Replies

Thank you for your kind words.

I don't know what you think we Traditional Catholics think about those outside the Catholic Church. I know that I personally, as a Traditional Catholic, have great respect for serious Bible Christians who are not Catholic (or Orthodox). I have had the privilege of representing, as an attorney, many of them arrested shutting down abortion mills. To represent them, I had to interview each at length to represent each person to the court according to his or her respective beliefs and motivations, rather than my own. I had to really get to know them.

Many were among the finest folks I have ever known no matter our disagreements on a few doctrines. I also learned that, while there are differences, our agreements far outweigh our differences. I cannot say that of most Unitarians or Congregationalists or many Main Line Protestants whose leaders have abandoned Biblical principles and teachings or many "leaders" of my own Catholic Church who have similarly abandoned those principles and teachings.

Then you will find that we Traditional Catholics get much angrier at alleged members of our own Church who want to lead us into the amoral quicksand occupied by "churches" that approve sexual perversion as a way of life, want to corrupt the morals of children, "understand" the need of some women to murder their unborn for convenience. Neither my kind of Catholic nor your kind of Christian approves or tolerates such abominations.

Traditional Catholics have sooooooo much work to do cleansing the Catholic stable before we should dare to strive against Bible-believing Christians.

As to Scriptural differences of opinion, an example would be Catholic reliance on John 6 as the basis for believing that in the Eucharist, by what we call transubstantiation, we receive the literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ under the continued appearance of bread and wine. Jesus's own disciples found this a hard saying and not all accepted it. Yet He said that by consuming the Eucharist, a person would have (eternal) life. Many Bible-believing Christians can cite other Scriptural passages for their belief that the Eucharist is a memorial only of what Jesus did at the Last Supper and rely on those passages to resolve the question by the method of Scripture "proving" Scripture or looking at Scripture as a whole to find a consistent understanding as to such questions. If I misstate the Reformed position on this, feel free to correct me and I will accept correction as to what the Reformed belief is.

The Bible is the inerrant Word of God. It means in each and every word what He meant. If you or I or anyone disagrees with what He meant, we are wrong because He cannot be other than right.

I will leave the subject of "the One True Church" for another day.

You are certainly no snowflake. Rather, you are a dedicated warrior of God. May He continue to bless you and yours!

I am no expert on the Reformed position myself, not considering myself a Calvinist or Reformed.

You’ll have to get that information somewhere else.

For my part, I believe that it’s strictly a memorial, with the elements representing the body and blood of Jesus. The clear Scriptural prohibition against eating blood makes that interpretation of it representing fit more readily with the rest of Scripture. There is then no conflict with other passages.

As far as the presence of Jesus, I find Scriptural support for the belief that Jesus indwells the heart of every believer already, when they surrendered to Him and were born again, and that as He said, where two or three are gathered together, that He would be in their midst.