| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 09/09/2020 1:17:58 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childishness, locked Posters, please review your posts to see what is not allowed in the Religion Forum. |
Posted on 08/09/2020 7:46:24 AM PDT by MurphsLaw
We should stop trying to evangelize Protestants, some Catholics say. “Let’s get our own house clean first, before we invite our fellow Christians in,” someone commented on a recent article of mine that presented a Catholic rejoinder to a prominent Baptist theologian. Another reader argued that, rather than trying to persuade Protestants to become Catholic, we should “help each other spread God’s love in this world that seems to be falling to pieces before our eyes.” As a convert from Protestantism, actively engaged in ecumenical dialogue, I’ve heard this kind of thinking quite frequently. And it’s dead wrong.
One common argument in favor of scrapping Catholic evangelism towards Protestants is that the Catholic Church, mired in sex-abuse and corruption scandals, liturgical abuses, heretical movements, and uneven catechesis, is such a mess that it is not, at least for the moment, a place suitable for welcoming other Christians.
There are many problems with this. For starters, when has the Church not been plagued by internal crises? In the fourth century, a majority of bishops were deceived by the Arian heresy. The medieval Church suffered under the weight of simony and a lax priesthood, as well as the Avignon Papacy and the Western Schism, culminating in three men claiming, simultaneously, to be pope. The Counter-Reformation, for all its catechetical, missionary and aesthetic glories, was still marred by corruption and heresies (Jansenism). Catholicism has never been able to escape such trials. That didn’t stop St. Martin of Tours, St. Boniface, St. Francis de Sales, St. Ignatius Loyola, or St. Teresa of Calcutta from their missionary efforts.
The “Catholics clean house” argument also undermines our own theology. Is the Eucharist the “source and summit of the Christian life,” as Lumen Gentium preaches, or not? If it is, how could we in good conscience not direct other Christians to its salvific power? Jesus Himself declared: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (John 6:53) Was our Lord misrepresenting the Eucharist?
Or what of the fact that most Protestant churches allow contraception, a mortal sin? Or that Protestants have no recourse to the sacraments of penance or last rites? To claim Protestants aren’t in need of these essential parts of the Catholic faith is to implicitly suggest we don’t need them either.
* Moreover, in the generations since the Reformation, Rome has been able to win many Protestants back to the fold who have made incalculable contributions to the Church. St. John Henry Newman’s conversion ushered in a Catholic revival in England, and gave us a robust articulation of the concept of doctrinal development. The conversion of French Lutheran pastor Louis Bouyer influenced the teachings of Vatican II. Biblical scholar Scott Hahn’s conversion in the 1980s revitalized lay study of Holy Scripture.
Another popular argument in favor of limiting evangelization of Protestants involves the culture war. Catholics and theologically conservative Protestants, some claim, share significant common ground on various issues: abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, euthanasia, religious freedom, etc. Secularism, the sexual revolution, and anti-religious progressives represent an existential threat to the survival of both Catholics and Protestants, and thus we must work together, not debate one another. “Let’s hold back any criticism of them,” a person commenting on my article wrote. “Believe me, in the times that we are in, we need to all hang together, or we will definitely hang separately on gallows outside our own churches.”
This line of thought certainly has rhetorical force: we don’t have the luxury of debating with Protestants when the progressivists are planning our imminent demise! Ecumenical debate is a distraction from self-preservation. One problem with this argument is that it reduces our Christian witness to a zero-sum game – we have to focus all our efforts on fighting secular progressivism, or we’ll fail. Yet the Church has many missions in the public square – that Catholics invest great energy in the pro-life movement doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also focus our efforts on other important matters: health-care, education, ensuring religious freedom, or fighting poverty and environmental degradation. All of these, in different ways, are a part of human flourishing. Even if we consider some questions more urgent than others, none of them should be ignored.
Besides, there is a vast difference between mere polemics and charitable, fruitful discussions aimed at resolving disagreements. The former can certainly cause bad blood. The latter, however, can actually foster unity and clarity regarding our purposes. Consider how much more fruitful our fight against the devastation of the sexual revolution would be if we persuaded Protestants that they need to reject things like contraception and the more permissive stance towards divorce that they have allowed to seep into their churches. Consider how non-Christians could learn from charitable ecumenical conversations that don’t devolve into name-calling and vilification.
