Posted on 10/08/2014 11:39:09 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Matthew 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
Verga, this is where you tell terycarl “You are wrong!”
No big deal, it's just that I like a bit of consistency.
MamaB - “Then why in the world did they kill others for wanting their own copy of the Bible?”
verga - “I am sorry giving an answer that has already been given countless times will just act as a springboard for one of the prots to go off on another rant.”
I found the answer cited by verga!
It’s right here!!! -——> “_____________”
Go back through all the Catholic Threads and count how many times this has been answered. Then get back to me.
of course it wasn't physical blood, nor is it in a Mass...it is wine, fruit of the vine which has been transubstantiated into the Blood of Christ....still under the appearance of wine.
Alright verga, I went back and looked. I found it!
It’s right here!!! -——> “_____________”
sure it was, protestants hadn't been invented then.Catholics wrote...raher interpreted , edited, copied(by hand) the bible, established churches, monastaries, libraries, helped governments, taught Christianity as they had been instructed by Christ to do so, in fact, brought you the Christian religion as you know it today....say thanks.
nope, the rules were made a long time ago....if you claim to be Christian, a follower of Christ, you are either a true Christian, Catholic, or one who protests the true faith...protestant. There is no other way to do it.
nope, the rules were made a long time ago....if you claim to be Christian, a follower of Christ, you are either a true Christian, Catholic, or one who protests the true faith...protestant. There is no other way to do it.
The Catholic faith may have descended from “The Way,” as the early Church was called. That which calls itself “Catholic” is nothing even close to the Church described in the epistles.
the Catholic church never objected to anyone reading the bible as long as it was an accurate rendition. Before the invention of the printing press, a bible, hand copied, could cost a years wages. Before the printing press came along a VERY large percentage of the people were illiterate...they couldn't read because there was nothing to read. There were scribes who told the peopple what government documents said and wrote letters for them if they wanted to communicate something.
Lol. A Christian is someone who follows Christ. Denomination is not important. The Bble does not say that anyone has to be a Catholic to be a Christian. I do not know where that idea came from.
Unless you practice abominable acts...
Where in the Bible does it say it was written by Catholics since that word was not used until a long time afterwards? The only thing Catholics did was to bring the written books together. They had nothing to do with writing it.
Sorry, forgot there were nuts out there. None of the people I know do that. : )
I think you may need to consult with someone in your church. The view of the Catholic Church is that the wine does indeed turn into the "real" blood of Christ and only retains the "appearance" of wine.
"That the consequence of Transubstantiation, as a conversion of the total substance, is the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is the express doctrine of the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii).
What you are saying I believe is called consubstantiation and is actually condemned by the Catholic Church.
"Thus were condemned as contrary to faith the antiquated view of Durandus, that only the substantial form (forma substantialis) of the bread underwent conversion, while the primary matter (materia prima) remained, and, especially, Luther's doctrine of Consubstantiation, i.e. the coexistence of the substance of the bread with the true Body of Christ."
According to the Catholic Church you must indeed be drinking the "real" blood of Christ.
So the question still remains. Did Jesus eat His own flesh and drink his own blood?
That is fact. Today it is no more than a pagan cult.
=============================================================
Prayer (including the Rosary) is very important. I never said praying was unimportant. I just said it was not necessary for Catholics (or anyone) to pray the Rosary. (In other words, there is not a "Catholic Rule" that says you have to pray the Rosary, or you are going to hell, or anything like that.)
As a Baptist, I'm sure you pray the Lord's Prayer (the "Our Father") fairly often, a prayer taught by Jesus Christ.
There is no "Baptist Rule" that says you have to pray the Lord's Prayer, or you are going to hell, or anything like that. However, you wouldn't let that keep you from saying that beautiful prayer of God, would you?
It's not necessary, but it is a good and important prayer to pray at times, and so is the Rosary (which includes the Lord's Prayer, and is filled with scripture references).
