The vanishing bible

"Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him." (City of God 10:20) "What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice [the wine] the Blood of Christ." (Sermons 272)

"Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is offered for them, or when alms are given in the church." (Ench Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)

Wow I hadn't realized that Augustine was so er, ah, um eh ... Catholic back then. Now I realize why Jerome didn't care for him. Lol

JH :)

I don't think that St. James and St. Paul contradict each other at all. Nowhere does St. Paul say salvation is by faith alone. That is an abuse of St. Paul's teaching, which St. James tries to correct.

That’s certainly a loaded question. Your saying that the Holy Spirit guided them, and if I disagree, and if I’m wrong, I’m taking credit away from God and either saying that it was the work of man, or of Satan, so I’ll stay away from that one.

The Holy Spirit does not guide people to believe wrong things, does He? And you say you can't tell with certainty who is being guided by the Holy Spirit. What you're saying is, you have no way of knowing, with absolute certainty, who's right? About these extremely important questions?

About the "Father" buisness. You've avoided the common Catholic retort: "What do you call your Father? Daddy-o?" by limiting the Lord's exclusion to 'spiritual fathers'. Excellent start.

But there are 'spiritual fathers' other than God in both the New and Old Testaments. Joseph called himself the "father to Pharoah." That less famous guy, Eliakim, God made him a "father to the people of Judah." And what about Elisha crying "Father, my Father" to his spiritual father, Elijah?

Of course, that's Old Testament. New Testament evidence is, indeed, sparser. But Paul, John, and Peter, are always talking about their spiritual children. Paul says "I have become your Father in Christ." There's 1 John, I think in the second chapter, when he addresses the men in charge of his congregations as 'fathers'.
And you know, of course, that the leaders of the Church did not get up one day and say 'let's disobey the Word of God', which was well known to them. The words "call no man father" were written right there on the pages they read every day.

So why would they do something so blatantly contrary to the Word of God? They decided to interpret this line figuratively. Along the same lines of scripture in which Christ commands us to pop out eyes and chop off arms, if they lead us in to sin. God did not mean for His followers to be blind amputees, of course. He was trying to make a point. When God spoke about this 'father' buisness He was doing the same thing. Here the point was: stop making idols out of these rabbis. They aren't your God.

That was the Church's interpretation. Your's is obviously different. Do you have way of knowing that the Church's figurative interpretation is wrong, but your literal interpretation is right?

"Some people read the Bible and think that we are saved by faith alone. Some read the Bible and think it says "once saved, always saved."

"Some people" is too broad. Some people believe airplane contrails are a government program to control the population. Some people believe they will be reincarnated as insects. I can't give you a reason why "some people" don't believe what I believe. More to the point, I am begining to wonder if you actually have SPECIFIC examples that other Christians believe something significanctly different than what I believe. If you do, please offer them. For example, exactly who believes Christ wasn't present in actual physical form at the Last Supper?

I CAN tell you why I believe what I believe. I believe that the Bible is God's Word. I believe it is THE source of information on His plan for His children. I believe that He communicates with me directly through the Holy Spirit, and that with His help, even someone like me can understand His will and His word. Through the course of years of personal study and devotion, I have witnessed Him working directly in my life. I have actually felt His presence. With the birth of my two children, I have been given a clearer insight into the depth of His love for His children. Traveling throughout the world, I have witnessed his incredible work. Looking at a picture of an eyeball, I can see the miracle of His design. My relationship with God is DEEPLY personal. That is by His design. He sent the Holy Spirit to ME. Not just to my pastor or bishop or even the Pope. He never said I needed HUMAN approved doctrine to understand His will. He told me to pray directly to HIM. If you find comfort in the Catholic Doctrine that is fine. God approaches each of us differently and communicates with us according to our needs. But I highly recommend you back up your faith in Catholic Doctrine with personal study of God's Word. Don't take ANY MAN's word for it. Ask God. He will talk to you. He is FAR more capable than any HUMAN of communicating His Word. Certainly you must believe that.

I don't think he's contradicting himself at all. At Mass, Christ is both physically and spiritually present. The Mass is great for helping us remember. Its just not merely a memorial, from the Catholic point of view.

I assure you that St. Augustine was not schizophrenic. I remind you that St. Augustine was a controversial figure, even in his own time. If his meaning was not apparent to his contemporaries, they would have savaged him for the blatant contradiction.

St. Augustine felt that St. John's Gospel was of a more spiritual nature than the synoptics. He felt that the Lord, when He mentioned the Eucharist as it is recorded in St. John's Gospel, was emphasizing the spiritual nature of Communion with Him.