Finally, abandoning or minimizing the evangelizing of Protestants is to fail to recognize how their theological and philosophical premises have contributed to the very problems we now confront. As Brad Gregory’s book The Unintended Reformation demonstrates, the very nature of Protestantism has contributed to the individualism, secularism, and moral relativism of our age. A crucial component to our Catholic witness, then, is helping Protestants to recognize this, since even when they have the best intentions, their very paradigm undermines their contributions to collaborating with us in the culture war.
I for one am very grateful that Catholics – many of them former Protestants – persuaded me to see the problems inherent to Protestantism, and the indisputable truths of Catholicism. My salvation was at stake. I also found and married a devout Catholic woman, and am raising Catholic children. The Catholic tradition taught me how to pray, worship, and think in an entirely different way. It pains me to think what my life would be like if I hadn’t converted to Catholicism.
Why bother to evangelize devout Protestants? Because they are people like me.
This thread it still gong on? After refuting so much with no replies, I left it as dead or dying, yet I see the likes of you are still parroting prevaricating propaganda, as if doing so obtains an indulgence no matter how much and often it is refuted, and thus further parroting becomes an argument against being a Catholic.
Here you again inexcusably misconstrue "faith alone" as meaning faith that is alone, despite being shown that "faith alone" does not mean faith that is alone, with Luther himself stating such truths as that Faith cannot help doing good works constantly... if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit... where there is no faith there also can be no good works; and conversely, that there is no faith.. where there are no good works. Therefore faith and good works should be so closely joined together that the essence of the entire Christian life consists in both. if obedience and God's commandments do not dominate you, then the work is not right, but damnable, surely the devil's own doings...
Moreover, as regards INDIVIDUALISM, what group testifies to the most commitment to church and community. "Bible Christians" or Catholics? It is not the latter, and while we certainly have our divisions, yet Catholicism exists in schisms and sects, with as stated, many here even rejecting your pope as being a valid pope, and even worse, Rome manifestly considers even proabortion, prohomosexual public figures (Teddy K RCs) to be members in life and in teach, make them your brethren!
And rather then your proffered "living magisterium" being the solution (though ideally their should be a central magisterium), it has been the cause of division, and with TradCaths in essence becoming like Bible Christians in that rather than submitting to the living magisterium's understanding of past RC teaching, these TradCaths determine the validity of modern RC teaching based upon their judgment of what past church teaching is and means (but for us this means the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, in which distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest , which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
Thus as one poster wryly stated,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, https://christopherblosser.wordpress.com/2005/05/16/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of-catholic-teaching (original http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html)
A web site popular among “RadTrad” RCs who reject Vatican Two is https://novusordowatch.org with some detail, while we have a more charitable description by a novus ordo priest:
It is certainly possible to discern three tribes within American Catholicism. However, using the Jewish terminology is confusing. “Orthodox,” “Conservative,” and “Reform” do not translate well into American Catholicism. Clearer titles for the three tribes might be “Traditionalist” which correlates with the Jewish “Orthodox.” “Magisterial” because “conservative” Catholics adhere to papal teachings and the magisterium, while “Progressive” reflects the “Reformed” group in Judaism....
Broadly speaking, “Traditionalists” adhere to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the Baltimore Catechism, and Church teachings from before the Second Vatican Council...
“Magisterial” Catholics put loyalty to the authority of the pope and magisterial teaching first and foremost. They are happy with the principles of the Second Vatican Council, but want to “Reform the Reform.” They want to celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass with solemnity, reverence, and fine music. ..They uphold traditional Catholic teaching in faith and morals, but wish to communicate and live these truths in an up-to-date and relevant way...
The “Progressives” are vitally interested in peace and justice issues. They’re enthusiastic about serving the marginalized and working for institutional change. They are likely to embrace freer forms of worship, dabble in alternative spiritualities, and be eager to make the Catholic faith relevant and practical. Progressives believe the Church should adapt to the modern age... Maguire sums up their attitude pretty well: Progressives “don’t need the Vatican. Their conscience is their Vatican.” - Is Catholicism about to break into three? Crux Catholic Media Inc. ^ | Oct 6, 2015 | Fr. Dwight Longenecker; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3778496/posts
And thus you have FR articles as,
Is Catholicism about to break into three?
