Teacher Threatens 'Cracker Abuse' With Communion Wafer

worldnetdaily.com ^ | July 12, 2008 | staff

[A.A. Cunningham]

Although it's unlikely that the following will help you overcome your poor Catechesis and your own personal interpretation of Scripture, which St. Peter warned about in 2 Peter:

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness." 2 Peter 3:16-17

you'd be well served to read:

Pray and ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten you to the truth that you have left behind and help you to come back home.

[Always Right]

Ver. 26."This is my body. He does not say This is the figure of my body - but This is my body. (2 Council of Nice, Act. 6). Neither does He say In this, or With this is my body; but absolutely This is my body: which plainly implies transubstantiation." St. Jerome commentary on Matthew 26:26, 4th Century AD.

Jesus uses a ton of symbolism throughout the Bible. He does not uses words like 'figure' to indicate the symbolism. If you buy this human reasoning, you would also have to believe that Jesus is literally a cornerstone, along with dozens of other things.

[bert]

Why then do you pollute news and activism with Catholic trash?

Stick to the religion forum.

[Snurple]

No. They don’t line up with the bible or any of Christs teachings. Ive had this debate with priests where we sat down face to face and looked at scripture compared to Catholic dogma. They don’t jive. They use to burn you if you said the earth revolves around the sun, that didn’t alter the fact that it does. Put away what you have been told and read the bible. That is a pretty redundant thing to say I know, I mean they had the Bible to go to back when they were burning people as heretic’s for saying you could be saved by Grace alone or when they were selling indulgences. lol

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Christ himself, you know the Lord, that guy in the Last Supper picture, tells us in his own words, those red letters in the Bible, it was symbolic"

Thank you for making this point.

66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

67Then running towards them, and sore distraught, said Jesus unto them, Walk ye not away, for that which I said, I meant not; yea verily it is a symbol, so walk not away; There is nothing here that your fleshly understanding explaineth not, therefore come back.
From John 6, TRSV(Totally Reversed Standard Version)

Unfortunately, for 1500 years nobody understood the plain words of Scripture.

[Snurple]

Thank you but no. I was indoctrinated into catholic teachings at an early age and have found them to be mostly unscriptural.
Why not get your teaching directly from the bible instead of reading what the church has to say?
The Holy Spirit is the best teacher, He will guide you if you ask Him to. The Bible is Gods inspired word it stands alone.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Jesus uses a ton of symbolism throughout the Bible.

But not in an absolute sense; Scripture teaches implicitly, explicitly, literally and figuratively and as St. John reminds us much of what Christ said and did isn't recorded in Scripture. That's why one is warned not to interpret Scripture on their own. You can exercise free will and ignore that warning and during your particular judgment you'll have to answer for that decision. So be it.

As for the Church, we'll rely on Christ, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the writings of the Apostles, those who knew them and the Church Fathers. They all had to deal with the "this is only a symbol" crowd; beginning with the ones who walked away in John 6, a long time ago.

[kellynla]

“Why then do you pollute news and activism with Catholic trash?”

“Catholic trash?”

And just what “Catholic trash” are you referring to?

[A.A. Cunningham]

The Church does indeed get it's teachings from the Bible, the book that it created under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, preserved and gave to the world. Anyone who claims that the teachings of the Church are not based in Scripture manifests what St. Jerome wrote over 16 centuries ago:

"Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ."

If you won't admit that then there's nothing that any of us can do to convince you otherwise. Just be prepared to accept the results of your particular judgment when you're shown the error of your ways and have to explain why you rejected the truth.

[Snurple]

Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ." If you won't admit that then there's nothing that any of us can do to convince you otherwise. Just be prepared to accept the results of your particular judgment when you're shown the error of your ways and have to explain why you rejected the truth.

Well said.... I hope you will take your own advice before its too late. Have a good weekend AA.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"The history of the inquisitions which the church actually denied for centuries ..."

What can you possibly mean by the Church "denying" this history? It's the Church which has documented, opened archives, and encouraged historians on this subject.

Check this out from Thomas F. Madden, professor and chair of the department of history at Saint Louis University:

He makes the point that the Inquisition actually saved the lives of a number of people who would otherwise have been torn apart by politically-motivated lords or mob hysteria. It was not unheard-of for accused criminals held on charges by secular courts, to commit some technical blasphemy in order to get their case transferred to the Inquisition, where they could hope for careful investigation, greater procedural justice, and more clemency in sentencing.

[tiki]

You do realize that the Bible is a Catholic text, canonized through the Tradition of the Apostles and the Magisterium of the Church, all protected by the Holy Spirit.