St. Augustine felt that Jesus was trying to tell us, through St. John, that He did not want us to think of the Mass as a sacramental gas station where we pump out Body and Blood and go home satisfied. Jesus is spiritual nourishment! Many are of the opinion that St. John omitted the Last Supper scene from his Gospel because he was concerned that the early Church had already become overly dependent on rituals, merely relying on empty gestures and forgetting the spiritual nourishment Christ offers in and outside the Mass.

For example, exactly who believes Christ wasn't present in actual physical form at the Last Supper?

Regarding that, that was my fault. I misspoke or mistyped. I meant to say, physically present in the offering, the consecrated bread, etc.

I can give you an example. I have a friend from high school attending college in Ohio. She believes that she's 'saved'. As in, "I've given my life to Jesus, I'm saved." She's very smart, reads the Bible vociferously, is nondenominational. No theological baggage. Thinks its blasphemous to not 'trust Jesus' to save us once we give our lives to Him. She bases her opinion exclusively on her interpretation of God's Word.

On much of what you say, we agree! Completely and totally. I also can't understand people who look at the beauty and perfection of the universe and say "it was all an accident."

God communicates with every one of us, I'm convinced of it. And when I read the scriptures, I'm not reading just to look up 'what does the Church teach about that?' The Church doesn't have a doctrinal judgment on everything in the Bible! On many verses, there are a diversity of opinions and suggestions within the Church about meaning, application and emphasis. No, I meditate, on what that scripture means to me, in my life, in my experience.

But I believe that God is merciful enough to have given me the protection of a Church to tell me when I'm wrong, and let me know when I've walked away from the truth. He knows I'm an idiot. But one thing I know for sure is that I shouldn't trust my own mind, because the Devil is real, and he's interested in my soul.

"She believes that she's 'saved'. As in, "I've given my life to Jesus, I'm saved.""

Without further detail, I really don't understand what she is saying. What exactly does "giving her life to Jesus" mean? I actually believe she is 180 degrees out from where she needs to be. Christ gave HIS life to save us. He doesn't ask for our lives in return. He asks for our love. But if she reads the Bible vociferously, and if she prays for guidance, she will come to that conclusion in time. Christ is the good shepard. He won't let his lambs stray. Especially if they truly seek Him. I would not be surprised to learn that your friend has only just recently began a personal study in Christianity. Is that true?

"But I believe that God is merciful enough to have given me the protection of a Church to tell me when I'm wrong, and let me know when I've walked away from the truth. He knows I'm an idiot. But one thing I know for sure is that I shouldn't trust my own mind, because the Devil is real, and he's interested in my soul."

I think that is very interesting. I do believe that God leads us to a Church that best suits our needs. Clearly for you, that is the Catholic Church. But you do NOT need the Church to tell you when you are wrong. That is God's role. And he will. He's just about smacked me with a 2x4 more than a few times in my life. I certainly didn't need a priest to confirm my errors. God is the great communicator. And NO man can do a more perfect job. You simply CANNOT rely on man to keep you on track. Too often, our most trusted religious authorities turn out to be the most harmful to our faith. Obviously, the Catholic Church has had some significant problems with that recently. But those problems aren't unique to the Catholic Church. It takes only a few minutes of watching one of the slick tele-evangilists on T.V. to realize that trusting MAN to lead you to God is a poor decision. Mormons are exceptionally well-versed in their Churches doctrine. They believe their Church was established by Jesus Christ and is the only true path to salvation. They believe their leaders are chosen by God. The Mormon Church is full of wonderful, smart, devoted people. But the Mormon Church is leading its followers down the wrong path. Once again, trusting man to lead you to God is folly.

I laughed when you wrote that God knows you're an idiot. I guess we share that in common. I can screw up an empty parking lot. And I too know that I cannot trust my own mind. But just as importantly, I know that I cannot trust any man before God. We are all sinners. We are all equally human in God's sight. If you place your trust in institutions run by men, you are placing your trust in someone who is just as idiotic as you and I. Satan is real. So real, that I cannot afford to let any man serve as my relay to God. I have got to go directly to the source. When I study the Bible I pray for God's guidance. I speak directly to him. And he speaks to me. And no flawed, sinful, mortal human can currupt that communication. Nor can Satan. And with study, devotion, and time, God communicates to me exactly what I need to hear. Even when I don't want to hear it. Because despite the fact that I'm an idiot, God still loves me. He loves me so much that He wants a personal relationship with me. He wants to talk with me, sit with me, give me a big high five when I make the right choice in life. I am His child and He wants me to trust Him, not the Church, with my life and faith. So I do.