Archbishop Viganò: We Are Witnessing Creation of a ‘New Church ’
The SSPX's Relationship with Francis: Is it Traditional? post #6
Is the Catholic Church in De Facto Schism?
The Impossibility of Judging or Deposing a True Pope...If Francis is a true Pope …
Dogmatic Fact: The One Doctrine that Proves Francis Is Pope; https://onepeterfive.com/dogmatic-fact-francis-pope/
Thus besides the unscriptural teachings of Catholicism, what God-fearing evangelical should want to leave his or her conservative fellowship, which liberals disdain, and join Rome which they call their church home and she is loath to deal with them? And actions speak louder then words. Teddy K even got a nice letter from your pope (in response to one delivered by Obama), thanking him for his prayers but we hear of not a word of rebuke. To join Rome would mean becoming part of one of her sects claiming to be the faithful RCs, while each of which believes the unscriptural teachings of Catholicism.
And since you also have been refuted in your parroting of prevaricating propaganda, as if doing so obtains an indulgence no matter how much and often it is refuted, and then your further parroting also becomes an argument against being a Catholic.
. Only the metaphorical understanding of the Lord's supper easily conforms to Scripture overall, while the contrivance of it by Catholicism does not, as abundantly shown here, which I directed you to before, by the grace of God.
However, if you want to actually attempt to defend your Eucharistic theology, then you must face challenges such as,
Where in all of Scripture did Jesus Christ appear as an inanimate object, which by all tests of physicality would be just that? 0
Where in Scripture is the manifest physicality of Christ emphasized as establishing who the real Christ was, in contrast to one whose bodily appearance did not correspond to what He physically was? (Is. 53; Lk. 24:39; John 20:27; 1 John 4:2; 5:6,8)
Where in all of Scripture did the words of the Lord's supper necessarily teach that the body that "is broken" and the blood that is shed, appeared as bread and wine, rather than literally appearing as the manifestly physical flesh and blood that was bruised and shed? 0
Where in Scripture is actual water referred to as blood, and thus poured out unto the Lord, and bread referred to as bread for the people of God, and the body of Christ as the church being bread? (2 Samuel 23:16-17; Num. 14:9)
Where in all of Scripture is spiritual life obtained by literally physically consuming anything? 0
Where in Acts and the apostles teaching in the NT (these being interpretive of the gospels) is spiritual life obtained by hearing and effectually believing the gospel of the grace of God? Acts 10:43; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13)
Where from Acts onward in the NT is communion/partakers with the object of religious feasts and each other realized by literally consuming the flesh of the object of worship? 0
Where from Acts onward in the NT is communion/partakers with the object of religious feasts and each other realized by sharing a meal together ("feast of charity") in a way that effectually evidences remembrance? (1 Cor. 10,11 )
Where are distinctive Greek word for a separate class of sacerdotal believers (hiereus; archiereus; hieráteuma) distinctively used for NT pastors? 0
Where is a distinctive Greek word (hieráteuma) for a separate class of sacerdotal believers used for all believers? (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).
Where from Acts onward in the NT are church pastors charged with or exampled uniquely conducting the Lord's supper and offering it up as a sacrifice for sins and dispensing it to the people as spiritual food? 0
Where from Acts onward in the NT are church pastors charged with or exampled as preaching the Word and feeding the flock with the Word which is called spiritual food ("milk," "meat") by which they are nourished? (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2 ;1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22; Heb. 5:12-14; 1 Timothy 4:6; Acts 20:32
And as for Matthew 16:18-19, as posted before, in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
I will not comment on Isis/Osiris Baal and Dagon, however we do have this testimony:
Supposing one gains spiritual life by literally eating human flesh and blood is akin to pagan endocannibalism, and is not Scriptural. Alpers and Lindenbaum’s research conclusively demonstrated that kuru [neurological disorder] spread easily and rapidly in the Fore people due to their endocannibalistic funeral practices, in which relatives consumed the bodies of the deceased to return the “life force” of the deceased to the hamlet, a Fore societal subunit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%...9#Transmission The controversial "Golden Bough" by Sir James George Frazer (1854–1941) reports (regardless of some of his conclusions): The custom of eating bread sacramentally as the body of a god was practised by the Aztecs before the discovery and conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards." The May ceremony is thus described by the historian Acosta: “The Mexicans in the month of May made their principal feast to their god Vitzilipuztli, and two days before this feast, the virgins whereof I have spoken (the which were shut up and secluded in the same temple and were as it were religious women) did mingle a quantity of the seed of beets with roasted maize, and then they did mould it with honey, making an idol...all the virgins came out of their convent, bringing pieces of paste compounded of beets and roasted maize, which was of the same paste whereof their idol was