Posted on 04/22/2010 9:55:26 PM PDT by Salvation
Congratulations! Your post, though terse, was a post. I have noticed you completely ignoring several substantive posts regarding the topics you brought up in the first place, so this is progress. Keep up the good work!
You mean dumping of dogma into a discussion format and then not answering those that respond to the dogma.
If we wanted to be Catholics (or learn about Catholicism), we could go to Catholic churches/seminaries/websites, etc.
If we want to discuss something with a Catholic, that he or she brings up, we respond to the content of their post, and should expect the courtesy of a reply, though it is evident that many have been burned by the “dump and run” tactics I have seen repeatedly in just the past few weeks, and don’t really expect a reply.
Sad. (Not LOL as you seem to think.)
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. |
I cna raed wrdos thta rea spleld wrogn.
No it isn't.
Why would Catholics not take this seriously when that particular narrative talks about many of Jesus followers leaving?
Because the very idea that HE, Jesus, was the One to which the LAMB pointed was offensive!
NOT the 'eating of his flesh'.
They JUST - DIDN'T - GET - IT!
When Thomas finally said, "My Lord and my God!" he didn't try to lick the blood from Jesus' hand!
On the road to emmaus the disciples had to have EXPLANATION of what the Scriptures had said about Him.
HE ate with them and NO mention of a eucharistic ritual took place.
Does that mean that you are in complete agreement with what I brought out from the Bible? If so, the the whole structure of the Latin Church is suspect of being a super cult led by an influential leader who represents Christ on earth. In doing so, it has created a vast bureaucracy to control its membership, which they call the laity.
There are no special castes of "priests" to perform ritualistic exercises such as was found in Judahism in contrast to what is found in the Bible - that is the misuse and misunderstanding to the term "presbuteros", which the RCC redefined to mean a "priest".
But its because Catholics ARE reading and studying the Bible now!
Yes, and many of them are coming out of the RCC to join a real Biblical Christian church.
Remember, I said you could always come back.
Yes, I remember, but why should I deny what I've found out and return to error?
All in all, are you afraid or ashamed to respond to what I said in my previous messages? Or is it that you are faced with the truth and wish to ignore it? Which is it?
“Literal” does not mean “morphological”. That words like priest or bishop have morphological origin in various ordinary ways to describe a leader of any kind, — even a leader of animals — does not mean they should not be used in the narrow technical sense in the Church.
“Literal” means “in the sense directly meant and understood by the writer and contemporaneous reader”. For example, “this is my body” literally means the physical body. The opposite of that is allegorical, for example, “this is my body” really refers to my friends or relatives. The Church teches that the literal meaning is to be preferred unless the allegorical is clearly indicated by context. For example, “I am the door through which sheep enter the pen” cannot be taken literally because the context is an allegory of the Church being like a pen of sheep.
If you put the instruction of eating His body and drinking His blood (remember that the Jews recoiled in abhorrence at the idea of cannibalism), along with the Last Supper (which replaced Passover for Christianity), and the writing of Paul (as often as you do this), and go to the early Church's practices - they started to celebrate the Mass as often as possible. Which in the Church is daily.
Beyond this and other Scriptural support, we have the early Church documents - the Didache, Ignatius and Justin Martyr expanding upon the Gospel and Pauline verses regarding the Eucharist.
These things (leaving aside a deliberately comical reference to them) are indeed miraculous acts of sovereign God, but by what logic are they something Sovereign God would "never" do?
First, for a Catholic Christian, the Gospels are the direct message from God and the Old Testament is in many parts vague and imprecise , -- albeit inspired -- prefigurements of it. So, in principle, it is possible that the New Testament clarifies and rephrases the Old. This is why it was wrtiten in the first place.
However, to take "almah" in some way that excludes the sense of "virgin" is absurd, because to say, "behold, a young woman will conceive and call the Child Emmanuel" is a meaningless statement. It is old women conceiving that is near miraculous and is perhaps worth prophesying about, not young ones.
"This is my body" when referring to things other than ones literal body is allegorical usage - if I took a piece of bread and said "this is my body", that is allegorical usage - That is what Jesus did. "This is my body" can also be used in a spiritual sense, which Jesus also spoke about; "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." This was spoken in response to his allegorical reference of his body being food and his blood being drink - which his disciples said was a "hard teaching" if referring to his "literal body." Your allegorical use of "this is my body" being a reference to "my friends or relatives" is sort of ridiculous usage. You can do better than that :-)
The Church teches that the literal meaning is to be preferred unless the allegorical is clearly indicated by context.