The Holy Spirit does not guide people to believe wrong things, does He? And you say you can't tell with certainty who is being guided by the Holy Spirit. What you're saying is, you have no way of knowing, with absolute certainty, who's right? About these extremely important questions?

But there are 'spiritual fathers' other than God in both the New and Old Testaments. Joseph called himself the "father to Pharoah." That less famous guy, Eliakim, God made him a "father to the people of Judah." And what about Elisha crying "Father, my Father" to his spiritual father, Elijah?

You have learned all the spin techniques very well, but I believe you know they don’t apply here. If you look up father in the dictionary, you’ll see there are some 10 or 12 uses of the word. Two of them are………………
Thorndike-Earnhart Dictionary

Clergyman given this name
Title of respect for priest and clergy.

They are religious titles, used by no other Christians Church but yours. Christ was certainly aware of all the legitimate uses of the word father, and I believe this warning was given just for your Church. I’m sure there will be a lot of explaining to do some day.

Paul did state he “had become your father” but certainly never asked or allowed anyone to give him the title of father, and no one ever did, especially after they read what Matthew wrote.:)

And what about Elisha crying "Father, my Father" to his spiritual father, Elijah?

What about it, Jesus had never commanded Elisha not to call Elijah father, so there was no command against it until Matthew 23:9.

." There's 1 John, I think in the second chapter, when he addresses the men in charge of his congregations as 'fathers'.

Duh……. That’s because they were fathers, sheeeeesss

So why would they do something so blatantly contrary to the Word of God? They decided to interpret this line figuratively.

So if I interpret “do not steal” figuratively, then I can steal, right?

If father is a figurative word, then what is the literal word?

Along the same lines of scripture in which Christ commands us to pop out eyes and chop off arms, if they lead us in to sin. God did not mean for His followers to be blind amputees, of course. He was trying to make a point. God.

Augustine had a decent explanation for that. (my paraphrase) If it’s a crime or a vice, it’s figurative. If it’s an act of prudence or benevolence, it’s literal. Call no man on earth your father is an act of prudence or benevolence, because it’s certainly not a crime or a vice to not call a spiritual guide father.

That was the Church's interpretation. Your's is obviously different. Do you have way of knowing that the Church's figurative interpretation is wrong, but your literal interpretation is right?

Yes, its the obvious interpretation that anyone but a Catholic can see, and since no one in the NT ever questioned it by doing it, it would seems that your Church is attempting to dull the two edged sword of Gods word by claiming that there is no truth but yours, and if we quote scripture, you can simply say we don’t interpret it that way.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Your Church wants the edge of Gods sword removed by making the written word no longer relevant.

JH :)

That’s right, but neither can you claim with absolute certainty that you or your Magisterium is under direct supervision of Gods Holy Spirit. That’s why we try to impress on Catholics that they will have to answer for them selves, and they won’t be able to call in their Bishop or the Pope to explain how you used, or neglected to use the Spirit God gives everyone of His believers.

The Catholic point of view is that God has given us everything necessary for us to know, with certainty, which teachings are true, and which teachings are to be avoided, that it would be cruel indeed for God to offer us the truth and then allow us to fumble in the darkness for it, by trial and error.

A good Father does not give his children a list of rules and say 'Read and do what you think I want. If you mess things up, you'll find out eventually.' A good Father says 'These are the rules. If you have questions, I will make certain you have the right answers.'

The Circumcisers, the Gnostics, the Montanists,the Arians, the Pelagians, the Sabellianists, Nestorians, Monophysites, the Jansenists, the Lutherans, the Calvinists, the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and that cow, Francis Kissling, were and are not evil people. They did not want to go to Hell. They all felt they were 'guided by the Spirit'. They were just trying to do the right thing, and they all put their souls in serious jeopardy. They dragged many people into the quicksand with them.

Would God allow them to be so deceived? Would He not establish some sure way for His people to know what was a damnable lie and what was the truth?

Yes, its the obvious interpretation that anyone but a Catholic can see, and since no one in the NT ever questioned it by doing it, it would seems that your Church is attempting to dull the two edged sword of Gods word by claiming that there is no truth but yours, and if we quote scripture, you can simply say we don’t interpret it that way.

I have another question. I'm just full of them. The literal interpretation is obvious to you. But the literal interpretation of the Eucharist is obvious to me. Our interpretations are different. You say there's no way to know which interpretation is right. Are you admitting that there's a possibility that the Church's interpretation could be right, and you're missing out on the Eucharist?

P.S. Happy Thanksgiving! (Eucharist, curiously enough, means 'Thanksgiving!' Isn't that cool? Lol:)

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.