made and compounded, and they were of the fashion of great bones. They delivered them to the young men, who carried them up and laid them at the idol’s feet, wherewith they filled the whole place that it could receive no more. They called these morsels of paste the flesh and bones of Vitzilipuztli. ...then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god....then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god... And this should be eaten at the point of day, and they should drink no water nor any other thing till after noon: they held it for an ill sign, yea, for sacrilege to do the contrary:...and then they gave them to the people in manner of a communion, beginning with the greater, and continuing unto the rest, both men, women, and little children, who received it with such tears, fear, and reverence as it was an admirable thing, saying that they did eat the flesh and bones of God, where-with they were grieved. Such as had any sick folks demanded thereof for them, and carried it with great reverence and veneration.” ...They believed that by consecrating bread their priests could turn it into the very body of their god, so that all who thereupon partook of the consecrated bread entered into a mystic communion with the deity by receiving a portion of his divine substance into themselves. The doctrine of transubstantiation, or the magical conversion of bread into flesh, was also familiar to the Aryans of ancient India long before the spread and even the rise of Christianity. The Brahmans taught that the rice-cakes offered in sacrifice were substitutes for human beings, and that they were actually converted into the real bodies of men by the manipulation of the priest. ...At the festival of the winter solstice in December the Aztecs killed their god Huitzilopochtli in effigy first and ate him afterwards. - http://www.bartleby.com/196/121.html There are some differences, but these have more in common with the Catholic idea of the Eucharist than anything seen in Scripture interpretive of the words of the last supper.
You are clueless, the Sacrament of the Eucharist was given to us by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper. It was passed down to Catholics through Sacred Tradition before Scriptures were written and continues as the summit and source of our Christian life.
That alone relegates your "Real Presence" to a belief built upon sand, for its rests upon the false foundation of Catholic oral tradition and thus "sola ecclesia," while the reality is that while men such as the apostles could speak and write as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, neither which even Rome presumes its popes and ecumenical councils do.
Moreover, God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;
And as is abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11).
Thus, rather than an infallible magisterium being required to for writings to be established as being from God, a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") " even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 1828, etc.)
Under the alternative of sola ecclesia, one can only assume that what their church teaches as oral tradition includes the teachings Paul referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and which assurance is being based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which itself comes from so-called tradition.
None of the few Greek words in 1 Timothy 3:15 ("church living God pillar and ground the truth" teach that the magisterial office of the church is supreme over Scripture, and both words for “pillar” and “ground” of the truth denote support (apostles were called “pillar”). And Scripture itself and most of it came before the church, and was built upon its prophetic and doctrinal foundation. And thus the appeal to it in establishing the authority of teaching by the church.
Questions for those who argue for the alternative of :sola ecclesia.
1. What is God's manifest most reliable permanent means of preserving what He told man as well as what man does: oral transmission or writing?
2. What became the established supreme authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or "it is written/Scripture?"
3. Which came first: the written word of God and an authoritative body of it, or the NT church?
4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly inspired authoritative writings require an infallible magisterium?
5. Which transcendent sure source was so abundantly invoked by the Lord Jesus and NT church in substantiating her claims to the nation that was the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation: oral transmission or writing?
6. Was the veracity of Scripture subject to testing by the oral words of men or vice versa?
7. Do Catholic popes and councils speak or write as wholly inspired of God in giving His word like as men such as apostles did, and also provide new public revelation thereby?
8. In the light of the above, do you deny that only Scripture is the supreme, wholly inspired-of-God substantive and authoritative word of God, and the most reliable record and supreme source on what the NT church believed?
9. Do you think sola scripture must mean that only the Bible is to be used in understanding what God says?
10. Do you think the sufficiency aspect of sola scripture must mean that the Bible formally provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace, including reason, writing, ability to discern, teachers, synods, etc. or that this sufficiency refers to Scripture as regards it being express Divine revelation, and which formally and materially provides for what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace?