Check out these videos made in the Holy Land: "Holy Land Rosary"
------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, no, I never said they did it "equally"! That's a little like saying that the protestant pastor and his congregants are all exactly the same in a protestant church service. You can say it, but it just isn't true! (One of them is preaching, and the rest ain't.) (And Jesus definitely singled out Peter as the rock He would build His Church on.) Just because there is great disagreement about that teaching, that does not invalidate it. There was a great disagreement about ALL of the teachings of Jesus Christ, even between many people and Jesus Himself oftentimes.
=============================================================
"Moot. We don't have any record of what he taught."
------------------------------------------------------------
No it is not moot. It helps to teach us that none of the other individual apostles were promised that same kind of individual infallibility like Peter was by our Lord. And we most certainly DO have a record of what Judas Iscariot taught by his actions (including his teaching of "betrayal", "selling out a friend for money", "hypocritical phony view on using ointment money for the poor instead", "stealing money from the apostles' money bag", "a warped view, understanding, and belief in what Jesus taught about being the 'Messiah'", and "suicide").
You don't believe (like some gnostics) that those are infallible teachings, do you?
=============================================================
"The Greek term is ecclesia, which has a range of usage that can be examined in the Old Testament through the Greek lens of the Septuagint."
------------------------------------------------------------
No, Jesus was talking about building His one NEW Church, not reshuffling an old one.
His promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against us requires that there be an infallible earthly authority to (among other things) make judgment on new heresies that began to arise after all the apostles were dead.
If you don't believe Jesus was guaranteeing that infallible guidance for His Church and the authority of the successors of the apostles, you would have to believe/accept that the Holy Spirit teaches mutually exclusive contradictory things, such as the ability to lose one's salvation (the Methodist view, for instance) vs. the view held by Calvinists and other "persistence" or "once saved, always saved" based denominations. The Holy Spirit does NOT teach mutually exclusive contradictory things, in opposition to the "Truth".
=============================================================
ARTICLE QUOTE: "He intended it to be absolutely universal and imposed upon all men a solemn obligation actually to belong to it, unless inculpable ignorance should excuse them;"
YOUR RESPONSE: "This is false on its face. The ecclesia are the sheep of God. If God intended everyone to be His sheep, we would have to become universalists, and abandon any concept of perdition.
------------------------------------------------------------
You are missing his point. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the "universalists", who say that everyone is going to be saved, but just refers to there being only ONE universal Church that Jesus Christ founded, not thousands of them, and not every person will be saved. His statement is 100% true.
=============================================================
As for your discussion of Peter and "the rock", I don't buy all those ridiculous contortions they go through to try to preserve the myth of Jesus calling Peter a little pebble. Quite frankly, that's a crock. I believe the Gospel writer (when translating the word from the Aramaic) didn't want to call Peter by an effeminate name in Greek (like some kind of girly-man or cross-dresser or something). He wanted to use the masculine name, not a lady-man name.
Here is a clip that might help you with getting to the truth of that Gospel passage:
"Is St. Peter the Rock on which Jesus built his Church? (Petros...Petra controversy)"
Are you kidding??? He's probably STILL there! ☺
=============================================================
Amen!
And, like Rush Limbaugh always says, "words mean something". What does "believe" mean to you? To believe in Jesus (God), one has to believe every single thing Jesus (the Truth) ever said, including that passage where Jesus Christ plainly said "all live to God":
✝============================================================✝
"But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to him."
Luke 20:37- 38✝============================================================✝
=============================================================
Elsie, let me explain something to you about the Catholic faith. The Catholic Church does not maintain some kind of gigantic reference work, where every single text and phrase in the Bible is fully and precisely explained. Rather, the Church realizes we are continually getting a deeper appreciation of everything in the written "Word of God".
I would, however, refer the lurkers (and you Elsie) to some sources which will be a big help to all in gaining a better understanding of that text and phrase.
Start here:
"Catechism of the Catholic Church - ARTICLE 11 'I BELIEVE IN THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY'"
and read the whole section (Paragraphs 988-1065), including Paragraph 1001, which references 1 Thessalonians 4:6.
These Bible Commentaries and this book by Taylor Marshall will be a good place to go next, for a deeper understanding of that passage and related ones:
One final thing: the following text casts light on the separation of the body and soul at death:
✝============================================================✝
We are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.
2 Corinthians 5:8✝============================================================✝
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.