the word literal a bit different.

It takes a little time to translate phrases and words like The Institution (changing from Gospel for whatever reason), Snack to the Cross etc so Mere Christianity can see, for instance, that the institution is just a fancy way of referring to a scripture.

I got a kick out of being castigated for using an Institutionalized scripture, as if Christians should avoid it as it "belongs" to Catholics.

(Threw me for a loop when I read that.)

God breathed it out, we breathe it in.

Or that I had some dark sinister "protestant" reason for using it. I post scripture where I feel it is appropriate as it is given to all of us.

I certainly agree with all scripture using the Holy Spirit as a filter (no I am not saying the the Holy Spirit is part of a cigarette, easy now), naturally concerning Communion being included.

Of course I believe the Gospel, I just see it in a simpler way not embellished with Catholicism. And IMO unnecessary Tradition.

If that is a problem for you then perhaps Muslims, atheists, and Mormons suit you. (just to illustrate the foolishness of the dig in your last statement.) I left out Jews as they are very special to God and I think He deals with them perfectly. YMMV

I see and believe the Gospel as close to how Jesus (my favorite Jew) wishes me to as I possibly can.

We basically see things the same way, just from a different viewpoint

The bread and wine do not have to be turned into the body and blood of Jesus by the "incantation" of "the Institution" by a Catholic "priest", when consumed in remembrance of Him they ARE His body and blood.

Just receiving it with those words spoken works just fine.

It's very simple.

Like I have said many times, if Catholics wish to continue with their being irreversibly tied to their denomination, that if fine with me.

(Reciprocation would be appreciated.) It's the trying to draw other Christians out of their relationship with Jesus into a relationship with Catholicism as a base of faith that isn't necessary.

I'm glad to see the words chew etc, as some have said here that it cannot be chewed. Wouldn't want to have anyone choke.

Thanks for the dialogue.

[Syncro]

Thanks boatbums!

[Natural Law]

"Fear is a result of not trusting God."

I fear you are attempting to fabricate an ad hominem controversy. My original statement was to Syncro that I feared she would never see through an issue through Catholic eyes. You, immediately jumped the shark and claimed that it was an admission of a lack of trust in God. Really?

Are your arguments all so vacuous that this kind of gotcha game is all you have left or are you saying that you believe that God will indeed open Syncro's eyes?

[Syncro]

"Fear is a result of not trusting God."

I fear you are attempting to fabricate an ad hominem controversy.

My original statement was to Syncro that I feared she would never see through an issue through Catholic eyes. You, immediately jumped the shark and claimed that it was an admission of a lack of trust in God. Really?

First of all lets clear up what you posted to me and my answer.

I fear you will never see things through Catholic eyes.

That is a strange use for the sin of fear, but it should indeed scare you and make you tremble that you would suggest that I should give up my personal relationship with Jesus Christ and, like Catholics, doubt my salvation which was given to me by the grace of God through Jesus Christ with the help of The Holy Spirit of God.

I will continue to see things clearly through the help of the Holy Spirit, not through Catholic eyes which see scripture, Jesus and the Holy Spirit through, as it were, spiritual cataracts.

And because of that malady attribute false claims on all the above.

You are not alone though. The evil one, satan, also wishes for me and other Christians to give up our eternal salvation and get bogged down in un-Biblical dogma. Not going to happen, I enjoy being in the Kingdom of God without all the unnecessary embellishments of Catholicism.

 

It appeared to be all "things", not just single issues.

Of course it has been shown here that us Christians realize that Catholics cannot see fear as a sin, as Mary sinned.

And as she is seen as a sinless semi-diety since conception, that would be a sin.

Scripurally fear is a sin, that has been shown more than once on this thread from scripture. God breathed Word of God.

Proving something from scripture isn't "jumping the shark" but good try

Oh and, yes really.

I don't think any Christians will take the bait and join in on your "attempting to fabricate an ad hominem controversy."

I think it clear who owns that.

[Natural Law]

"I think it clear who owns that."

What you own is an attempt to convert a common figure of speech into an act of metus gravis. It really is pretty juvenile and such actions make it hard to take any of you or your arguments seriously.

Peace be with you

[Syncro]

Did you really need a reason to not take Christian comments seriously?

Ad hominem attacks are not allowed in the Religion Forum.

Baiting for them is foolish and just plain silly.