11. What oral source has spoken to man as wholly inspired the public express word of God outside Scripture since the last book was penned?
12. Where in Scripture is a magisterium of men promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office whenever it defines as a body a matter of faith or morals for the whole church?
13. Does being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation mean that such possess that magisterial infallibility?
14. What is the basis for your assurance that your church is the one true apostolic church? The weight of evidence for it or because the church who declared it asserts she it cannot err in such a matter?
Catholicism perfected the art of cherry picking Scripture and forcing it to fit Catholic doctrine.
All of a sudden context matters?
Like in John 6 where Jesus tells His disciples that the flesh does nothing for salvation but it's the SPIRIT who gives life?
Or Matthew 23 where the context tells us that Jesus addresses calling religious leaders *Father*?
Or Matthew 24 where when Jesus says that those who endure to the end will be saved, when Jesus is talking about the Tribulation period and those who have the misfortune to live through it, and the Catholic religion claims it means works are required for salvation?
And the list goes on.
There are TONS of places where the Catholic religion has snipped isolated sentences of phrases and misapplied them to support it's Catholic man-made doctrines.
Ping to others who may want to provide their own examples of Catholics cherry picking.
It made no exceptions.
If ever there was a place to settle the issue once for all, this was it, and the decision that came down was *Do not consume blood*. Period.
Not *except for the Lord's in communion*. No exceptions were made. No clarification was made.
They settled the issue and the Holy spirit had it recorded in Scripture for all time and eternity.
The Catholic religion is WRONG is saying that we have to cannibalize Jesus to have eternal life.
Don't eat the blood, the life is in the blood
Genesis 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life , that is, its blood.
Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.”
Leviticus 7:26-27 Moreover, you shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwelling places. Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people.”
Leviticus 17:10-14 “If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.
“Any one also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.
Leviticus 19:26 “You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes.
Deuteronomy 12:16 Only you shall not eat the blood ; you shall pour it out on the earth like water.
Deuteronomy 12:23 Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life , and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.
Deuteronomy 15:23 Only you shall not eat its blood; you shall pour it out on the ground like water.
Acts 15:12-29 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
“‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter:
“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
Matthew 26:29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Mark 14:25 Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
Luke 22:18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
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.
Luther is the hero when Catholics want to support Catholic doctrine, and he’s the pariah the rest of the time.
Please ping me if you ever get a response. I won’t be holding my breath in anticipation...
Gee whiz bro. You said you were not judging anyone. I think that was a wee bit judgmental. By the way, I also TOTALLY deny the consecrated host is the true body and blood of the living Jesus Christ. You can believe that if you like, but I never will. I did when I was a catholic, but I am an ex catholic now, so I don’t accept that anymore. Oops, I guess I am being judgmental. So be it.
One thing I have, that I think maybe you don’t, is assurance of salvation. 😁👍 It’s a beautiful thing. You should try it. You might like it. I know I do. 👍😁 Have a nice eternity bro. 🔥
You attempt to quote part of the teaching of Jesus and your comment on the Apostles does not make sense.
Makes perfect sense...
Mar 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
Or conversely,
While nothing entering into a man can defile him, nothing entering into a man can make him holy...And while we don't see the word conversely in the scriptures we DO know that it's true, don't we...And how do we know???
Mar 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
Mar 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
You can eat your consecrated wafers all day long and not a single one will reach your heart...
The phrase that you quoted (Mat 15:17 and Mark 7:19) is an example where protestants use one sentence out of context and misrepresent the teaching of Jesus. Nowhere did Jesus indicate that this pertained to His flesh and blood or contradict the miracle of the transubstantiation.
And nowhere does Jesus talk of a miracle of transubtantiation, whatever that means (another 10 dollar word the Catholic religion invented to make themselves sound intelligent)...And that's because there is no miracle of transubstantiation...That idea was created to con born into the religion Catholics that their priests (which don't exist in the Christian church) have some special mystical power to drag Jesus down from heaven and turn his body into a piece of bread...Or is that to turn a piece of bread into his body??? I always get confused over that...
Jesus said He abides in us and we abide in Him.
Sure...Jesus abides in Catholics until they go to the bathroom...Why else would you need to be replenished with Jesus so often???
Jesus also said we must be born again
...