Honestly, if I thought the Catholic Church had it wrong, I don’t think I’d trust in the Bible either.

[Always Right]

"Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ."

Not that I put much weight on what Jerome says, what does that have to do with Catholic teachings above and beyond scriptures.

[Snurple]

The Old Testament was written by God’s inspired prophets, patriarchs, psalmists, judges, and kings. It was faithfully copied and preserved by Jewish scribes. Modern Protestant Bibles have the same content as the Hebrew Bible.

The New Testament was written by Christian apostles. None of them were Catholics, because there was no Roman Catholic Church at the time. This was over two centuries before Constantine’s “conversion”.

The early Church did not have the New Testament as we know it. Rather, individuals and local congregations had portions of it. They would have one or more of the Gospels, some of the letters which Apostles had written, and perhaps the Book of Acts or the Book of Revelation.

Why weren’t all of these books collected in one place? Look at what the books themselves say. Individual apostles wrote them for specific audiences. For example, the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were written for Theophilus. (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1) Most of the Epistles were written to specific churches or to specific individuals. (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:2; Ephesians 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:2; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Timothy 1:2; 2 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philemon 1:1; 3 John 1:1)

The early Christians expected that Jesus would return for His Church at any moment. As a result, they didn’t see the need for long-term planning for future generations. Furthermore, Christians were persecuted by the Romans. When your life is in constant danger, it is difficult to collect writings which are scattered all over the Roman Empire. So it took time to collect all of these writings, decide which ones were authoritative Scripture, and make complete sets of them.

By the time of Origen (185-254 A.D.), there was general agreement about most of the New Testament. However, there was disagreement as to whether the following six epistles should be part of the New Testament canon: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude. This was sixty years before the conversion of Emperor Constantine. [Note 1]

The canon of the New Testament was not formed by the decision of any Church council. Rather, the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) listed as canonical “only those books that were generally regarded by the consensus of use as properly a canon”. [Note 2] In other words, it didn’t create the canon. Rather, it confirmed the identity of the canon which already existed.

So the Catholic Church did not give us the Bible. However, Catholic monks helped preserve the Bible by copying it.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Catholics readily admit as much of their teachings come from traditions as from scripture. "

I understand where you got that from, but the way you stated it lends itself to inaccuracy. For instance, it would have been better to capitalize Scripture, since none of us honor all alleged 'scriptures' --- Mormon, Muslim, Hindu, and so forth. And in the same sense, nobody honors all 'traditions', but we distinguish between Tradition which comes from God, and those which do not.

Therefore a more accurate way of writing would capitalize "Tradition" to at least begin to specify the defined and official body of Church teachings recognized by Catholics.

As Catholics use the term, Tradition-with-a-capital-T doesn't just mean something ages old, since there exist old errors as well as old truths. Nor does it mean the mere opinions of popes or theologians, since opinions can vary and can be mistaken --- yes, even papal opinions, as Catholics know.

Rather, Tradition (or even more precisely, "Divine Tradition") means that which God intended to be handed down to us, whether orally or in writing. Thus, the Bible itself IS part of Tradition: it is part of what was handed down to us. This is the sense in which St. Paul praised those who follow Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the Traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

[Petronski]

No. They don’t line up with the bible or any of Christs teachings.... as you interpret them.

[Petronski]

Catholics are told time and time again that the Holy Spirit guides protestants’ private interpretations of Scripture. The trouble is, various protestant groups hold mutually-exclusive views of Scripture.

Are we to believe the Holy Spirit plays practical jokes?

[Petronski]

The New Testament was written by Christian apostles. None of them were Catholics...

History disagrees with you.

...because there was no Roman Catholic Church at the time.

The Catholic Church was founded by Christ, circa 32 AD.

This was over two centuries before Constantine’s “conversion”.

The founding of the Catholic Church predates Constantine's conversion by at least 275 years.

[tiki]

I do think there has been some indoctrination.

[Snurple]

Catholics are told time and time again that the Holy Spirit guides protestants’ private interpretations of Scripture. The trouble is, various protestant groups hold mutually-exclusive views of Scripture. Are we to believe the Holy Spirit plays practical jokes?

Peter says, “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” (1 Peter 1:20) So if someone said that they are wrong.

We could argue for years about every aspect of Catholicism and why it is scriptural or not. That was not my intent when I posted on this thread. My whole point is that a person should base his or her faith not in a denominations teaching "their" interpretation of scripture but on the scripture itself. I was a catholic for years so I know as much as most (more than some) what their teaching entails and I disagree with much of it.