Also posting anything not in English is prohibited also.

[Natural Law]

"Did you really need a reason to not take Christian comments seriously?"

The comments wrapped in Christian language, were anything but Christian in nature. It was an attempt to create an ad hominem controversy by saying that the use of the simple figure of speech; "I fear" in place of "regretfully", is an intentional sin against God. Such conduct is shameful and beneath the context of this forum.

In the context of legal, medical, theological and scientific dialog there are often no English equivalents capable of conveying the specific intent of the phrase, hence the Latin is acceptable. The alternative is to restrict these discussions to a grade school level. I choose not to do that.

[Syncro]

Well why didn't you say so?

(Words each have their own meaning) The English translation is just fine, searching it made your comment's meaning clear.

Latin isn't necessary, it does look cool though.

The comments wrapped in Christian language, were anything but Christian in nature. It was an attempt to create an ad hominem controversy.

Interesting comment indicating a misreading of my posts and style of posting, and then a false accusation. I don't think you can read my mind.

May the peace of God that passes all understanding permeate your being. -From Philippians 4:7, The Holy Bible

[annalex]

We believe there are parts of the Faith not recorded in the Scripture and known primarily from Tradition of the First Church. We do not believe that what is recorded should be mangled, explained away or otherwise lied about.

[annalex]

"incantation" of "the Institution"

That is unnecessary pretense of not understanding; you are joining here some other Freeper not known for depth of thought. It is not a recitation that magically transubstantiates the species, it is Christ supplying the miracle He said He will supply. He said, "this is my body; do it" and so the priest does it. It is simple obedience of the Gospel.

receiving it with those words spoken works just fine

But these words mean things. This is where I agree: it is not productive arguing over a miracle. The Orthodox, at this point, simply say: "The bread becomes Jesus because that is what He said; I don't know how and I don't want to explain it, nor am I able to". This is where I disagree: the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is meant by Christ as He spoke these words, and as He spoke the "food indeed" words in John 6; and they were meant by St. Paul in 1 Cor. 11 as he warned against "not discerning the body". These were not figures of speech. Listening to these words and saying "I do not understand" is fine. Listening and then saying "I understand that these words do not mean what they say, but rather they mean something allegorical" is not OK. It is denial of Christ.

[metmom]

We do not believe that what is recorded should be mangled, explained away or otherwise lied about.

Then why does the RCC do it?

[annalex]

I stand by all my posts and do not respond to trolls.

[metmom]

That’s what I thought.

Thanks.....

[Syncro]

"incantation" of "the Institution"

That is unnecessary pretense of not understanding; you are joining here some
other Freeper not known for depth of thought.

 

Do you want to stick to the issues or make this thread about us with your personal attack?

Thanks, I thought you would understand.

If you don't understand it why did you post it?

I'm not arguing over a miricle, is that what you are doing?

Listening to these words and saying "I do not understand" is fine.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Listening and then saying "I understand that these words do not mean what they say, but rather they mean something allegorical" is not OK. It is denial of Christ.

Well, duh. Those words don't need to be put in my mouth either as they are far from anything I would say about this matter.

Isn't this the Religion forum and isn't that "mind reading?"

I've made my position prefectly clear, if you don't understand it, that's ok. You may do it however you want, I will take the bread and eat knowing that Jesus was right to give it to us as His body.

[Religion Moderator]

Do not make this thread "about" individual Freepers. That is also a form of "makin it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[Syncro]

I didn't know who to ping to my post #4955 as I don't know who was meant by "some other Freeper not known for depth of thought"

: > )

[annalex]

don't put words in my mouth

I contrasted two positions, one following the gospel and the other denying it. If one of them resembles your more than the other, draw your own conclusions.

[annalex]

Accusations of Catholics believing in magical incantations are common misconception and they have been voiced by more than one Freeper. I made a conscious effort not to name anyone for that reason. I am surprised to be accused of starting a personal flame war, — I’ve been avoiding those all the length of this thread.

I regret that it apparently sounded personal.

[count-your-change]

How else to describe the belief that certain words change bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ, who by the way is also claimed to be God incarnate who remains whole and unchewed, without anyone being able to tell the difference. And in addition only the approved holy man can say just the right words and make just the right hand movements lest the whole thing be invalid.

It all sounds like a combination of Merlin and Hannibal Lecter..