Joh_6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
And yet you labor for that meat that perishes, the wafer...Jesus tells you that wafer goes into the stomach and out to the nearest waste water treatment plant...If can not cross over from the stomach to the spirit...
Yes. that is the host and cup which the priest consecrates into the Body and Blood of Jesus at Mass. That confirms that the consecrated host is the meat which endures into everlasting life that Jesus gave us.
What??? What did I miss??? What confirms that the wafer is the meat which endures into everlasting life???
How about thou art Peter? He wasn’t the first pope, another word not in the Bible. 😁
We might note also that the religion of Catholicism has changed passages of The Word of God so that they support a lie of the Catholicism religion, starting in Genesis!
.....
Apparently, a second miracle occurs that makes the presence disappear after consumption, but before elimination... I guess.
I hate to ask but has anyone found Salvation?
The lady here.
Wrong and deceptive, since that claim can only refer to unverified (some claimed names, testimonies, but I find no original source documentation) assertions of claimed Eucharistic miracles (5 by my count), with bleeding hosts being the closest things to what the body of Christ should look if you take the words of consecration literally, but which is contrary to Eucharistic theology. The
The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone..." (Summa Theologica; 75:1) Thus "If you took the consecrated host to a laboratory it would be chemically shown to be bread, not human flesh." (Dwight Longenecker, "Explaining Transubstantiation") They taste like bread and wine; they look like bread and wine; they would, if made to react chemically or placed in a mass spectrograph, behave in every way just as bread and wine do. (Stephen M. Barr; https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/05/does-quantum-physics-render-transubstantiation-meaningless)
Therefore purported "Eucharistic miracles" are not consistent with what the Real Presence via transubstantiation means. Francis Clark, S.J. states that Thomas Aquinas (a "doctor of the church"), considered the issue of such purported miraculous manifestations of the physical flesh of Christ in the hosts and explained that what appeared on those occasions:
could not be the real flesh and blood of Christ, for such a possibility was excluded by the nature of transubstantiation and of Christ’s sacramental presence ; but they were miraculous representations produced by divine power as tokens to direct men’s thoughts to, and to strengthen their belief in, the true flesh and blood of Christ invisibly present under the Eucharistic species. When Catholic theologians today discuss such miracles they are rightly very cautious about the question of fact, which, they point out, must be examined with rigorous canons of historical criticism in each particular instance ; on the doctrinal question they teach that in any such apparitions it is not the true blood or tissue of Christ that appears, but, as St Thomas held, a representative sign caused by divine power ('Bleeding hosts' and Eucharistic theology, Francis Clark, S.J., p. 219-20,22)
Futhermore it is imagined that that at the moment of the completion of the words of consecration by the priest (and only by ordained priests) then the bread and wine no longer exist, while the "Real Presence" of Christ's body that these elements are changed into (which change is said to be occur outside of time) only exists until the bread or wine - which again, are held to no longer exist - begin to decompose, as Aquinas affirms (Summa theologiae, III, q. 77, a. 6) as well as others: "The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ." (CCC 1377; Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641) "...that is, until the Eucharist is digested, physically destroyed, or decays by some natural process." (The Holy Eucharist BY Bernard Mulcahy, O.P., p. 32) Thus persons with celiac disease can suffer adverse effects to the non-existent gluten in the Eucharistic host) and wine (which one could get drunk on in sufficient quantity) takes place (as with mold, digestion, etc.), in which case "Christ has discontinued His Presence therein." (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist)
Meanwhile the appearance of the Christ of Scripture always corresponded to what He physically became in the incarnation, and never as an inanimate object, while the idea of Christ bodily appearing with a body which did not correspond to what He physically became is heretical. Thus the emphasis on the manifest physicality of the true Christ of Scripture in contrast to a docetist Christ or gnostic Christ of the anti/alterchrist spirit whose manifest appearance did not correspond to what He physically was.
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life," (1 John 1:1)
"This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth." (1 John 5:6)
"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." (1 John 4:2-3)
That’s wonderful
I like her
She’s devoted to her faith which I admire and polite
Now that's funny...
faith = complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament can be detected by your confidence that it's true...
In other words, while there isn't an iota of evidence that this sacrament is legitimate, if you believe hard enough the legitimacy can be detected...Well, no it can't...
I was shocked to learn that God gave Moses 9 Commandments and one Suggestion.
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.