Exactly, just as I said above about "this is my body."
Literal does not mean morphological. That words like priest or bishop have morphological origin in various ordinary ways to describe a leader of any kind, even a leader of animals does not mean they should not be used in the narrow technical sense in the Church.
Hmm...Salvation must have pinged you to explain something he/she couldn't do - is that right? Regardless, the terms used in the Bible do have literal meanings in the cases I cited about the terms presbuteros, episkopos, etc. They are used to describe the office of certain people. Explain, please, exactly what those verses and words mean that I bought out about the offices of the church in post #22. I sure would like to hear from you on that specifically! Ref: Acts 20:17, 2728 and 1 Peter 5:12.
Good luck...
**You mean dumping of dogma into a discussion format and then not answering those that respond to the dogma.**
Which dogma?
So can I. LOL!
Why do you speak, as a former Catholic, of the Catholic Church being a supercult. You, I think, would know better than to throw that around. LOL!
LOL! I knew it would get your attention - and it did, that was the purpose! I was hoping that you would actually address what I had posted - but you didn't.
Explanation: The apostle Paul was accused of being a leader of the church in Acts 28:22. The term used was "aireseos", i.e., sect, cult, scion, etc. I used it to emphasize the point that the RCC was simply a very large sect of Christianity, a cult, sect, scion, etc., of the church of Christ: actually, a division, faction, religious party and even a false party or teaching.
You posted: Which dogma?
Are you seriously that clueless to what you are doing when you post?
Your initial post #1, and subsequent posts #6 and #7 — are pure Catholic dogma.
If you want to “dump” it you should defend it, or at least have the courtesy to respond to those who comment on your posts.
So, help me here, should I feel sad for you because you don’t realize what you are doing, or because you “dump” and run?
I don’t consider the old covenant (Old Testament) either vague or imprecise, nor do I consider the new covenant (New Testament) unclear.
I consider the old covenant to be the “old” covenant and the new covenant to be the “new” covenant.
It makes sense to me what you posted about a young woman conceiving being a meaningless statement as it was supposed to designate a “sign” from God. Good point!
1) sign, signal
a) a distinguishing mark
b) banner
c) remembrance
d) miraculous sign
e) omen
f) warning
2) token, ensign, standard, miracle, proof
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign! I think (agree with you) that He would pick something designed to demonstrate His omnipotence as opposed to an everyday occurence.
Only because you and I know that you are not God capable of working miracles. But in the case of Jesus and the Eucharist we also have John 6 where His body is said to be "food indeed". Further, if you were going to suffer and die and your words to me were, pointing at bread, "This is my body", I would at least have the courtesy, knowing you as a thoughtful person to assume you meant it literally and not joking around on a solemn moment like this. The Apostles did take Christ literally -- St. Paul, for example, considers "not discerning the body" in the Eucharistic bread a great sin, akin to spiritual death (1 Cor 11:23-30). The ideas that the Eucharist is merely a memorial meal with bread and maybe grape juice is a late invention, wholly outside of the Apostolic tradition.
Explain, please, exactly what those verses and words mean that I bought out about the offices of the church in post #22.
Why, you are correct that in Acts 20:17, 2728 St Paul speaks of the holy office of the Episcopacy:
Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood (Act 20:28)
Was your point that priesthood was at the time not separated from episcopacy? That is correct also, -- the Church was not big enough to have preists who are not bishops. That is also clear from 1 Peter 5:
1 The ancients [πρεσβυτερους]therefore that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also an ancient [συμπρεσβυτερος], and a witness of the sufferings of Christ: as also a partaker of that glory which is to be revealed in time to come: 2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it, not by constraint, but willingly, according to God: not for filthy lucre's sake, but voluntarily: 3 Neither as lording it over the clergy [κληρων], but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart. 4 And when the prince of pastors [αρχιποιμενος] shall appear, you shall receive a never fading crown of glory. 5 In like manner, ye young men, be subject to the ancients [πρεσβυτεροις]. And do you all insinuate humility one to another, for God resisteth the proud, but to the humble he giveth grace.
This speaks of the consecrated character of the priesthood, no? I love these verses too, this is why I am, glory be to God, Catholic.
Yes, thank you.
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.